Commons Sitting of 11 March 1908

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill (by Order.) read a second time, and committed.
Stockport Corporation Bill. Reported with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).
Sir HENRY KIMBER reported from the Committee on Group B. of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.
West Bridgford Urban District Water Council Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale of Herne Bay Pier; and for other purposes." [Herne Bay Pier Bill [Lords.]
Herne Bay Pier Bill [Lords.] Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition of the Temperance Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (NO. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  DIVORCE.
  Petition from Great Yarmouth, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Cathcart, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Castle-ford; Crickleewood; Cwmbran; Llanfyllin; Sudbury; Wallingford; and Willesden; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Petersfield; and Temperance Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN SEWERS AND DRAINS BILL.
  Petition from Islington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Devon-port; and Kilburn; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Revised Form of Attestation for Men enlisting into the Territorial Force [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOYCOTTING (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd March; Mr. Lonsdale]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Order of 12th February for printing read, and discharged.
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
  Copy ordered, "of Statement of the number of Paupers relieved on the 1st day of January, 1908, and similar Statement for the 1st day of July, 1908 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 108, of session 1907.)"—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  INVERNESS COUNTY COUNCIL AND ALLOTMENTS.
  Return ordered, "of the Report of a Special Committee of the County Council of Inverness upon applications for Allotments in North Uist and Barra, made in September, 1897, together with any relative Papers."—(Mr. Sinclair.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Amalgamation of the Coastguard and Customs and Waterguard Departments.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Coastguard and Customs Waterguard Depart ments are to be amalgamated; and will the claims of the trained practical officers be fully and fairly considered for promotion to superior positions as vacancies arise.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I have nothing to add to the statements which I have already made in the course of debate on this subject on 3rd and 10th March.

  The Mercantile Marine—Treatment of Crews
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any Report has been sent to his Department with reference to the attempt made by some of the Chinese crew em-
  1490
  ployed on the Liverpool steamer "Franklyn" to set fire to the forecastle of that vessel on 12th August last, two days after the ship had left Hong-Kong; whether he is aware that two of the Chinamen jumped overboard; whether any inquiries have been made into this matter; and whether a report was made in the official log-book of the ship.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I presume that my hon. friend refers to a vessel called the "Frankby," on which a fire is reported to have occurred on 6th September last, two days before reaching Hong-Kong, but there is no reason to believe it was caused by the Chinese crew. One Chinese fireman disappeared on that date, but there is no report of another having jumped overboard. Full inquirie have been made, and proper entries made in the official log.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the crew of the steamship "Bramley," owned by the Reliance Steamship Company, Limited, allege that they have been subject to short allowance of food; whether he is aware that this vessel has been away from this country one year and four months, and that nearly the whole of the original crew have deserted from the vessel; whether he is aware that it is alleged that ten different stewards have been taken on this vessel during the present voyage; and whether the Board of Trade will cause inquiries to be made into the allegations made by the men.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to complaints by the crew of the "Bramley," and inquiry will be made into the matter on the return of the vessel to the United Kingdom. The owners of the "Bramley" inform the Board of Trade that a number of the crew deserted at various ports in Australia and California; but state that, so far as they are aware, there have been only two stewards on the steamer since she left England, and that a full and plentiful list of provisions is supplied to their vessels.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the complaint of the crew of the Steamer "Craigisla," of Leith, who allege that they have been on short allowance of food during the present voyage of this vessel; whether he is aware that the crew complain that His Majesty's Consul at Alexandria endorsed in the official log-book of the ship the men's complaint; whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to investigate the complaint of this crew on the vessel's return to the United Kingdom; and whether, in the event of the men's grievance being a substantial one, the Board will take proceedings against the master for failing to provide the men with a proper supply of provisions in accordance with the section of the Merchant Shipping Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the complaint of the crew of the "Craigisla" to which my hon. friend refers. The Consul, at Alexandria has been asked for a Report, and inquiry into the case will be made on the return of the vessel to the United Kingdom. Meanwhile I may remind my hon. friend that, under Section 25 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, the crew can proceed against the master for compensation if he has failed to furnish provisions in accordance with the section.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report of the court of inquiry which was held at Halifax to consider the circumstances attending the stranding of the steamer "Mount Temple"; whether he is aware that the court stated that the captain of the "Mount Temple" was in default in not using the lead for the purpose of taking soundings; whether he will state how many able seamen were signed on the "Mount Temple," and how many of them could prove three years' sea service; and whether he will cause further inquiries to be made of the officers as to whether the failure on their part to use more frequently the lead was due to the fact that they did not have a sufficient
  1492
  number of able seamen to take soundings in each watch.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) My right hon. friend's attention has been called to the Report of the court of inquiry held in the case of the steamship "Mount Temple," and he is aware that the court found the master in default in not using the lead. There were at least nine A.B.'s on the vessel at the time of the stranding, and as these were signed on at that rating in November last I have no doubt that they proved the three years sea service necessary to allow of their being rated as A.B. As the court found that the omission to use the lead was due to the neglect of the master, and as they do not suggest any other cause, the Board of Trade do not think it necessary to institute further inquiry into the matter.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report of the court of inquiry held with regard to the loss of the steamer "Huddersfield"; whether he is aware that the stipendiary magistrate, who presided over the court, condemned the practice of allowing alien seamen to be signed on this vessel who were unable to understand orders given in English; whether he is aware that the court censured the captain of the vessel for failing to more frequently take soundings by the use of the lead; if he will state how many able seamen were signed on the "Huddersfield"; how many of them were able to prove three years' sea service; and whether he will cause further inquiries to be made of the captain and officers of the vessel as to whether the failure to more often use the lead was due to the fact that they had not a sufficient number of men in each watch.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) My right hon. friend's attention has been called to the report of the inquiry held in the case of the ss. "Huddersfield," and he is aware of the recommendations and finding of the court in regard to the casualty. Of the six deck hands serving upon this vessel two were engaged as able seamen, and I have no doubt proved their title to that rating. As the court found that the omission to use the lead was due to

  1493
  the neglect of the master, and as they do not suggest any other cause, the Board of Trade do not think it necessary to institute further inquiry into the matter.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report of the court of inquiry, held to investigate the circumstances attending the stranding and loss of the steamer "Tolesby" of West Hartlepool; whether he can state the number of able seamen who were signed on this vessel; how many of them were British and how many were foreigners; whether the foreign seamen were able to understand the English language; whether the able seamen were able to prove three years sea service; if he is aware that the court censured the master for failing to take soundings more frequently by the use of the lead; and if he will cause further inquiries to be made of the master and officers, as to whether the failure on their part to more frequently use the lead was due to the fact that they did not have a sufficient number of able seamen in each watch.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The attention of my right hon. friend has been called to the report of the court of inquiry held in the case of the ss. "Tolesby," and he is aware that the court censured the master for negligence in respect of the use of the lead. Three able seamen were engaged on this vessel at the commencement of the voyage in September last at Cardiff, and they were all foreigners. As the language test was not then in force I cannot say whether they understood English, but I have no doubt that they proved three years' sea service. As the reasons which the master gave before the court for his omission to use the lead are stated in their report, and as they do not in any way refer to the manning of the vessel, it is not proposed to institute further inquiry into the matter.

  Irish Housing Legislation.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the provisions of the Bill he proposes to introduce for the better housing of the working classes
  1494
  will apply to Ireland; and can he state when the First Reading of it will be taken.
  (Mr. John Burns.) I cannot at present fix a day for the introduction of the Bill. It is not proposed that it should extend to Ireland.

  Whaling Stations on the Donegal Coast
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Conservators of Fisheries of the Letterkenny district, county Donegal, at their meeting on 28th February, protesting against the establishing of whaling stations on any part of their coast; and, seeing that the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) has taken active measures to prevent the pollution of the waters and destruction of the fish along the coast of Donegal, whether he will say what steps he proposes to take, and when, to prevent this whaling company from getting a foothold on any part of the foreshore of Donegal.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) Since my right hon. friend's reply on this subject last week the Board of Trade have received an intimation from the Irish Government that they contemplate the making of a bye-law, the effect of which would be to prohibit the establishment of any whaling station on the coast of Donegal. The Board of Trade have also received an intimation from the Arranmore Whaling Company that, in the circumstances, they do not propose to proceed with their application in respect of Arranmore. They have now applied for the permission of the Board of Trade to the construction of a wharf, slipway, and landing stage on the north side of Rusheen Island, Inishkea South, county Mayo. The Board will take the usual steps, by advertisement and otherwise, to ascertain whether there are any objections to a whaling station at this site.

  The Government and The Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. AINSWORTH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, what attitude will be adopted by His Majesty's Government towards the Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Bill on its Third Reading stage.

  1495
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) His Majesty's Government do not propose to offer any opposition to the Third Reading of this Bill.

  'The Parliamentary Debates."
  MR. LEA: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for the correct compilation of Hansard as to what is said in the House by Members; and under what Vote does the contract for this work fall.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Under the terms of the existing contract the contractor is bound to supply Members who have delivered them two copies of proofs of all speeches delivered, and proofs are similarly given in the case of Questions orally answered. Hon. Members have thus an opportunity of correcting their own utterances. The contract is paid for out of the Vote for the Stationery Office.

  Cost of Elementary Education.
  MR. W. PEARCE: To ask the President of the Board of Education what are the latest figures of the yearly cost per child in elementary schools for England and Wales, excluding London, and for London only.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The latest figures available in respect of expenditure by local education authorities on elementary education are for the financial year ended 31st March, 1906. The total average cost per child in average attendance for that year was in England and Wales (excluding London) £3 9s. 3d., and in London £5 15s. 6d.

  Service of Teachers in Contracted Out Schools.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether, if the Education Bill becomes law, the service of teachers in contracted-out schools will be counted as recorded service.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Yes, Sir.

  Army Horse Breeding Subsidies.
  MR. LONSDALE; To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to state the amount of the Government subsidies granted in France to breeders of horses suitable for
  1496
  military purposes; and how much is at present contributed out of State funds for a similar purpose to horse breeders in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A sum of about £53,000 is voted annually for subsidising stud farms which furnish stallions to breeders of horses, with a view to improving the breed of French horses generally and providing a supply of horses from which good horses for military purposes can be bought. A sum of £51,000 is voted annually for premiums to breeders of horses suitable for military purposes. A sum of £1,200 is voted annually for prizes for military horse races in France. No funds are at present provided from Army Estimates for similar purposes.

  Cavalry Regiments for the Cork District.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that in the Cork district there is not a single regiment of cavalry to manoeuvre with the artillery and infantry, he will say what steps will be taken to ensure proper combined training for the troops in this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The troops in the Cork district belong to the 6th division. Ireland has two divisions and a cavalry brigade. The necessary cavalry for the training of the 6th division is provided either from the cavalry or from the South of Ireland Imperial Yeomanry. Last year there were command manœuvres of all arms in Ireland.

  War Office Writers' Pensions
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the duties of writers are in any way different from those performed by certain men on the staff who are pensionable; whether there is any reason besides that of economy why this difference should be made; and what is the estimated cost of substituting a pension in lieu of the grant now given to men discharged on reaching the age limit.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is presumed that the pensionable staff referred to in the Question are the foremen writers. Their duty, in addition to their clerical work, is to supervise

  1497
  writers, and the responsibility of their position justifies the grant to them of pension privileges. As regards the cost of substituting a pension for a gratuity in the case of the writers, a calculation has been made in respect of one group only of the writers, but it is clear from this that the annual cost of granting pensions to the whole class would be very considerable.

  The Duke of York's School.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the sum that may be received for the site, etc., of the Duke of York's School, Chelsea, should it exceed the cost of the new buildings and land near Dover, will be used for erecting further like accommodation there or elsewhere; and when it is expected that the removal of the boys and staff will take place.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) As regards the first part of the Questions I can give no information until the disposal of the site has been settled. As regards the last part of the Question, the date of the removal has not yet been fixed.

  Writers at the Army Clothing Factory.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, according to the War Office List, 1895, twenty-seven civil servants and sixty-four writers were then employed at the Royal Army Clothing Depot, where at the present time the numbers are thirteen and seventy-eight respecetively, and that of the latter number five only are foreman - writers; and whether the work previously done by fourteen civil servants is now being performed by writers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) When the examination of the clothing accounts was transferred to the War Office in 1900, the number of civil service, clerks at Pimlico was reduced by nines Subsequently five civil service clerk, were replaced by foremen writers. Therefore only in the case of the latter five is the work previously done by civil service clerks being performed by foremen writers.

  Muzzle Velocity of Service Rifles.
  MR. G. H. FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War if our
  1498
  rifles fire with a velocity of 2,000 feet, whilst those of other great Powera have a velocity of 2,800 feet.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) The muzzle velocity given by the short, rifle is 2,060 foot-seconds. That given by the German rifle is about 2,900 foot-seconds, while those of the other great Powers vary from 2,000 to about 2,450 foot-seconds. The high figure for the German rifle is due to the reduced weight of the new German bullet.

  Transfers from Special Reserve to Regular Army.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how long men who enlist for service in the Special Reserve will be compelled to remain in. the Special Reserve before they are allowed to transfer to the Regular Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) A Special Reservist below the age of eighteen cannot enlist into the Regular Army until he has completed six months-drill on enlistment. If eighteen years of age he may join after completing; three months drill on enlistment.

  Cost of Egyptian Garrison.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total cost per annum of the British. Army of occupation in Egypt, including; the necessary charges for the training; of troops and for pensions and retired pay; and how much of this total is refunded by the Egyptian Government
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) The total cost, including the items mentioned but excluding sea transport, the charge for which cannot readily be assessed, is £620,000. The Egyptian Government refunds £150,000 a year, that being the amount by which the cost in Egypt exceeds the cost of the same force at home.

  Territorial Army—Grant for Cyclists
  MR LAYLAND - BARRATT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any provision is made, under the Territorial Army scheme, to give to men serving as cyclist soldiers under that scheme the same

  1499
  special grant towards the upkeep of their cycles as was given to men serving in cycling companies attached to Volunteer battalions; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of making such a grant.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) In the Volanteers a capitation grant of £1 was paid to the commanding officer for each efficient cyclist, and out of this the commanding officer paid what grant he thought fit to the cyclist. Under the Territorial Force scheme a grant of Is. 4d. per day will be made to County Associations for cycles used for annual training in camp, staff rides, and instructional tours, and the associations will make what payments they think fit to men bringing their own cycles.

  Mobilisation Scheme for the Territorial Army.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have readjusted, or will readjust, the mobilisition scheme for the Auxiliary Forces, so that, as far as possible, each unit of the Territorial Force will be given its mobilisation station within, or near, its own county.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The mobilisation arrangements for the Territorial Force are at present under consideration. The importance of giving a war station in or near its own county to each unit will not be lost sight of.

  The Territorial Army and Home Defence.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements have been made for placing the defences of any county in charge of the Territorial Force of that county.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Territorial troops allotted for the garrisons of strategic points will be taken from the county or counties nearest to those strategic points, but generally speaking the Territorial Force will be used for the general defence of the United Kingdom.

  Evicted Tenants on the Estate of R. T. Longan at Ballinacourty.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of evicted tenants
  1500
  on the estate of Robert T. Longan, at Ballinacourty, county Waterford, having come to an arrangement with the owner as to their reinstatement, signed agreements to purchase in April, 1905; that, in October, 1906, an inspector of the Estates Commissioners, named Mr. P. V. Guiry, inspected the lands and informed the evicted tenants that they would be put back into possession in a very short time and would get grants to enable them to buy farming stock; whether, since October, 1906, any communication has been made to the evicted tenants, and will he say who is responsible for the prolonged delay in the matter; and whether there is any hope that the evicted tenants can now be reinstated under the agreements signed three years ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that six evicted tenants on the estate mentioned have agreed to purchase their former holdings as parcels under Section 2 of the Act. The Commissioners have estimated the advances they are prepared to make and the owner has agreed to accept these prices. The Commissioners also propose to make grants for the assistance of the purchasers, and these grants will be made when the evicted tenants are put into possession. The Commissioners have communicated with the owner upon this point. As the estate has been inspected and reported on, it is expected that the evicted tenants will soon be restored.

  Re-instatement of Mrs. Kelleher of Quartertown.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any action has been taken by the Estates Commissioners to bring about the reinstatement of Mrs. Kelleher in the farm at Quartertown, Mallow, on the estate of C. A. Webb, from which her husband, since deceased, was evicted; if the holding has since been occupied by an emergency man named Woods, and is now in the possession of his cousin; whether inquiry will be made into the tenure Woods possessed, and if the present occupier has any bona fide interest; and whether, in view of the methods employed to

  1501
  compel the tenants on this estate to sign purchase agreements and to the high prices fixed, an inspection of the estate will be made before these agreements receive the sanction of the Estates Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the claim of Mrs. Kelleher, and have decided that she is suitable to work a holding if one can be found for her. The Commissioners have ascertained that the holding occupied by her late husband was taken on lease for thirty-one years by Richard Woods, who disposed of his interest in March, 1907, to a man named Moore, the present occupier. The matter is under the Commissioners' consideration. The Commissioners are not aware that undue pressure was exercised to induce the tenants on the estate to sign purchase agreements, but will be prepared, when dealing with the estate, to consider any representations to that effect which may be made to them.

  Reinstatement of Peter Healy of Cloughlea.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the application of Peter Healy for reinstatement in his former holding at Cloughlea, on the Foot estate, near Killavallen, County Cork, has been brought under the notice of the Estates Commissioners; whether any inquiry has been made into the circumstances; and if there is a prospect of the restoration of Healy to the holding in the near future.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have considered Healy's application, and have decided that he is fit to receive a holding in the event of their being able to provide him with one when the estate in question comes before them to be dealt with.

  Reinstatement of Representatives of late Denis Scanlon of Kilbradern.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners received a resolution from the Limerick County Council and other public bodies in the county asking them to take steps
  1502
  to reinstate the representatives of Denis Scanlon, deceased, in the farm from which he was evicted at Kilbradern; and what do they intend to do in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received resolutions of the nature referred to. They have inquired into the claim of the representatives of Denis Scanlon, and have decided to take no action in the matter. Scanlon was evicted for the non-payment of a land purchase annuity.

  Application for Land by Michael Hartnett and John Collins.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Estates Commissioners would consider the claims of Michael Hartnett, labourer, and John Collins, tenant, on the Vereker estate, near Abbeyfeale, in the County of Limerick when they are apportioning the untenanted land on it purchased by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners will, when dealing with the untenanted land on the estate in question, consider the claims of all applicants in the locality, including those named by the hon. Member.

  Purchase of the Shelton Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether any progress has been made by the Estates Commissioners with regard to the purchase of the Shelton property, at Beaufort, near Newcastle West, in the County of Limerick.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of 300 acres of untenanted land from Mrs. Deane Shelton, and have furnished a preliminary estimate of price but the owner has not yet intimated her acceptance or refusal of the same.

  Expenditure on Structural Alterations in London Non-provided Schools.
  MR. DICKINSONTo ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the total sum of money expended by the managers of non-provided schools in London in

  1503
  complying with the requirements for structural alterations issued by the London County Council, and will also state what proportion of this money has been raised by voluntary subscriptions, by the use of endowment funds, and by the mortgage of the school premises, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have no information as to the cost of the alterations referred to or as to the amounts contributed by voluntary subscriptions. If it would be of any service to my hon. friend I could give him the amount of the capital funds of endowments, and the sums raised by way of mortgage of the school premises, which the Board have sanctioned by schemes and orders under the Charitable Trusts Act to be expended on repairs or alterations to voluntary schools in London since the Education (London) Act came into operation. But I am not in a position to say whether these sums have in all cases actually been expended or not.

  Study of Agriculture in Rural Schools.
  SIR F. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Education what is the present number of rural secondary schools into whose curriculum the study of chemistry, physics, and biology in their relation to agriculture has been introduced, and in what counties; how many of such schools have endowments as grammar schools or otherwise, and how many are provided by county councils, by or in connection with agricultural colleges, and by private enterprise, respectively; how many such schools have school gardens and small farms or plots attached to them, giving an opportunity for experimental and practical instruction in the application of the scientific studies to real agricultural work; what is the present number of pupils, boys and girls respectively, in such schools; and whether any, and, if so, how many, and in what counties, such schools are being carried on in combination with a group of small elementary schools whose pupils are brought to the central school from their several villages, as in Canada and the United States.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I regret that it is not possible at such short notice
  1504
  to carry out a sufficiently detailed investigation of the curricula of the rural secondary schools receiving grants from the Board to enable complete information to be given as to the various points in the Question. Taking England apart from Wales, there are about 190 secondary schools which could properly be described as "rural," and they are spread over all the counties of England. Twenty-eight are provided by county councils or other local authorities, and 148 are endowed schools. Eight are otherwise provided; no schools receiving grants from the Board are provided by "private enterprise" in the sense of making any profit. These schools provide instruction for 11,291 boys and 4,780 girls. Without communicating with the Board's inspectors I am unable to classify and formulate precise information as to the provision of school gardens or plots in connection with these schools or as to the degree of connection which they may have with agricultural colleges. These matters, in common with matters concerning the other branches of the curricula of secondary schools, are included in a careful investigation which is being conducted, and the results of which will, as far as possible, be made available in statistical or other forms in due course. I may perhaps add, however, that, of the 190 schools, 175 teach chemistry, 165 physics, 162 manual work, and seventy-two botany and nature study. In a few schools a special attempt has been made to provide special classes in horticulture, agriculture, and, in one case, bee-keeping. In reply to the concluding paragraph of the Question, it would seem that the principal purpose there suggested would probably be effected in this country by the establishment of higher elementary schools, or day schools or classes under Section 42 of the Technical Regulations of the Board, the relation of a secondary school to the neighbouring elementary schools being not altogether similar to that suggested in the Question as prevailing in Canada or the United States.
  SIR F. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Education what is the present number of centralised rural evening schools; in what counties; how many of such schools are provided

  1505
  by county councils, or by or in connection with agricultural colleges, or by private enterprise, respectively; in how many of such schools is the curriculum arranged in cyclic courses, and in how many long courses, and in how many short (four to ten lessons) courses in the suggested practical subjects are being carried out; and what is the number of pupils, male and female.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) For the current year the Board estimate at 3,500 the total number of evening schools, excluding all schools or centres affording fewer than twenty hours of instruction, aided by the Board, serving what may properly be considered to be rural areas for the purposes of this Question; of these about 99 per cent, are provided by county councils or other local education authorities. There are such schools in every county in England and Wales; but the Board are unable at short notice to give the number of those which are "centralised" as distinct from the other types of evening schools. In a large and increasing proportion of them the instruction given has a definite relation to the character and conditions of work of the rural population. The actual number of such schools in the session 1905–6 was 3,353, of which 3,319 were provided by county councils and 34 otherwise. Less than ten of these formed part of the organisation of any agricultural college, but it must be remembered at the same time that many county councils utilise the services of the staffs of agricultural colleges for the provision of expert instruction in special subjects in connection with such schools. Assuming the phrase "suggested practical subjects," in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, to refer to subjects suggested in the Memorandum issued by the Board of Education in July, 1906, concerning rural evening schools, I may say that only in the case of thirteen counties are returns at the moment available with reference to the numbers of long and short courses in practical rural subjects. The information as to these counties is, however, sufficient to indicate the scale upon which instruction is being provided in this way. In the thirteen counties in question arrangements have already been
  1506
  made for 64 long and 403 short courses of practical work in such subjects as dairying, poultry-keeping, farriery, horticulture, and manual farm processes. Much of this work however is carried on during the spring and summer months, so that these numbers will probably be increased by the addition of courses for which arrangements are not yet completed. In reply to the concluding paragraph of the Question, I may say that in most rural evening schools aided by the Board of Education provision is made for changes from year to year in the programme of work. The degree of effectiveness to which this is carried is very variable; and while the Board are satisfied that a fairly complete cycle of subjects has been arranged for many schools they are unable to state how many have formally adopted the cyclic principle to which attention was directed in a recent publication by the Board of Education. In virtue of the provisions of Section 34 of the Regulations for Technical Schools, the Board have been able to direct the attention of local education authorities to many points in the curricula of rural evening schools which appeared to require attention. During the eighteen months that section has been in operation much has already been done to improve the evening school organisation so as to make it more practical and better suited to the needs of the rural community. The Board have no precise information as to the numbers of pupils now attending classes of the types my hon. friend has in mind, but they estimate that over 50,000 are receiving instruction otherwise than in "short courses."

  Fees in Council Schools.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the repeal of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, will enable local education authorities to reimpose fees in council schools so long as they exempt from payment the individual scholar whose parents desire free places.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Not unless the consent of the Board of Education, under Section 17 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, has

  1507
  been previously obtained. With the sanction of the Board fees can, under the existing law, be charged (Section 4 of the Elementary Education Act, 1891.)

  Repayment of Loans for Small Holdings.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that county councils, when purchasing land under the Small Holdings Act, have no means of obtaining money for the repayment of the purchase money except by charging the small holder with, payment yearly of part of the principal as well as interest, he will make representations to the Local Government Board with a view to the loans to the county councils being made permanent and not temporary, as in the case of industrial undertakings, and so avoid the necessity for the county councils to compel the small holder to buy property for the councils.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) I will bring the suggestion of my hon. friend to the notice of my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board.

  Agricultural Schools and Institutes.
  SIR F. CHANNING: To ask the hon Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether any new farm schools or institutes of the type of the Hampshire Farm School at Basing or the Ridgmont Agricultural Institute in Bedfordshire have been started or placed on the grants list during the last two years; and what is the present number of school-gardens provided for elementary secondary, and evening schools, respectively; and in how many of such school gardens are arrangements made for fruit cultivation as well as gardening.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No farm institutes of the type referred to by my hon. friend have been established within the last two years. The question of their possible extension is engaging the careful attention of the Agricultural Education Committee. Arrangements for the provision of school gardens are made by the Board of Education, and,
  1508
  perhaps, therefore my hon. friend will address his other inquiries to my right hon. friend.

  Northamptonshire Muzzling Order.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the muzzling order for dogs issued for certain parishes in the county of Northampton, includes the muzzling of hounds; and if any exemption has been made in the case of sheep dogs when at work.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The order applies to all dogs, including hounds; and it does not contain any exemption in regard to any particular class of dogs.

  Detection of Babies in Northamptonshire.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state what were the reasons which induced the Board of Agriculture to revert to the autopsy test for rabies in the case of the two dogs alleged to have been suffering from rabies in the town of Northampton; whether this method of diagnosis was discarded as worthless as far back as 1898; whether the port mortems were conducted by duly qualified veterinary surgeons; and upon what evidence did they arrive at the conclusion that they were authentic cases of rabies.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board have not accepted the postmortem examination to which my hon. friend refers as conclusive evidence of the existence of rabies, and the final diagnosis awaits the result of the inoculation test. The post mortem examinations were conducted by a duly qualified veterinary surgeon, and his opinion was confirmed by the chief veterinary officer of the board.

  Milk Guarantees.
  MR. GIBBS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that, although he has been advised

  1509
  that it is not necessary that each, consignment of milk sold by the farmers should be accompanied by a warranty, the authorities in several localities are insisting upon such warranty, thereby causing great hardship to milk vendors; and what steps he will take in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Board are not aware of any case in which a local authority has taken action in the direction indicated; but if the hon. Member will be good enough to supply them with information on the subject inquiry will be made.

  Employment of Soldiers by the Post Office.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his declarations that he desired that the Post Office should be a good employer of labour, he will state whether it is his intention to employ soldiers serving with the colours to perform telegraphic duties in postal telegraph offices during the current year at wages much below those paid to established telegraphists; and whether such a system was introduced on the proposal of an official of his Department, on the ground that it was cheaper than employing ordinary telegraphists.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As my hon. friend is aware, there is, unfortunately, at certain times of the year, exceptional pressure on telegraph work. In order to meet the exceptional pressure, to avoid excessive overtime, to which. I am opposed, and to enable the established telegraph staff to obtain their holidays in better months of the year, it is necessary to obtain season assistants for telegraph work for part of the year, and at various places. Efficient season assistants are not easy to obtain, and the primary object which I have had in view in employing a certain number of soldiers to perform telegraphic duties as season assistants is to meet this exceptional pressure. One additional advantage of employing the soldiers is that they acquire a useful knowledge of telegraphy. The system was not introduced on the ground that it was cheaper than employing ordinary
  1510
  telegraphists. The officers in question are not employed in lieu of established officers, and do not receive less than the ordinary season assistants.

  The Post Office Circular and the Savings Bank Department.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General if there are any reasons why the Post Office Circular should not be exhibited in the Savings Bank Department for the information of the staff generally; and, if not, will he give instructions for a copy to be exhibited in the same way as in other departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member must have been misinformed. Copies of the Post Office Circular are duly exhibited in the Savings Bank Department.

  Reserve Stock of Naval Stores
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the value of the reserve stock of naval stores at Malta, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Halifax, Jamaica, Trincomalee, Vancouver, and at the three home ports at the present moment.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The value of reserves of naval stores (exclusive of coals for the Fleet) may be taken approximately at £4,000,000. The precise value and disposition of the stocks, so far as the home yards are concerned, is shown annually in the Navy Dockyard Expense Accounts presented to Parliament, but as regards the foreign yards it is not considered desirable to indicate the actual disposition of the stocks. As regards Halifax, Jamaica, Trincomalee, and Vancouver, no reserves, other than coals for the Fleet, have been kept at these yards since March, 1905, when these depots were closed.

  Number of Craft in the Home Fleet.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the total number of craft of all kinds in the Home Fleet, mentioning separately those in Special Reserve, at the time of the manœ,uvres last autumn, under the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet.

  1511
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The total number of craft of all kinds, excluding submarines, was 189, of which twenty-one were Special Reserve vessels.

