Commons Sitting of 25 March 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill; Dublin and South Eastern Railway Bill; Seaham Herbour Bill.—As amended considered; to be read the third time.
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill.—Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP I.).
  Mr. ASHTON reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That Mr. Thomas Richards (Monmouth) one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP I).
  Mr. ASHTON reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Private Bills: That Mr. Stephen Collins, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the London County Council to construct and work tramways and make a new street and street improvements and other works in the

1395
county of London; and for other purposes." [London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Rhymney Railway Company to reconstruct their Cardiff passenger station; to make a new railway; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords.].]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with reference to the registration under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1907, of the Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society as a limited company, and the alteration of its constitution, the extension of its objects and business, and the sub-division of its shares, by substituting a memorandum and articles of association for its deed of settlement and existing laws and regulations, and for the repeal of the Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society's Act, 1897; and for other purposes." Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Bill [Lords.].
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [Lords]; Rhymney Railway Bill [Lords]; Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Newport, against; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Maryport, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petitions for legislation: From Harlesden; and Ilkley; to lie upon, the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against: From Coleshill; Leeds; London; North West Wilts; Salisbury; Tamworth; and Tonbridge to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Shaw, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Bolton (two); Bradford; Clapham; Cwmbran; Edinburgh; Maryport; Oxford; Rothesay; Saffron Walden; Saint Pancras; Shalf; and Upper Holloway; to lie upon the Table.
  MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL TRAWLING).
  Petition from Macduff, for prevention; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Central Finsbury; and Limehouse; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSION AT LORD ASHTOWN'S LODGE, GLENAHIERY, COUNTY WATERFORD.
  Copies presented, of the Reports of County Inspector Jennings, Royal Irish Constabulary, to the Police Authorities, dated 14th August, 1907, 17th August, 1907, and 14th September, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL EXPORTS, ETC.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th February; Mr. David Alfred Thomas]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 100.]

  MILE END OLD TOWN.
  Copy presented, of Report to the President of the Local Government Board on an Inquiry into the Administration

  1397
  of the Guardians of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POSTAL AGREEMENT (MOZAMBIQUE).
  Copy presented, of Postal Agreement for the exchange of Postal Parcels between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of the Portuguese Colony of Mozambique, dated 22nd February, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No.16) Warrant, 1908, dated 26th February, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No.17) Warrant, 1908, dated 7th March, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Post Office—Sick Pay of Unestablished Officers.
    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has ascertained that it is a fact that the sick pay of unestablished men, who have met with accidents on duty, has been reduced since July last; and, as this affects men on small pay, will he take steps to see that the former practice of paying full wages to unestablished officers absent from duty through such accidents is reverted to.
    (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Prior to 1st July last, on which date the Workmen's Compensation Act, which applies to Government servants, became law, unestablished officers of the Post Office received full pay when their absence from duty was due to accident on duty. The men in question get the full benefit of the provisions of the Act, which are in some respects more and in other respects less favourable than the arrangements in force before.

    Evicted Tenants—Reinstatement of Mrs. O'Shaughnessy.
    MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in regard to the case of Mrs. Ellen O'Shaughnessy, whose late husband was evicted from his farm at Kilbraher, Dromina, Charleville, negotiations were opened by the Estates Commissioners over two years ago with a view to her reinstatement; whether Colonel Orpin, the landlord, and the present occupier, Timothy Griffin, are willing to hand over this farm to Mrs. O'Shaughnessy on condition that Griffin is provided with another suitable holding; whether he is aware that the Commissioners stated last year that they were engaged in trying to procure such suitable holding for Griffin; and whether he will now state what steps, if any, they have taken within the past year to bring about the desired result.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are still negotiating with Timothy Griffin with the object of providing him with a holding in lieu of the farm at present in his occupation, in order that the latter may be given to Mrs. O'Shaughnessy.

    Reinstatement of Richard Foy.
    MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Richard Foy, formerly of Mayo, but now of Sligo, who claims reinstatement in the farm from which his father, Richard Foy, was evicted, and which farm is situate in the townland of Ballinaraw, near Bunninadden, Ballymote, County Sligo; and whether, as this tenant was capriciously evicted without compensation, and in view of the many other circumstances surrounding the eviction, the Estates Commissioners will take action with the view of having these orphans either reinstated in the old place or else provided with a farm equally good.
    (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received and inquired into the application in question, and have decided that the applicant is a fit person to be provided with a holding

    1399
    if one can be found for him. The holding formerly occupied by the evicted tenant is in the occupation of another tenant.