  Combined Naval Manoeuveres.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty in his Memorandum to Parliament, 23rd February, 1907, that the Channel, Atlantic, and Home Fleets will carry out periodic exercises together under the Commander-in-Chief of the Channel Fleet, who will take the supreme command in war, whether he can state how many vessels of the Home Fleet took part in the manœuvres last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In the October manœuvres thirty-nine vessels of the Home Fleet took part.

  The Nore Division of the Home Fleet.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many vessels belonging to the Home Fleet, exclusive of the fully-manned battleships, cruisers, scouts, and destroyers which were withdrawn from the Channel, Atlantic, and Mediterranean Fleets to constitute the Nore Division of the Home Fleet, took part in the annual manœuvres last autumn.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Three Home Fleet vessels, normally not fully manned, took part in these manœuvres, viz., battleship "Mars," cruiser "Essex," and torpedo-gunboat "Speedwell."

  Children as Half-timers in Factories.
  MR. GILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of children employed as half-timers in the factories and workshops in the United Kingdom, and the number employed in textile factories in Lancashire and Yorkshire, together with the number in each large town in the two counties.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The latest figures available are those obtained from the Returns of employment for 1904. In that year the figures were as follows: Children employed in 1904 in the United Kingdom—

  In factories, workshops, and laundries

  37,265

  In textile factories in Lancashire and Yorkshire

  25,345

  In textile factories:—

  Bradford

  4,210

  Brighouse

  168

  Halifax

  1,018

  Keighley

  647

  Todmorden

  264

  Accrington

  348

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  270

  Bacup

  250

  Blackburn

  1,530

  Bolton

  1,068

  Burnley

  1,042

  Bury

  323

  Chorley

  180

  Clitheroe

  131

  Colne

  246

  Darwen

  623

  Heslington

  284

  Heywod

  325

  Leigh

  276

  Mossley

  127

  Nelson

  442

  Oldham

  534

  Preston

  950

  Rawtenstall

  200

  Rochdale

  543

  Stockport (Lancashire part only)

  186

  The Indian Whipping Act.
  SIR HENRY COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether now that the Bill for amending the Indian Whipping Act has been introduced into the Indian Legislative Council he will state the objects and reasons of the proposed legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have not yet received from the Government of India the statement of objects, and reasons of the Bill to amend the Indian Whipping Act.

  Barrack Expenditure.
  MR. GULLANDTo ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if he will state the sums expended on building barracks and on repairing barracks during each of the last ten years, giving separately the expenditure in England (including Berwick-on-Tweed), Scotland, and Ireland.

  Sums spent on Barracks in each of the 10 years ending 31st March, 1907 in England, Scotland, and Ireland.

  Year.

  Building.

  Repairing.

  Totals.

  England.

  Scotland.

  Ireland.

  England.

  Scotland.

  Ireland.

  England.

  Scotland.

  Ireland.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1897–8

  244,526

  10,458

  131,047

  186,615

  8,410

  47,121

  431,141

  18,868

  178,168

  1898–9

  316,525

  19,401

  133,748

  167,698

  10,244

  42,928

  484,223

  29,645

  176,676

  1899–1900

  390,242

  10,776

  171,602

  186,952

  13,315

  51,240

  577,194

  24,091

  222,842

  1900–1

  1,260,730

  18,031

  150,385

  188,613

  16,329

  59,052

  1,449,343

  34,360

  209,437

  1901–2

  760,403

  8,948

  210,913

  204,535

  15,431

  53,263

  964,938

  24,379

  264,176

  1902–3

  701,435

  6,532

  170,454

  225,342

  18,097

  60,235

  926,777

  24,629

  230,689

  1903–4

  1,163,264

  7,615

  158,640

  235,171

  15,546

  72,865

  1,398,435

  23,161

  231,505

  1904–5

  1,301,950

  10,934

  132,817

  252,723

  16,025

  63,919

  1,554,673

  26,959

  196,736

  1905–6

  618,270

  6,492

  58,600

  256,435

  14,766

  64,846

  874,705

  21,258

  123,446

  1906–7

  325,020

  7,095

  36,725

  254,440

  20,037

  70,360

  579,460

  27,132

  107,085

  Grand totals

  7,082,365

  106,282

  1,354,931

  2,158,524

  148,200

  585,829

  9,240,889

  254,482

  1,940,760

  Value of Machinery lying idle at Woolwich.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the capital value of the machinery that is at the present time lying idle at the Woolwich Arsenal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The exact capital value of machinery at present lying idle in the Ordnance Factories in the Royal Arsenal cannot be stated until after the close of the financial year, but it may be roughly estimated to be about £250,000.

  Territorial Force—Officers' Outfit Grant.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether officers of a disbanded Militia battalion will be given any grant towards the purchase of a new uniform if they elect to join any branch of the Territorial Army instead of the special Reserve.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Officers joining the Territorial force from the Militia whose transfer necessitates a change of uniform will be eligible for a grant to cover the actual expenditure for purchase or alteration of uniform not exceeding £20 in all.

  Discharges from Waltham Abbey Gunpowder Factory.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of men now employed at the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey, and the number of men employed on the same date in 1905; whether it is intended to make further discharges, and, if so, to what number; and how many of the men discharged since the 31st January 1906, possessed ten years service and upward.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The number of men and boys employed at the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey, on the first Saturday in March was 1,340 in 1905 and 698 in 1908. It is not intended to make any more discharges on reduction; the further reduction to bring establishment within the approved limits will be effected by
  1516
  wastage. The number discharged on reduction since 31st January 1906 with ten years' service or upwards is twenty-five.

  Discharges from Woolwich Arsenal
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of men employed at Woolwich Arsenal, and the number employed on the same date in 1905; whether it is intended to make further discharges, and, if so, to what number; and how many of the men discharged since 31st January, 1906, possessed ten years' service and upward.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The number of men and boys employed in the ordnance factories at Woolwich Arsenal on the first Saturday in March was 15,122 in 1905 and 11,643 in 1908. It is not intended to make any more discharges on reduction, except in a few special cases of men who wish to leave. Any further reductions will be effected by wastage. The number of men discharged since the 31st January, 1906, with ten years service and upwards, is 1,317.

  The Walking-out Uniform of the Territorial Army.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the walking-out uniform of the Territorial Force will be of a standard pattern and colour for each arm of the service, or whether it will be of the same colour, etc., as that of the Regular regiment to which units are affiliated.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This question has not yet been finally decided.

  Territorial Army—Messing Allowance to Officers during Training.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether a messing fee, and, if so, of what amount, will be allowed to Territorial officers during training.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A daily allowance of 4s, in aid of messing expenses will be made to Territorial

  1517
  officers during annual training in camp, courses of instruction, etc.

  Territorial Army—Officers' Outfit Grant.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether Volunteer officers transferring to the Territorial Army will receive an allowance for any necessary change of uniform.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) When the transfer necessitates an alteration of uniform the officer will he eligible for a grant to cover the actual expenditure involved for purchase or alteration of uniform not exceeding £20 in all.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Navy Estimates.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, why there has been omitted from the Navy Estimates for the new financial year Appendix No. 8, which has appeared for many years past, showing the cost of the different classes of vessels added in each year to the Navy and the estimated annual rate of depreciation; and whether he can state why the tables showing the number of men in nucleus crews have also been omitted.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Appendix has not been omitted, but it is now called Appendix No. 7. The nucleus crews are included in the column headed "Active Service" in accordance with the arrangements made for the current year, and after the consideration which I promised the hon. Gentleman on 17th April last.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain information as to the number of men in the nucleus crews if I put a Question on the Paper?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON:Certainly.

    Natives in the South African Mines.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies
    1518
    how many natives from Central Africa are now employed on the Premier Diamond Mine and on other South African mines; if these natives have been recruited under official sanction; and, if so when was this sanction given.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): According to a Return up to the end of July last there were 463 Nyassaland natives on the Premier Mine. These natives on the Premier Mine were recruited as an experiment under a sanction given by the Secretary of State in November, 1906, for recruiting 500 natives. Sanction was at the same time given for the recruiting experimentally of a further 500 for surface work only on the gold mines, but these latter were not recruited. I understand that there are a certain number of Nyassaland natives at work on the mines who have not been recruited but have found their own way down, though I do not know how many.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table Papers with regard to the recruiting of Central African natives during the last eighteen months?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG; Are these labourers separated from their wives, and do the conditions under which they work constitute servile conditions?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if any limit is placed on the number of natives permitted to be recruited from Central Africa for the Transvaal mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: After very careful consideration the Secretary of State has informed the Governor of the Transvaal that the resumption of recruiting Nyasaland natives cannot be authorised in existing circumstances. No recruiting has taken place since the end of 1906.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: When was the Governor so informed?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No natives have been recruited since 1906. The question was should it be allowed again, and it was decided last month that the conditions which prevail in regard to mortality would not warrant it.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: Is there no recruiting then from Central Africa?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No organised recruiting, but we cannot prevent individual natives finding their way down.

    Dinizulu.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Mr. Jellicoe, one-time counsel for Dinizulu, has reiterated his original statements concerning the trial of this native chief, to the effect that the Natal Government is making use of every technical rule of local law to defeat the pledge given to the Imperial Government to secure to Dinizulu an open, fair, and impartial trial of the charges now pending against him, and also refers to the official acknowledgment that the charges against Dinizulu have not in any way been amplified by any specific facts as to whom he is accused of inciting to murder, or who was the person murdered, or when the incitement was given, or in what the acts of treason, sedition, rebellion, etc., consist; and what present steps are being taken by the Colonial Office to secure that this chieftain shall be guaranteed an impartial trial.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is aware of the views of Mr. Jellicoe, whose statement will be carefully examined. With regard to the last part of the Question I cannot add anything to my full reply of yesterday to a Question by the hon. Member for Wycombe.
    In reply to. a further Question,
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was informed that the usual procedure under the law was being followed. He asked, however, for notice of legal Questions.

    New Hebrides Convention.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific on his recent visit to the New Hebrides to proclaim the Convention will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As I promised the hon. and gallant Member for St. Andrew's Burghs on 13th February, a copy of the Report has been placed in the Library of the House for the use of Members who may care to study it.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the regulations prepared by the Resident Commissioners of the New Hebrides on recruiting and the conditions of labour will be laid upon the Table of the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The regulations when settled must of course be published, and copies will be made available in this country for anyone who wishes to see them. The question of reprinting them as a Parliamentary Paper will be considered when they have been finally settled.

    Chinese in the Band Mines.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Chinese employed in the Rand mines, as their contracts expire, will be allowed to recruit for the mines on the same basis and be governed by the same regulations as the natives now employed.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am astonished that the hon. Member should not understand the position more clearly after all the discussions that have taken place. Certain mining interests in the Transvaal desired to employ Chinese indentured labour. The people of the Transvaal object so strongly to the presence of the Chinese in their country that special restrictions of an extraordinary and degrading character had to be imposed upon the imported Chinese labourers to secure among other things that they did not mingle with the population, did not

    1521
    engage in business, did not acquire land, did not perform skilled work of any kind, and were expelled from South Africa as soon as their term of labour had expired. These restrictions are comprised in the Chinese Labour Importation Ordinance, and they are at present the law of the Transvaal. That law, for whose details the late Government is responsible, will come early in 1910 to an end for ever when the existing indentures are terminated and the last Chinaman has gone. Meanwhile every Chinaman must be deported as soon as his indenture expire. Thereafter no Chinaman will be allowed to enter the Transvaal unless he enters freely, and to that the people of the Transvaal are, I believe, unalterably opposed.
    MR. LYTTELTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Commission on Labour Condition in the Mines of the Transvaal, signed by Messrs. Stockenstroom, Cresswell, Hamilton and Whiteside: whether Mr. Cresswell who is well known to Members of this House is the gentleman who took a leading part in the agitation against Chinese labour in the Transvaal and in this country: whether the Report is to the effect that there is no essential difference between the importation of Chinese coolies and Portugese natives, and whether it is a fact that on the average of the last two years the death-rate of such natives is more than 100 per cent, heavier than that of the Chinese.
    MR CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government are awaiting with much interest the arrival of the Report in question, and meanwhile it would obviously be premature to form opinions and still more to take action of any kind.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Portuguese East African natives must all be repatriated as the Chinese must be repatriated.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am fully informed by this time, I should think, of all the conditions.
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, although by law the Portugese natives must be repatriated, as a matter of fact they never were repatriated.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not wish to embark upon an attempt to impart all my information to the House.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he can say what are the reasons assigned by the Transvaal Government for their proposed effort to recruit labour outside South. Africa for the Rand mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that the Transvaal Government are anxious to secure as large and continuous a supply of unskilled labour under proper conditions as is possible.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the natives of Madagascar have a strain of Oriental blood?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Quebec Battlefields.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of this Government to cooperate with the Canadian Government and the Canadian people in the preservation of the battlefields of Quebec, where the British Army added to its fame, by a subscription to the funds for this imperial memorial.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The consideration of matters relating to this important celebration has been confined to the arrangements for and programme of the visit which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales (accompanied by a powerful squadron of the British Fleet) has graciously signified his intention of paying to Canada at the end of July next —an intimation which has given much lively pleasure both here and in the Dominion. The question of a subscription has not yet come before His Majesty's Government, and I am, therefore, not at present in a position to make any statement with reference to it.

    Postal and Telegraphic Rates between Great Britain and France.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether he is aware that a penny postal and telegraphic rate between Great Britain and France would be welcomed by commercial men in this country, and there is reason to believe would be favourably, regarded by the French Government; and whether he will consider the desirability of entering into an arrangement with the French 'Government which would tend to extend the commercial relations between the two nations.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The French post office has made no proposal to me on this subject. Such a reduction as that which the hon. Member suggests would involve a very, large sacrifice of revenue, and I am not prepared to advocate it under existing circumstances.

    Liverpool and Hong-Kong Mail Subsidy.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what was the revenue obtained in the last completed year from postal matter conveyed by the trans-Canadian route under the Liverpool and Hong-Kong mail contract; and what proportion this revenue bore to the subsidy paid to the contractors.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The gross revenue collected by the British Post Office on the letter and parcel mails despatched from this country by the Canadian Pacific service for the year 1907 is estimated at £35,000. To this should be added a sum of about £3,000 received for the conveyance of foreign and colonial mails. The annual subsidy payable to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is £60,000, of which £15,000 Is contributed by Canada, and £45,000 by the British Government. The subsidy, of course, does not cover the cost of dealing with the mails in this country.

    Adult Night Messengers and the Hobhouse Report.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether,
    1524
    in view of the fact that the adult night messengers are not affected by the classification or any other scheme, he will say what is the cause for delay in putting in force the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee; and will they be put into operation forthwith.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: All questions relating to the pay of adult night messengers have now been settled, and the revision is being carried out. No officer will suffer from the delay?
    MR. SLOAN: But what has been the cause of the delay?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The enormous pressure in carrying. out the multifarious classification.
    MR. SLOAN: Is it now settled?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have said so.

    Inland Revenue Stamps.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what annual sum, if any, is transferred from the receipts of the General Post Office to the Inland Revenue in respect of postage stamps used for Inland Revenue purposes.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The amount transferred from the receipts of the General Post Office to the Inland Revenue in respect of postage stamps used for Inland Revenue purposes in the year 1906–7 was £582,520, as shown on page 25 of the Finance Accounts.

    Bexhill Postal Arrangements.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a decision has yet been reached as to the establishment of an additional sub-post office at Bexhill.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: This Question is still under consideration. I regret that I am not yet in a position to arrive at a decision.

    Rural Postmen's Duties.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in arranging

    1525
    postmen's duties to allow nine clear hours at their own homes, any allowance is made for the time occupied by mounted rural postmen in preparing horses and carts in the morning and putting them away at night; and whether such time occupied in stable duties counts as part of their duty.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is the practice to arrange the duties of rural postmen is such a manner as to give them nine hours at their homes; and in the case of mounted rural postmen reasonable allowance is made for the time necessary for attending to their horses and carts. Stable duties are taken into consideration in fixing the amount of work the men are called on to perform.

    Inland Revenue Stamps
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what was the average revenue derived annually from the issue of Inland Revenue adhesive stamps.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): The amounts paid over to this Department by the Post Office as the estimated revenue for the United Kingdom, derived from the issue of Inland Revenue adhesive stamps for the three years ending 31st March, 1908, are as follows: Unified stamps at 1d.: 1905–6, £543,000; 1906–7, £547,000; 1907–8 £551,000. Unified stamps above 1d.: 1905–6, £34,800; 1906–7, £35,520; 1907–8, £36,240. Increased amounts of £4,000 for Unified stamps at 1d. and of £720 for those above 1d. are paid over each year by the Post Office.

    Licenses in Scotland.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state the number of public house licences at present in force in Scotland; the number of spirit grocers' licences; and the number of hotel licences.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The number of licences at present in force in Scotland is as follows: Public-house licences, 6,472; spirit grocers' licences, 3,604; hotel licences, 372.

    Affortestation on the Inverliever Estate
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland which Department will control the afforestation of the Inverliever estate.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The Commissioners of Woods and Forests.

    Lewis Sanitary Condition.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that it is now nearly three years since Dr. Dittmar, the medical inspector for the Local Government Board for Scotland, reported the sanitary condition of the townships in the Island of Lewis as dangerous to the public health, will he state whether he has yet succeeded in making arrangements with the Treasury such as will admit of assistance being given towards the construction of houses on new sites.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): No such arrangements have been made. But I am in communication with the local authority with a view to obtaining complete information as to houses of crofters and cottars in Lewis.

    Lewis Cottars.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet received a list of cottars and others resident in the townships in the Island of Lewis who would be willing to migrate to the mainland if the Congested Districts Board arranged reasonable aid for their settlement; and, in view of the Scottish Office declarations on this subject, will he state whether any scheme for the encouragement of migration to the mainland has yet been considered.
    MR. SINCLAIR: My hon. friend has himself been good enough to furnish me with a list of the nature referred to. Before the Congested Districts Board can take any action further information is required as to skill and experience and also as to ability of those concerned to rent, stock, and cultivate holdings.

    Beauly and Ness Rivers Estuary.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that, at pages

    1527
    30 and 32 of the First Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, the opinion is expressed that the estuary of the Beauly and Ness rivers has been too far extended, and that there is no sufficient ground for extending the estuary beyond a line from. Chanonry Point to Fort George, will he state whether he has yet considered the expediency of calling for a Report on the subject, especially having regard to the fact that the estuary as present extends into the open sea four miles beyond the point recommened in the Fishery Board Report.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have made careful inquiry into this subject. Any alteration of existing boundaries would require legislation, and from the information I have received, I do not consider there are sufficient grounds for that step at present.

    Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth
    MR WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that sixteen trawlers were detected on forty-four different occasions in the Moray Firth in December and January, will he state how many of these vessels were flying a foreign flag, and the nationality of such flag; and in how many instances proceedings have been instituted for illegal trawling.
    MR SINCLAIR: So far as I am aware all the trawlers referred to were flying a foreign flag; twelve were flying the Norwegian and the others flags of other foreign countries. So far, in one case proceedings have been instituted.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Are not the Government prepared to grant the same rights and privileges to British fishermen in British waters as those which foreigners possess?
    MR. SINCLAIRasked for notice of the Question.

    Maynooth College and Queen's College, Belfast.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount of State aid granted to Maynooth College and Queen's College, Belfast,
    1528
    respectively, since their establishment, the number of students at present on the rolls, and the present rateable value of these two colleges, respectively.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I ask him if he is aware that the first grant to Maynooth College was made by an Irish Parliament, composed exclusively of Irish Protestants?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): Yes, Sir; I knew that.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: And so did I.
    MR. BIRRELL: It was given in evidence before the Robertson Commission on University Education in Ireland that Maynooth College received from the State amounts varying from £8,000 to £9,000 a year from its foundation in 1795 up till 1845, when the annual grant was increased to £26,360 a year. This latter grant was continued until 1871 when it was withdrawn, the sum of £369,040, representing fourteen years' purchase, being paid to the college in compensation, out of the Irish Church Fund. The Board of Works also expended on buildings and maintenance, and remission of building loans, the sum of £52,835. The Queen's College, Belfast, has received £7,000 a year since its foundation, together with grants-in-aid, amounting in all to £82,600, and the Board of Works have expended on buildings and maintenance £95,558. The number of students at Maynooth for the year 1907–8 is 562; the number at Belfast for the current winter session is 380. Both of the colleges are exempt from rating.

    Ballybricken Cattle Drive.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Wednesday night, the 26th February last, a cattle drive on a large scale took place in the Ballybricken district, County Limerick; can he state to whom the lands belonged; what was the object of the outrage; have any arrests been

    1529
    made; and have any persons been brought to justice.
    MR. BIRRELL: The fact is as stated in the Question. The cattle which were driven off belonged to five grazing tenants on Roche Kelly estate. The police have no knowledge of the object of the drive, which can only be a matter of opinion. No evidence is forthcoming against any of the offenders. No arrests, therefore, have been made.

    Irish Schools—Fees for Bilingual Teaching.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of schools in Ireland where the bilingual programme is adopted and the fees paid to the teachers of those schools, the fees paid or proposed to be paid to teachers who, though not adopting the bilingual programme, teach Irish as an ordinary school subject within ordinary school hours, and the fees paid or proposed to be paid to teachers who teach Irish as an extra subject outside ordinary school hours.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the bilingual programme has been sanctioned in 120 national schools. A fee of 4s. may be paid for each unit of the average attendance of pupils receiving bilingual instruction in schools classified at the annual inspection as "fair"; a. fee of 6s. in schools classified as "good"; and a fee of 8s. in schools classified as "very good" or "excellent." On the restoration of fees for Irish as an extra subject, special payment for it as an ordinary subject ceased. Fees may now be paid for Irish taught as an extra subject to pupils of the third and higher standards, according to the following scale: In the third standard, 3s. per unit of the average attendance at the Irish lessons; in the fourth standard, 6s. per unit of the average attendance; in the fifth standard, 9s. per unit of the average attendance; and in the sixth and higher standards, 12s. per unit of the average attendance.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: What fee will be paid if Irish is taught as an ordinary subject, and not as an extra?
    MR. BIRRELL: As I have just stated, fees are- not now paid for Irish as an ordinary subject.
    MR. MOORE: May I ask if under this system more is paid for teaching Irish than for teaching modern language in three-parts of the country where Irish is absolutely useless?
    MR. BIRRELL: The hon. Gentleman may infer what he likes.

    Ballinalee Catholic School.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether any report has been made to the police as to the breaking of the windows of the Catholic male national school at Ballinalee, County Longford; whether he is aware that recently, in consequence of a dispute with the parents and master of the Protestant school at Ballinalee, five Protestant children left the Protestant school and went to the Catholic school instead; and whether the police have any clue as to the identity of those who broke the Catholic school windows.
    I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police of Ballinalee are now able to identify the perpetrator of the outrage on the Catholic school at Ballinalee on the night of 23rd January, 1908; and whether any magisterial inquiry will be held in the case.
    MR. BIRRELL: It was reported to the police that four panes of glass were broken in the male Catholic school at Ballinalee on the night of 22nd January. Six Protestant children have left the Protestant school in consequence of a dispute between the parents of the children and the teacher, and are now attending the Catholic school. The police have no evidence as to the persons who broke the windows and consequently on magisterial investigation can be held.

    Land Purchase in Longford—Tully Grazing Land
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether the Estates Commissioners have entered into communication with Mr. James W. Bond, D.L., as to the sale of his grazing lands at Tully, Asnagh, and Ardagullian; and with what result.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have approached Mr. Bond with reference to his lands referred to in the Question, but he declines to sell. He states that he has himself worked the lands since 1875, and that they were worked by his father and grandfather before him.

    Crofton Estate, Longford
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the case of the sale of the Crofton estate, at Kiltycreevagh, County Longford, arrangements for sale had been completed between the former owner and his tenants, but that on his death his successors have refused to continue the negotiations and instituted a campaign of eviction instead; and will he therefore direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this case with a view to their interference in the interests of peace in the locality.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already informed the hon. Member that the Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the Question, and that they do not consider the case to be one in which they could interfere. No proceedings for the sale of the estate have come before the Commissioners.

    Newtownforbes Petty Sessions—Absence of Crime in Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the last Petty Sessions Court of Newtownforbes there was not a single case for hearing of any kind; whether he is also aware that on the whole the charge of the Judge at Longford Spring Assizes was to congratulate the grand
    1532
    jury upon the state of the county; and will he in view of these circumstances now direct that the extra police at present quartered on Longford be withdrawn.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that there was no case for hearing at the last petty sessions at Newtownforbes. It is also the case that at the recent assizes for Longford the Judge described the general condition of the county as satisfactory, but he specially excepted a certain district from this description. It is in this district alone that extra police are required, and the Inspector-General informs me that the present condition of the district is not such as would justify the withdrawal of the police.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Would it not be possible to draft police from districts where their services are not needed instead of imposing a charge for extra police on other parts?
    MR. BIRRELL: We are doing the best we can, but of course we cannot denude other parts of the county of police.

    The Ormonde Hunt.
    MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether Major Dease, R.M., who sentenced a number of young men at Clough-jordan last week to various terms of imprisonment on charges connected with the stoppage of the Ormonde hunt, actually seconded a resolution publicly to hunt against the wishes of the people of the district; did any other magistrate take part in the trial of these men; and were they tried at petty sessions or a special Court.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have referred this Question to Major Dease, who informs me that it is not the fact that he seconded a resolution of the nature referred to in the Question. On 3rd instant Major Dease heard an application by the police to bind to the peace seventeen persons who were charged with cattle driving. The defendants were ordered to find sureties or in default to be imprisoned.

    1533
    They refused to give bail and were committed to prison, but some of them have since been released on giving bail. The application was made to the resident magistrate alone. Petty sessions were not being held on that day.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Was the Major at the hunt meeting?
    MR. BIRRELL: I cannot say.
    MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is his special qualification as a magistrate that he is a landlord and a Militia major?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    The Dublin Crown Jewels.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government has been drawn to the detailed statement which appeared recently in a certain London newspaper to the effect that the police authorities, in their investigation into the loss of the Dublin Crown jewels, discovered the existence of a most grave and criminal scandal affecting a number of officials of Dublin Castle; and whether the Government will order a full and public inquiry into the whole matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am glad the hon. Member has asked this Question. The statements that have appeared in certain London newspapers are a parcel of lies of a particularly cruel and offensive kind. No grave or criminal scandal affecting officials in Dublin Castle has been discovered. No person or persons are being shielded from prosecution, whether for the theft or for any other crime. The police are busily engaged in prosecuting their inquiries. Criminal proceedings will at once be taken when any evidence justifying prosecution is forthcoming. A full and public inquiry at present would not be of any use, and would probably interfere with the course of justice.
    MR. MOORE: Has it been publicly stated that the right hon. Gentleman himself has charged one official in Dublin
    1534
    Castle with being party to a grave and criminal scandal?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir; it is absolutely untrue.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that a public inquiry would not be of any use in this case, is he of opinion that the private inquiry, details of which have been made public, has been of any use either?
    MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir; it has served some purpose.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: What purpose?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Irish Sub-Land Commissioner's Appointment.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state upon whose recommendation Mr. P. F. Mullaly was appointed a Sub-Land Commissioner; whether he passed any examination to test his qualifications; and why it is necessary to furnish this official with special assistance in respect of scaling and mapping.
    MR. BIRRELL: Mr. P. F. Mullaly was appointed by warrant of the Lord-Lieutenant bearing date 1st April, 1907, to act as a temporary Assistant Land Commissioner for the ensuing year. I am not aware that Mr. Mullaly was appointed upon the recommendation of any person. He was appointed upon his personal application, and the Lord-Lieutenant was fully satisfied as to his qualifications. He was not required to undergo an examination. The rules do not prescribe any examination for the post. The Land Commission inform me that they have not furnished Mr. Mullaly with any special assistance in the performance of mapping and scaling work.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In what county has he been working?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will ascertain.

    The Glenahiery Explosion
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence given by District-Inspector Preston at Waterford, on Friday last, with reference to his Report on the Glenahiery explosion and the remarks of Mr. Justice Kenny thereupon; and whether, having regard to the publicity given to that Report by official sanction and to the fact that it contained a false charge against Lord Ashtown, he will direct a public inquiry into the circumstances connected with the preparation of this Report at Dublin Castle.
    The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:
    MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the sworn evidence if District-Inspector Preston that his Report on the explosion at Glenahery was altered and amended in Dublin Castle so as to convey the charge that Lord Ashtown was privy to or concerned in the explosion; will he state if the Report was then signed by District-Inspector Preston; who were the persons responsible for this alteration; was the Report, as published, a violation of a rule relating to reports on malicious injuries in the constabulary code; was such alteration made; was such Report signed by Mr. Preston under the direction of the Inspector-General; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by whose authority certain original reports and statements relating to the explosion at Glenahiery were removed from the file at Dublin Castle and destroyed, so as to prevent their production in Court on the hearing of Lord Ashtown's claim.
    MR. MOORE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the statement on oath by District-Inspector Preston, in reply to Mr. Justice Kenny, that he was prepared,
    1536
    and did do so, at the bidding of his superior officer, to put his name to a statement affecting Lord Ashtown in which he did not believe; and if it is intended to take any action in respect of this officer.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the admissions made by District-Inspector Preston on the hearing of the appeal arising out of the Glenahiery incident; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, action in the matter.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenaut of Ireland whether in view of Inspector Preston's admissions in the Glenahiery case, it is intended to retain him in the service.
    MR. BIRRELL: My Answer applies to all these Questions. District-Inspector Preston, in whose district Glenahiery Lodge is situated, was, at the date of the explosion, absent on special duty in the North of Ireland. He was at once recalled by the Inspector-General and directed to make an inquiry into the circumstances in the ordinary course of his duty. Having investigated the circumstances of the explosion, he prepared at his office in Cappoquin, County Water-ford, and submitted to his superior officer, Mr. Jennings, the County Inspector of that county, a Report dated 7th September, 1907, stating the results of his inquiry. The County Inspector forwarded that Report to the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Dublin Castle in the usual course, and without note or comment. The Inspector-General, considering the Report to be of special importance, summoned District-Inspector Preston to the Castle, and subsequently took him, with the Report, to the Under-Secretary, with the view to its being considered whether it was desirable, in the interests of justice, that the Report should be communicated to Lord Ashtown and the local councils of Waterford as the opposing parties in the pending litigation. The Undersecretary, regarding the question as one for the law officers, referred the matter

    1537
    to them. The law officers were of opinion that it was essentially just and necessary that a statement of the matters within Mr. Preston's knowledge should be sent to the parties, in order to prevent the undoubted surprise and possible injustice which would follow if these matters, as to the important part of which Mr. Preston was corroborated by the Home Office expert, Captain Lloyd, were disclosed for the first time by Mr. Preston as a witness in Court. They were, however, of opinion that the Report of 7th September, inasmuch as it contained suggestions and views of Mr. Preston, and matters some of which had occurred before his arrival on the scene and were therefore outside his own knowledge, could not be properly submitted to the parties, but that Mr. Preston should prepare a statement to be sent to them, confined to the actual matters to which he could personally depose. Thereupon, Mr. Preston proceeded to a separate room in the Castle for the purpose of preparing a, statement on that basis. He, accordingly, prepared and signed the statement, dated 11th September, without any interference, direction, or suggestion from anybody. This statement was read in the presence of the Inspector-General, the Under-Secretary, and the two law officers, and no alteration whatever was made or directed to be made therein. It was then, by the direction of the Inspector-General, sent to County Inspector Jennings for transmission to the parties. This was accordingly done. The transmission of this statement was in no sense a violation of any rule or circular of the Constabulary Force. On the contrary, it was in the highest sense in conformity with the spirit and intentions of these rules. It contained merely a narrative of facts, and made no charge against any individual. The publication of the statement which afterwards took place was made without the desire, knowledge, or sanction of the Government, and the Government is in no way responsible for it, directly or indirectly. In view of the imputations made I have considered it my duty to lay upon the Table of the House District-Inspector Preston's Report of 7th September, 1907, and his statement of 11th September, 1907. It will be apparent to anybody that instead of representing a change to the prejudice
    1538
    of Lord Ashtown, the statement of 11th September was a modified, not to say a mitigated, reproduction of Mr. Preston's Report of 7th September. It did not contain a single statement not to be found in the Report of 7th September; nor was there omitted from it a single matter to which Mr. Preston could personally depose. On 14th September, 1907, Mr. Jennings, County Inspector, submitted a Report, in which for the first time he expressed dissent from the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Preston in his Report of 7th September, which had been forwarded through him. Immediately on its receipt, Mr. Jennings was directed to furnish copies of this Report to the parties, which he forthwith did. In the process of preparing the statement of 11th September, District-Inspector Preston made for his own guidance certain pencil marks and notes on the margin" of his original Report of 7th September. He also made a manuscript draft of the statement which he had been directed to prepare. When completed this draft was typed and signed by him. The draft was then destroyed and the pencil marks made upon the original Report of 7th September partially affaced by him. This is the explanation of, and the sole foundation for, the allegations contained in the Question of the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh. No document upon the file has been effaced, destroyed, or removed therefrom. All are intact. If any hon. Member is desirous of inspecting the original Report of District-Inspector Preston of 7th September, with his pencil marks and notes still partially legible thereon, I shall be glad to show it to him. My attention has been called to the newspaper reports of the cross-examination of District-Inspector Preston at the recent trial at Waterford. If accurately reported, I can only say of Mr. Preston's answers, in view of the facts which I have now stated, that they afford but another example of the evident confusion to which an unprotected witness, who has been most severely attacked, and for whom nobody is appearing, can sometimes be reduced in our Courts, when in the hands of an able cross-examining counsel. Regarding the answers, it must, however, be observed that according to the newspaper accounts, M.

    1539
    Preston, on re-examination, expressly reaffirmed the accuracy of every single statement in his statement of 11th September furnished to Lord Ashtown and his own personal responsibility for it. In reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh, the Government will not direct an inquiry, as suggested in his Question. In reply to the noble Earl the Member for the Horsham Division, it is intended to retain District-Inspector Preston in the service?
    MR. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the Report sent by District-Inspector Preston, there is an entire suppression of all facts which indicated that the explosion was the work of an outsider?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Inasmuch as the original Report of September 7th is now published for the first time, and was withheld from the Court in the recent inquiry, and in view of the fact that that Report contains a number of startling and sensational statements, raising all sorts and kinds of suspicions with reference to this case, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government can maintain their attitude of refusing a full sworn inquiry into all the circumstances of the case.
    MR. GORDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the hearing of the appeal, counsel for Lord Ashtown called for that Report of 7th September, and the Inspector-General of Police successfully refused to produce it? He stated it would be against the public interest to do so. Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he can justify the publication of that Report by laying it on the Table when counsel has not an opportunity of cross-examining with regard to it, particularly having regard to the evidence given by Mr. Preston, and the result of the cross-examination?
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): Allow me to answer. The Inspector-General was distinctly informed
    1540
    that he was at liberty to produce the Report if called for, and he attended in Court with it to do so. Why he did not produce it I do not know. I may add that the inspector-general was subpoenaed by both sides, and was examined by neither.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I must, respectfully repeat my Question, whether in view of the publication of this new document, which contains a number of extraordinary statements, the Government can maintain their attitude by-refusing a full inquiry into all the circumstances attending this alleged outrage?
    MR. WALTER LONGBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers-that, and arising out of his reply, he-referred to the White Paper, which has been in the hards of Members within an hour, although it appeared in the Press; some hours ago. That Paper contains the Reports of District-Inspector Preston, two of which were already published and one of which has been withheld. Is it not a fact that prior to the receipt by the Inspector-General of the Report from Mr. Preston, the Inspector-General had received Reports from County Inspectors Jennings and Rodgers and District-Inspector Tweedy, and whether those Reports were not in direct conflict with the reports of Mr. Preston; and why were they not included in the Report to Parliament in common justice to a. man who is under a charge in these Papers, who cannot defend himself, and who is entitled to have the full case put before the country?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not a fact that these Reports which have been asked for were already published in the papers?
    MR. MOORE: Not one of them.
    MR. SPEAKER: This is really turning into a debate.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the Chief Secretary give an Answer to the-Question which I have put twice?
    MR. BIREELL: You see, the document referred to in the first Report

    1541
    contains, I quite agree, opinions, whether valuable or not, of that inspector, which are now for the first time given to the public. But the Government have long been aware of the nature and contents of that Report, and they do not see anything in the suggestions made by this gentleman of sufficient importance as likely to lead to anything. But if both sides want a public inquiry the last thing that the Government wish is to conceal or keep back anything. I do not think myself that Mr. Preston's first Report will afford much assistance to a public inquiry.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I give notice that, on the first opportunity available, I will move a Resolution to the effect that a public inquiry should be held.
    MR. MOORE: May I ask was Mr. Preston, accurate in stating on oath that in the Castle he was given by a certain number of officials in the case the heads of Reports to write.
    MR. BIRRELL: No. He was entirely inaccurate.
    MR. MOORE: If a constabulary officer—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member lias asked a Question, and has got an Answer.
    MR. CHERRY: I may say with regard to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, that so far as I know, the first Report that the Inspector-General got was that from Mr. Preston who was the District Inspector for the district, and by whom in the ordinary course it would be made.
    MR. WALTER LONG: That may be the case, but is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tell the House that within a few days the Government did not receive reports from the two county inspectors and District Inspector Tweedy, in direct conflict with his Report?
    MR. CHERRY: No. So far as I am aware they did not receive such. The only Reports that they received, to my
    1542
    knowledge, were those from District Inspector Preston, and County Inspector Jennings. The other police officers belonged to different counties.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Report which he says the Government did receive from County Inspector Jennings was not in direct conflict to that received from Mr. Preston, and why is it not included in the White Paper?
    MR. CHERRY: District inspector Preston's first Report was furnished by the county inspector without note or comment. County Inspector Jennings' Report furnished on 14th September, was sent to the Castle, and immediately sent to the parties, and has been published. There was no necessity therefore, to include it in the white Paper. Mr. Preston's two Reports are there, so that hon. Members may compare them, and see whether the statements made about the Government are true or not.
    MR. SPEAKER: Other questions on this subject must be put down.

    Railway Communication with Belfast
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay before the House copies of the correspondence that has passed between the Secretary of the Vice-Regal Commission on Irish Railways, the Great Northern Railway Ireland), the Belfast and County Down Railway, and Dr. Wylmants Olpherts, Downpatrick, relative to the frequently recurring failure of the passengers by these railways, travelling by the 3 p.m. train from Dublin via Newcastle, to connect with the 6.40 p.m. train to Belfast at Newcastle, thereby entailing inconvenience and expense.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Vice-Regal Commission on Irish Railways that the correspondence referred to in the Question has not yet concluded. The Commission are awaiting replies to letters recently sent to the managers of the railways concerned and when the correspondence is complete the Commissioners will consider the

    1543
    desirability of furnishing copies for presentation to Parliament if required.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Cannot some influence be brought to bear on the railway companies so that the travelling public may not be inconvenienced by the want of connection at the common terminus?
    MR. BIRRELL: My powers in this matter are very limited, but I will do my best.

    Cullenagh Cattle Drive.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a cattle drive took place on the night of Tuesday, 3rd, March last, on three farms at Cullenagh near Maryborough, Queen's County; if so, whether he can state the names of the owners of the farms; and whether the police can assign any reason for the outrage, and have they brought anyone to justice in connection with it.
    MR. BIRRELL: The fact is as stated in the Question. The three farms belong to Mr. Toler of Birr, and they are occupied by Messrs. Hodgins, Wynne, and Waters respectively. The police cannot state what the reason for the offence may have been. The offenders have not been brought to justice.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman form any estimate of the time when there will be some arrests in connection with these outrages?
    MR. BIRRELL: It depends entirely on what evidence is forthcoming.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Is it the fact that this property has been sold and the Estates Commissioners have it for redistribution?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not know.

    Ballinagar Outrage.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the house of a herd named John Minogue,
    1544
    of Ballinagar, near Woodford, County Galway, was fired into on Thursday night, 3rd March last; was anyone-in the house when the outrage was-committed; have any arrests been made; and do the police know of any reason for this man being molested.
    MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that a gunshot was fired into John Minogue's house on the occasion in question. The man's daughter and son-in-law and their two children: were in the house at the time, but from the direction in which the shot was fired. it does not appear that personal injury-was intended. No arrests have been made. The police are not aware of any reason for the offence.
    CAPTAIN CRAIGasked whether in view of the reply that no personal injury was intended the right hon. Gentleman meant to distinguish between intimidation and deliberate firing.
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I do not. I regard both offences with horror and disgust.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: Will not the Government take some steps, by reintroducing some measure such as that dropped last session, to prevent these outrages?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: Is it not the fact that this man is an evicted tenant, on the most friendly terms with his neighbours and at the time the shot was fired was he not actually attending a United Irish League branch meeting? Is not the impression in the district that.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order: The, hon. Member must give notice.

    Lord Shaftesbury's Carrickfergus Estate.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to-ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state-whether Mr. Thomas McKaig, in the West Division of Lord Shaftesbury's Carrickfergus estate, is a first or second-term tenant and, if a first-term tenant,

    1545
    why did the Commissioners threaten to exclude his holding unless he signed a purchase agreement at a second-term price within the zones; and if he will state the exact number of tenants in the Greenisland district of the West Division of the said estate, the number who have signed, and the number who have refrained from signing purchase agreements respectively.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Mr. McKaig is tenant of a holding under judicial agreement, dated 10th January, 1905, and is therefore, a first-term tenant. As regards the exclusion of McKaig from the sale, it is to be said that he has not signed a purchase agreement. The Commissioners have nothing to add to the facts stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 5th instant on this subject. The Commissioners are not aware to what particular portion of the estate the hon. Member refers as the Green-island district of the West Division, and therefore cannot give the information asked for in the concluding part of the Question.

    Carntall National School.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Commissioners of National Education have decided to close Carntall national school, situated in the County of Antrim; and, if so, what provision is going to be made for the children who, by the closing of this school, would be compelled to walk two and a half miles to the next nearest school, many of whom would be unable to do so; and whether, in view of the fact that the entire people of the district are unanimously in favour of the school being continued, and some time ago raised money for its repair, he will consider the advisability of retaining this school, at least Until better accommodation is available for the children who attend it.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have not yet come to a final decision in this matter. The question of closing the school has been under their consideration, and they have referred the ease to their Inspector for inquiry.
    1546
    Upon the receipt of his report, they will further consider the matter.

    Ballinalee School Teachers.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the name of the present teacher of the Protestant national school at Ballinalee; whether he is aware that this teacher was dismissed from several appointments in the North of Ireland for political displays; whether his qualifications were examined before he was accredited to Ballinalee; and whether the Board will admonish him to restrain his political ardour in. that district in the interests of peace.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the only national school under Protestant managership at Ballinalee, County Longford, is Curraghcahill National School. So far as the Commissioners are aware, the present teacher of that school is Mr. James Traynor, and this teacher has not served in any national school in Ulster since 1886. He served in two schools in Antrim prior to that year, but there is no record of his having been dismissed from either of them for any reason.

    Irish. National Board of Commissioners.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the meetings of the National Board of Commissioners are held once a. fortnight, at which only about one-third, of the members attend regularly, that the other two-thirds attend on an average about once a month, and that as a result the work of the Board is in the hands of the Resident Commissioner and a few of the higher officials; and whether, having regard to this fact, he will take steps to alter the constitution of the Board, so as to. have it composed of persons of a, representative character who would take an active interest in primary education.
    MR. BIRRELL: The ordinary meetings of the National Education Board are held once a fortnight, but special meetings and Committee meetings are also held at various, times in each year.

    1547
    The Commissioners inform me that it is not correct to say that only one-third of the members attend regularly, or that two-thirds of the Board attend only once a month. They state that the work of the Board is in the hands of officials only in so far as the officials have been authorised by the Commissioners to carry it on. I am not aware that there is any foundation for the suggestion that the present members of the Board do not take an active interest in primary education.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether about a year ago the Commissioners of National Education appointed a person from outside the Education Office to investigate cases of alleged inefficiency on the part of the teachers; if so, whether it was owing to the Resident Commissioner or any of the secretaries -of the Board having no practical knowledge of such matters, none of them ever having been an inspector of schools; whether such a person is still so employed; was there any justification for the appointment; and what salary was attached to it.
    MR. BIERELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that in view of the change in the duties of the chiefs of inspection by which these officers were for the future to be largely engaged in outdoor work, they found it desirable, about five years ago, to bring in one of the other inspectors to the central office to assist in the preparation of certain special work which had previously been discharged by members of the inspection staff. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative. An inspector is still employed at the central office, but he receives no remuneration beyond his salary as inspector.

    The Senior Secretary to the National Board.
    ' MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst inspectors of national schools in Ireland, occasioned in no small degre by letters frequently sent to them by the
    1548
    senior secretary of the National Board; whether he is also aware that up to a few years ago this official was merely a clerk in the Education Office; and whether, in view of this fact, he will say by whom was he appointed to the office, and what were the qualifications that obtained for him that position.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they are not aware that dissatisfaction exists amongst their inspectors from any cause. The senior secretary of the Board was appointed in 1900. He was a clerk in the service of the Commissioners, and for the preceding ten years had been private secretary in succession to three Resident Commissioners, including the present holder of that office. The secretary in question was appointed by the Board, who inform me that the qualifications which he possessed were great experience and knowledge of the business of the Board and conspicuous ability in the discharge of the various duties entrusted to him.

    Sir George Colthurst's Estate.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutanent of Ireland whether he is aware that in connection with the claim of the labourers and small landholders on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, Ballyvourney, to the distribution of the home farm amongst them, Mr. Commissioner Bailey assured the hon. Member for Mid-Cork, both personally and by letters, that an opportunity would be given to those who contested the bona fides of the tenancy of Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty of being heard in support of their contention by the Estates Commissioners before the question was finally determined; and will he state whether this promise of Mr. Bailey will be observed by the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. BIRRELL: The course which the Estates Commissioners propose to follow in the matter is fully stated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 9th instant. Before coining to a final decision in the matter they will carefully consider any statement or

    1549
    representations put forward in connection with the tenancy of Mr. Hegarty. There is no record on the official files of any promise by Mr. Bailey to the effect stated in the Question. Personal correspondence of individual Commissioners is not recorded in the office.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Sir George Colthurst, Ballyvourney, County Cork, has been purchased direct by the Estates Commissioners from the owner; and, if not, will he explain the circumstances of the sale and the terms agreed upon; have the tenants on the estate to the extent of not less than three-fourths in number and rateable value, undertaken to purchase their holdings from either the Land Commission or the owner; and, if not, will he explain how it is that the Estates Commissioners have been collecting interest on the purchase money on this estate, and generally treating it as if it were an estate to be purchased within the meaning of the Land Act, 1903.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate of Sir George Colthurst is being purchased by the tenants direct from the owner. The average number of years purchase in the agreements lodged is: first term tenants, 19·9; second term tenants, 22·5; non-judicial tenants, 19·6. The provisions of the Act as to three-fourths of the tenants in number and rateable value undertaking to purchase are not applicable to sales direct from landlord to tenant. The lands have not yet been declared an estate, nor has the estate been inspected in detail.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners intend to make any inquiries into the circumstances under which it is alleged that Denis McCarthy, of Reinabubbul, on the estate of Sir George Colthurst, Ballyvourney, received the sum of £6 from the estate agents as an inducement to sign his purchase agreement; has this tenant since repudiated the agreement on the ground that his signature was obtained by fraud and
    1550
    duress; has he refused to pay instalments of interest to the Commissioners, and have they processed him and endeavoured to execute the decree against him; and, having regard to the special circumstances of this case, will he take steps to secure an immediate inquiry by the Commissioners.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners will consider any application which Denis McCarthy may make to them, with notice to the owner, that his agreement should not be acted on, but in the absence of any such application they see no reason for special inquiry as to the payment of £6 stated to have been made to the tenant. The Commissioners have no information as to the circumstances in which such payment may have been made. McCarthy has failed to pay the usual interest on the purchase money, and steps are being taken for its recovery.

    Mr. Leader's Millstreet Estate.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware thatt he relieving officer, Millstreet Union, has served the usual notice preparatory to an eviction on Cornelius Rahilly, of Carriglea, Millstreet, County Cork, on the estate of Mr. H. W. Leader; whether he is aware that the present rent of the tenant is £70, whilst the Poor Law valuation is only £25; that an application to fix a fair rent was dismissed by the Land Sub-Commission at Millstreet, in February, 1906, on the ground that Rahilly was a future tenant; that an appeal was entered against this decision, and the farm sold by execution sale, at the instance of the landlord, on 13th April, 1907, before the appeal came to trial; and whether, seeing that various efforts were made at a settlement without result, he will consider the advisability, in disputes of this nature between landlord and tenant which lead up to eviction, of recommending that the Estates Commissioners should intervene to bring about a settlement.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for sale in this case have been instituted before them and that they have no

    1551
    knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. Assuming, however, that the facts are as stated in the Question, the case is not one in which they would have power to interfere. The matter in dispute appears to relate to the payment of rent, and the Commissioner's powers of intervention do not apply to such cases.

    Seven Day Liquor Licences in Ireland.
    MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of seven-day liquor licences at present in force in Ireland, the number of six-day licences, the number of spirit grocer licences, and the number of hotel licences.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The number of liquor licences at present in force in Ireland is as follows: Seven-day licences, 13,992; six-day licences, 3,019; spirit grocers' licences, 1,000; hotel licences, 229.

    Horse Breeding in Ireland-
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether his Department has been consulted with reference to a scheme for the encouragement of the breeding of horses suitable for Army purposes in Ireland; and whether the Department is prepared to co-operate in that direction.
    MR. BIRRELL (for Mr. T.W. RUSSELL): The Department are aware that communications on this subject have been passing between the War Office and the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. They understand the matter has not yet got so far as the formulation of a scheme for consideration. In so far as that scheme may refer to Ireland the Department will of course be consulted.

    Technical Instruction in Belfast.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if he is aware of the need that exists for increased accommodation for technical instruction in Belfast beyond that at present available; that it can only be met by the provision of a. building grant; and whether, in view
    1552
    of the fact that at the annual meetings of the Irish Technical Congress recommendations have been repeatedly made to provide such a grant for Ireland, and to the fact that it is supported by all shades of public opinion in Ireland, he will give the matter his favourable consideration.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Department are aware of the need that exists in. Belfast and in other urban districts, in Ireland for increased accommodation for technical instruction. This need could be met by the provision of a building grant. The matter has for some time engaged the anxious attention of the Department, and it is at present under the consideration of the Treasury.

    Historical Monuments.
    MR. HORNIMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the need of an inventory being made of the ancient and historical monuments and constructions in England and Wales; and whether there is any reason why a Commission for this purpose should not be appointed at once.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: In the event of this being done, will not the first duty be to make an inventory of the ancient and historical monuments, and constructions in the House of Lords?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): My right hon. friend is not in a' position to make any statement at the present time; but he is willing to consider any representations that may be made to him on the matter.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.
    MR. ASQUITH: I said my right hon. friend is willing to consider any representation that may be made on the matter.

POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from. Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 86.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 86.]
Bill to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 3rd July.

POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 87.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 87.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 3rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A. (added in respect of the Law of Distress (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Micklem; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Law of Distress (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Arnold Herbert.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  NATIONAL MILITARY TRAINING BILL.
  "To amend The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and to authorise National Military Training in the Territorial Force," presented by Captain Kincaid-Smith; supported by Colonel Carlile, Viscount Castlereagh, Mr. Hills, Viscount Helmsley, Mr. Lynch, Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Rees, Mr. Rowland Hunt, Mr. Frederick Edwin Smith, Sir Edward Tennant, and Captain Waring; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]

  TRAWLERS' CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL.
  "To enable Courts to suspend the Certificates of Trawlers convicted of
  1554
  illegal Trawling," presented by Mr. Weir; supported by Mr. Morton, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Younger, and Major Anstruther-Gray; to be read a second time upon Friday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces not exceeding 185,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" at Home and Abroad, excluding His-Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March,. 1909.'
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he hoped that in the observations which he had to offer upon the right hon. Gentleman's scheme he would be acquitted of any hostile attitude or of any attempt to indulge in captious criticism. He recognised that the right, hon. Gentleman's position at the War Office was not a bed of roses. He had his best wishes for success in the on rous task which he had undertaken, and whether his scheme was good or bad, at any rate it held the field. Whilst he must plead guilty to the charge of being an Army Reformer, he was probably the only Army Reformer in existence who had not got a scheme of his own. There were many things about the right hon. Gentleman's scheme which he did not profess to understand at present, but there were other things which, if he understood them rightly, aroused his apprehensions. He was aware of the perils which beset the path of the critic. An hon. Member, a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman, came down to his constituency a short, time ago and, referring, he presumed, to the august hospitality which marked the initiation of the Territorial Army scheme, said that anyone who criticised that scheme was guilty of disloyalty to the Sovereign. He was

  1555
  naturally averse to incurring that charge, and he was somewhat relieved that the religious ceremonies which were intended to inaugurate this great undertaking had now been indefinitely postponed, or at any rate, that they were not received with much warmth by the County Associations, because, whilst one naturally objected to the charge of disloyalty, one would still more dislike to be suspected of impiety. He did not wish, to discuss that question at length, but at any rate he was prepared to take the risks involved in a certain amount of criticism. Not so very long ago we had gone through a great war, and the lessons of that war had been investigated by a number of Royal Commissions and influential Committees, and if he read the reports of those Commissions and Committees aright it appeared to him that their general conclusions might be summed up as follows. First of all, that there was great need of a larger Reserve of trained soldiers; secondly, that there was a great need of a larger Reserve of trained officers; thirdly, that there was need of a larger supply of efficient artillery; fourthly, that the Volunteer Forces with their present training were not fitted to undertake the duties which they were designed to perform; and, fifthly, that we should at all costs maintain an adequate reserve of stores. The question, therefore, which they had to ask was whether the right hon. Gentleman's scheme or his administration at the War Office had remedied those cardinal defects. He feared it would be optimistic to say that they had. First of all, as regards an adequate Reserve of trained soldiers, at the present moment there was, as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted, an abnormal boom in the strength of the Reserve, but his scheme, when its effects became operative, would produce far less Reservists than the schemes which had preceded it. It would produce less Reservists because he would have largely reduced the units, because he had reduced the number of men serving with the colours who eventually passed to the Reserve, and because he was bringing home units from abroad which were put on a reduced establishment and therefore to that extent were decreased in Reserve-producing power.
  1556
  He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman was taking great credit for the fact that at last he had succeeded, when others had failed, in realising the Card well ideal of an equal number of battalions abroad and at home. But at what cost had he done it? There was another predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman of the name of Procrustes whose habit it was to adjust, in an arbitrary and cruel manner, the physical proportions of his victims, but it could not be denied that he effectually crippled them in the process, and the right hon. Gentleman had done great injury to the Regular Army by his arbitrary reductions. The present prosperous condition of the Reserve was as the right hon. Gentleman must know quite temporary and illusory. The Reserve was like a cistern. There was a pipe flowing in and a pipe flowing out, and the ideal was that those pipes should be of the same diameter. As a matter of fact, under what they might call the Brodrick system of short enlistment, the inflowing pipe was much larger than the outflowing pipe, but now, under the system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the inflowing pipe would be greatly restricted, whilst, when this boom came to an end about 1914, the outflowing pipe would be enormously enlarged and the result must be that there would be in the future a greatly reduced Reserve of trained soldiers. As regards officers the right hon. Gentleman had admitted a most serious shortage, but he would deal with that, if he might, a little later on. As regards a larger supply of efficient artillery, instead of there being more batteries under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, there would be less batteries of effective fighting value. He was filling up some of the batteries with partially trained men, but at any rate he was taking thirty-three of the regular batteries and converting them into mere depots with two guns apiece and reducing their fighting value to an extremely low point. As regards the Volunteers, they had been undoubtedly reduced in number according to the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, and their training had certainly not been increased. As far as he could judge, under the Territorial Army Scheme, it would be diminished if anything. As regards stores, he did not wish to go into that at

  1557
  length now, but there were many disquieting symptoms in the Estimates which suggested that the reserves were being drawn upon and not replaced, and he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one specific question, viz., was the standard of reserves of stores laid down by the Mowatt Committee and adopted by the late Administration maintained in its entirety to-day?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)nodded assent.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE,continuing, said he was glad of that, because from the way in which this question was treated in the Estimates, it was a little difficult to arrive at such a satisfactory conclusion. Those were the main points on which he proposed to criticise the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. They were bound to fill a looker-on with a considerable amount of anxiety, but there was one point even broader than any he had mentioned and which must be obvious to all. Our only effective forces were being largely reduced by the right hon. Gentleman, whilst the Territorial Army, which was intended partially to replace those forces, had not yet materialised, and the old Auxiliary Forces of which it was to be composed, had considerably shrunk during his administration. The right hon. Gentleman took up that point in his speech the other day, when he said there had been much criticism about reductions, but after all, he added, had the country ever the prospect of such a force before it, and if such a force could be got at less cost it was a great gain; and so on. The right hon. Gentleman held out to them a prospect, perhaps a visionary prospect, but, in the meantime, he had effected a very real and serious reduction of over 20,000 trained soldiers, and perhaps of twice that number when the effect on the Reserve came into full force. His chief complaint was that what the right hon. Gentleman had done, so far, was to prune down our existing effective force, while the force with which he designed to replace it was at that moment only on paper and might indeed be only an aspiration. He would like to consider for a moment the constitution of this force which was
  1558
  to replace those who had been reduced, in other words the Territorial Army, and of course he wished to consider it as it would be when it was completely organized and in full working order. What its, fighting value would be was of course a very large speculation, but he must confess that the views of the officer, who was, he understood, the Commander-in-Chief-Designate of the British Army, in the event of war, were certainly not sanguine or very encouraging in this connection. Sir John French, in reporting upon the manœuvres of 1907, made these remarks, he understood, to all the officers of the Aldershot Division with regard to the fighting value of the Territorial Army. He said that assuming that three divisions of the Territorial Army had been mobilised for three months it was impossible to estimate their value as compared with Regulars, but it was not too much to say that the military value of the whole of the three divisions did not equal that of one regular division. That was not a very sanguine statement, but after all the General's estimate was optimistic, because he assumed that in the event of war the Territorial Army would have at last three months embodiment in which to prepare. Was there any ground for assuming that? If this country was to be invaded at all it would be by surprise and the period available for preparation was not likely to be anything like three months. We should be lucky if it was even as much as three weeks-Before he passed away from this point of the training and the state of preparedness of the Territorial Army, he wished to dwell for a few moments upon a very interesting point, at least a point which was very interesting to him, and that was the question of the proposed Territorial Field Artillery, an arm which after all required far higher and more scientific training than any other arm in the proposed force. He had had some slight spars with the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, before, but he was sure he would admit that it was a very serious subject, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that any criticisms he made were uttered solely because he was particularly interasted in this branch of the service. A short time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman two