    New Wells in the Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that the Local Government Board state that during the past three years four new wells have been sunk in the Island of Lewis and that three more are expected to be completed by May, will he name the townships in which these seven new wells are repectively situated.
    (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Further inquiries show that greater progress has been made than was stated in the Answer to my hon. friend on 16th March. The facts are these. Since 1905 ten wells have been sunk and protected at Knock, Carloway, Lochgainmhich, Cross, Skigersta, Coulregein, Tong, Melbost, Habost, and Raernish. Five wells are under construction, one at Branahine and four at Aignish.

    Local Education Authorities and the Provision of Meals Act.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the names of the local education authorities that have adopted the Provision of Meals Act, and the amount of the rate they are levying to provide the food, etc., required.
    (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Except in cases where it is desired to spend money from the rates upon the purchase of food under Section 3 local authorities are not required by the Act to inform the Board of Education of their proceedings under it, and I have, therefore, no complete information as to the authorities who have in one way or another taken advantage of its provisions. The following local education authorities have been authorised by the Board to spend money from the rates upon the purchase of food:—England: Aston Manor Urban District; Bath County Borough; Birmingham County Borough; Bootle County Borough; Bradford County Borough; Brighton County Borough; Bury St. Edmunds County
    1400
    Borough; Cannock Urban District; Crewe Borough; Durham County Council; Erith Urban District; Farnworth Urban District; Gillingham Borough; Halifax County Borough; Hartlepool Borough; Hastings County Borough; Hebburn Urban District; Huddersfield County Borough; Keighley Borough; Kent County Council; King's Norton and Northfield Urban District; Manchester County Borough; Newcastle-upon-Tyne County Borough; Norwich County Borough; Nottingham County Borough; St. Helens County Borough; Sheffield County Borough; South Shields County Borough; Swindon Borough; Tottenham Urban District; Wallasey Urban District; Walthamstow Urban District; Workington Borough; York County Borough. Wales: Barry Urban District; Cardiff County Borough; Mountain Ash Urban District; Newport County Borough; Swansea County Borough. I am not able to state that amount expended by each local authority to meet the cost so incurred, but under Section 3 of the Act it is limited to the amount which would be produced by a rate of ½d. in the £.

    The Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society, and the new Law Courts.
    MR. HERBERT: To ask the First Com-; missioner of Works whether the plans for the new Law Courts are prepared; and, if so, whether he is willing to submit them for criticism to the Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society.
    (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The plans have been prepared and submitted to the Lord Chief Justice. I have no doubt that his approval will carry with it that of the Bar Council and the Incorporated Law Society.

    Licensing Compensation.
    MR. VERNEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in some counties a considerable number of houses are being sent up to the compensation authority, and that the funds available for compensation from balances and this year's levy will probably be insufficient for compensating all the houses whose licences would not

    1401
    be renewed; and whether, in view of the provisions contained in Clause 44 of the Licensing Bill, his consent will be granted to raising a loan under the powers given to a local authority under the Licencing Act of 1904.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no actual information to the effect of the first part of the Question, but it is probable that in the current year, as in past years, renewal authorities will in some cases be found to have referred more licences to the compensation authorities than those authorities would, if they refused renewal in all cases, be able to pay for out of current revenue. It is to be observed that, under Section 3 (5) of the Act of 1904, the compensation authorities are to have regard, in the exercise of their powers, to the funds available for the purpose. As regards the latter part of the Question, the Answer must depend to a great extent upon the facts of any particular case which may be submitted to me; but, speaking generally, I do not think that I should be justified in granting sanction to loans which would have the effect of charging the compensation levies for future years with awards of compensation made on a scale which it is one of the objects of the Licensing Bill to replace by a less extravagant scale.

    Rate of Wages at London Small Arms Factory.
    MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can enforce the payment of the same rates of wages from the London Small Arms Company on Government contracts as are paid by the War Office at Enfield, as the wages paid by the London Small Arms Company are much below the wages paid by the Government for the same work.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) There is no power to compel the adoption by contractors of rates of wages paid in Government factories, but the fair wages clause in War Office contracts requires the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out,
    1402
    and if any evidence is produced to show that this clause is being infringed the matter shall be at once investigated.

    Titles of Volunteer and Yeomanry Regiments.
    MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Volunteer battalions or Yeomanry regiments of which the names or titles possess historic associations will be allowed to retain such names or titles in the Territorial Force.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is intended to retain, as far as possible, the names and titles of Yeomanry regiments and Volunteer battalions which possess historic assocations. If the hon. Member will kindly refer to the special Army Order of 18th March, dealing with the organisation and establishment of the Territorial Force, he will find full information on this point.

    Territorial Force Regulations.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his expectation that the whole of the Army Act would be re-cast, probably at a near date, is likely to be fulfilled; whether the rules of procedure contained in the Manual of Military Law, dated November last, are to be revised in the portions dealing with the Territorial Force; when promised revise of the King's Regulations now in the press will be issued; and at what date the book of Territorial Force Regulations now being drawn up will be available.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The right hon. Baronet is apparently, in the first part of the Question, alluding to an observation I made in debate on 18th March of last year on the Army (Annual) Bill. The time has not yet come when it is possible to codify profitably—several important Acts are obsolescent, but not yet obsolete. The rules of procedure are applicable to all persons subject to military law. They contain no special provisions as regards Auxiliary Force and will not require revision consequent on the transfer of the Yeomanry and Volunteers to the Territorial Forces. The new edition

    1403
    of the King's Regulations is now being issued. It is not possible to say at what date the new Territorial Force regulations will be available, but it is hoped that they will be ready in two or three months. Several sets of interim regulations have already appeared, and rapid progress is being made towards the completion of such a volume as already exists in the 'Case of the Volunteers.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Royal Academy, Woolwich.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the weekly wages of the workmen employed in the Royal Academy at Woolwich to the same level as that paid to labourers in the Ordnance Factories.
    THE SECEETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): All I can say at this moment is that I "have directed inquiry into this matter.

    Government Licensed Property.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, whether, looking at the large price recently obtained by the War Office on the sale of the "Coach and Horses" Inn, he will consider the advisability of immediately selling all the public-houses belonging to His Majesty's Government.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): No, Sir.
    CAPTAIN FABER: Arising out of that reply may I ask whether the reason is that the value of public-houses has depreciated owing to the Licensing Bill?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    CAPTAIN FABER: May I press for an Answer?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can form his own judgment.

    British Indians in Canada.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,):
    1404
    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, I should like to be allowed to correct a misreport, in a rather important matter, of some words that fell from me yesterday in answer to a Question put by my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean. As this report, I understand, occurs in most of the public prints, probably the fault was mine. I am made to say that we had decided to send out an envoy to Canada to consider the case of the Indians now in Vancouver. What I meant to say, and what, I think, I did say, was this—that I had the matter of these Indians under my very careful supervision, and that I am discussing it both with the Government of India and, in concert with the Colonial Office here, with an envoy deputed to this country by the Dominion Government, with the hope of ending, if possible, this extremely difficult and possibly dangerous situation.

    Indians at Vancouver.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet any information which will explain on what grounds the Indians landing at Vancouver from the "Monteadle" were ordered to be deported by the Canadian Federal Authority; whether opposition to their landing came from the Federal Authority and not from the Provincial Government; and if he has information on these points will he give it to the House, and say whether the decision of the Federal Authority has the approval of His Majesty's Government.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE ROS THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): No, Sir; I am afraid I can add nothing to my Answer to the hon. Member's Question of Friday last.
    MR. WEDGWOODasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries as to the reasons which actuated the Federal Government in deporting these Indians.
    MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say that inquiries were proceeding.

    Indentured Labour in the Witwatersrand Mines.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will suggest to the Transvaal Government the advisability of maintaining the system of Chinese indentured labour in the Witwatersrand mines, in view of the low death rate of the Chinese as compared with the death rate of the native mine-workers.
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

    Medical Inspection of Native Labour at Witwatersrand.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the post of district medical officer for the Witwatersrand mines has yet been filled; and, if not, whether he will suggest to the Transvaal Government the urgent importance of filling the vacancy with a highly qualified man in view of the heavy mortality among the natives working in the mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I regret that I cannot add anything to my previous replies to questions on this subject.
    EARL WINTEETON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in communication with the Government of the Transvaal on the subject?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I do not think it necessary to open such communication.
    EARL WINTEETON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action on this very important matter?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No circumstances have yet been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies which make it incumbent on him to interfere in what is essentially a matter for the self-governing Colony itself to decide.