  1559
  questions in this House. The reply to the first he was in complete agreement with, because the right hon. Gentleman said the duties of the Territorial Artillery in the event of war in no way differed from similar duties of "the regular artillery. Then he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was the opinion of the Army Council that the Territorial Army field batteries, armed with a considerably less efficient weapon and considerably less trained, could be properly confronted with the quick-firing batteries and high trained personnel of a Continental Army. The right hon. Gentleman's reply to that was certainly peculiar, and he could only assume that it was meant to be humourous. He said that these converted 15-pounder guns would be more mobile and better adapted for use within the close wooded terrain, such as the Territorial Army would usually operate in. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any reliable information as to the part of our coast which would be invaded, but there were many points which were open to attack which were not wooded and which would not lend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman's convenient theory. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that he (Mr. Lee) had not applied his mind to the subject, but if he would read an interesting little book which had been recently published by a distinguished officer he would find it laid down that it was "absolutely vital that the artillery should be of the most mobile character, and the range of the guns necessarily short," and that was put forward to justify a statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the range of these new field guns was an effective one, although it was a thousand yards less than that of the guns supplied to the Regular Army. He took the right hon. Gentleman's advice and he invested the sum of 3s. 6d. in this book which he recommended him to study, and he had done his best to apply his mind to it. But why the right hon. Gentleman asked him to direct his attention to this particular work he could not imagine, because the writer, Colonel Callwell, who was a very distinguished officer and a man for whose opinion he had a great respect,
  1560
  stated, although making them far more clear than he could have hoped to do, the precise objections to the training and equipment of the Territorial Artillery which he had ventured to urge on more than one occasion. He did not wish to go into the matter at any great length, but he would allude to one or two points from the chapter specially recommended for his perusal. Colonel Callwell said that there were many areas in the United Kingdom where the ground was open and where artillery would play as prominent a part as in Flanders or Manchuria. He further said the invading batteries would be of the highest class and of the highest efficiency in regard to personnel and power of armament, and he asked the question if our batteries would merit so flattering a description. Further he said that we could not afford to ignore that the management of artillery in the United Kingdom presented exceptional difficulties and called for an exceptionally high standard of training, and that only highly trained and thoroughly compete nt personnel could hope to get a full effect, and then Colonel Callwell added, as a final refutation of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that numerical superiority in guns could not avail. His concluding argument, which was interesting, and to him new, was that field-guns were not the most important weapons for this purpose of home defence, but light howitzers and mountain guns would, under the peculiar conditions of fighting in this country, be more effective weapons. Colonel Call-well's theories were reinforced by most students of war and by our military attaches in Manchuria, who had shown that it was impossible for inferior guns to stand up with success to guns of greater range and greater power. General Sir Ian Hamilton said, in a lecture at the United Service Institution a short time ago, that possibly three or four of these Territorial Army batteries might give a warm time to one battery of the kind now in the possession of Continental armies. That was a disputable, but, at the best, not a very encouraging opinion. After all we came down to this was the Territorial Army intended for war or was it not? The right hon. Gentleman said he trusted it would never be called

  1561
  upon to fight at all, and if it was not intended for war it was a pity that money was being wasted on it. But if it was intended for war he ventured to reiterate his assertion that both as to its training and equipment it was hopelessly ineffective and handicapped for the task which it would have before it. His criticism came under two heads, first personnel, and; secondly, materiel. He dealt with the personnel question and the training at some length last year, and he did not wish to weary the Committee by going into it again, but he might say that further consideration and consultation with artillery officers only confirmed and strengthened the belief which he expressed on that occasion. Moreover, he believed, from all he could ascertain, that the officers of this proposed Territorial Artillery were awakening to ths fact that they were being asked, or were going to be asked, to perform duties which they could not possibly discharge under the conditions proposed. Taking as a sort of touchstone the amount of training that was given to the Lancashire Militia Field Artillery, which produced results which were exceedingly creditable to the officers and men concerned, but which were not in any way high or very efficient, they could see that under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme he proposed to give to the Territorial Field Artillery not more than a quarter or a fifth of the training which was given to the Lancashire Field Artillery, and he did not provide what was the mainstay of that corps, a stiffening of one Regular gunner to every two Militiamen, and also 40 or 50 per cent, of the non-commissioned officers from the Regular Army. As to materiel, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving him an opportunity of going down to Woolwich and seeing this new gun of the Territorial Army. It was most interesting, and he must say that the ingenuity with which the efficiency of the gun had been increased reflected the utmost credit upon the officers of the Ordnance Factory at Woolwich. They had succeeded in making a very passable brick with, exceedingly little straw, but, after all, the gun itself was precisely the same gun that we had during the South African War, with the same range, ammu-
  1562
  nition, and rifling, and as far as the man at the other end was concerned—the enemy—the shell that reached him was precisely the same as it was before, although it might reach him at a slightly greater rate of fire. But the individual round was no more and no less effective than it was before. The carriage had been altered and greatly improved, and the result of that alteration and improvement was that it was steadier and led to an increased rate of firing, which he believed had advanced to the maximum of ten or twelve rounds a minute, unaimed fire, as compared with the eighteen or twenty of the quick-firing gun of the Regular Forces. At any rate, it had only two-thirds of the rapidity of fire attained by a true quick-firing gun, which was so-called because the business of loading was one operation. The cartridge, the shell and the ignition were all in one. In the gun for the Territorial Army the cartridge, shell, and means of ignition were separate, and there were three operations required for loading as compared with one, and it was that fact which reduced the rapidity of firing. Moreover, the result of the adoption of the very ingenious carriage made the gun more complicated than that of the quick firing-gun supplied to the Regular Forces. This handicapped comparatively untrained troops. It had another serious disadvantage. The right hon. Gentleman in answer to his Question had spoken about the gun as being more mobile, but he found that the gun as now altered was much heavier than it was before; it was, in fact, no lighter than the 18-pounder quick-firing gun supplied to the Regular Army.
  MR. HALDANE: It is more mobile because it carrries a good deal more ammunition.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he could not admit that a larger amount of ammunition was the same thing as increased mobility. It had nothing to do with mobility; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's contention about the gun's increased mobility fell to the ground. Then the gun had not a defensive shield such as was supplied to the guns for the Regular Army.
  MR. HALDANE: It will have.
  ME. ARTHUE LEEsaid he was very glad to hear that. Its absence would have a very bad moral effect on untrained troops when they had to fight. To sum up, he admitted to the full that the 15-pjunder converted gun was a much better weapon than it had been, but was still considerably inferior to the gun supplied to the Regular Army. Its effective range was much less, and it would be outranged and outclassed by the guns with which it would have to fight. He must here relate his own personal experience of the lamentable moral effect that the equipping, of untrained troops with inferior weapons was bound to produce in war. During the campaign in Cuba he witnessed Volunteer regiments absolutely demoralised, because they had been sent to the front with inferior weapons to the Regular troop'. Yet 1hey also had been told that the weapon which they had was most efficient and better suited, perhaps, to their requirements than any other, and that although the range was a little less, yet the bullet was more powerful. But, as soon as they came under fire, the effect of this was that there inexperienced troops were beaten before the fight really commenced. He thought that was the universal experience of war. But to return for a moment to the book which the right hon. Gentleman had recommended, and to its most interesting conclusions on the question of Home defence, Colonel Callwell said that what we wanted, in view of the character of this country, were mountain guns and howitzers. This field gun did not approximate either of those. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to accept the advice of this distinguished officer? Was he going to provide mountain guns and howitzers for the Territorial Amy?
  MR. HALDANE: I think they are included.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give them some more definite information as to the weapons with which the Force was to be armed. On this point, he ventured to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, both
  1564
  from the point of morale, and of fighting efficiency, that if they were going to have this Territorial Artillery at all, it should be armed with a gun at least equal to the gun of the Regular troops, alongside which they would have to fight. After all, those extra guns would be invaluable as a Reserve; they would facilitate cooperation in war between the Regular Army and the Territorial Force, because they would avoid the confusion of two kinds of ammunition, and altogether he thought it was a point to which the right hon. Gentleman must address his attention. The Territorial Army was bound to fail in war unless it was adequately trained and efficiently armed. In addition, he thought it was bound to fail in peace unless it was adequately, and even generously financed, and that entirely by the State. He did not believe it was possible to count upon any extensive private financial aid being forthcoming for the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. He was already asking a great deal. The service in the Territorial Force, and perhaps even more, the service on the County Associations was very onerous. It was being given at present without stint and particularly by that class, the landowners of the country, who were the object of special attack by some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends behind him. But there was a growing determination, so far as he could judge, in the County Associations, to resist any kind of private subscriptions for the Territorial Force. As far as he could see the citizen was perfectly willing to give his service, but the State must foot the Bill, and foot it amply. He believed the right hon. Gentleman's scheme would collapse from sheer want of men unless there was some-more generous financing in the direction, first, of providing separation allowance to all married men in the ranks, and not merely to non-commissioned officers; and, secondly, that the one shilling a head which was to be placed to the credit of the commanding officers must be expendable at their discretion, after consultation with their men. At present there was undoubtedly wide-spread alarm in the force, owing to the uncertainty as to what it was the War Office was going to ask of the Territorial soldier. He was talking the other day with a Volunteer

  1565
  officer, who told Mm that 100 men out of the 113 in his company, as soon as they saw the attestation form, announced that they would not join the Territorial Force. It was only by giving them a supper, with liberal refreshments, that he persuaded them to defer their decision, and they promised to wait until the new attestation form was issued. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bring it out at the earliest possible moment and that it would be of a reasonable character. If it was not, the Territorial Army, which was the right hon. Gentleman's baby, would, he was afraid, not survive its bringing into the world. With regard to the very important question of the shortage of officers, the deficiency which the right hon. Gentleman disclosed was very alarming, 5,000 at home, and 3,000 in India. This was a pressing problem, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to replace that deficiency were very optimistic, and, he feared, ineffective, to produce a class of officer sufficiently trained. The qualifications which the right hon. Gentleman proposed were so sketchy that they would really give these officers very little military value, if any at all. Take his scheme of à la suite officers. The right hon. Gentleman, who was a great linguist, was adopting a French expression to describe a German idea, and when he translated it into English it lost the whole of its substance. What was this à la suite system which he suggested as a parallel to that obtaining in Germany? There they allowed a young man who had satisfied the most severe educational, physical and social tests, to serve for one year, as a private, In the Regular Army as an "ein-jahrige" Volunteer. In that year he was spared nothing of the tremendous training which the Prussian private soldier has to undergo. After he had again passed the educational, physical, and social tests, he was given a commission as second lieutenant in the Landwehr. Every year after that he was called out for service with the same fully - mobilised regiment in which he would have to serve in the event of war. Yet, after all this, it was a matter of complaint in Germany that these officers were not sufficiently trained. The right hon. Gentleman's proposed scheme
  1566
  of à la suite officers was a mere caricature of what he had described. It would give no serious training at all. The right hon. Gentleman was going to take young gentlemen from public schools and the universities, who, comparatively speaking, had been playing at soldiers in the Volunteer corps of those institutions, and then, as the result of that very limited experience, he was going to let them off eight months out of the twelve, and was going to attach them for four months to a battalion at Aldershot. This, no doubt, would be a very interesting and enjoyable experience for them. They would do a certain amount of work, tempered with weekend visits to town, and he hoped he would not be thought wanting in respect if he suggested that they might be called "The Wild Oats Contingent." At any rate, they would have little, if any, serious value as officers, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stiffen up the conditions for these Reserve officers, if he wished them to be in any way effective. In conclusion he would only say that whilst the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman no doubt were admirable, yet so far he had only reduced the substance of our defensive forces and offered us a shadow in exchange. The Government was mainly intent upon a reduction of Army expenditure, but the reduction they had effected in money was extremely slight, while the reduction in men was extremely serious. While the right hon. Gentleman had initiated a vast scheme dealing with both the Regular and Auxiliary Forces, they had yet to reap the projected benefits of it. While he did not wish to taunt the Secretary for War with swapping horses when crossing the stream, he did feel that the right hon. Gentleman was open to the charge of having hamstrung both his noble steeds as a preliminary to essaying the passage.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the non-professional cavalry and. artillery were a point of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman which they had seized on last year as being the touchstone to the value of the new proposals. The non-professional cavalry had already disappeared and with the exception of

  1567
  the Irish Yeomanry the scheme of attaching any non-regular cavalry to the expeditionary force for any purpose whatever had been abandoned. As regards field artillery, those of them who had for a great number of years advocated the trial of the experiment of a partly non-professional artillery, that was to say, of the Lancashire system, had always shrunk from the attempt to create a Volunteer Artillery, purely Volunteer, or even a Militia Field Artillery, purely Militia. They had suggested a mixed basis or a Militia basis with a longer training than the ordinary Militia training. These experiments, of which the late Secretary for War preferred the Volunteer to the Militia and of which some of them rather preferred the Militia or Lancashire experiment, were stopped by the present Secretary of State, and he proposed to substitute a Field Artillery on the territorial system which had been described with a certain necessary amount of vagueness up to now. The very deep doubts that many of them entertained with regard to what was being done on this subject forced them to give special attention to the matter. With regard to other matters, they were very much in the position in which they had been for some time past, but this was one which was extremely pressing at this moment because the rural Volunteer was being swept away. The whole infantry of his own Parliamentary division, for instance, which brought a great many recruits to the Regular Army, had been abolished, and the only thing that remained in the whole division, with the exception of a few troopers of the Gloucestershire Hussars, was Garrison Artillery, which he presumed would either be abolished or turned into Field Artillery. An hon. Member had told him the other night, that he was called upon by his County Association to put down two battalions of Infantry Volunteers and to create Field Artillery. That gentleman's brother, who was in the Regular Artillery, had informed him that the latter task was impossible of performance. It was a very pressing matter all over the country just now. It was a pity that in the answer to which reference had just now been made the technical word, "quick-firing"
  1568
  should be used of the converted gun. In the technical sense it was not a quick-firing gun. It did not answer to the definition of a quick-firing gun, so that it was rather a mistaken name. In regard to weight, of course, our gun, even of the Regulars, was the heaviest of all guns. We had adapted a heavier field gun than, any other Power, and all the other Powers, concurred in thinking our Regular gun far too heavy. Now he came to the matter he wished to deal with in connection with this subject. The discipline of our Horse and Field Artillery had. triumphed over the difficulties of the South African War. There was no portion of the British Army which had shown such a consistent discipline and. courage in South Africa as did the Regular Artillery, and they came through the War on universal admission triumphantly. The reduction of that force was a reduction which prima facie should not take place until they saw their way to the new scheme by which it was to be replaced. It was a great pity that the experiment which was begun some years ago was not continued and that a proper trial was not made of the Lancashire scheme. Here again, as in many matters, there was no party capital to be made out of it. A large sum was taken year by year in the Estimates for increasing the three batteries to nine, but it was never done. Again with the mountain gun, the Monmouthshire mountain battery was abolished by the late Government, and many of them raised a violent protest against the change at the time it was made. But there had been a tendency to represent the retention of the number of men of the Field Artillery by his right hon. friend as waiting until he had something to put in its place. They could trace the extent to which the artillery had been retained rather accurately by the number of artillery horses, and in all previous changes they had been accustomed to take the number of horses as the test of the condition in which they were kept up. In recent years the Artillery horses in India had been constantly increased. A very large increase had taken place in the last two years for which they had figures. In this country they had been, constantly decreased. His right hon. friend had ninety-nine batteries of Field Artillery at home. He was going to keep

  1569
  eighty-one of them as four-gun batteries, horsed, and eighteen as two-gun, horsed. He kept all, therefore, on what they used to call the lower establishment, and eighteen on an establishment lower still. As for the Artillery to be substituted, for this they had the right hon. Gentleman's own words as a test. He had said several times that no Artillery was of any use except the very best, and these words had been repeated by several officers of distinction who took part in two debates at the United Service Institution, one on the Canadian system and one on the Swiss system of Field Artillery; There it was pointed out that a very much larger amount of training both in Canada and in Switzerland was given to Field Artillery than to the ordinary Militia, and the increasing need for it was obvious when they remembered the difficulties of that indirect fire which was now almost the only artillery fir in certain countries, and when they remembered the claim which the French had rightly made to have a four or five years start over Germany by the mere fact of their knowledge of the quick-firing gun. That claim was acknowledged by the Germans, and there were German military writers of much distinction who had called attention to the permanent inferiority in which they stood. The importance of artillery was shown by the fact that the French, who had a diminishing proportion of the population and of the money that Germany had, were nevertheless going to increase their artillery by no less than a third, bringing their artillery in proportion to their Army to a far higher strength than had ever been attained before by any Army in the world. He had asked the other day whether even the short training of the Field Artillery now to be created was a real training. Were even the number of drills set down real drills? He had quoted recently the addresses given by two commanding officers and one adjutant, as to the number of these drills. The whole attempt of these officers was to persuade the men that there was nothing in it and that, having been nominal garrison gunners or infantry private Volunteers, they could easily assume the new responsibilities. They were told, for instance, that they
  1570
  would not be fined if, by force of circumstances, they were debarred from attending drills. Any genuine excuse would be accepted. No commanding officer would exercise pressure on the men. They would be in the same position as before. For recruits, the number of drills was to be forty-five, of which thirty must be put in before camp, but sometimes they would get three drills in one day. One of the officers asked what provision would be made for the drivers getting in their drills. Of course that was a most essential point. The driving accounted for the larger portion of the skilled or trained men in the artillery. There were some, of course, who were more highly trained still, but they were fewer in number. The Colonel's reply was that forty-five drills were required in the first year, but that three might be put in in one day. The adjutant said drivers would get a drill if they put in an appearance, and that presence at lectures would count also. Camp was only for eight days, but if a man particularly wished it it might be extended to fifteen days, and there would be ample time for the men to get in the required drills. These reassuring promises to the Volunteers where they were changing to Field Artillery when they had had no experience whatever of artillery, except a certain amount of garr son artillery work, led him to think that they would not be able to attain a high standard, even a Militia standard, for this Field Artillery. He did not believe in invasion or the probability of war, but they were going to spend a great deal of money on the creation of this Force and from any point of view it was necessary that the experiment should be tried under circumstances likely to give satisfactory results. Supposing the artillery were to be employed, as was intended, against raids and in the defence of fortified river mouths, it was always assumed that there would be Territorial Field Artillery available, as well as the-Garrison Artillery in the batteries on the spot. For such a service as that even they would require an amount of training, to get any results worthy of their expenditure, such as this system was not likely to provide. In the attempt to create a Divisional system with its proportion of Field Artillery they were getting rid

  1571
  of Infantry Volunteers, who wished to remain in districts where a great deal of valuable service was given and where a spirit was kept up which was the very essence of the Volunteer movement, and which they would lose. It was, of course, much easier to get the men together in towns, but what would be the effect of these proposals upon that spirit, which they wished to retain, and upon the recruiting for the Regulars and the Yeomanry? He was afraid it would mean the total extinction in all the rural counties of the existing Infantry Volunteers. What had happened in his own division he imagined was happening all over the country in the rural parts. In his division of Gloucestershire they had three companies of infantry, but one had already come under the Welsh scheme. It was too far for the Gloucestershire men to go, and the result was that they had been disbanded. Only that day he had received the information that the Gloucestershire County Committee had disbanded the other two companies, so that they were now left with no Territorial Infantry at all in his division. In the rural parts good results could not be obtained so cheaply as in the more closely concentrated districts. For this reason, he expected that his Artillery would also be disbanded. They would not be able to get the same men to come into their Field Artillery, and it was idle to rely upon the chance of getting the same men to come into the new Territorial Artillery. The present diminution in the strength of the artillery, in spite of the retention of 2,000 men, was, he thought, clear from the figures as to artillery horses. The total of Horse and Field Artillery horses at home had fallen off very fast indeed. Last year they had fallen to 9,880, and they had fallen this year by between 800 and 900, and, in addition, they must deduct, he thought, 1,500 as being admittedly unfit. That fall had taken place before anything had been created to put in its place. Infantry were being got rid of, and the proposed experiment, which had already broken down in the matter of attaching Yeomanry as divisional cavalry to the Regular Army in the field, was destined to failure as regards artillery if pursued on the same plan.
  MR. BELLOCsaid the remarks he was about to make were intended for the purpose of affording some suggestions upon vital points touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. In the first place, by the turn the debate was taking it was clear that the House appreciated, as he thought all weighty opinion in Europe appreciated, that artillery was the point. Gunners were often amused by the other arms of the service, and nowhere more than in Germany, of exaggerating the importance of their arm. He could not see how any man of historical reading, still less any man with a knowledge of contemporary Europe, could doubt that artillery was invariably the point. In the future, other things being equal, in a contest between two rival forces the artillery would more than ever be the deciding thing. In the case of the particular Auxiliary Force which they were proposing to establish the question before them was whether the artillery was sufficient for its purpose or not. Nobody would deny that if this country had a bottomless purse and unlimited resources, with a different history and past, they would prefer a Regular Force and that force only. They had, however, to recognise the fact that it was proposed to form an Auxiliary Force and that the artillery for that force should also be auxiliary. He knew that there was a great deal to be said against that proposition. For example, a somewhat parallel case— though not strictly parallel—was Austria-Hungary, where there was a system of Militia Reserve, but the artillery was kept professional. In Switzerland, the artillery received a more extensive and regular training than the infantry. There were circumstances in this country, and chiefly social circumstances, which would probably make for the strengthening of an Auxiliary Force if the artillery of that force remained auxiliary. So long as they depended upon an Auxiliary Force, with the present temper of the English people and the comparatively small choice offered, all these things probably made it wise that our Auxiliary Force should be homogeneous, and that the artillery should be auxiliary like

  1573
  the rest. What they had to consider next was whether for the moment the artillery proposed passed a certain minimum of efficiency, and when they were dealing with what he would not call a makeshift, but a second best, that was the point they had to decide. He agreed that it was not all they wanted, but they had to consider whether what was proposed in regard to the artillery passed that minimum of efficiency as far as personnel and materiel were concerned. As to the personnel, he had said before in that House, and he thought it was the very generally received opinion, that more training for the artillery would be a good thing, and especially for the drivers. He was not going to return to that subject at any length, but they could not make a driver in forty-five drills, and they could not make a driver at all with lectures. The training, in his opinion, was insufficient, and there was a very strong case indeed for increasing the efficiency of the personnel. How that would fall upon the financial side of the scheme he could not say, but if one had a perfectly free hand in the matter, the first thing one would think about would be an increase in the efficiency of the personnel, which he thought ought to be kept auxiliary. As to the materiel, there were, he thought, strong points of criticism against the converted 15-pounder. The weight behind the team was, with its ammunition, over 40 cwt. That was too heavy, and so was the 18-pounder. He believed that the 18-pounder was designed in a hurry after the lesson of the South African war, and before that lesson had been sufficiently digested. But since that time they had had the lesson of the Manchurian campaign, in which the Japanese Artillery, of which the initial velocity was wholly inferior to the Russian, had the great advantage of lightness, and that probably made the chief difference between the two artilleries. But if they complained of the weight of the converted 15-pounder, they must complain, also, of the weight of the 18-pounder. There was no great advantage in the substitution of the one for the other in the matter of weight behind the team. The converted 15-pounder did not use fixed ammunition, and that was a disadvantage which
  1574
  it was difficult to exaggerate. The whole feeling of a man who used fixed ammunition was different from that of the man who used ammunition in which the ignition charge and projectile were in three separate pieces. If they took men out of the Auxiliary Force—which was not at all an improbable circumstance—and tried to turn them into trained artillery, the fact that they were not in the habit of using fixed ammunition would be a very serious drawback. Granting the disadvantages of which he had spoken, and which might be taken as temporary, no one doubted that they would eventually have to convert their limbers and waggons for the use of fixed ammunition, and the whole thing turned upon whether they got sufficient rapidity of fire, and, in his opinion, rapidity of fire would be everything in modern warfare. The whole thing turned on the question whether they could get rapidity of firing sufficiently. The House knew that there was considerable controversy on the Continent for many years as to the advantage of this rapid firing. There was a considerable school in Germany who denied that it was an advantage, but they had been converted. We also had been converted, though very tardily. This was not a matter suitable to debate, but by way of affirmation of that view, if his personal opinion was worth anything, he would state that rapidity of fire would be everything in the moment of war. The results of the 15-pounder gun compared with the regular gun as 12 to 18. The House would agree with him that rapidity of fire depended more on the personnel of the Army than anything else. They might have a gun that would nominally get rid of thirty projectiles a minute, but the coolness of the man who was laying it counted for more in the rapidity of firing than anything else. The fact that one gun had a somewhat slower rate of fire than another was not the important point. What we wanted was the proper personnel to work the guns. As to the question of range, he thought it was the experience of all those who had seen an actual campaign that when they got beyond 4,000 yards it did not very much matter with Field Artillery what the range was. The

  1575
  fact that the 15-pounder had more initial velocity than the 18-pounder was for our climate and under any circumstances in which it was likely to be used comparatively unimportant. What happened in the Manchurian campaign was a stronger point in regard to the question of range than any theorising on the matter. The fact that the converted 15-pounder had a shorter range than the 18-pounder did not seem to matter, and the fact that the projectile was of less weight seemed to him to be actually an advantage. He did not think the weapon, which was merely a transition weapon, was a matter of very great importance, but the training of the personnel did seem to him to he a matter of grave and immediate importance.
  THE SECRETARY OP STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I do not rise for the purpose of replying generally to the broad points which have been raised in the debate. I desire to answer the questions which have been raised in regard to the artillery. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should deal with these points now. The first is a broad one, and it has been admirably dealt with by my hon. friend the Member for South Salford. We had to face the broad i question whether it was desirable to give the Territorial Force artillery at all. My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean rather considers that it would not be desirable.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I am in favour of a mixed system.
  MR. HALDANE: I am not sure how far the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite goes—whether he would take the Austrian Militia system of giving Regular artillery to the Volunteer Field Force. On that I have to say that the Government took a very strong view, and I myself took a very strong view. I do not believe that you can put heart into a Territorial Force raised on a volunteer basis unless you show that you are relying upon them for all arms. And how are you going to get the finest quality of men unless you give them a chance? The Field Artillery is recruited
  1576
  from big towns in the main like Glasgow and Sheffield, where you have artisans who are very highly technically trained men familiar with the working of the complicated mechanism that modern guns possess, and who are far in advance by their previous civilian training of the average man whom you take into the ranks and train. Sheffield and Glasgow have been particularly to the fore in the past, and they are showing a disposition to lead in the future. I admit that I have no hope of getting artillery as good as you could get if you gave men a very long training and took them together, but I do think it is worth while in making a beginning to try and get the best civilian talent in the country. I do not believe you will get a Territorial Army unless you make it an Army complete in all arms. The very essence of the plan is to bring in all arms and have as complete an organisation as you can, and as like to the organisation of the Regular Army. It is perfectly true that it is difficult to get people to give a great deal of time to this matter, and that the training for Field Artillery makes a great strain upon the time of the average volunteer. But if the hon. and gallant Member opposite had seen, as I have seen, the keenness with which the artisans in the towns have come out and manned their batteries, worked at them, taken a pride in them, studied their mechanism, and gone out into the field with Regular artillery with a full desire to show that they can do as well as the Regular troops, he would realise that there is a stimulus behind these men which makes up for a good deal of the lack of opportunity. We have considered it worth while to make the experiment, and our only desire is to ask for as much training as we can get consistently with the civilian occupations of these men. I have spoken so far of the personnel.
  I come now to the materiel, and I think there has been a good deal of exaggeration as to the shortcomings of the gun. I admit at once that it is not as fine a weapon as our own new field gun, which is second to none in the world. I am glad to say we are ahead in our field gun— I will not say of France—but of most of the other Powers. But when you compare the converted 15-pounder with, the German gun it is very instructive.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is this the latest German gun?
  MR. HALDANE: It is the gun that the German Army have. The German gun has an effective range of 5,500 yards, our converted 15-pounder of 5,900 yards, so that we are ahead in that. 'The muzzle velocity of the German gun is 1,525, and of our gun 1,581. In regard to the number of bullets in the shrapnel, ours is 230, and the Germans 300, and as regards the weight of projectiles, ours is 14 against the Germans 15. That is a very good comparison, for you cannot say that a gun which has a greater muzzle velocity and a greater effective range is deficient when compared with another. But even admitting—which I think is questionable—that the German gun is a better gun, it is not very largely a better gun, and it cannot be said that you are arming the Volunteer Force with an imperfect gun. I would like to arm the Volunteer Force with the 18-pounder, but I suppose the House realises that that is a process which would run away with a great deal of money.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Never mind that.
  MR. HALDANE: I would like not to mind it, but there are other people who would mind me, and very properly, if I were guilty of any such extravagance. "We are beginning by giving the citizen Army a weapon which is good and efficient, but you are not bound to give it the best weapon all at once. Now I come to the other point about this gun. It has a more rapid rate of fire. Of course, it has not fixed ammunition, and the other gun has fixed ammunition, and the result is that, working at high pressure, you can probably get twenty rounds out of the 18-pounder for twelve that you can get out of the new gun. But to get that rate at all it is a fancy performance. It can be done, but you cannot do it in the aimed firing. But when you come to taking aim as an ordinary thing the approximation is probably closer, for the time that it takes to adjust the shrapnel limits the use of the gun. Therefore, no doubt you do get materially quicker fire when you have fixed ammuni-
  1578
  tion. Fixed ammunition is an extremely stimulating thing, but the disadvantage is not so overwhelming as to put the gun with compound ammunition out of the category of a good and effective gun in the field. Fixed ammunition is heavier to carry. In the case of the converted 15-pounder there are forty-six rounds in 42 cwts., and in the case of the 18-pounder there are twenty-four rounds in 42 cwts. I do not deny that the fixed ammunition, when it is got up to the gun, is much more satisfactory for the purpose of quick firing in large quantities.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in what way the converted 15-pounder is more mobile than the 18-pounder?
  MR. HALDANE: Simply because more ammunition can be carried with fewer wagons. What is the use of mobile guns if you have not mobile ammunition? The two go together. I agree that the question of mountain artillery has been neglected in this country. In order to meet that difficulty the Government are arming the Highland Division Artillery with mountain guns. With regard to the Regular Artillery, on which I have been challenged, when the Government came into office we found a state of things which I am sure could not have been anticipated, but which shows the difficulty of military organisation. There are nominally on paper, ninety-nine batteries of field artillery at home, but you could not put more than forty-two batteries in the field, because no provision had been made for the increased number of men of the ammunition columns. No Power, so far as I know, possesses in its divisional ammunition columns a large proportion of highly-trained soldiers. They put in any sort of people who have sufficient training to go into the ammunition columns. The Government propose to do better than that. The first question we asked ourselves was, what number of guns is wanted for a field force composed of all or nearly all the troops which we have at home for the purpose of the Cardwell system, and organised in six divisions? Six divisions so

  1579
  organised are a much larger expeditionary force than we have hitherto been in a position to send abroad. What the Government aimed at doing was to arm that force with just so much artillery as would enable us to mobilise that force effectively, and not merely on paper. From the ninety-nine existing batteries of field artillery we took sixty-six batteries, including howitzers. We propose to form the remaining thirty-three batteries into training brigades at a low establishment, and to train people on a Militia basis so as to provide the 15,000 men who are wanted for the ammunition columns and the wastage of war.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Are the thirty-three batteries mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman to be taken for the Artillery Special Reserve, and not for the Territorial Force?
  MR. HALDANE: For the Artillery Special Reserve only.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There will be sixty-six battalions left. If fifty-four batteries are taken for the expeditionary force, what will be done with the balance?
  MR. HALDANE: The sixty-six batteries include howitzers, just as the ninety-nine batteries include howitzers. I believe there will be fifty-four batteries of field artillery and twelve of howitzers. The training brigades, if they are successful, will provide 15,000 men. They are at work, and into them will be converted the Garrison Militia Artillery which have ceased to be of use and which have a personnel of over 12,000men. The purpose is to provide, not for the Territorial Force, but for the Regular Artillery. The Government have gone on the principle of keeping the artillery of the Territorial Force and of the Regular Force absolutely distinct. To use one for the other would be to go back to the old state of confusion. We cannot get military efficiency unless we have clear principles, and clear principles demand that we should not use what belongs to one force for another force. That being so, we are producing sixty-six batteries of field artillery, including howitzers, to be the artillery complement of the six divisions of the expeditionary force.
  1580
  The point made against me is, "What is left?" Why should there be anything left? Nobody contemplates that the whole of the six divisions shall be sent abroad unless we feel that we can rely upon the Navy and the Territorial Force to protect us against invasion. If there is reason to apprehend invasion we can keep two divisions at home. That will give us a much larger and more effective force than we have ever had before, because it is a force as large as two Army corps, and complete in all arms. This force will be provided with artillery and ammunition columns, and with six months wastage of war, which we have never had before. I am speaking, not of that which has been accomplished, but of what the Government hope will be produced by the machinery that is at work. I do not pretend that these things have been worked out. We are discussing a plan; and the most perfect plan is a plan that will give us, not only ammunition columns, but also wastage of war. That is what we will get by turning thirty-three batteries into training brigades. Therefore this is an infinitely better arrangement than the old one. If anybody asks where should we be if we were invaded and wanted Regular Artillery and our six divisions were away, my answer would be, where should we have been if we had sent our forty-two batteries of artillery abroad and the remainder of the guns of the ninety-nine batteries? Under the new system we shall be better off by twenty-four batteries than under the old system. We shall have a much larger expeditionary force, and if we apprehend danger we shall not send the whole of it abroad. We shall be able to do as much as before and still preserve our safety. The Government wish to work the artillery of the Territorial Force and of the Regular Force independently of each, other, except in certain points where we have specially connected them. To mix up the artillery of the two forces would be a cardinal sin against that principle.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he was highly pleased to-hear the statement which the right hon. the Secretary of State for War had made with regard to the artillery of the Territorial.

  1581
  Force. They were cordially indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for maintaining with difficulty the view he had adopted in the face of expert opinion. The Volunteers had done what they could with regard to the artillery and were willing to try and do more. He referred particularly to the efforts which had been made by the people of Sheffield and Glasgow. But he would not be doing right if he did not tell the right hon. Gentleman that there was a little feeling in Sheffield about the battery of horse artillery being taken away and put into a rural district in the West Riding. The experts, of whom the Secretary for War spoke, said that the artificers who resided in Sheffield would not be able to take part in the battery drills. That was a question which the Secretary for War should look into again. He thought that the Secretary for War owed some apology to the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Member for the City of Edinburgh with regard to the whole cost of the Territorial Force. These Members told the right hon. Gentleman last year that the cost of the Territorial Force would be largely in excess of that of the Yeomanry and Volunteers; and the hon. Member for Shropshire told him that his calculations were erroneous. To-day the Secretary for War had admitted in full that the new Territorial Force was going to cost a great deal more per man than the old Yeomanry and Volunteers. That was a very different statement indeed from the assurances given last year on the strength of which the House passed the Territorial Army Act. No one could accuse the Secretary of State for War of intentionally misleading the House, but still the fact remained that he came down now and said that all his prophecies of economy had been falsified and the force, it appeared, was going to cost a very great deal more per man than the old Yeomanry and Volunteers. It was to be hoped that the country would get an improved value for this extra cost, and that they would get as many men as they did in the old Volunteers and the Yeomanry, but at the present time it did not appear that they would. He hoped that the extraordinary old attestation forms which went
  1582
  out would be cancelled, but he did not know whether they had been altered or not. He had not himself seen or heard any authoritative declaration on the subject.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the new form had been in the Vote Office since Monday afternoon.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTwas glad to hear that the document had been, withdrawn. It was high time it was, as it was such a foolish one. How it could possibly have been issued he could not conceive, but it was a great waste of money to have 500,000 of them printed and sent round and then withdrawn. In connection with the Territorial Force he hoped that in the future before any document of such a character was issued, the greatest care would be taken not to put into it ridiculous things about imprisonment and hard labour, religion and baptism, and all sorts of things. He had not seen the new form, but an hon. friend near him said that hard labour was in it still; it was a great pity if that was the case. He wished to know whether the organisation of the Territorial Force in London would be continued under the old system of brigades, under colonels of the several regiments of Guards. Of course, nobody had the slightest fault to find with regard to those gallant officers who had always taken the greatest interest in the Volunteers, and had done all they could to advance their efficiency. The object of the new organisation was that the brigadiers should be with their brigades if they were mobilised. Would not the colonels of Guards in the event of mobilisation be required by their own regiments?
  MR. HALDANE: No; their duties in their regiments can be performed by substitutes. These officers will go to their brigades of the Territorial Force and command them.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will they receive tho same pay as the brigadiers in. the country?
  MR. HALDANE: No; because in peace-time these officers still have to

  1583
  Perform their duties in connection with their regiments.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he understood that the brigadiers in the country received an allowance of £150 while these colonels of Guards got £800 a year.
  MR. HALDANE: As colonels in the Guards.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTinquired if that was to continue, and if a war occurred they were to give up their colonelcies of the Guards and go as brigadiers of the Territorial Force.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid it seemed to be rather an extravagant way of managing that a brigadier should receive £150 a year in the Provinces, and £800 a year as a colonel of the Guards in London. If the right hon. Gentleman did not look closely into the expenses of every detail he would find the cost of the Territorial Army would very much exceed the cost of the old Volunteers and Yeomanry. The right hon. Gentleman had a paper scheme of cavalry, infantry, and artillery in exact numbers, no redundancy here or there, but whether he would find that the officers and men would come forward so readily under such a system was he thought very doubtful indeed. But whatever he did the right hon. Gentleman would have to watch very carefully the registration of the force and the expenses, and not make a difference between the expense of carrying it on in the counties and the Metropolis, and members of the Territorial Force should have equal opportunities of advancement in all parts of the country.
  MR. BENNETTsaid he would like, with the permission of the House, to refer for a few minutes to a question already discussed at some length on these Estimates, he meant the question of the shortage of officers. He had known from personal experience how difficult it was to have to command a company of Volunteers for years without the help of any subaltern
  1584
  officer; but apart from this note of personal grievance, he felt sure that every Member of this House would agree with him that the question was one of really vital importance to the efficiency and success of our Army. He had no doubt that the figures given by the Secretary of State for War were accurate, but he did not quite understand how the right hon. Gentleman arrived at them. He took for granted that the shortage of 5,000 officers for the Home Forces did not apply in any great degree to the infantry battalions of the Line, for most infantry regiments appeared to be fairly complete in that respect, and in the case of regiments which had lost battalions through disbandment, there were a number of supernumerary officers waiting outside, so to speak, and ready to join as any opportunity for re-absorption presented itself. The startling deficiency of officers in the Brigade of Guards appeared to have been made good. The shortage in question therefore seemed to exist mainly in cavalry regiments the Special Reserve, and Territorial battalions. The lack of an adequate supply of officers for cavalry regiments seemed, as usual, to be due almost entirely to the expense of living in such regiments. And, as long as present social conditions continued, he did not see how life in a cavalry regiment could possibly be made comfortable for a poor man, even if official and necessary expenses were cut down to the lowest possible figure. So far as any deficiency in the commissioned ranks affected infantry battalions it was due first and chiefly to the absence of a "living wage." He had known scores of men at the University and elsewhere who had been compelled to abandon any thought of military service on those grounds. Young men of promise and ability naturally thought twice before they embarked on a career which provided them with £90 at the start, and £200 when they had risen to captain's rank. That question of the inadequate payments made to an officer would have to be faced by the country sooner or later; in that case, as in all cases, if the country wanted a really good article they ought to pay a reasonable price for it. Any small and paltry increment in the pay would be useless; in fact, glad as he and other Members of this House were to see the private soldier in the receipt of more money, he felt rather sceptical as to the real efficiency

  1585
  of this increased pay in the matter of securing additional recruits. Most officers who had experience of recruiting would, he thought, admit that not one recruit out of a dozen when he enlisted cared about or knew about the payment which he would receive. This question of pay was not really one of the most operative causes in the supply of recruits for the Regular Army. On the other hand, no heavy increase in an officer's pay seemed, at any rate for the moment, to be expected in view of the swollen Estimates. A second cause which probably tended to act as a deterrent was the discomfort and heavy expense entailed upon married officers from constant removals and changes, and further, the lack of houses for themselves and their families at military centres like Tidworth and the Curragh. Further, it was probably fair to say that the unjust obloquy sometimes directed against our officers in newspapers and public utterances acted as a source of discouragement. Officers were frequently spoken of as if they were hopelessly lazy, self-indulgent, and inefficient. They all remembered the unworthy epigram of the South African war period, "Lions led by asses." And a noble Lord, who was intimately connected with military affairs and ought to have known better, alluded the other day to subalterns who were to be found after one o'clock reading a novel with their feet on the fender. He ventured, however, to think that most military messes would be drawn blank in the afternoon, and even if a tired subaltern were found at such an hour reading a novel it was quite likely that he had already been hard at work from 6 a.m. or 7 a.m. onwards—an hour at which his noble critic had not yet emerged from his bed—or had even spent the preceding night at some damp spot on Salisbury Plain or the environs of Aldershot. He would, however, like to join issue on one point with the exceedingly interesting speech of the hon. Member for South East Durham, who had maintained that the alleged stringency of our Army examinations kept many suitable young men from joining the service. The hon. Member had spoken of examinations as a method of weeding out incapables—or words to that effect—but a qualifying examination like that of the Army Entrance had of course a positive aspect—it guaranteed to the nation and
  1586
  the taxpayer a certain standard of ability in the young men who were to train our troops and control our forces. The hon' Member had described our young officers as "paragons of virtue and knowledge," but, so far at any rate as knowledge was concerned, such a description was really extravagant. He had acted as an examiner for many years in the entrance examination for Woolwich and Sandhurst, and he could assure the House that the standard of that examination, while quite creditable and adequate, could not be fairly described as unduly high. The young men who succeeded in it appeared to correspond with, say, the rather better class of pass men at Oxford or Cambridge; and as regards the mathematical test to which the hon. Member alluded very few indeed of the Infantry and Cavalry Cadets took the more advanced paper, and the general standard was very far removed from that of the humblest honour man in the class lists of the Universities. As to examinations for promotion, such tests were, of course, always irksome to any man after twenty-five, but nevertheless he thought that few thoughtful soldiers would seriously advocate their abolition; in some cases, indeed, if these further examinations did not exist, an officer would never open another military book after he joined his regiment. The familiar statement had been made in a previous speech that owing to the severe educational tests at present in vogue the great Duke of Wellington were he alive to-day would be unable to enter the service. He probably would not, and if he succeeded he would be of very little use. These analogies from the early part of last century were quite valueless. Doubtless badly educated officers and men fought well in the Peninsula or at Waterloo, but then they fought against armies as badly educated as themselves. The hon. Member for S.E. Durham had told the House that he had come across highly educated men who could not fight. What inference did he wish them to draw—that uneducated soldiers were more efficient than educated ones? He sincerely hoped that that popular athletic fetish — the man with a minimum of brains, a modicum of character, and a great deal of muscle— would not be unduly worshipped at the War Office. To recommend any lowering of the standard of military education seemed to him a veritable counsel of

  1587
  despair in an age when warfare was daily becoming more scientific, and specialised knowledge was, so to speak, in the spirit of the times. Could anybody imagine such a proposal being made at Berlin or Tokio? The military value of badly educated enthusiasts was not at all borne out by experience. The so-called "lessons of the South African War" had long ceased to interest the British public, but after all the fact remained that the brunt of such carnage as took place in that war at Colenso, Belmont, Graspan, Magersfontein, Spion Kop and Paarde-berg, was borne almost exclusively by British Regular troops, led by trained and educated officers, while irregular officers possessing equal courage, but the merest modicum of training were, as a general rule, from a military standpoint, hopelessly inferior. As regards the supply of officers for the Special Reserve and the Territorial Army, he thought that the grant of £20 in the former case would prove most useful, and would often be a real inducement to a young man of limited means. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme for securing a supply of officers from fourteen Universities was highly ingenious, and he hoped it would work well. But there was one rather disconcerting fact. Something like 50 per cent, of the young men who served in the University corps at Oxford—the same was probably true of Cambridge—were intending to take Holy Orders. The bacillus of warlike enthusiasm seemed to find a peculiarly acceptable resting place in the clerical organism. The University corps usually numbered some half-dozen clergymen among its officers, and he considered that the presence of young clerics in red jackets at a military mess was ridiculous and somewhat depressing. He was afraid that that fact—the large percentage of future parsons in a University corps would seriously upset any calculations as to the supply of officers from such a source. At any rate he sincerely hoped that not a penny of public money would be spent on any young man who, after his period of training, intended to take orders. No less a sum than £8 10s. a year could, under the new regulations, be spent on a man who in a year or two would exchange his red jacket for a black coat and so become quite useless — he meant, of course, from a military point of view. A great deal of nebulous and ill-informed talk was indulged in with
  1588
  reference to the question of promotion from the ranks. The hon. Member for Stoke felt strongly upon this point, but then he was a confirmed optimist in military matters. He had, e.g., declared that directly an invader set foot on the shores of England a "million bayonets would flash in the sunlight." The hon. Member probably believed that officers could be produced with equal facility, and the only foolish thing that his hon. friend the Member for Leicester ever said in his hearing was his suggestion that military training was of little practical value, and that if a shrewd Scottish labourer were turned out on a dark night and told to find his way to some definite point—perhaps, say, a public-house—that would be far more useful training than anything that could be supplied at Sandhurst. The fact was that there was probably very little demand amongst the rank and file for promotion—at any rate under existing economic conditions. What sergeant-major at, say, thirty-five, would seriously desire to become a subaltern with less than £2 a week, and the certainty that if he were still a captain at forty-five he would be compelled to leave the service? As regards the County Associations he regretted that in some cases they had not co-opted a larger number of the local employers of labour—the most fruitful source for furnishing fresh recruits. Further, there was undoubtedly a lurking suspicion abroad in many places that the War Office officials did not evince a very sympathetic spirit towards the new Territorial Army. He hoped that this suspicion was not well founded. He welcomed the new form of attestation in lieu of the forbidding document previously issued. He believed that a highly placed official at the War Office in reviewing the earlier and more drastic edition of the form in question had said, amongst a number of officers, "Well, if that doesn't choke them off nothing will." Unless the new movement had real and practical sympathy and encouragement from the authorities he was afraid that those in the counties who were doing their best for the Territorial Army would be seriously handicapped.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I feel some compunction in intervening thus early, all the more after the breezy speech of the hon. Member, which has

  1589
  exhilarated our proceedings. I do not propose to follow in a similar vein. I owe an apology to the Committee for venturing to address them at all when suffering from a cold, and I hope they will extend their indulgence to me, if I have difficulty in making myself heard. I should like to express my very great regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, is prevented from taking part in the debate by illness, which keeps him at home. So far, the debate has turned almost exclusively upon artillery and the relation of artillery to the Territorial Force. But this Vote affords the proper occasion for scrutinising the Army policy of the Government as a whole, and to-day it is, I think, invested with unusual interest by the fact that we had last week from the Secretary of State for War a detailed account of the progress which he has made with a plan, the importance of which nobody will deny, and he accompanied that account with a very frank admission that the plan could not be completed for a numbers of years. That suggests that we shall not be wasting our time, if we scrutinise fairly, but very closely, that plan at this comparatively early stage in the evolution of the right hon. Gentleman's projects. If I am to attempt that scrutiny with anything like reasonable brevity, I must waive certain quite legitimate arguments that I may resume upon another occasion. I do not propose to criticise the alleged economies which the right hon. Gentleman sometimes claims and which we find to be of a somewhat illusory character. I do not propose to comment upon the fact which the right hon. Gentleman admits that his strengths are very far below his establishments and may not reach those establishments. I want to look at his plan: and not at his merits as a frugal administrator or the amount of material at his command for completing that plan. I shall, therefore, speak in terms of establishments and not of strengths. But if we are to scrutinise his plan fairly, we must recognise, that in common with any plan which ever has been or will be proposed to the House, it is at once limited in extent and complicated in its design. Any such plan must be limited by the prior obligation of maintaining our sea-supremacy and
  1590
  must be complicated by the great variety of objects for which the British Army exists. I do not know that it is necessary to refer to these objects again, but if I do so briefly, it may enable the Committee to follow more closely the bearing of what I have to say about the plan. Our Army has in the first place to maintain our garrisons abroad, and therefore we must have a Regular Army at home as well as a Regular Army abroad. In the second place, we have to organise the Regular Army at home in order that it may liberate the Fleet, reinforce the foreign garrisons and deliver a counter attack if the war is ever to be finished, except at the cost of financial exhaustion. In the third place, we have to give to some other forces that amount of training which is necessary to liberate the expedition, to expand and support it, and to maintain confidence at home when both the expedition and the Fleet have gone from our shores. Admitting the difficulties of any Secretary of State for War who has to face that complicated problem, I say, if we are to scrutinise this plan effectively as well as fairly, we must test it by looking most closely at those points of weakness which are, I believe, inherent in any plan which any Secretary of State for War can produce under these conditions. Under any plan your Regular Army, consisting of bodies of troops trained for a considerable period, is going to be smaller than your non-Regular Army, consisting of troops trained, it may be, for a very short period. That being so the points of weakness in this plan and in every plan are to be found in those essentials to an Army ready to take the field which take time to create and which cannot be made efficient unless they are practised with units and with larger bodies of troops, with battalions, and brigades, in time of peace. What are they? First comes that which has figured so prominently in this debate, artillery. Secondly comes the regimental officer. Thirdly, I think I would mention the leader of a combined body of troops, the brigadier or divisional-general. In the fourth place we have to think of creating Reserves of trained Regulars for the wastage of war; and I do not think we can omit from our regard

  1591
  in the fifth place the provision of supplies and munitions of war and stores and, above all, horses. I leave out cavalry, because I am satisfied with the plan in respect of cavalry. When I speak of supplies of munitions of war and stores you have to think of something more than merely supplies. You have to think of the power of expansion in your sources of supply. These are the weak points in our position. You can make any number of guns in an arsenal, but you cannot make batteries in an arsenal. You can make an expert in the study, but you cannot make a regimental officer in the study. You can make an inspector of brigades, the units of which are trained separately for a fortnight, but you cannot make a brigadier. If you have a small long service Army you do not make a Regular Reserve. You make pensioners. In the most crucial part of the right hon. Gentleman's plan he is taking boys of seventeen for part of the year, mainly in the winter, for initial training, and is going to call them up at uncertain intervals for twenty-one days in the succeeeding five years. By doing that you will add to the ranks of the unemployed, and I deny altogether that you will create a trained Reserve of Regular soldiers. So, too, in respect of supplies, you can accumulate reserves of supplies at the risk of their decaying. But you cannot by that means maintain a power of expansion in your own Factories, or the workshops of the country. And, certainly, you cannot improvise horses. It takes six years to breed and train them. In the light of these general considerations let us look at the right hon. Gentleman's plan; and, first, at the completed part of it, which consists entirely of reductions. I need not dwell very long over it, but I must repeat that we dissent in toto from two of his reductions. We dissent altogether from the reduction of nine battalions of infantry in view of what I have said, and from his diverting thirty-three batteries of artillery to the purpose of creating his Special Reserve of Artillery. Take the remainder of his reductions affecting what were the old Auxiliary Forces; the abolition of twenty-one battalions of Militia, and the absorption of all the other battalions of Militia into what I hope I shall be able to show are mere
  1592
  depots, and not very good depots; and take again his reduction of a great number of Volunteer battalions, even obliterating a battalion of regular infantry and asking them to become Artillery or Yeomanry soldiers instead. By reducing the number of these battalions and making their shape more uniform I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is proceeding upon the best lines when he has to deal with a voluntary system. In a voluntary system it is unwise to reduce the number of your cadres. I wish we had an English word for that. "Mould" would do. We mean a receptacle of a suitable shape which is not necessarily filled with the material you desire. In a voluntary system it is a mistake to reduce the number of your moulds and to insist on uniformity of pattern. For, if they are fewer it is more important that they should be filled; and if they are all the same shape, less likely. I pass that general criticism upon the completed part of the right hon. Gentleman's plan. I say of these reductions, emphatically of the reduction of infantry battalions and the diversion of thirty-three batteries of artillery and, though with less emphasis, of the reduction of the Militia and their absorption into depots, and the reduction of the Volunteers and the impressing on them of a rigid type of uniformity; all that part of his plan, I say, must be placed on the debit side of the account. To see what, the credit side is and whether it will balance the debit side, we have to look at the speculative part of his plan. Surely, it will be admitted that the whole value of the speculative part of his plan must turn upon this. Supposing we were at war again; supposing we were engaged in a great war, perhaps greater than the South African War, should we have a better condition of things than we had in March eight years ago? I think that is a fair test. At that time the criticism which was put forward with greater justice than some criticisms which had been put forward, was that after sending a considerable expedition over sea, and after some months had elapsed, we had no adequate machinery in this country for training fresh troops to supply the waste of war. Will it be better when the speculative part of the right hon. Gentleman's plan becomes

  1593
  effective? I do not want to trouble the House with figures. I am going to talk in establishments as I promised. Taking his plan and his establishments, before the war we shall have at home 130,000 Regulars with the colours, 135,000 in the Reserve, and that is a very favourable view, 80,000 in the new Special Reserve, 315,000 in the Territorial Forces, or a total of 660,000 men. Looking at their organisation from the point of view of infantry alone, there would be eight battalions of Guards, seventy-four battalions of the Line and 101 of the so called Reserve battalions which figure on page 167 of the Estimates under the Special Reserve. Then the Expeditionary Force of 160,000 goes abroad: the 68,000 men form the colours, the 70,000 from the Regular Army Reserve, and the 24,000 from the Auxiliaries. What number would then be left for training in order to make good the wastage of war, to expand and support the expedition, and to make the Territorial Force a real security for public confidence when the Regular troops have been dispatched? There would be 62,000 men left with the colours and 65,000 with the Reserves, but those left with the colours would be the boys not fit to go on active service, and those left with the Reserves would be those less fit to go abroad. They would number 127,000, and where are they to go? They would of course occupy all the space in the barracks filled by the 130,000 men with the colours before the war. Under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would not have much barrack accommodation for proceeding to train the other parts of the Army. Perhaps the answer I shall receive will be that we must look to the Special Reserve. I may point out that for these 127,000 there will be very few definite units in existence. The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to send fifty-four batteries of Field Artillery abroad with this expedition, but then he will have no Field Artillery left in this country, consisting of Regulars, who have been fully trained. Therefore, the men with the colours, the artillery, and the men coming back from the Reserve will not find a single battery with which they can be trained. There will be only two battalions of Guards and eight battalions
  1594
  of the line left. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that the task of organising; 127,000 men into any force which can support or expand the expedition will be a formidable one. He will probably say that he has the Special Reserve, and that is the crux of the whole plan. If the Secretary for War can satisfy the Committee and the country that his Special Reserve is what he hopes it will be, he will lift a load of anxiety from the minds of many, who are really anxious that his plan should not fail. As it stand I cannot believe that this Special Reserve will lift any anxiety from the minds of any men who really scrutinise it. It is to be in two parts, artillery and infantry, and (in so far as the artillery part of the Special Reserve is concerned) we dissent, from the right hon. Gentleman's policy. We doubt its wisdom, and we think he will have to retrace his steps at a great cost to this country and a loos of time even more serious in the work of reparation for war. With regard to the infantry, the plan stands in great need, of amendment, but in respect of both I should like to say that until this Government resumes the barrack policy of their predecessors it will be impossible to train troops after the outbreak of war. It is clear that under these circumstances the existing barracks will be filled up by the 127,000 Regulars. What, then, is the right hon. Gentleman going to do with the 62,000 infantry and the 15,000' artillerymen of the Special Reserve? He cannot push them all into seventy-four depots, for he has admitted that you can only train 200 at a time in the depots. Under these circumstances how are these men going to be trained and taught? I wish to point out that in regard both to the artillery and the infantry the plan. is purely speculative unless you proceed to provide the necessary barrack accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman has this afternoon asserted that by retaining only fifty-four batteries of field artillery and howitzers up to sixty-six, and using-thirty-three batteries as a training school for this section of the Special Reserve, he has made our position far better than, it has ever been before. I very much doubt whether our position under this plan will be any better than it was eight years ago. The right hon. Gentleman has reverted absolutely to the very figure

  1595
  at which the plan for organising the field artillery of our Home Army stood in the year before the South African War. The year before that war I introduced the Army Estimates, and I asked for fifty-four batteries of Field Artillery in the Regular Forces at home, and that proposition was almost ridiculed by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for the Forest of Dean. At this date eight years ago we had actually sent thirty-six batteries of field artillery and six batteries of howitzers out of this country, apart from India and the Mediterranean. Now the right hon. Gentleman is going to revert to the same number of Field Artillery batteries in the Home Army that we asked for in 1899, although the lesson of the South African War was that we needed 150 batteries of Regular Field Artillery in all. If there was any lesson which was burned into the minds of all those who went through that war, it was that you had largely to increase your Regular artillery. I regret to note that the right hon. Gentleman is decreasing the artillery even below the danger limit, and by reverting to six years' service with the colours he is depleting the Reserve of the artillery which the Member for Croydon and Lord Midleton did so much to fill up. If you preserve your 150 batteries it will be easy to have some short service men, but the right hon. Gentleman is now going back to the prewar standard so far as Regular trained artillery is concerned, and therefore we must as an Opposition absolutely dissociate ourselves from that part of his policy.
  May I now look for a moment or two at the infantry part of the Special Reserve? I ask the Committee to consider it, first; in the light of the provision of officers; and, secondly, in the light of the provision of trained men. The hon. Member who spoke last had a good deal to say on the question of the provision of officers. I am aware that we have to face a shortage of officers on mobilisation. The officers whom the right hon. Gentleman hopes to get, by certificates and attachment a la suite to a regiment, may be a valuable adjunct to our Army at the time
  1596
  of mobilisation, but they cannot be regimental officers. They may be able to read a great deal, but it does not follow that they will be able to lead at all. You can teach a man to read. But you cannot teath him to lead. There is, even, one form of reading which cannot be taught. That is the reading of maps. It is really easier to teach an intelligent youth to make a map than to teach him to read it with that accuracy, rapidity, and confidence which is necessary if he is to reach a place on the earth's surface indicated on the map. No one can read a map so as to be able to lead troops unless he has been in the habit of reading maps, therefore I dismiss these officers who are to be four months with a Regular regiment probably when the regiment is very busy. I dismiss them from my mind as regimental officers who could be put in charge of troops. Thus we have to look at the Special Reserve. Now what sort of training will those officers get, and what sort of officers will you get for the Special Reserve? Taking the establishments, there are to be twenty-six officers, Militia officers, who have not been fully trained in the Regular Army. The right hon. Gentleman has got to attract those officers to this work in connection with the seventy four Reserve battalions in depots, and twenty seven battalions elsewhere. What attraction is he going to offer? You can only get them by paying them in money, in opportunities for amusement, or in, shall I call it, glory? or general respect, and interest in their profession? There is no other way. Now, is any man going to come into these depots to grind away at boys at seventeen or eighteen years of age during the winter months, and then grind away at other boys, winter and summer, for five or six years? The right hon. Gentleman says that an officer has to do it now at the depot. But I would remind him that this work is now done by the permanent staff, who are men in the regular career and profession of a soldier, with hopes of promotion. Any one of them may become a colonel or a general. But these twenty-six officers of whom I am speaking are expected to grind out their lives under these sordid conditions, and in insanitary barracks