    Licensed Houses closed in Nottingham.
    MR. EICHAEDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many licensed houses in the city of Nottingham have been closed under the Licensing Act of 1904; what amount was paid as compensation in respect of
    1406
    each house; and what proportion of the money was apportioned to the owner of the house and to the tenant respectively.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE,): The annual volumes of licensing statistics show that eighteen licensed premises in the city of Nottingham have been closed with compensation during the years 1905–6–7; and that the compensation amounted to a total of £22,634 3s. 3d, of which the licence holders were awarded a total sum of £1,903 1s. 3d. or a little over 8 per cent. I am unable to give the figures for individual houses.

    Child Customers in London Public-houses.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether orders have been issued to the metropolitan police that licensed victuallers supplying children under fourteen years of age with beer in bottles with sealed corks or gummed labels should be prosecuted.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Answer is in the negative; but I may add that the question of what is the precise meaning of the provision in the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Act, 1901, with regard to corked and sealed vessels is about to be submitted by way of special case for the decision of the High Court of Justice.
    CAPTAIN FABER: Meanwhile will it be legal to go on selling in sealed bottles?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Pending a legal decision the police will not take proceedings.

    Clubs and the Licensing Bill.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the proposed new Licensing Act, any person found the worse for drink in a club will be summoned before a bench of magistrates, as at present happens to those found the worse for drink on licensed premises.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. It is not a criminal offence under the existing law for a person to be drunk

    1407
    in a club, and the Licensing Bill makes no alteration in this respect.
    CAPTAIN FABER: As a person may be drunk in a club and not in a public-house, is one inspector in plain clothes to do the work of a district where forty or fifty police now are entering public-houses?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That question should he raised on the Bill.
    EARL WINTERTONasked whether under the Bill a plain-clothes inspector would be instructed to report in case of drunkenness?
    MR. GLADSTONE: When the Bill is passed I will be very glad to answer that Question.
    CAPTAIN FABER: Will the plain clothes gentlemen have to wake up unoffending persons in arm chairs?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That Question should be raised on the Bill.

    Midland Railway Re-housing Scheme at Somers Town.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any information as to the intentions of the Midland Railway Company in regard to their development of the property in Somers Town, the freehold of which they acquired nine years ago, particularly in regard to the re-housing of the people.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have no information as to the intentions of the company with respect to this subject, but I under stand that the St. Pancras Borough Council have been in negotiation with the company with regard to the property, and I have requested the council to inform me of the present position of the matter.
    MR. LEA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that in the last two years I have on more than one occasion put Questions with regard to the policy consistently pursued by this railway company, a policy of obviating
    1408
    their obligations under the Housing of the Working Classes Act?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, I am aware of that, but the company and the borough council are divided as to where the houses should be situated. The company own the freehold of the site near the station, which they contemplate utilising for the extension of their property. They have offered the council an alternative site, but the council and the railway company cannot agree. I have done my best to secure that both of them should come to an as immediate decision as possible.
    MR. LEA: May I ask whether in the meantime the people in the neighbourhood are suffering while the railway company are trying to save the pockets of their shareholders?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I can assure the hon. Member that what I can do I have done and will continue to do.

    Single School Areas.
    MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board have yet allotted any portion of the £100,000 granted for the provision of council schools in single school areas; if so, to what local authorities, and to what amount in each case; and what has been the total number of children for whom such accommodation has been requested.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKENNA,): Yes, Sir. Certain grants have been provisionally sanctioned, A Return showing the applications received and the Board's action upon them is in preparation and will be issued shortly.