  1597
  upon unpromising material, without hope of promotion. The right hon. Gentleman is very sanguine indeed if he believes he will get the officers under these circumstances. Under the scheme 62,000 infantry are required for the Reserve battalions. I want to ask a question, but I think I have the answer to it, because it was given to-day to my hon. friend the Member for Fareham. I wanted to know whether the recruit coming into these depots was at liberty to join the Regular Army at any time after going to these battalions, or whether he had first to complete his training. The recruit I now understand must serve six months before he goes in to the Regular Army. I think that is right, but has the right hon. Gentleman realised what it entails? It entails the cutting down of that stream of recruits which the Army has hitherto received from the Militia. When the men enlisted under the old system they could be taken by the sergeant the next day to go into the Regular Army at eighteen, and it was by that means that you fed your Regular Army. After they reach eighteen the right hon. Gentleman will allow them to go into the Regular Army but not before. To that extent you somewhat stint and diminish the stream of recruiting which used to come from the Militia into the Regular Army, and you prejudice jour chance of filling up your home battalions. But who are the others who do not go to the Regular Army but remain in the Special Reserve? They are boys of seventeen. They are those youths who are never going to be tested. And, yet, it is upon them that the right hon. Gentleman is going to rely for his trained Regular Reserves who are to make up the wastage of the Regular Army. In the old days it used to be said that of every three men who went into the British Army only one survived to be of use in the Reserve. I think that was putting it too high. I think it was one in every four. But even for that system there was this to be said. A man who had been seven years with the colours was a man whose constitution was firm and who knew his business. On the other hand, these youths will never be tested under the system now proposed. The Special Reserve, unless it is very much amended, will crumble under
  1598
  the stress of war, and when it crumbles it will reveal what we have always said is the great defect of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. It will leave a great gap, or chasm, between the Regular Army and the citizen Army. There is in this scheme no plan for bridging that gap in time of peace. If you try to bridge it in time of war, you will only produce a chaotic result. I have endeavoured to scrutinise the plan fairly; and, certainly, closely. I am far from saying that it is incapable of being amended. If the right hon. Gentleman will make his infantry Special Reserve a Reserve of battalioas, and not a Reserve of depots, I think more could be said for it. At present it is a mere set of recruiting shops. The right hon. Gentleman the other night professed great regard for the Cardwell system. If he will make these Reserve battalions into battalions regularly and progressively trained during a whole year, he will be carrying out the Cardwell system to the conclusion which Lord Cardwell seems to have thought necessary if it was really to supply this country with the Army it needed. The Cardwell system was at one time exposed to a great deal of criticism and even obloquy. It was restored to its position in the public confidence largely by the action and evidence of one man, Sir Patrick MacDougall. He said that, if the Cardwell system was to work, you must do two things. The first was to identify the Militia more closely with the depots of the Line. Well, the Government have done that with a vengeance. They have absorbed the Militia in the depots of the Line. But he went on to say that that was useless if they attempted to turn a depot into a battalion during the "hurry and rush" of a war. That is what will happen if the right hon. Gentleman does not amend his scheme and make these battalions battalions in fact as well as in name—battalions in which the recruit will be trained progressively in squad drill, battalion drill, and brigade drill, and in which he will attend manœuvres during one year of his life. I think it ought to be two years. If the right hon. Gentleman does not do that, he will be courting disaster. I have endeavoured to show that the value of the plan depends upon the conditions it will give us some two or three

  1599
  months after an expedition has started in a war. I have said that, those conditions will depend, in the main, upon this part of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, namely, the Special Reserve. We reject the artillery part of that scheme, and we do not think the infantry part will stand the strain of war unless it is amended in the direction I have ventured to indicate. I ought to answer a question which suggests itself to my mind, namely—What of the Territorial Force? We wish that Force well. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman will ever be able to mobilise that Force unless the Government resumes the barrack policy of their predecessors. I have indicated earlier that he cannot mobilise his Special Reserve under the existing conditions of barracks. Apart from that, the new Territorial Force is now the old Volunteers and the old Yeomanry paid a little bit more or a little bit less, trained a little bit more or a little bit less, but we do hope, better equipped, better staffed, and better led. I hope all those anticipations will be fulfilled. But I cannot say too earnestly that, unless the right hon. Gentleman by amending the Special Reserve portion of his scheme, places something substantial between the citizen army and the Line, a burden will be cast on the citizen force which it cannot bear —which it cannot be expected to bear— except at a cost infinitely above any sum which has been mentioned in the House, and, in my opinion, some compulsory provision adopted, not for the sake of fighting efficiency but for the sake of fairness as between man and man, when you are asking the citizen to give up not only, as he does now, his holiday, but, as he must then, a considerable portion of his working and wage-earning time.
  MR. REESsaid that after all this great scheme depended in a great measure upon the County Associations, and he wished to ask something connected with the Territorial division of his own county. It was proposed that there should be a North Wales Infantry Brigade, with headquarters at Wrexham. That brigade was to consist in part of companies of infantry drawn from Merionethshire and Montgomeryshire. Merionethshire was not so
  1600
  much worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman as Montgomeryshire—a county that had always provided the Army with Regular soldiers, militiamen, volunteers, and yeomanry. It was worth the while of the right hon. Gentleman to take special pains to encourage a county like Montgomeryshire, which was not backward in. performing its duty in this all-important respect. Ho did not believe they would get very many men from Merionethshire. Then it was decided that their Militia battalion was to be disbanded and that their colours were to be handed over to the Territorial Force. Notices had been sent round asking the officers and men whether they would serve in the new Territorial battalion. He was happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the officers had all consented to do so. They naturally did not like their regiment to be abolished after having been in existence since the days of Queen Elizabeth, serving in the Crimea and fighting in South Africa. That was to their credit, and nothing else could be expected. They felt the abolition very much and so did the county. As regarded the men, they were behaving very well, and were willing to transfer, but the transfer must be made quickly, or they would retire or go into another force. He begged the right hon. Gentleman, in order to ensure his scheme a good trial in Montgomeryshire, to keep the Cardiganshire company at Aberystwyth for Montgomeryshire and to see that the transfer from Militia to Territorial Army was effected as early as possible. A matter in connection with the present state of affairs which he would like the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider was his refusal to make the Volunteer regimental sergeant-majors warrant officers. He was not an expert, and he did not see the objection to that being done. He knew that one advantage would be that it would greatly please these officers, and he would beg the right hon. Gentleman to give the matter his best consideration. He would also appeal on behalf of the quartermasters. They were men whose future appeared to be somewhat precarious. A great amount of work had fallen on them during the past few months, and it would be hard if they were to be thrown out of employment,

  1601
  and if they did not get some consideration in the shape of pay for the work they had done in connection with the new scheme. He regretted, too, that reparation allowance was not given to privates in the Territorial Army, and commended this matter to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary of State had shown a conciliatory disposition in other matters, and he was sure he would consider the points to which he had called attention. If he had not brought them before the House these matters might not have received that full recognition which they deserved. As regarded the secretary to the County Association, in his county the secretary, Major Mytton, received the magnificent salary of £40 a year. There was once a curate who was passing rich on £40 a year, but they could not get a War Minister even for a County Association on that sum, and he would like this gentleman to get better pay. It was quite true that he made his salary up to £60 by adding on the duties of Merionethshire, but he should have more, because he was a good officer who went out to the Boer War, had influence in the county, and would do the work well. They had also a capable and energetic chairman in Mr. Lomax, and he believed that affairs would march. Many hon. Members had attacked the Cardwell system of linked "battalions for supplying our Army abroad, but he had not heard of any other working system which would do the work so well. If there was such a scheme it would be interesting to know if it possibly could be regarded as a substitute for the Cardwell system. There was, so far as he knew, only the alternative of a locally raised long-service Army for India, but he did not think that the men could be raised in that way as in former days. These old soldiers were splendid fighters, who fought in forage-caps, drank brandy, used language, and defeated with great slaughter every enemy they were sent to attack. But they could not get such men now in India, neither would public opinion of the present day regard them altogether with approval. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the cadet corps in his speech. Did he refer to the cadet corps in the public schools only or to
  1602
  the other cadet corps as well, and was any difference to be made between them? Were the rifle corps at Eton and Harrow, for instance, to be changed in any way?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the cadet corps of public schools like Eton and Harrow were now organised under the General Staff as Volunteer corps, and would be part of the Corps of Officers being trained. They would be in no way discouraged; on the contrary, they would be continued as at present.
  MR. REESsaid he was very glad indeed to hear it, as it was a very admirable training for the boys of these two schools, who had lately fought a bloodless and interesting battle on the plains of Uxbridge. The system was admirable, and he had the opportunity of seeing how good it was mentally and physically for the boys, and how it developed in them a sense of discipline, and of combined action, as well as teaching them how safely and usefully to handle their weapons. The hon. Member for Woodstock had referred to various matters which he thought tended to discourage the right sort of men coming into the Army as officers. One reason which made the Army unpopular as a profession was the unnatural and unreasonable fuss and criticism which was made when any domestic disturbance occurred owing to any officer not being able to get on with his brother officers. He thought that the officers of a regiment formed the most just tribunal in the world, and he did not think that any hon. Member in the House could display more tact, consideration or kindliness than they showed to comrades who had risen from the ranks, or to any brother officer, unless he set himself against the excellent traditions, habits, and customs of the average British officer He must say that he had always admired that in the officers in the Army. It had not been proved that officers combined to oppress other officers who were not likely to turn out efficient and the manner in which some commanding officers had been treated when a charge of that kind was brought forward was enough to turn good men away from the Army. Their conduct was not only brought

  1603
  before the Army Council, but before the hon. Member for South Donegal, who claimed some special jurisdiction in such matters, and before the House. They were tried and retried before the whole matter was over, and though they had done their best, and often deserved sympathy quite as much as the so called victims, they were treated as malefactors. He was certain that officers were rather afraid, not of doing their duty at the front in the day of battle, or of doing it day by day in time of peace, but of being haled before the public in that way and disparaged in the newspapers and the House of Commons. Too much was made of what he regarded as domestic matters in the regiments affected, and he pleaded for forbearance, and urged that regiments knew what was good for them and for the Service, at least as well as the Press and Parliament.
  MR. CROOKSsaid he wished to ask the indulgence of the House as he did not feel quite robust after his long illness. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would give some better assurance than he had done in regard to national public safety as to the condition of things at Woolwich. Last year, for reasons, they were shut out of an opportunity of discussing the discharges at Woolwich Arsenal, and what was called the "minimum." Numerous questions were asked, but the answers to them were on the whole unsatisfactory. There were many deputations and demonstrations which took the side of Woolwich as Woolwich, and said that it was a national danger to deplete the Arsenal of the best kind of workmen. The Secretary for War had absolutely ignored the conclusions of the Committee over which the hon. Member for Barnard Castle had presided, and the result of the policy adopted by the right hon. Gentleman was that the indirect expenditure for the work being done on armaments had increased in some cases by 40, 50, and 100 per cent., while machinery which cost £250,000 was lying idle in the Arsenal at the present moment The best workmen were now looking askance at Government employment' whereas the nation should aim at safe-
  1604
  guarding the employment of such, men and show an example to private employers. 1898 could be taken as a normal year; from 1886–87 until 1898 there was a steady increase in the number of men employed as the Army Estimates increased. In 1898 the Army Estimates—had reached £20,096,000. This year they were £27,459,000, an increase of £7,363,000 over the year 1898, yet the normal strength of the Arsenal had been reduced by 3,400 men, and the productive strength by 4,130 men. If the Navy Estimates were taken with the Army Estimates, it would be found that the expenditure was increased by over £20,000,000 since 1898. Yet the Arsenal was reduced below the productive peace strength of 1898 by over 4,000 men. The increase in strength of the Arsenal up to 1898, as the Army Estimate increased, and the decrease in the strength of the Arsenal since the war, notwithstanding the continued increased Army expenditure, showed pretty conclusively that during the war the contractors had got a grip on the permanent officials that had resulted in the policy of the minimum for Ordnance Factories. As to Establishment Charges, in the year 1898 when the number of productive workers was 13,479 the strength of the Central Office Stores and Medical Department was 510 men. Now it was 642. The total charges for establishment and indirect expenditure amounted approximately to £900,000 per annum. On a basis of 9,000 for "minimum," and not 8,400 as fixed, this meant that every productive worker had to earn. £100 per annum besides his wages to cover establishment and indirect charges. It actually worked out at more than this, but he had taken round figures for purpose of illustration. Was that business? What did the business men of the House say to a policy that was costing the nation hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum? Both the Murray Committee and the responsible Ministers agreed that it was necessary to keep the establishment on a war footing while reducing the productive side to a minimum. The consequence was that every job done for the Army and Navy, whether by the Ordnance Factories or the contractors, cost the country more. In the Royal Carriage Department the

  1605
  percentage charged on production for indirect expenditure had reached over 100 per cent. Every job given away from Woolwich which could be done there meant a less chance of reducing the enormous percentage of indirect expenditure, and consequently an enhanced cost to the nation. He would give an illustration. Recently the Royal Carriage Department was asked for an estimate for the manufacture of stores. The estimated price worked out at £9,633 12s., as against £7,964, the trade price. As the loss of the order would have meant a further discharge of men in the Royal Carriage Department, which was already below the "minimum," an analysis of the price was submitted to the Army Council with the view of obtaining the order although the estimated price was higher than the trade price. The analysis proved that of the £9,633 12s. no less a sum than £2,417 1s. was charged as general indirect expenditure, which would have to be met whether the Royal Carriage Department had the order or not. That was to say if the Arsenal was kept fully employed the price could be reduced by £2,417 1s., making the price £7,216 11s. as against the £7,964 of the trade. The serious part to business men was that if the work was given to the trade it would mean that the cost of the job would be £7,964 plus £2,417 which the Ordnance Factories were taxed with because it was not fully employed, making a total of £10,381 1s., as against the £9,633 12s. charged by the Royal Carriage Department, including the percentage of indirect expenditure. The Master-General of Ordnance, in submitting the analysis to the Army Council with the recommendation that he should be empowered to give the work to the Royal Carriage Department, made the significant comment—
  "Although the prices quoted by the factory will involve some extra expense (over trade price) it must be remembered that the work will assist in reducing the proportion of in-direct charges borne by our other orders."
  The Army Council agreed that the Master-General of Ordnance—
  "Should give such orders to the factories as will enable him to provide the necessary employment for the minimum establishment of the Royal Carriage Department when the
  1606
  estimated cost is not more than 20 per cent. in excess of the trade price."
  On this decision of the Army Council the even more significant comment was made by a responsible officer—
  "That in view of increased indirect expenditure (now 100 per cent.) 60 per cent. increase over trade prices appears to form a fairer basis of comparison than 20 per cent."
  Both from a business point of view, and the point of view of the safety of the nation the minimum stood condemned. The illustration he had given showed how on a £10,000 order the enhanced cost to the nation, by reason of the minimum, reached the sum of £2,400. The percentage charged for indirect expenditure on production when the Arsenal was employed as in 1898 was between 40 and 50 per cent. On the minimum it was 100 per cent. It was therefore a simple sum in proportion to find out what the policy of the minimum was costing the country. The "minimum" also tended to remove that competitive check on contractors' prices, which hitherto had been some sort of a safeguard against "ring" prices. He thought the facts he had quoted were sufficient to show that the War Office or the Army Council could have kept the Arsenal fully employed without loss to the nation. Even the Murray Committee were constrained to report, after suggesting that the minimum should be 8,000, that the Chief Superintendent of Ordnance Factories had given in evidence—
  "That he considered the present total of 14,037 (employed in November, 1906) was not susceptible of any further reduction."
  The Committee after recording this grave warning said—
  "We do not feel able to make any definite recommendation as to the exact number to be adopted for the minimum establishment, which requires further examination, and a fuller knowledge of the circumstances of each of the factories than we can claim to possess."
  Private inquiries went to show that the serious warning of Mr. Donaldson but feebly expressed the fears of the administration of the Arsenal under this policy. It was an open secret in Woolwich that many shops had been so depleted that it would be impossible to expand quickly to a maximum output at a time of national crisis as at the South African War, when the Leader of the

  1607
  Opposition himself confessed that the small arms ammunition stores were depleted within a few weeks of the commencement of the war. It was only because of the splendid staff of the Arsenal that it was possible to cope with that national crisis. Yet the bulk of these men had been scattered to the four corners of the globe. The whole difficulty in this case seemed to be not that we could get more men than officers but that we had more officers than men. If the Government really wanted a number of men to do some training for the Territorial Army he thought they might relieve the Arsenal of these superior employees. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to look at this case, not because he happened to be the Member for Woolwich or because he represented the men who had been put off. He appealed for the men who were there and asked the House not to sanction a policy which had distributed all over the world the workmen who saw the country through the crisis of the South African War. The best workmen now looked askance at Government employment. The reductions which had been made were a national disgrace and danger, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some assurance that the points which he had raised would be looked into, and where it was possible to place work in the yards, not on the establishment charges but at a fair price, it should be so placed. They should give the men a fair chance and not put on their backs this heavy and evil burden which they could not bear. The Government had the plant, the machinery, and the skill, and they ought to be able to utilise them in the interests of the workers, and to the best advantage of the nation.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the hon. Member's advocacy of Woolwich Arsenal had been so strong that he hoped he would not think it was because of want of sympathy with him that he did not follow him in the line he had taken. What he had said, was sufficient to impress the adamantine heart of the Secretary of State for War. He wanted, however, to refer to some previous points in the debate. Whenever he had listened to a debate upon Army matters, especially
  1608
  to a debate in which the welfare: of the new Territorial Army loomed so large, he had been utterly disappointed by the tone, adopted by so many speakers. He had heard, for instance, three or four speakers; who prefaced their remarks by saying: "If the Territorial Army was ever wanted," "We hope it never will be" and "We think it never will be." He thought that that was the wrong attitude to take if they wanted to criticise with any effect and the Territorial Army was to be a reality and not a sham. They should look at it from the point of view that it was going to fight, and if it was going to fight they wanted it to win. That was the line which he should wish to be taken by the House and the country in regard to the Territorial Army if they wished it to be a real instrument which, should satisfy the necessities of the; nation. The proper view was that it would have to fight, and it would have to fight under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, circumstances which would make the most exacting demands on its powers of discipline and warfare. It was only honest and fair that they should not exaggerate the capabilities of the Territorial Army, but they had heard quoted two or three very great authorities who had served His" Majesty the King. First, Sir John French was reported to have said that, assuming that he had three divisions of the Territorial Army mobilised for three months, then he thought that those three divisions might be equal for war to one Regular division. Did anyone suppose that our possible enemies, those against whom we created a Territorial Army, did not lake note of these criticisms and the opinion of our best soldier that they had only to bring one soldier to three. Again they had that brilliant and most trusted soldier, Sir Ian Hamilton, who was said to have stated that if three or four batteries of the Territorial Force were engaged with one battery of the enemy they might be able to give them a hot time. That just supported his contention throughout that they were deluding and humbugging the country if they told them that the Territorial Force they proposed to train was an effective force; they were throwing dust, in their eyes, because what the country meant by an effective force was a

  1609
  force of their own soldiers who would meet a force of any other country at least man for man. They did not want a force in which each of our men was to be reckoned as only one-third of a man in a foreign country. What they had heard that evening intensified the argument which they had had brought before the House, that the training of the Territorial Force was not sufficient to make it effective, and what they ought to insist upon was that the right hon. Gentleman should make that fact patent and clear to the country. He thought the Secretary for War was earnest in desiring that the hat should not go round and private subscriptions be brought in for the aid of the Territorial Army, but undoubtedly there was a very considerable suspicion in the country that if that Army was to be made a success it would have to depend upon local effort and local subscriptions. If so the Territorial Army was doomed and it became a worthless thing. Another point was that the right hon. Gentleman in. bringing in such a great scheme as this had found it impossible to avoid treading on a certain number of local toes. It had been necessary for him to ask from counties that which they could not provide, and to ask other counties to give up that which they had provided and were proud to provide. In the rural counties the result of the scheme would be largely to disembody the force now existing. He knew of one county in which there were two straightforward and satisfactory battalions. By the right hon. Gentleman's scheme only one battalion was to be taken from that county. The disappointment had been so great that he was afraid it was doubtful whether they would get even one battalion. In the rural districts they could only raise what used to be called Volunteer battalions. But now the Territorial battalons were to be on the basis of units of companies. They could not get a. company unless the district was sufficiently large for the whole company to be recruited pretty close at hand. They could not expect men to join who lived in scattered villages, and who would have to walk some miles to their drill. They would practically get their Territorial battalion on the basis of company units from centres which would in themselves suffice for the
  1610
  formation of companies. Therefore, if in a county in winch they had two battalions they abolished one, thus taking 1,000 men instead of 2,000, they must recollect that they could not get that number by saying they would take such and such a unit from such and such a town or district, but they must have the units in the locality, otherwise they would not raise their rural battalions. He quite sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman, who was in earnest and in love with his own scheme. He was an ardent lover, and naturally he did not wish to see any imperfections in the lady of his affections, and, so far did the right hon. Gentleman go, that he was almost inclined to sacrifice a really efficient fighting force in order to get the symmetry he would like to see in the Territorial Force. Although the Secretary for War himself acknowledged that he did not think that he would raise a Territorial Artillery that would be as good as the Regular Artillery, yet it appeared that, for the sake of symmetry the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to run the risk of asking the Territorial Force to provide him with that extraordinary basis of service which he acknowledged in his own words he could not hope to get so good as it ought to be. There was another another subject upon which he had a rather strong feeling. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that at the present moment the recruiting was going on, he hoped, fairly satisfactorily for the Regular Army. But this was the point he wished to raise, and it was one which, touched the feelings not only of the Regular Army but of the whole community, in regard to the men who served the country as soldiers or, sailors. He wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman realised that the case he was about to explain actually existed, for it touched the popularity of the Army and the question of justice. Perhaps the House would bear with him while he put a curious case. He would take three brothers, A, B and C. The man A joined the Civil Service at the age of twenty. At the age of sixty, he retired on a pension which was forty-sixtieths of what he was receiving at the end of his term. His brother B joined the. police service. He was in the police, say, for twelve years, and then

  1611
  he passed into the Civil Service. He was allowed to reckon the twelve years police service towards full pension, but he was also allowed to reckon four years for every three of his police service, so that he would be allowed to reckon fifteen years towards Civil Service pension. He then went on to the age of sixty, and before he reached that age he was absolutely able to claim his full pension by virtue of the recognition given to his police service. They now came to C, the soldier or sailor. He joined the Army, say, at the age of twenty, and served for twelve years. At the end of twelve years he went into the Civil Service. Perhaps some people would say that he might have served in the Army. But in many cases they were not allowed to serve in the Army to the end, because there was an arrangement by which under certain circumstances only 10 per cent. might go on, and it very frequently happened that a man who might wish to continue could not continue. He had given twelve years of service in the Army, and he joined the Civil Service, working up to sixty, in the same way as his brothers, but he was not allowed to reckon his twelve years service in the Army towards the Civil Service pension. Instead of forty-sixtieths he only got twenty-eight-sixtieths. That was a gross injustice. From every point of view, from the point of view of recruiting and of inducing men of the best type to join the Army, the soldier or sailor should have the same rates of pension as the policeman who entered the Civil Service. Then as to the reasons for this. The policeman was allowed the extra time on account of his services, which were considered to be onerous and, perhaps, even especially dangerous. But they had to remember that the policeman, if he stayed in the force, could get his pension at the end of twenty-four years. As to the soldier, surely no one would say that his service was less dangerous or onerous than that of the policeman. Out of his twelve years it was extremely probable that he had to spend some in India, or at all events in some foreign country. It was also extremely probable that he had spent a good many months of his service in extreme personal danger to life and limb. In the Army at the end of twenty-one years a soldier was entitled
  1612
  to pension, and he believed that the pension of both the policeman and the soldier was based on the fact that their service had some peculiar dangers, and that, therefore, the men ought to have their pension at a proportionately earlier period. Why, therefore, when the soldier or sailor joined the Civil Service, of course with a good character, should he be deprived of the opportunity of counting his years of loyal service in the Army or Navy towards the civil pension? Again, a boy joined the Army at the age of eighteen, and served on the frontiers of India, getting the distinguished service medal and other medals. He came back with the very best of characters and of certificates, and why should he at the age of sixty, after he having served twelve years in circumstances of special danger, and earned the gratitude of his country, be debarred from getting full pension. He believed that he had stated the case absolutely accurately, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he acknowledged its justice as he thought he would, would not be stopped by any trifles of inexpediency, but would say that this was a matter to be considered on its merits. He was not asking that the soldier should get the extra years which were given to the policeman, though his service had exposed him to danger just as much, but that he should be at least allowed to count the twelve years he had actually served. These were the points which he wished to impress on the right hon. Gentleman, and he left it in his hands to give him sooner or later such an answer as would assure him that the strong case which he had made would receive his consideration.
  MR. MACLEANsaid with reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down as to pension on transfer of service, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give it consideration, though it might not be possible to do anything without legislation to remedy the matter. From many of the speeches made on the other side of the House, and from some made on his own. side, one would imagine that the main object of the country was to spend as much money as possible. If

  1613
  they were to carry out all the suggestions which were made across the floor of the House for an enormous extension of expenditure, the country would find itself in the position of the man with £600 a year, who, out of it spent £450 on insurances of various descriptions against burglary, loss of life and other risks, leaving himself with £150 to meet his social necessities. The real object of the finance of this country should be directed to social reform, and the amelioration of the condition of the people; and he found that the scheme of his right hon. friend was in general directed to that proposition, namely, as far as possible, to keep military expenditure in this country within reasonable limits. The main object of the country was the social betterment of its poorer people. He wished to add a remark upon the subject of canteens. At present he understood there were three systems under which the soldiers could be supplied at the canteens—the regimental system, the tenant system, and the mess and canteen co-operative society. As he understood, the regimental system had fallen largely into discredit, and it was only the tenant system and the co-operative society which were in competition for the supply of the soldiers in these canteens. All he desired to say on this point was that he hoped that his right hon. friend would see with regard to these competing agencies that there was a fair field and no favour. In reference to the co-operative society he was not making the slightest reflection on the bona fides of those managing it, but there were very large opportunities—he did not that those opportunities were made use of—for giving an unfair advantage to the co-operative society, managed by officers, as against the tenant system. What he did strongly plead for was that the field should be kept open in the interests of the soldiers themselves. The field should be absolutely clear, and let the best tenders be dealt with on the principles which obtained in the open market.
  MR. MOONEYsaid he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on a subject which was prominently before the House in the discussion of last year, viz. the policy of the War Office with respect
  1614
  to cordite and other explosives. Last year the right hon. Gentleman said that the policy of the War Office was to follow on the lines of the report of the Committee which he was about to appoint to inquire and report on the whole subject. That Committee was appointed, he understood, as the result of a statement which the Secretary of State made in that House. The right hon. Gentleman stated that, when he was about to appoint that Committee, the House was taken into the fullest confidence of the Government, and that he intended to appoint a Committee of the most scientific experts to advise and inquire on the matter. In the last few days questions had been put asking if the Report had been submitted to the War Office, and if so what were its terms. He understood the answer to be that it was not in the public interest to publish the Report. But in View of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had said he would take the House into his confidence he ought to give some explanation of why he had changed his mind. He would ask further if it was the fact that while the Committee was sitting he had taken into the public service cordite which had previously been rejected on the ground that it was unsafe. If that was done in accordance with the Committee's Report they were entitled to know whether they had reported that the ingredients complained of had no injurious effect whatever. The right hon. Gentleman was not justified in sheltering himself behind the plea of public policy and refusing to give any information.
  MR. HALDANE: The reason that has influenced me is this. There is litigation pending by Messrs. Kynoch against the War Office on which the Report materially bears, and it would be very wrong of us to publish any document which prejudges questions which might arise in the litigation. As soon as the litigation is out of the way the situation will be cleared. It will be a great convenience if we might take Vote A. by agreement of the House and then continue the discussion on Vote 1. That is the common practice, and if there is general agreement the discussion could be a perfectly open one, just as free as upon Vote A. I would appeal to my hon. friends to let us take Vote A. at