    School Accommodation in the West Riding.
    MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the total accommodation in elementary schools in the West Riding was 257,380 for the year 1906–7, and that the average attendance for the same period was 174,062, showing an excess of accommodation over attendance of 83,318 places; whether there are a number of new council schools sanctioned

    1409
    and now building which will shortly add largely to this excessive accommodation; and whether, in sanctioning the building of new schools in the West Riding in future, he will bear this excess in mind, in view of the burden thrown upon the ratepayers.
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the facts stated and also of the fact that it is proposed to provide several new schools. It is not, however, the practice of the Board in deciding as to the necessity of a proposed school in a particular village to take into consideration the number of vacant places in other portions of an area some 2,500 square miles in extent.
    *MR. CLOUGH: Is it not the fact that there is an excess of school places in the old agricultural areas and a dearth of school places in the new industrial communities.
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, I conceive that to be the explanation.
    MR. LANE-FOX: Will not the result of the present building scheme be to raise the excess of school places to something like 120,000?
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, but I have endeavoured to explain that while there may be an excess in some places there is a deficiency in others which it is necessary to supply.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: Is there so large an excess in any other county in England?
    MR. McKENNAasked for notice.

    Barwick in-Elmet School.
    MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board have received an appeal from the ratepayers of Barwick-in-Elmet for an inquiry to be held by the Board before the proposal of the local education authority of the West Riding to erect a provided school in that village, in addition to the existing Church school, is finally sanctioned; and whether he will grant such inquiry.
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; an appeal has been received and the case is now
    1410
    under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to say whether a public inquiry will be necessary.

    Education Syllabus.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when he will present and circulate, as a Parliamentary Paper, the syllabus contained in a Return to an Order of the House of Lords, numbered 115–1, and ordered to be printed on the 14th June, 1906, referred to in the first schedule of the Education Bill, 1908.
    MR. McKENNA: The Paper, to which the hon. Baronet refers, was delivered to the House on Friday, the 13th instant.

    Register of Teachers.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what steps are being taken towards the formation of a registration council, with a view to the establishment of a register of teachers, as provided by the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act of last session.
    MR. McKENNA: In view of the terms of Section 16 of the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1907, which contemplated the establishment of "a Registration council representative of the teaching profession," and assigned to such a council and not to the Board of Education the "duty of forming and keeping a register," I have thought it best to await an expression of views from as many sections as possible of the teaching profession. I was informed almost immediately after the passing of the Act that a considerable number of influential bodies in the teaching profession were going to hold a series of conferences with a view to arriving, so far as possible, at some agreed lines upon which such a council might in their view advantageously be formed. I have only in the last day or two received information as to the points of agreement reached at these conferences, and I am considering this information, with a view possibly to seeing some of the representatives of the bodies who have been meeting, and also to discovering whether the proposals appear to command the support of "the teaching profession" of which the new Registration

    1411
    Council is to be "representative" under Section 16 of the Act.
    *SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: What is it proposed to do with the balance of money amounting to about £2,800 of the old Registration Council?
    MR. McKENNA: It would be premature at present to decide as to the disposal of that fund.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: Is it intended to take over the staff of the old Registration Council; and, if not, will they be compensated for dismissal?
    MR. McKENNA: The staff of the new Registration Council is not in the hands of the Board, and I can say nothing on the matter.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: But the money is in the hands of the Board, I understand?
    MR. McKENNA: Yes, but it would be premature to say what is to be done with it.

    Burford Grammar School.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education on what grounds he has refused the request embodied in a resolution of the local education authority of Oxfordshire, that the conditions set out in Article 5 of the Secondary School Regulations should be waived in the case of Burford Grammar School.
    MR. McKENNA: Article 5 provides that no catechism or formulary distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught except to scholars whose parents or guardians have requested the governors in writing to provide such instruction. The Board are satisfied that under the scheme regulating the foundation there is no legal difficulty in complying with the Article. The onus of adducing adequate reasons for the waiving of this regulation rests with the governors, and, in my opinion, no special reasons for failing to comply have been shown.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Have no complaints been received from the neighbourhood?
    MR. McKENNA: If everybody is contented to receive the instruction it will be given. The regulation is only a safeguard for those persons who do not wish it to be given.

    Enfield Small Arms Factory—Case of J. West.
    MR. BRANCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can inform the House of his decision in relation to J. West, late an employee at the Small Arms Factory, Enfield.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): As I have already explained to the hon. Member, the circumstances of this case do not justify any further grant from the Superannuation Vote. The case, however, is a hard one, and inasmuch as West was employed from December 1888 to March 1890 at wages lower than he had been receiving before his accident, the Prime Minister has agreed to make good from a special fund at his disposal the amount the man may be said to have lost in this way. I am glad, therefore, to be able to inform the hon. Member that a grant has been made to West from this source of £35.

    Moray Firth Trawling Dispute.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to introduce a Bill to extend to England the law, now applicable to Scotland only, prohibiting the sale of fish caught by trawlers in Moray Firth in England.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I must refer my hon. friend to the reply given on 18th March to the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire.
    MR. C. E. price: Has any effort been made by the Government to secure unanimity between the English, Scottish, and Irish Fishery Boards on this matter?
    MR. SINCLAIRasked for notice.

    Montgomerie and Company, Limited, v. The Burgh of Haddington.
    MR. NEWNES: I beg to ask the Secretary

    1413
    for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Montgomerie and Company, Limited, Bermaline Mills, Haddington v. the Burgh of Haddington; and whether, in view of the present uncertain state of the law regarding this question, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I do not think that the state of the law in regard to the questions at issue in this case can be described as uncertain in view of the recent decision of the House of Lords, approving as it did, a unanimous decision of the Court of Session. It does not seem to mo, therefore, that there is any-call for legislation on the ground stated by my hon. friend.

    Letting of Scottish Sheep Farms.
    MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Court of Session in the case of Gillespie against Riddell; and whether, in view of the serious effect this must have on the letting of sheep farms, he can say what steps can be taken, by legislation or otherwise, to secure to the agricultural tenant the fulfilment of engagements undertaken by a former tenant-in-entail.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): My attention has been called to this case. I understand, however, that it is not unlikely that the judgment of the Court of Session may be taken for review to the House of Lords, and in view of this the consideration of legislation would be premature. I may Bay, however, to my hon. friend, that I recognise the importance of the judgment. I gather that the decision truly reserves the right of the tenant to sue the representatives of the former entail proprietor in respect of failure fully to implement the original covenant; and certain further reservations are made. Notwithstanding this, I acknowledge that the situation produced by the decision will have to be carefully watched, and it, may be taken that that will be done.

    Mrs. Hegarty's Bantur Estate.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
    1414
    of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any recent steps towards negotiating for the purchase of the estate of Mrs. Hegarty, Clonbanin, Bantur, county Cork, and, if so, with what result; and, in view of the fact that the holding from which Mr. O'Driscoll, whose present representative is John O'Driscoll, was evicted is now in the landlord's own possession, the Commissioners will proceed to exercise the powers vested in them by the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, with the object of reinstating the evicted tenant?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners are not at present negotiating for the purchase of this estate, but the matter referred to in the latter part of the Question is under their consideration.
    MR. FLYNN: Are the Commissioners aware that this is a typical case, and that this landlady has a large quantity of land in this locality which she is using as a grazing ranch? Will not the Commissioners under the circumstances exercise the powers vested in them?
    MR. BIRRELL: I will see that the views of the hon. Member are conveyed to the Commissioners.

    Dromagh Untenanted Lands.
    MR FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have had any recent communication with Mr. N. W. Leader, D. C., Dromagh, in respect to the available untenanted land in his possession; and, if not, whether, in view of this gentleman's previous offer to dispose of a small portion of this land to the Commissioners, and the need for the enlargement of present uneconomic holdings on the estate, and the acquisition of holdings suitable for deserving evicted tenants in the neighbourhood, for whom land is not elsewhere available, the Commissioners will send an inspector to make the necessary inquiries, and to open up negotiations with the landlord.
    MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Leader has offered 197 acres of untenanted land for sale to the Estates Commissioners. An inspection of this land and of the other

    1415
    lands on the estate will shortly take place, and the question of acquiring the untenanted land for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings on the estate, or for providing holdings for evicted tenants will then be considered.