  1615
  8.15 and then go on with the open discussion on Vote 1.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid they would have no objection to that course if they had the assent of the Chair to the discussion on Vote 1 being just as general as on Vote A.
  MR. CHAIRMAN: As I have been appealed to I will just say I will give my consent to any arrangement of the kind made by general consent.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he supposed the general discussion would go on before the Amendments were called, otherwise they would be restricted to the particular subject on the Amendments.
  THE CHAIRMAN: May I just say with regard to that matter that if an Amendment is moved to-morrow for reduction of the whole Vote it would still be possible to continue the open discussion, but if a reduction is moved on an item it would not be possible to continue the open discussion.
  MR. MOONEYasked for an answer to his question whether it was a fact that the Government had taken into the public service explosives which had been previously rejected.
  MR. HALDANE: Not that I know of, unless it was some that was specially investigated by the Committee and found to be safe after it had been subjected to severe tests.
  MR. MOONEYasked if it was not a fact that the War Office having rejected 100 tons as being not fit for use, after wards took into the public service 30 tons of the very cordite which 'hey had previously refused.
  MR. HALDANE: I know nothing about it. If the hon. Member will put down a Question I will look into it.
  MR. LUTTRELLsaid he wss very unwilling to put any opposition in the way of the arrangement come to by the Front Benches, but he was asked to move in the matter by
  1616
  a considerable number of supporters of the Government and it would be necessary for him to move a reduction of men. He moved it in no spirit of hostility to the Government of which he reckoned himself a loyal supporter, but their reasons for doing this were provided by the speeches and actions of the occupants of the Front Bench themselves. They had continually made speeches in favour of a reduction of the Vote—true, when they were in a different position—but the fact that they had gone to the Front Bench ought not to alter their principles. They had been influenced also by their policy. He was not blaming them but paying them a very high compliment indeed. It was because they had been at peace with, the world and because there were no clouds on the horizon that they were able with confidence to ask the House to reduce the Army by 10,000 men. It was in no spirit of hostility to the Secretary of State that he moved this. He appreciated and valued his great ability and his remarkable energy and industry, but he would remind his right hon. friend that he was not only Secretary of State for War, but he was; Secretary of State for Peace, and he hoped in reality more a Secretary of State for Peace than for War. He believed his persuasive powers were such that he might have induced the generals themselves to turn their attention to economy had he exercised those powers. He was inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman had studied efficiency somewhat to the neglect of economy, and he wished he would study economy and spell it with a very big E indeed. The number of men was the only test they could have of the cost of the Army. It was no use making small economies. If they wanted really to economise they must reduce the number of men. It was in excess of requirements and could with safety to the Empire be reduced to the extent he proposed. In 1895–6, just before preparations were being made for possible contingencies in South Africa, the Home Army numbered 116,153; to day it had grown to 130,000 odd, an increase of nearly 14,000 men. In Africa we had then 4,888, and a temporary contingent of 1,066 men in West Africa; to-day we

  1617
  had 20,173, an increase of 14,219. In America we had then 5,928, which had been reduced now to 2,356, our troops having been withdrawn from Halifax and Barbadoes. In Asia, exclusive of India, we had 6,300 men; to-day we had 9,735, an increase of 3,405. In the Mediterranean the number had decreased from 14,451 to 11,479, but in Egypt the number had increased from 4,267 to 5,771. The difference between the total numbers we had in 1895–6 and to day was no less than 26,609 increase. During the year 1895–6, we had in India 73,168 men, but to—day we had 76,155, which was a considerable increase. His contention was that the increase in India had been far too great, and it was the duty of the Government to bring the military expenditure in India back to what it was in 1895–96. The Cardwell system as now adopted necessitated keeping at home the same number of troops as were maintained abroad. That was the policy which the Secretary for War was pursuing, and in pursuance of that policy he was bringing four battalions of infantry and one regiment of cavalry from South Africa. That was not real economy, because when those troops came back they would not be disbanded. That could not be claimed as economy.
  MR. HALDANE: It saves £170,000 a year.
  MR. LUTTRELLsaid that that was the only gain they got, and there was no real economy in it unless the establishment was reduced. Small savings like that were not real economy; that could not be secured unless they reduced the number of men. He agreed that the men should be properly trained and housed, but they had far too many of them. The so-called Cardwell system which the Government were following was practically that they should keep a battalion at home for every battalion abroad. He believed that Mr. Cardwell was a great economist and his main object was to run the Army for as little money as possible—to have as many men as possible trained to arms, but not under arms, and that was why he instituted the short service system. The Cardwell system had been fully explained by the right
  1618
  hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who said—
  "The Cardwell system has the advantage that it reduces the question of the size of the Army to the function of a single variable. That variable is the number of troops which it is essential at any time to keep abroad in the colonies, in India, and the Crown possessions When you have determined the size of this variable you at once determine the size and character of the Army which you will require to support it, and it gives you a clear principle according to which you can lop off what is unnecessary or build up what is essential."
  They wanted the right hon. Gentleman to do a little lopping off, because the Army was too large both at home and abroad. They were told that they required 160,000 men for an expeditionary force which was called the striking force. Whom did they want to strike T Under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman they had started a Territorial Army, which was going to cost a lot of money and cause a great deal of trouble and naturally they supposed it was going to be of some use for defensive purposes. Surely under these circumstances they expected the Regular Army to be smaller. The Secretary for War had said there were seventy four battalions at home, and sixty six of them were required for the expeditionary force, and eight battalions would be left. His excuse for this large expeditionary force was that we were not keeping more at home than we had abroad. "If," he said, "there are seventy four battalions, at home, and sixty six are required for the expeditionary force, there will be eight battalions surplus. Therefore, the expeditionary force is not eating up a single man whom you would not otherwise require to keep up." Why should they keep so many men abroad? He contended that there were far too many abroad. He thought he had said enough to prove that the number of troops maintained at home were fax ins excess of requirements. If he could prove that their requirements abroad did not necessitate so large a force as seventy four battalions, then it followed that they did not require seventy four battalions at home. Now his right hon friend had stated that "the question of the size of the Army is not one the Minister for War can answer unaided The answer must depend on the view of foreign policy taken by the Foreign

  1619
  Secretary, the Secretary for India, and the Colonial Secretary, and it is one that must be determined by the Government as a whole." He would also give the opinions of other Ministers. The Prime Minister (the cause of whose absence they so deeply deplored) in 1903, said—
  "The hon. Member for Oldham has said that up to 1897 our Army was a good one and sufficient for our purposes. That is true. The idea was then that we should never contemplate anything more than an expeditionary force of 70,000 or 80,000 men; and that was more than accomplished with the machinery and material that we had. The question is, What has caused since then an increased demand on the Army? If the Army was strong enough in 1897, why should it need to be stronger now? H the expenditure of £18,000,000 were sufficient in 1897, why should we now require an expenditure of £30,000,000? …."
  Speaking on 11th March, 1903, five years ago that very day, the Foreign Secretary said—
  "If the Navy insures our safety at sea, and if the defence of the Indian frontier be safe, "we then could have time to develop our military power for striking purposes. If that be so, and the 120,000 is not a definite number, I think there is a prima facie case at any rate for asking the Government to show whether the country would not be better off with a smaller expeditionary force of 80,000 or of 40,000 men, if they were prompt and ready, and a much larger and better equipped body of auxiliaries behind them on whom we could draw afterwards."
  He thought a considerable reduction might be made in the Army abroad. In South Africa they were bringing back lour battalions of infantry and one regiment of cavalry, whereas the increase in the number of troops in South Africa had been no less than 14,219 men. So that if the troops in South Africa alone were reduced by 10,000 they would still The over 4,000 in excess of the number there previous to the Boer War. Why should such a force be kept there? They prided themselves that they had given representative Government to 'South Africa and that there was now absolute peace there, and why under those circumstances should such a large force be kept there? There might also be a reduction of the forces maintained in Asia, Hong Kong, and Egypt. We had entered into a Treaty with Trance, and there was less danger in Egypt now than at any previous time, and why should we keep such a large force in that country? The size of the
  1620
  British Army under the system to which he had referred was largely dependent on the number of men we kept in India. He thought we were keeping in India men vastly, in excess of the number really required. Since 1895 there had been an increase from 73,000 to 76,000. He could not see why we required to keep 3,000 more now than in 1895. It seemed to him that the arguments were all in favour of keeping fewer. We had entered into a treaty with Russia which ought to make things very much easier for us. Questions relating to Persia, Afghanistan, and Tibet had been settled for many years to come. He asked the Secretary of State for War why we were keeping more men in India now than before. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the British Army in India was kept there not for aggressive purposes, but to preserve internal order. Was it necessary to keep this large force for preserving internal order? Lord Lawrence did not find it necessary to keep more than 60,000 men there. In 1879 Lord Roberts was a member of a Commission which reported in favour of keeping 61,000. Only a few years ago we were content to leave India with 63,000, and that was at the time of the Boer War, and if ever we had a time of difficulty in India it was then. Why should we require 13,000 more to day? He thought the number there could be reduced by 10,000 or 15,000 with absolute safety. At the time of the Mutiny, when we had only a small force in India, there were only 400 miles of railway, while to day there were 30,000 miles. This made it far easier to do with a small force. He had said enough to prove that we did not require so large a force abroad as we had at the present time. The Army should be brought up to date; we were behind the times. He and his friends who shared his views did not think it necessary to keep up in peace time a war establishment, and. they hoped that the policy which had been adopted by the Government, namely, the policy of pursuing the paths of peace, would be continued. He was convinced that if the Government would be courageous in following that policy it would be absolutely unnecessary to keep up the large force which we were at present maintaining. The country

  1621
  wanted peace, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to hold out some hope that the Estimates next year would show that the Government were studying economy as well as efficiency, and he would say that they should put economy before efficiency. He and his friends wanted to see the country properly defended, but they wanted to see the houses of the people at home properly furnished before battlements were were put on the walls.
  MR. BYLESsaid he must join in the renewed expression of disappointment at the enormous demands made for the Regular Army in the Estimates now before the Committee. He hoped the Government would not try to abridge the discussion of this most important question. He had noticed the eagerness with which the chief Government whip had been watching the clock and conferring with the Chairman, and no doubt the Government desired to get the Vote before a quarter-past eight. If they did not get it to-night, they would probably get it early tomorrow, and nothing would be lost if the discussion did not close now. He believed they had now entered upon what was really the most important question which could possibly engage the attention of the representatives of the people in regard to our preparations for Imperial defence. The technical details which had been discussed that afternoon were all, no doubt, of importance, but they were beyond his ken, but the Committee had now come to the essential question in which the country was interested, namely, why did we want this big Army? They had never been told why the country wanted 160,000 men as an expeditionary force. A great portion of last session was occupied in trying to formulate measures for the construction of a Territorial Army. If the citizens of this country had to defend themselves against
  any marauders who might come here he would be the very first to help them in that defence, but he was not one of those who believed in what a Bishop in the other House called the menagerie theory, that neighbouring nations were waiting to devour us up when we lessened our armaments. If Germany were to put down her army and navy, should we desire to take a single acre of her territory? Why should not we believe the same of Germany? Why should we always suppose that Germany was waiting to swallow us up? Surely England was strong enough to go her own way without being influenced by the votes of the Reichstag. He was one of those who desired to promote international friendliness, and he believed that international friendliness was by far the strongest defence we could have. He wondered whether the Government quite realised the extent to which it was—he would not use the word alienating, but chilling; the enthusiasm of its followers by the enormous proposals it made for both the Army and Navy. This was going on further within the Party than the War Minister really recognised. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not miss the significance of the division which took place in the House last week. It was with the greatest reluctance that he voted against the Government. It was a most thankless thing to do. He and his friends received all sorts of buffets and taunts, but they were not afraid of them. A colleague on leaving the House last night was positively dejected, disappointed, and despairing.
  MR. HALDANErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 186; Noes, 41. (Division List No. 38.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets,S. Geo.)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barker, Sohn

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bethell, Sir J.H(Essex, Romf'rd)

  Agnew, George William

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Armitage, R.

  Beale, W. P.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bell, Richard

  Brace, William

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Branch, James

  Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Richardson, A.

  Brigg, John

  Herbert,Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Robinson, S.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hudson, Walter

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cameron, Robert

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rowlands, J.

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Runciman, Walter

  Cave, George

  Jackson, R. S.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Jenkins, J.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

  Kelley, George D.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Cox, Harold

  Lambert, George

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lamont, Norman

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Crooks, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Summerbell, T.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Dewar, Sir J.A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras, N.'

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  M'Crae, George

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Toulmin, George

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Elibank, Master of

  Maddison, Frederick

  Wadsworth, J.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walters, John Tudor

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Walton, Joseph

  Everett, R. Lacy

  Marnham, F. J.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Wardle, George J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Menzies, Walter

  Waring, Walter

  Findlay, Alexander

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Wason, Rt Hn. E.(Clackmannan

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Middlebrook, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morse, L. L.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Murray, James

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Myer, Horatio

  Wiles, Thomas

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Napier, T. B.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Gulland, John W.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)

  Hall, Frederick

  Partington, Oswald

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Wore'r)

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Radford, G. H.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  NOES.

  Alden, Percy

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fell, Arthur

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster]

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gill, A. H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gordon, J.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Moore, William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Collings Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm

  Hills, J. W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  1624

  1625

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Seddon, J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Mr. Murray Macdonald and Mr. Luttrell

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  On the Question being put—
  MR. BYLES: There is an Amendment moved.
  MR. LUTTRELL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman —
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order. If the hon. Member has any point of order to raise, he must put it to me after I have put the Question.
  The House resumed, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair—
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.
  MR. LUTTRELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wished in Committee to move a reduction of the Vote for men in the Army —
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not know of anything which has occurred in Committee.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. MEAGHER (Kilkenny, N.),in moving, "That this House is of opinion that the system whereby the maximum amount sanctioned by law at a time when the valuation of the city of Dublin was comparatively low still continues to be levied is unjustifiable, in view of the fact that the valuation of the city has greatly increased, and that the number of police has not appreciably increased; that the crimeless condition of the city does not warrant this heavy expenditure; and that the control of this police force should be vested in the local authorities, as is the case in cities in Great Britain," said that the cost of the upkeep of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force was quite unnecessarily large and should be borne by an Army Vote and not by the contributions of the ratepayers of Dublin.
  1626
  In 1836 an Act was passed to make more effective provision for the police of Dublin and other places within certain boundaries. The cost of the police in that area in 1836 was £40,511, and when the Act was passed it was considered that the rate for the maintenance of the police force should not exceed a total amount of £40,511. But he found that the cost charged on the rates had increased in 1870 to £99,000, and in 1905 it amounted to £160,950, or an increase of £61,950. Comparing the amount of crime and the amount of expenditure on the police, he found that the number of indictable offences in 1870 was 5,186 and in 1905 3,235. The summary convictions in 1870 numbered 47,310, and in 1905, 29,916, or a diminution of crime to the number of 19,345 cases. Notwithstanding that, the increase in the charge on the rates during the period 1870 to 1905 was £61,950. He wished to draw the attention of the House to how Dublin was situated, contrasted with other cities in the so called United Kingdom. The population of Dublin was 390,187, and that of Sheffield was 409,071, but in Dublin the police numbered 1,426, and in Sheffield 550. In Glasgow the population was 840,910, or more than double that of Dublin, and the police force only numbered 1,519. In Dublin they had 8d. in the £ police charge—the highest in the United Kingdom. They had 327 of the population for every policeman. In Sheffield it was 4Jd. in the £, and 794 people for every policeman. In Glasgow it was 3½d.in the £, and 523 people for every policeman. More startling still, in Bolton they had 3d. in the £, and 950 people to every policeman. Were they to infer that the population of Dublin were all lions, and the population of Bolton all lambs, or was it the fact that one policeman in Bolton was as good as three in Dublin. [A Voice: The other way about.] He should think so, as was demonstrated in South Africa when the British ranks swerved before the Boers and the Dublin Fusiliers went forward and showed them how to do their work. It was a monstrous thing, and he was

  1627
  sure Members of the House would not find in any part of the world an instance to compare with the city of Dublin in this matter. If they walked the streets of Dublin they would find two burly policemen standing against the street corners, with two or three between them. He wished to know what they were there for. So far as he could see they were there for nothing but to obstruct the public thoroughfare. Let them go to the Castle Yard. He was there a few times for the purpose of seeing that great edifice of English tryanny and oppression. He walked round the Castle, and if one was a good judge of human nature he would see that the policemen were doing nothing. [An HON. MEMBER: Except minding the jewels.] He would not be associated with the disappearance of the jewels. He was not responsible for their disappearance, nor were the Dublin police credited with their safekeeping. The Dublin police appeared always to be sleeping. They always seemed to be conspicuous by their absence when any purse snatching or pocket picking was going on. When all was right they came on the scene and took out their books. In Sheffield, Bristol, Glasgow, Nottingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford, Hudders field, and Birmingham, the police were members of the fire brigade and were inspectors under the Contagious Diseases Act and inspectors of workshops. In Dublin they were not. They were lounging round the lower Castle Yard or in some Department where they could sleep their time away, and the unfortunate ratepayers were compelled to pay 8d. in the £, or 8s. 4d. for every man, woman, and child of the population. It was too much to expect this thing could continue. Year after year they were making a demand for the redress of that awful grievance. Honeyed words were not good enough for them. They had too much of honeyed words in the House. He preferred a reduction of 8d. in the £. His Majesty's Fleet could carry off honeyed words. How were the Dublin Police constituted? There were on the active list two commissioners, and on the retired list two commissioners; on the active list seven superintendents, and on the retired list, nine; on the active list, twenty four inspectors, and
  1628
  on the retired list, forty three. The inspectors retired at the age of fifty three on a pension of £260 a year. It was as plain as a pike staff what was increasing the police rates year after year. He had brought with him a letter which showed an awful state of things with regard to the Dublin Police, but he did not intend to read it because it was anonymous. [A laugh.] If the hon. Member desired him to read it he would do so. The hon. Member referred to several cases, including one mentioned in the anonymous letter, of misappropriation of money by police officers, which, he said, had been dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner, and it was little surprising that huge sums were expended year after year when the police took sums intended for the payment of their comrades in the force. Some time ago a circular was issued by some superior officer of the force, giving the name and rank of every constable, with the particulars of the cases in which he had been engaged for the last twelve weeks or the last twelve months, and that was only a corollary to the action of a sergeant who issued a mandate that each constable should afford five cases a week. This meant that they should do something for the purpose of getting credit for their industry. In this sense they had too much crime in Ireland, and he appealed with confidence to the Chief Secretary to deal with this matter. Let no hon. Member be mistaken, however, as to his attitude towards the right hon. Gentleman; but for the underlying current behind the scenes, he believed he would be a good friend to Ireland. He hoped they would have something more than honeyed words from the right hon. Gentleman. They had unfortunately had too much, of them to rely upon them in the future. When the hon. Member for College Green moved last year to reduce the Vote, the Chief Secretary made some very honeyed remarks. He had he would hesitate, to express an opinion of his own as to whether Dublin was over policed, but he was disposed to think there was a larger body of police there than will necessary to maintain peace and order in that great city. He was glad to notice that everybody who had spoken had paid a high tribute to the general character and integrity of the Dublin Police. The

  1629
  right hon. Gentleman agreed that it was the duty of the Corporation of Dublin to make reports as to the necessity of reducing the cost of the force, and he was disposed to think the Government would safely and wisely do something in that direction. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whit had been done from that day to this. What had been done to reduce the enormous cost of the Dublin Metropolitan Police? He noticed that, later on, the right hon. Gentleman said that so far as the Treasury was concerned the view was that they should be approached with a view to fixing the amount of their grant. His hon. friend the Member for College Green asked if the Government would assist the Corporation of Dublin in finding out in what proportion the money was paid away. He wanted information as to how reductions should be made. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying, said that the hon. Member's request was absolutely reasonable; but no definite conclusion could be arrived at as to how a reduction of such a force of men could be effected without a complete knowledge of all the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman was now in the harvest of his power to do justice to Ireland. He was sorry to have to admit that the spring-time of his administration was attended with very unsatisfactory results. The seed sown by him on that occasion was blown away; and he hoped and trusted that his efforts to redress the many grievances under which Ireland suffered would be attended in the future with very much better results. He appealed to him to grapple with this question in a comprehensive manner. There was at present an element of suspicion underlying the whole thing, and, if the Government did not take the matter in hand in a very short time, the people of Dublin would be very dissatisfied. He pressed the right hon. Gentleman to make some such encouraging move to redress this awful grievance as he yesterday made in regard to the lie of contempt of Court in Ireland. It was one of the most crying grievances that could be considered, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not hesitat, to grapple with it in a comprehensive spirit which would do justice to his administration and to the people of
  1630
  Ireland, who were already handicapped by excessive rates. He begged to move.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI, in seconding, said that he rose with some diffidence to call attention again to this pressing grievance. He dissociated himself from some of the remarks used by his hon. friend in reference to the manner in which the Dublin Metropolitan Police conducted their operations in the city. They were the creatures of circumstances, and, if there were too many of them, and they hung round corners in couples, it was not their fault. They were a disciplined body and were bound to obey orders. He thought he echoed the sentiments of the citizens of Dublin when he said they were proud of the force as a body of men as respectable, as sober, and as well conducted as any force in the United Kingdom. This grievance had at all times met with sympathy from the Treasury Bench, but the time had arrived when something more than honeyed words should be given and some redress vouchsafed. He did not speak as the representative of one section of the community of Dublin; he voiced the sentiments of all sections. Unionists and Nationalists were one and all agreed that the imposition of 8d. in the £ was unwarranted and could not be justified. He would, of course, be met by the answer that the number of police in Dublin was necessary for Imperial purposes; but they did not want an Imperial Force for the maintenance of law and order in Dublin; and, if an Imperial Force was required, it was the duty of the Imperial Exchequer to pay for it. He believed a far less number of men would be competent to keep the peace of the city. When he last brought forward the question, a paper in Dublin, whilst sympathising with them in every way, said they would not be parties to the reduction of the force. He did not know why the paper took that line. All he could say was that the number of police in Birmingham, Sheffield, and Belfast was less than in Dublin. Dublin was the most law-abiding city, and therefore, the number of its police should be far less. The question had become a burning one in Dublin, and if the Chief

  1631
  Secretary did not want more trouble —he did not say it with the slightest intention to threaten—he would advise him to see if he could not redress the grievance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, when Chief Secretary, admitted that there was a great grievance and that something should be done to remedy it, but nothing had been done. He had filled a responsible position in Dublin for the last two years, and he knew that, if the question was not dealt with, there would be a strike against levying the rate. He was not in favour of any such thing. He thought it would be a suicidal policy on the part of the corporation, for, if they declined to levy the rate, at the end of the year they would be some £38,000 or £40,000 short in their budget, and the Government would be able to deduct that amount from the Local Taxation Charges. That would mean that there would be no money to pay the men who did the corporation work, and the state of the labour market in Dublin would be aggravated by throwing out of employment that large army of men. It had, however, been moved in the corporation not to levy for the Police Rate, and the motion was only defeated by three votes. That minority might, when the question came up again, be turned into a majority. That three votes might be turned from a majority into a minority in the course of a month. As a member of the Dublin Corporation he could not think with equanimity of the position of his unfortunate people if, at the end of the year, there was no money to carry out necessary sanitary work in connection with the corporation. It would be of no use for the Chief Secretary to say, as he said last year, that he agreed that the impost was too heavy and that the police were too many. Was that any answer to the corporation? They were not responsible for the rate. They had not the control of the police and could not reduce a single man of them. That was the Chief Secretary's duty. It was on him that the responsibility lay, and he would have to solve the problem. In no other town of the United Kingdom was there anything approximately near what they had to contend with in Dublin. He knew the Chief Secretary meant well to their country, and he would be the last
  1632
  to harass him in his work. He desired that his term of office should be peaceful, and that nothing should arise which, would be the means of creating strife or discontent and give him an uneasy time of it. According to the London Police Act 9d. was the maximum, but they had never attempted to come near it. Eight pence was the maximum for Dublin when the valuation was only £645,000. To day it had trebled; a revaluation was taking place and a further increase was expected; they had the consolation of knowing that as the valuation went up, so did the eightpences. The number of men employed, was only sixty four more than in 1850, and yet the sum had increased to its present enormous figure. What was the cause of this? When getting up a meeting of the representatives of Rathmines, Kingstown, Blackrock, and the City he had endeavoured through the. town clerk to ascertain why this enormous sum was needed and how it was. spent. The answer they got from the Castle was that they could look at the Estimates in that House. But they got very little information from the Votes. The money was largely spent on the pensioning of officers, of whom there were, more then there were on the active list. Dublin had four police magistrates, while Manchester had two, and Leeds, and Liverpool but one. It was not even in increased wages to the men that the money went, because their position had in no way been altered. He regretted that the police were not under the control of the local authority. If they were they would be a more efficient body, would do the duty for which they were paid, and would be very much reduced in numbers, because they would not be required. He did not blame the men. They were not responsible for it and they had to do as they were told. He had spoken to several of them, and they all admitted that a terrible grievance was placed on the citizens of Dublin. Where the money went God only knew. It would take somebody with more influence than he had to find out, for the ramifications of Dublin Castle were such that nobody could get very much information there with reference to anything: they had had evidence of that in the last couple of

  1633
  months. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman, who had to go and be associated with the individuals there. He was only sorry that when the Government took office they did not cut off Dublin Castle altogether. That would be the best day's work they had ever done, and they would have some prosperity in the country. If these men were to be kept for the purposes of Dublin Castle let the Castle pay for them. It was hard on the corporation that no redress should be given them, and that Ministers, while admitting the grievance, should let it go on from year to year. He hoped this would be the last time they would have to bring before the House this scandalous imposition. He knew he was speaking to sympathetic ears, and that they had the feeling of Members above the gangway with them in this protest. He spoke as much for the Unionist as for the Nationalist members of the corporation. He appealed to the Chief Secretary not to let the matter go on any longer; it would save him from the trouble, which, he anticipated were ahead of him. It was acknowledged on all sides that they had a grievance, and they asked the Government to make an honest and determined effort to remove it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House is of opinion that the system whereby the maximum amount sanctioned by law at a time when the valuation of the City of Dublin was comparatively low still continues to be levied is unjustifiable, in view of the fact that the valuation of the city has greatly increased, and that the number of police has not appreciably increased; that the crimeless condition of the city does not warrant this heavy expenditure; and that the control of this police force should be vested in the local authorities, as is the case in cities in Great Britain."—(Mr. Meagher.)
  Mr. T. HARRINGTON, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that they had brought before the House a condition of things which could not be found in any other portion of the United Kingdom. There was no other town that paid a higher police rate than 5d., and in some it was as low as 2½d. In Dublin it had
  1634
  been 8d. ever since it was first established: fifty years ago. They were not asking for a change in the law or in the government of the police. These things must come under different circumstances, and on a different occasion. What they asked was that the citizens of Dublin: should not be required to pay a rate of 8d. in the £, especially when the revaluation was about to take place and the valuation might be increased by 25 per cent. The police did their duty well and intelligently and they were proud of them as a body. They were not asking for a reduction of police. Of course 500 would be quite enough. There were no grounds whatsoever upon which such an: expenditure could be justified. If the corporation refused to levy the rate the Lord Lieutenant could step in and stop the money out of other funds due to the corporation. That was the position of affairs of which he appealed to the Chief Secretary to do something to relieve them. It was a condition of things which would b 5 a disgrace to any city. Why should Dublin pay double the amount paid by all the principal cities and towns, in the United Kingdom in the shape of a police rate? He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to address them in some practical form that evening. He knew the last answer they got when a similar appeal was made to the Treasury. A more monstrous condition of things could not exist, and if the Chief Secretary could not do anything immediately he could at least inform them whether he intended to seek some means of reducing this burden. The present rate was made fifty or sixty years ago and it still continued, and every time attempts were made to improve the city and enhance its value they were obliged to pay additional rates.
  MR. GORDONsaid that so far as the question of police rating in Dublin was concerned he did not profess to know anything about the rights and wrongs of the case. The Royal Irish Constabulary were paid for out of the Imperial revenues, and the city of Dublin was the only place in Ireland where there was a direct tax upon the people for the support of the police force. He did not think that Dublin benefited to such an extent from

  1635
  the police force as compared with other parts of Ireland as to justify this rate of 8d. in the £. That rate seemed to him to be too much in proportion to other districts in Ireland. He quite agreed that there was a very strong feeling in Dublin and in the townships contained in the metropolitan area that they were suffering a considerable hardship and grievance in having to pay that rate. Whether that was right or wrong he thought that those who had control of matters of that kind ought to make an effort to satisfy the mass of the people on the point, and to give an account of how the money contributed by the ratepayers was expended. The question was whether the authorities were right in imposing a rate of 8d. in the £ at present, when that was the rate enforced fifty years ago for a smaller population and on a smaller valuation. If the authorities were right, he thought the citizens of Dublin were sensible enough to grin and bear it. If, on the other hand, they were wrong, then the people of Dublin should not be placed under an exaction which was unreasonable and unfair. With that part of the Motion he was in agreement, and if the Resolution was pressed to a division he would support it if the second part dealing with the control of the police was omitted.
  MR. KETTLEsaid that they complained clearly and definitely of two things. In the first place they complained that the cost was exorbitant in proportion to the police necessities of the city of Dublin; and, secondly, they contended that the police should be brought under the control of the city authorities. He might say, however, that no reduction in the cost of the Dublin police would be satisfactory to the Nationalist Party unless it was accompanied by a reform which would bring the police force under the control of the elected representatives of the city. The average salaries of the officers and men in the Dublin Police Force worked out at between £120 and £125 per annum. That compared favourably not only with salaries earned by national and secondary teachers in Ireland, but also with the earnings of some members of the learned
  1636
  profession in the city of Dublin. They had to pay through the nose for the police force. At the age of fifty three an inspector in the Dublin Police was able to retire upon an allowance of £266 13s. 4d. per annum. The police rate was fixed by Act of Parliament, passed sixty years ago. It laid down what the rate was to be, quite irrespective of any increase in the valuation. That was a matter with regard to the cost of the force. Then with regard to control, he did not know whether any Member of the House entirely realised what it meant. Some three or four years ago when the late Government was in office, his hon. friend, the late Lord Mayor of Dublin, attended an ordinary public political meeting in his capacity as Lord Mayor, and also as an Irish representative in this House. On that occasion the police were able to be ordered out by the Inspector General to baton down the supporters of his hon. friend. So long as politics did not come into the matter, the average member of the Dublin Police was really a credit to our common Christianity; he not only added to the gaiety but to the beauty of the world. He knew no more ornamental figure than a colossal, blue uniformed member of the Dublin Police. If Socrates were alive to day, he would probably join the Dublin police. He and his friends definitely demanded that Dublin should be raised to the status of any other city, and that it should have some control over its police force. The citizens and ratepayers had attempted to protest against the levy of the police rate. Their corporation some years ago declined to collect the police rate, and the Exchequer contribution was intercepted and handed over for the maintenance of the police force. Their protest was, therefore, absolutely ineffective. This question had been discussed twice since the present Government came into office, and the Chief Secretary had spoken with considerable sympathy upon it. What had the right hon. Gentleman been able to do? The Irish Members had asked for a reform of the law, and they had been told that the business of the session was too crowded, and that the reform could not be carried out. They wanted Dublin well policed. At present it was, perhaps, the most efficiently policed city in the kingdom.