    The Glenahiery Explosion—District Inspector Preston's Report.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Leiutenant of Ireland if he will state the facts which prompted the Inspector General of Constabulary, Sir Antony MacDonnell, the Attoruey-General, the Solicitor-General and the Chief Secretary to cause to be altered District Inspector Preston's statement of the 7th September into the form in which it appeared in his subsequent statement of the 11th September; and whether any of them had personally visited the scene of the outrage.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY,): The facts have already been stated in answer to previous Questions. District Inspector Preston's report of 7th September was a report made to the police authorities for police purposes, and it was never altered. The law officers were of opinion that, inasmuch as this report contained suggestions and views of Mr. Preston and some matters outside his own knowledge, it could not be properly submitted to the parties, and they advised that the statement which the District Inspector was to submit to the parties should be confined to the actual matters to which he could personally depose. Neither the Inspector-General nor the Under-Secretary was responsible for this advice, and the Chief Secretary took no part whatever in the matter, None of the officials named had visited the scene of the explosion.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: May I ask the Attorney-General in view of the fact that this report contained, to use his own words, only those matters to which District Inspector Preston could personally depose, whether it is not a fact that that particular report of 11th September contained other matter than that to which Inspector Preston could personally depose? Did it not contain insinuations and other matters which afterwards were denied?
    MR. CHERRY: No, Sir, I do not think it did. What I said was that the law officers advised that the statement which he was to submit should be confined to matters to which he could personally depose. The law officers did not interfere with the discretion of District Inspector Preston in carrying out that advice. They allowed him to prepare his own report, and did not in any way alter or touch anything he said. The only conclusions he arrived at in his second statement were in reference to facts connected with the placing of the pot on the window sill, and these were matters to which an expert witness might depose, and he might possibly be considered an expert witness.
    MR. JONH REDMOND: May I ask whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that what is called the second report—the statement of the 11th—was in any respect more prejudicial to the interests of Lord Ashtown than the original report of the 7th, and whether, as a matter of fact, the exact opposite is not the case, and that the second statement of 11th September excludes a number of statements in reference to Lord Ashtown which were included in the first one?
    MR. CHERRY: I think that is to. Of course, that is a matter of opinion.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to afford the House any proof of that statement?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Read the two documents.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: But is it not a matter of fact that the second report contained assumptions on the part of District Inspector Preston as well as facts?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better see the report.
    MR. CHAELES CRAIG: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the law officers of the Crown advised that this document should contain nothing but statements of fact, why was it that he did not see to it that those instructions and that advice was carried out by Inspector Preston,

    1417
    who allowed insinuations and suggestions to enter into the documents?
    MR. CHERRY: I think, if I had directed Inspector Preston to alter his second statement, I know what would have been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reason why, upon the 12th September, the statement of District Inspector Preston of the 11th September, containing the suggestion that Lord Ash town was responsible for, or privy to, the outrage on his own promises, and other insinuations afterwards proved in Court to be false, was furnished to the rural district council, instead of a statement by County Inspector Jennings, who had been on the scene of the outrage for a considerable time previously.
    MR. BELLOC: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, is it in order that a statement should be made in a Question, and not an interrogation, that charges had been proved to be false in a Court of justice—because in my opinion that statement is false.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has himself just made a statement with regard to the case. I am afraid I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details to know whether the insinuations were proved in a Court to be false or not. Until the debate takes place I see no reason for refusing the Question.
    MR. CHERRY: I cannot agree with the view of the hon. and gallant Member that the statement of 11th September contains a suggestion that Lord Ashtown was responsible for, or privy to, the outrage on his own promises. District Inspector Preston was the officer immediately in charge of the district, and had been specially recalled from Belfast for the purpose of investigating the case. Moreover, the county inspector had not made a thorough investigation of the matter or furnished a formal and complete report upon it, as the district inspector had done. The county inspector was on the scene on the day of the occurrence, but upon the return of the district inspector on 17th August he was
    1418
    relieved of the immediate charge of the case.
    MR. BELLOC: Is the right hon. Gentleman or the Government prepared to accept that word "proved" in the Question as distinguished from the word "decided?"
    MR. CHERRY: I should rather not give an opinion upon that. It is a matter upon which anybody can form his own judgment.
    MR. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that the whole case before the Courts was whether or not a malicious outrage had been committed, and that the Court had no power to go into the question of who committed the outrage?
    MR. CHERRY: That is so.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it not a fact that Inspector Jennings spent four hours in examining the results of the explosion immediately after it took place, and does the right hon. Member consider that the report of the county inspector was not of sufficient importance to be supplied to the parties in the case?
    MR. CHERRY: I do not know exactly how long he spent there, but undoubtedly he was there on the day of the occurrence. The entire matter was handed over to the district inspector when he returned, and he forwarded to the Government a complete report of the whole circumstances of the case, which was in his charge and not in that of the county inspector.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence on oath of District Inspector Preston at the trial in Water-ford, on appeal, of the Glenahiery case, when he stated that he signed, at the bidding of a superior officer, a document clearly conveying an inference which he knew and admitted had no foundation in fact; and whether he can give the names of those persons present when District Inspector Preston was bidden to attach his signature to the document in question.
    MR. CHERRY: My attention has been called to the evidence of District