  1637
  There was a mystery, no doubt, about the disappearance of the Insignia of the Order of St. Patrick, but setting that aside, Dublin was hopelessly over-policed. The figures were really striking. The average cost to the ratepayers of Dublin was about four times as great as the cost of the London police to the ratepayers of the City of London. The London police had to deal with an international population. Here there was a professional criminal class, and a considerable number of refugees. In Dublin there were not people of that class to be kept in check. Dublin was free from these excrescences except when pickpockets from this country paid occasional visits when exhibitions were held, and when the King came to Ireland. The valuation of the city increased and crime decreased, but the police rate remained absolutely fixed. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to point to any practical solution of the difficulty. If it was not blasphemy to use the words, he very much feared that the only cure for the evil was Gladstonian Home Rule.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIERELL,): When I had to speak to the House on this subject about a year ago, I had not then what I now enjoy, personal acquaintance with the members of the Metropolitan Dublin Police Force. I am, therefore, able to join in the general concurrence of opinion as to the admirable character of that body of men. They are agreeable in their manners and especially devoted to the safe protection of the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the time being, and I express my recognition for all they have done on my hehalf. The only question, or at all events the first question, we have to consider now is whether there are not far too many of them—in other words, whether Dublin is not very much over policed. Certainly the figures which are within the reach of everybody would indicate that unless Dublin is very much over policed it is indeed a city full of crime and diseension. Take Liverpool, with a population of over 704,000 people, of whom one seventh at least belong to the Irish nation. There you have a seaport city, never, so far as I know, remarkable for its quietude or for its dis-
  1638
  position to obey the law beyond that which is seemly in all citizens. It has a police force of 1,428. Dublin, with a population of 392,797 has a police force of 1,246. In Liverpool there is one policeman for 493 citizens, while in Dublin each of these gentlemen to whom I have referred has as small a number as 315 assigned to his care. Take Manchester, with a population of 606,824. It has one policeman for 520 of the population. All these things, I think, point to the fact that there is room for inquiry as to whether Dublin is not very much over policed, and I cannot but believe these figures. I will not trouble the House with the particulars of Bristol, Sheffield, Leeds, and Cardiff, but the House may take it from me that the figures are equally striking. Therefore, I certainly think there is ground for inquiry as to whether or not Dublin is not very much over-policed. There we have to consider the cost of maintaining this body, and we have been told with perfect truth that for many years the maximum rate the law permits of 8d. in the £ has been charged as police tax in Dublin. Dublin has a great many out townships stretching a long way into the country, upon which this very heavy charge of 8d. undoubtedly falls. No doubt it is true that a new valuation of Dublin and all parts now within the Metropolis is in course of manufacture, and I daresay it may be that when we get that new valuation this tax of 8d. may fall to 6d.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that is fixed by statute?
  MR. BIRRELL: NO. Only the maximum.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: Yes. But they have never taken anything less.
  MR. BIRRELL: I believe that antiquarian research would show that it has been less than 8d. That is far in excess of what is levied in any of the great towns in England, and even on the new assessment the tax would still be largely in excess of other cities in England. In Liverpool this tax amounts to 5d., in Cardiff to something between 2d. and

  1639
  3d., in Manchester to a little over 4d., in Bristol to 4 50d., in Sheffield to 4 32d., in Leeds to 4·56d. At present the tax in Dublin is, as I have said, 8d., and even if it were reduced on a new assessment, it would be very largely in excess of other cities. I have a representative of the Treasury at my side—and I desire to play fair with everybody—and I ask him what is the contribution towards the Metropolitan Dublin Police from the Imperial Exchequer. I do not deny that 8d. appears to be a very heavy tax; but Heaven only knows, or rather arithmetic would only tell, what the tax would be in Dublin were it not for the contribution of the Imperial Exchequer. Instead of 8d. it would be 2s. 2d. In the present state of thing the cost of those 1,426 fine, large, stately policemen in whom we are all so interested, not paid for by the ratepayers of Dublin, but received from the Imperial Exchequer, is equal to a rate of between 1s. 6d. and 1s. 7d.
  MR. MEAGHERsaid he did not think it amounted to that; but it did not matter whether it cost the Imperial Exchequer a penny or a million, when the citizens of Dublin had to pay a rate of 8d. in the £.
  MR. BIRRELL: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's admirable speech with composure and without interruption, and I am not going into the merits of the case as he presented it. I am perfectly disposed to believe that Dublin is over policed, I concede that it is very costly and extravagant in its management. I am only saying that, as a matter of fact, although the ratepayers of Dublin do pay the extravagant sum of 8d. in the £, there is this contribution from the Treasury which amounts to shillings compared with the pence contributed by the City of Dublin. It should be borne in mind, therefore, that heavy as the charge is on the ratepayers of Dublin, the charge on the Treasury is beyond all comparison with what it is in any other city. Whilst in other cities the Treasury does not contribute more than one half towards the cost of the police, in the case of Dublin they contribute two thirds. I quite agree that
  1640
  if Dublin is over policed, and if you can reduce the number of police, you will reduce the cost. I also quite agree that all the reduction should not go into the hands of the Treasury, but that it should be shared with the ratepayers of Dublin, taking the average of several years. I am not in any way or for one moment surprised at the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. My hon. friend who spoke last insisted a little upon the latter part of the Resolution which says that: "The control of this police force should be vested in the local authority as in the case in cities in Great Britain." He said that it was of the utmost importance that Dublin should have the control of its own police as well as its metropolitan rights. The hon. Gentleman probably does not think very much of the Government of which Dublin is the seat, and that it could do very well without it. I do not quarrel with him for entertaining that opinion, but if he wants Dublin to be treated like other cities in Great Britain, apart from the Metropolitan District of London, he must be prepared to pay half the cost of the police. That is what the other cities have to pay which do not claim to be metropolitan cities of the Empire. They pay half the cost of the police, and the Treasury pays the other half. The entire cost of the force is £151,430 a year. About one third of that is paid by the ratepayers of Dublin, and the other two thirds are paid by the Imperial Exchequer. If that expenditure can be reduced, I am quite sure, speaking on behalf of the Treasury, that they would not be in the least desirous to lay claim to and appropriate the whole of the advantage to themselves, but are perfectly willing that the proceeds should be shared between the citizens of Dublin and the Exchequer. I have been told to use no honeyed words. I have not got any honey about me. [AN IRISH MEMBER: You have money.] I wish I had money; any money I could lay hold of would be at the disposal of Ireland as a whole without distinction of creed or class. I am quite prepared, if the hon. Gentleman opposite think it desirable, to appoint a Vice Regal Commission to inquire into the facts relative to the police in Dublin and its management—as to whether Dublin is over policed or

  1641
  not, because there are two opinions on that subject. There are some people who would look with disfavour on the reduction of this fine force; but you cannot have economy without reduction. As the right hon. the Secretary for War would say, it is always very difficult to reduce your force, whether at Woolwich or at any other place, and if you are compelled to do so you are accused of making life hardly worth living, and making the necessities of life harder to obtain. I believe that Dublin is over policed, and that great economy can be accomplished in that way. I cannot say that we have withheld expenditure on the Dublin police force, and if hon. Gentlemen care to consult the Civil Service Estimates at page 331, they will see there very full information as to the expenditure of money on extra pay for the police force. I have no doubt that economies can be made, and that reduction can be made with perfect safety in the police force; and I am satisfied that the economies would be fairly divided between the Treasury, as representing the Imperial Exchequer, and the ratepayers of Dublin and Rathmines. I therefore go beyond what I did last year, having had greater opportunities during the last twelve months of inquiring into the case. I am willing there should be an inquiry into the numbers of the Dublin police force and their cost, including pensions, in order to see what practical economies can be effected. I do not think that I can honestly go further than that. The first part of the Motion is not open to very much objection; but I cannot accede to the last part: "That the control of this police force should be rested in the local authority as in the case of cities in Great Britain." I feel that Dublin is at present entitled to a larger contribution from the Treasury than other cities in Great Britain, on the ground that it is at present one of our metropolitan cities, and the seat of Government—of its kind. [NATIONALIST cheers.] I am glad to receive the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do not think that the citizens of Dublin are entitled to a larger share from the Imperial Exchequer, assuming that its metro
  1642
  politan rights, and to lay claim to a larger contribution from the Treasury than one-half of the cost, which would be all that they would have if Dublin were treated as an ordinary town. I think they would be well advised if they accepted an inquiry into the police force in Dublin with, a view of discovering if that force can be considerably reduced and whether large economies can be effected so that this tax of 8d. may be materially and substantially reduced.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that he had been a long time in the House and his experience was that they should always desire to obtain some practical results from a discussion of this kind. He was not much of a believer in Commissions. They had had Commissions innumerable on every Irish subject during the last twenty five years. Most of those Commissions, it might be said, had led to nothing, but still he thought that the appointment of a Vice Regal Commission in this matter was some sort of an advance, and if it was properly constituted and its reference was sufficiently wide some good might come of it. They were dealing with a grievance which was admitted, and the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was an intolerable grievance to all sections of the citizens of Dublin that they should be called upon to pay 8d. in the £ by way of police tax, whereas there was no other town in the United Kingdom which paid more than 5d. and the majority only paid 3d. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that there were two questions concerning this case. One was the number of the police, and he thought that no one who knew anything about Dublin would deny that the number was excessive. He was sure that any proper inquiry would lead to a report to that effect, and apparently, therefore, the Commission might have the good result of promoting if not of effecting immediately the reduction of the number. The next question was the excessive cost of the police in Dublin, and there could be no doubt about that, as it was a remarkable thing that the 1,200 policemen in the City of Dublin cost more than 1,200 policemen in London or any city in this country. He had the figures, and it was quite true

  1643
  that, quite apart from what the citizens of Dublin paid, the gross cost of each policeman in Dublin was far more than that of each policeman in London or any city in this country. That was the cause of what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, namely, that the contribution from the Exchequer towards the police in Dublin was larger than its contribution to the police of cities in this country. Why should the policeman in Dublin cost more than in London or elsewhere? It was the same old story; the same cause that ran through the whole of the Government of Ireland in every Department from top to bottom and made it more expensive than the Government of England, Scotland or "Wales. What was true of other Departments was true of the police. He saw no reason why this should be so and why an impartial Commission should not report that the number of police and the cost per constable were excessive. If these two things were found there was no reason why the total cost and the cost to the ratepayer should not be diminished. That being so, while he and his colleagues would prefer that immediate steps should be taken to remedy this grievance, they recognised that this Commission got them somewhat forwarder, and therefore he would be inclined to accept this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the control of the police, there was a great deal to be said, and no doubt if they were to insist upon taking the opinion of the House on their full case with reference to the police they would stand to every syllable of the Resolution and divide the House upon it. But there was something in what the Chief Secretary had said that this question of the control of the Dublin police was mixed up with great political and constitutional questions, and he would not be in favour of refusing this inquiry simply because they were not able to get a satisfactory answer on the question of control. Of course, he was not satisfied; he considered it an intolerable thing that this grievance had gone on un redressed for fifty years, and that they had come to this House for the last quarter of a century with a grievance admitted and nothing done. While he
  1644
  was not satisfied, under all circumstances he thought that for the sake of getting some practical advance his hon. friend would be well advised in withdrawing his Motion and asking the Chief Secretary to appoint a Vice Regal Commission such as he had indicated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not only appoint a competent and impartial body but would enter into some consultation with the Irish Members in order that the reference to the Commission might be sufficiently wide to take in all the questions which arose in reference to the excessive cost of the police and the excessive burden on the taxpayers of Dublin.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I rise primarily to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the way his path is smoothed by the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.
  MR. BIRRELL: Surely I am entitled to some assistance.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I allude to the way in which the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the very small favour he had got to night.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I got nothing from you.
  MR. WALTER LONG: If it had come from us it would have been received in a different way altogether. What did the right hon. Gentleman tell hon. Members below the gangway? He told them that it is very unlikely that this inquiry will result in any very material decrease in the cost of the police to the citizens of Dublin, because the cost of the police is borne now between the Treasury and the local ratepayer, as to one third by the local ratepayer and as to two thirds by the State. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said that the police in Dublin are under this system, more costly than the police anywhere else and he says that that is his experience throughout the government of Ireland. But we cannot on this Motion discuss the general question of the expenditure on. Irish government. With regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, I of course raise no objection to the inquiry, and as

  1645
  a Member for the county which contains Dublin, I shall be extremely glad if those of my constituents who are in the metropolitan area derive something from the inquiry. But I think we ought to know what is exactly its scope. The Chief Secretary has said that there ought to be a further inquiry into the actual cost of the police themselves, and to that obviously there can be no objection on our part, because, if it Can be shown that it costs more to keep a policeman to do the same duty in Dublin than in any other part of the United Kingdom, obviously there is a case for consideration, although I hope it will not be assumed that the change will necessarily be one which will injure the police force itself. I confess I was rather surprised and sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Liverpudlian, choose Liverpool as the town for his comparison and say that Liverpool was not remarkable for its law-abiding character.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is a lively place.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It may be, but I think it is most remarkable for its law abiding character, and as one who once had the privilege of representing a portion of it, I could not allow a remark of that sort to pass unchallenged. But the right hon. Gentleman forgets that there are occasions in Dublin when large numbers of police are called for, not by lawlessness or disorder, but by excitement of popular opinion. The other day a force of police was called to intervene in the Mansion House itself during the consideration of an ordinary Bill. These are causes which lead to the withdrawal of the police from their ordinary duties. I do not say it is any imputation on Irishmen, but I hope it will not be assumed from what has fallen from the Chief Secretary that a case is made out for a material reduction of the force, which might, if it were embarked upon, be a serious danger to the ordinary peace and quiet of the city of Dublin. Subject to those limitations, I have no objections to offer to the course the Chief Secretary intends to pursue, because I understand that while he makes the proposal of an inquiry in answer to the first part of the Resolution, he absolutely refuses to accept the latter
  1646
  part, which proposes to transfer the control of the police from the Irish Government to the local authority. On previous occasions distinguished Members of the party below the gangway have expressed the view—Mr. Sexton himself expressed it during the debate on the first Home Rule Bill— that such a change ought not to he embarked upon and that it would be undesirable, and therefore I hear with profound satisfaction the Chief Secretary's declaration that he is opposed to that part of the Resolution.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Motion was one largely in the interests of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, but probably he could hardly point out his constituency on the map. So far from there being any disorder in Dublin comparable with what existed in many English cities, he ventured to say that for something like thirty or forty years there had not been fired there rifle shots such as were heard only last year in Belfast, where something like 1,200 or 1,500 men were required to keep the peace. That condition of affairs existed in a certain loyal city in the North of Ireland, which in the last five years had never made one 6d. contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, and now only paid 3½d. in the £ instead of the 8d. they were compelled to pay in Dublin. That 3½d. was only exacted from them by a Conservative administration after they had continually pointed out that Belfast was in the enjoyment of three-fourths of something like 1,100 men without a contribution of 6d. from the ratepayers. There was an additional contribution made in Dublin that had not been mentioned. He referred to the half soverign exacted from every publican under an old Act. Until 1888 every pawnbroker in Dublin had to contribute £95 16s. 8d. to the upkeep of the city. Furthermore, large contributions came from the Fines Fund of the city in aid of the Treasury, and, most exasperating of all, every time they paid 6d. or 1s. to a carman for his car fare they were making a contribution to the Imperial Exchequer, because the whole of the licence duties of the eleven or twelve hundred carmen in

  1647
  Dublin went in aid of the police. The tram company of the city thus actually paid £3,000 or £4,000 a year for the upkeep of the police. Did that exist in Belfast or any other part of the United Kingdom? He challenged any man to deny that a woman, whatever her rank, could walk through the city at any our of the. day or night without insult. So. far as the maintenance of peace and order was concerned he ventured to say there was not a city to compare with Dublin in the United Kingdom, and certainly not in that very loyal portion of Ulster about which they were in the habit of hearing so much. He thought they might make this complaint about the Chief Secretary: he said it to one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office, and would say it to him: "You do not seem to be the Chief Secretary for Ireland; you seem to be the Chief Secretary for England, because very time the Treasury makes a demand upon our officials, you instantly shrink into your dens and say Oh, we must obey the Treasury. What they wanted was an Irish Secretary. They "wanted some man who would stand up for their country and tell the British Treasury: "Your conduct is unfair; I will not be a party to it." If they had someone who would do that,: men who had, not an English conscience but an Irish conscience, and would say: We will not be any party to your exactions," they would very soon nave a change in the conduct of the Treasury towards Ireland. Upon that be always took his stand on the declaration of Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords, which ought to be rubbed in again and again and again. Lord Salisbury speaking as Prime Minister, regarding the Boer War, placed the whole liability for the misconduct and folly of that campaign on the shoulders of the British Treasury. This body, which was at one time simply regarded as a body that tried to save them from exaction, was now, next to the Press of England, their greatest curse. They had to complain that no consideration was ever given to any of the demands they put forward. As regarded this question of the Dublin Police, while he shared cordially in what had been said as to their general good conduct, they were entitled to
  1648
  ask the Government to put them on the basis of Belfast, which enjoyed a force of 560 men, and received a Treasury, contribution amounting to half the cost. Why should not Dublin be put on the same footing? What had Belfast, the city of riots and disorder, so far as the month of July, at all events, was concerned, done to entitle it to a contribution from the Treasury greater than Dublin received? He sincerely trusted that if the Commission, which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of, issued, it would take into consideration the subject of Belfast, the contribution which Belfast made to the Imperial Treasury, the annual cost to the country of the drafts for the Royal Irish Constabulary going to Belfast in July and August, and whether Belfast should not be compelled to pay a contribution in the same way as Roscommon had to do when cattle driving or any other matter of that kind was in force. The whole condition of the police force ought to be taken into account. He would like very much to see the Commission extended beyond the Dublin area to the police force as a whole. He believed the amount paid to officers as compared with the amount paid to the men was excessive, and that much discontent arose from that fact. If the Government extended the inquiry in this way such incidents as arose in Belfast recently out of the discontent there would disappear, and the police throughout the country would find that so far from there being any desire on their part to see them unjustly treated they were more in favour of seeing pay and promotion, which was at present largely given to officers, fairly and equitably distributed amongst the rank and file.
  MR. MOOREsaid he would not have intervened had it hot seemed to him that in the speech they had just heard there had been a certain amount of somewhat gratuitous challenge and offence to a part of the country which it was not necessary to name and which had only been referred to, not so much to point an argument or adorn a tale as to do what the hon. Member had so frequently done before, to seize the opportunity of dragging his coat across the path of those of his

  1649
  countrymen who hailed from the northern portion of Ireland. Whatever their faults might be, he did not know that they ever refused a challenge of that sort, and less than ever on that occasion did he feel disposed to do so. But before they talked of war they ought to recognise how thoroughly in every department, and on every point, the olive branches of peace had been exchanged between the Chief Secretary and hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. Night after night minatory threats were made as to what would happen to the right hon. Gentleman should he attempt to put off what were called unconditional demands, as he had done that night, with honeyed words. They were told of the wonderful and sudden and calamitous end that would happen to the right hon. Gentleman if he did not yield on the spot to their demands in respect of the repeal of the Crimes Act, of contempt of Court, or of evidence in the case of persons held to find sureties of the peace for good behaviour. The right hon. Gentleman took these threats at their real value. It was not their face value. At present they enjoyed rather a debased currency, because the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that no matter what the threats might be, Gentlemen, below the gangway, in spite of un conditional refusal, would immediately troop into the division lobby behind him. They had seen that time after "time and would probably see it until a certain measure was introduced dealing with higher education in Ireland, for the make of which the insults and grievances under which hon. Members suffered would be meekly swallowed and pocketed. One matter had struck him very much. When the hon. Member for the Harbour Division said it was not really the object of those who thought with him to transfer the present government of the Metropolitan Police and his attention was drawn to the fact that the resolution did not carry out that view, he said that that was a matter of form. The hon. Member absolutely declined to change the present government of the Dublin police and vest it in the Corporation. He knew his own Corporation. Then they had the hon. Member for East Tyrone, whose constituency was a very long way from
  1650
  Dublin. He was quite willing in the name of his constituents that the control of the police should be put under the Dublin Corporation. Then came the hon. Member for North Louth, who was not going to trust the Dublin Corporation with the control of the police. He wanted to treat them as they were treated in Belfast, and to merge them to all intents and purposes in the Royal Irish Constabulary. They did not often find such diversity of opinion amongst hon. Members below the gangway. Whoever had the control of the Metropolitan police in Dublin it certainly ought not to be the Corporation of Dublin, and that was the reason why they objected to this Motion. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had referred to the fact that there was unfortunately a rifle shot in Belfast last year. He might point out that for ten years there had not been one before. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He challenged any hon. Member from Ireland to contradict his statement. If there had been a rifle shot in Belfast it had occurred in the Nationalist quarter, and in an affray between the Nationalists and the police. In Dublin they had a minority whose misfortune it was that they were Unionists, but they never heard of the Dublin minority being brought into conflict with the police. This debate had taken place not in the interests of the police at all. He was glad to note the great change in the feelings of hon. Members below the gangway towards the police, for they were now professing an intense love for the police authorities. This Motion was also claimed to be put forward in the interests of the ratepayers of Dublin. What was the actual position? No less than two thirds of the rates for the Metropolitan area of Dublin were paid by the Unionists of the City of Dublin. Surely they were the people who ought to have a voice in this matter and whose opinion ought to carry weight. The late Lord Mayor of Dublin had put the case clearly before the House on behalf of the employees of the Corporation.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he spoke on behalf of the Unionists as well as the Nationalists. Upon this question he represented the Unionists of Rathmines

  1651
  and Dalkey, and spoke on behalf of the ratepayers who had joined with the Corporation of. Dublin in protesting against this police tax.
  MR. MOOREsaid that one of the arguments of the hon. Member was that the ratepayers for whom he professed to speak would be driven to strike against the rate, the immediate effect of which would be that the scavengers and others in the employ of the Corporation would be out of work, and he made a very strong point of that. Now the right hon. Gentleman opposite knew perfectly well that the Unionist ratepayers, who paid two thirds of the rates, had not the slightest intention of striking against the rate.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid that what he stated was that the Corporation of Dublin had the power of levying and collecting this police rate, and they might be disposed not to levy the rate at all. In that case he said the people employed by the Corporation might be thrown out of employment.
  MR. MOOREsaid the Corporation were powerless in the matter, because if they refused to levy the rate the money could be deducted from other funds. The proposer of this Resolution had said that if this tax was continued there would probably be an anti rate war, that the ratepayers would suffer so much that eventually they would refuse to pay their rates, and that was the pious aspiration of the hon. Member who had moved the Resolution. As the right hon. Gentleman might rely upon two thirds of the ratepayers of Dublin refusing to enter upon a war of that Sort, he could sleep peaceably in his bed. He was a ratepayer in Dublin himself, and any ratepayer who was now paying the ordinary respectable amount of 8d. in the £ would prefer that that rate should continue in perpetuity rather than the metropolitan police should be transferred to the kindly care and control of the Dublin Corporation. The hon. Member for East Tyrone had said that the Dublin police were all very well until politics were introduced amongst them. If the control of the police was transferred to the Dublin Corporation they all knew perfectly well that there would not be a
  1652
  man admitted to that force unless he was nominated by a publican, or an out and out Fenian, or a sworn member of the United Irish League. He had read that day a letter in the Freeman's Journal, written by one of the leaders of the numerous sections into which hon. Members below the gangway were divided, Mr. Arthur Griffith, a Nationalist. What did he say about his own Corporation? This was not the opinion of a bigoted Orangeman, but a bird of the same brood and the leader of the Sinn Fein Party. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: He is not an Irishman.] He did not know his pedigree, but he was the imported leader of one of the Irish sections. Mr. Griffith wrote complaining of the expenditure each year of thousands of pounds in cheques to English lawyers, to Dublin Corporation officials, and to Members of the Dublin Corporation, under the heading of expenses in London. It was admitted that the name of the Corporation of Dublin was a byword among municipalities. It was pretended that for the good of the country and for the protection of property this fine force should be handed over to the control of such a body, in other words, placed under the heel of an Irish Tammany. He would protest against that being done as long as he had words to do so in this House. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had compared Dublin and Belfast. The affairs of Belfast Corporation were managed by men who were trusted and respected among their fellows. There was nothing to conceal or to be ashamed of in Belfast municipal life. He objected to the Dublin police force being handed over to the publicans and sinners who composed the Dublin Corporation.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he could assure the hon. and learned Member that if he desired to bring to their feet Ulster Members, and especially those who came from Belfast, he had only to speak of that City as he had done in that debate. He was glad to say that he was ready at any time to allow the City of Belfast to be placed in competition not only with Dublin, but with any other city in the three kingdoms; and he was quite certain that if an inquiry were

  1653
  held in matters municipal, social, or economic, Belfast would come out with flying colours. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth, in making one or two comparisons between Belfast and Dublin, had said, for instance, that a lady might walk through Dublin at any hour of the night without molestation. He would tell the hon. Member that a lady might do the same in Belfast. As to the Belfast riots he would only say that, as the hon. Member was aware, those riots were entirely due to persons of his own political persuasion. That fact was known by everybody, and Nationalist Members dared not deny it. As to 12th July celebrations which had been referred to, he would say that nobody resented more than Orangemen that extra police were drafted into Belfast, and no people had more endeavoured to impress upon the authorities that these extra police were absolutely unnecessary. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth knew perfectly well that for ten or twelve years past Belfast had been absolutely peaceful on 12th July.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing whatever in the Motion about Belfast or 12th July. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Motion.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that he was aware of that, and he would not have got up to make these few remarks had it not been for the insulting observations which had been made about Belfast. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth had ended his speech by saying that Dublin should be put on the same basis as Belfast. That was rather inconsistent with the earlier part of his speech, in which he could say nothing too bad for Belfast. That the 12th of July celebrations had passed off absolutely peacefully for several years had been acknowledged.
  MR. MEAGHERasked leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSin moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said that it had passed its
  1654
  Second Reading with the unanimous consent of the House a few years ago. The object of the measure was, instead of having so much literary teaching in rural schools, to provide for the teaching of agricultural and horticultural subjects, and of Nature study. While these ubjects might be optional in urban schools, they would be compulsory in schools in rural districts, and where possible school gardens for practical instruction in fruit culture, flower growing, and the like should be provided. Unless this was done in elementary schools the teaching in the higher and secondary schools was practically useless. If the children reached the age of fifteen on book learning only, it was too late to get them to take up agriculture. Children trained in these pursuits very early acquired a liking for them, and that continued with them in after life. At the last meeting of the Dairy Farmers' Association he saw a girl of about thirteen milking cows as well as he had ever seen it done in his life. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR P. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman need not be afraid; he was not going to prevent his Bill going through. He only wanted to ask him one or two questions. A sub section of Clause 2 said that a special grant not exceeding 75 per cent. of the cost should be made by the local education authority of these schools. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the object of the Bill in rural districts was excellent; but he asked whether this clause, which contemplated increased expenditure, meant that all the subjects at present taught in the schools were to be in addition to what was provided for n this Bill? For, if so, that would cause a largely increased expenditure. He hoped that on the Committee Stage the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to make such alterations in the Bill as would cover the object of it, but would not impose increased expenditure on the locality.

  SMALL HOLDINGS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR F. BANBURYthought that they had had enough of Agricultural Bills at ten minutes before eleven o'clock, and that when they came to another Bill by the right hon. Gentleman, this time dealing with Small Holdings, some explanation of it ought to have been made. He knew something about the Bill, although he had not yet thoroughly looked into it, and he contended that it was absolutely contrary to the Small Holdings Act passed last session.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: No, not at all; it only amends the Act of 1892.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that that only showed the difficulty in which they were placed when a Bill was brought in without any explanation. After reading the Bill he contended that it was contrary to the measure passed last year, the only principle of which was that it did not include purchase, while this Bill did.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSdissented.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the difficulty was to know what the Bill was about.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid he did not understand what the nature of the Bill was, but he gathered that it was intended to alter the Small Holdings Act of 1892. He thought that it was rather a serious matter after the House had decided only last year to deal with the Small Holding question in a certain way, after having gone into the whole matter at great length, that the promoters of this Bill should have introduced it without some very clear explanation of what alterations in the law they proposed. The right hon. Gentleman was acting in a very curious way to the House. When a Bill was brought in it was generally explained, and the right hon. Gentleman could not expect the House, which had been taken by surprise, because no one expected this Bill to come on that night, to give a
  1656
  Second Reading to a measure which would very materially alter the Small Holdings Act passed last year. They all knew the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to get small holdings by means, of purchase, but there were a great many Members in the House who were not so anxious to develop small holdings on those lines. Indeed, last year's Act was based on a different principle, that the land should be held by the community, from whom the tenant should rent it. He did not say that the two systems were incompatible, but they did not know to what extent this Bill would cut across the principle of last year's Act.
  And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Wednesday, 25th March.

  TRUSTS BILL.
  Read a second time.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee. —(Mr. Renddl.)

  SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).
  Postponed Proceeding resumed.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow;. Committee also report Progress; to sit again To morrow.

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Lords Message [5th March], "That it is desirable that the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament," considered.
  Resolved, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(Mr. Whitley.)
  MR. WHITELEYin moving the Adjournment of the House, gave notice that he would to morrow move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule.
  Adjourned at five minutes' after Eleven o'clock.