    1419
    Inspector Preston. My right hon. friend has already, in answer to questions on the 11th instant, expressed his view as to the manner in which the district inspector was induced under cross-examination to assent to statements so entirely at variance with the facts. Mr. Preston was not directed by any superior officer or any other Government official to attach his signature to any document whatsoever.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the statement of District Inspector Preston, dated the 7th September, circulated as a White Paper, is word for word as drawn up by him, or was the original in any way altered; and, if so, to what extent and by whom.
    MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the responsibility of laying upon the Table a document which, upon the face of it, purports to be a copy of the Report of District Inspector Preston dated 7th September. In the circumstances, and subject to your ruling, I do not propose to answer this Question.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a better reason now than he gave before for the non-production of that document of the trial in Court?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: Has it not been already admitted that the document was altered, and will the right hon. Gentleman put the House in possession of the original document?
    MR. BIRRELL: I had the document in my hand on the last occasion and I said that anyone could come and see it. But no one accepted the invitation.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether District Inspector Preston received any verbal or written instructions, when ordered to Glenahiery, as to the form his report should take; and, if so, from whom.
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
    MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if on the 29th February, 1908, four days before the date fixed for the hearing of the recent appeal in Lord Ashtown's case, the Assistant Under-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant wrote to the solicitor for Lord Ashtown to say that he was directed by the Lord Lieutenant to state that it was impossible to comply with his request for the production, on the hearing of the appeal, of any reports received from District Inspector Preston or other police officers prior to the date of the document of the 11th September, to which the signature of District Inspector Preston was attached; to what extent, if at all, was this decision modified by any subsequent instructions to the Inspector-General; can he explain why no notice of the modification, if any, was given to Lord Ashtown or his solicitor; and will he, having regard to the unexplained refusal of the Inspector-General upon the hearing of the appeal to produce any antecedent report by District Inspector Preston, lay upon the Table all the instructions given to the Inspector-General on the subject.
    MR. BIRRELL: In reply to a request from Lord Ashtown's solicitor that all reports of District Inspector Preston made prior to the report of 11th September should be produced in court, the Assistant Under-Secretary wrote on 29th February that it was not possible to agree that, in the public interest, privilege should not be claimed against the production of the documents. On 2nd March, the Inspector-General was informed upon the advice of the law officers that he was at liberty to produce District Inspector Preston's original report of 7th September, if circumstances should require. There was no reason why this fact should have been communicated to Lord Ashtown. The liberty to produce that document was given solely because of the imputations which had been made that the District Inspector had allowed the report to be altered with a view to making unfounded charges against Lord Ashtown. It would, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, be entirely contrary to practice to publish instructions given by the Government to the Inspector-General.
    MR. LONSDALE: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if County Inspector Jennings, of county Waterford, the superior officer of District Inspector Preston, after an exhaustive examination of the scone upon the very day of the Glenahiery explosion, furnished to the Inspector General a detailed report of the results of his examination and did he subsequently furnish a second report, in which he expressly stated his disagreement with the conclusions of District Inspector Preston; whether the Inspector-General, in declining to produce upon the recent hearing of the appeal either of these reports, was acting in accordance with instructions, and can he explain if, as stated by the Attorney-General for Ireland, the Inspector-General was given instructions to produce the antecedent report of District Inspector Preston, why he was forbidden to produce either of the reports of County Inspector Jennings; and whether, having regard to the fact that the two documents, dated the 7th September and 11th September, 1907, respectively, and bearing the signature of District Inspector Preston, have already been presented to this House, he will, in fairness to Lord Ashtown, and in view of the Motion standing in the name of the honourable Member for King's County for Wednesday, 1st April, lay upon the Table the two reports of County Inspector Jennings.
    MR. BIRRELL: County Inspector Jennings arrived at the scene of explosion at a quarter past one on the day of the occurrence, and he furnished to the Inspector-General, by that evening's post, what he describes as a very hasty report giving the main features. Hs submitted a further report on 17th August, in which he stated that District Inspector Preston had then returned and would have every opportunity of fully inquiring into and investigating the occurrence. On the following day, 18th August, he submitted, without comment, a short report of the district inspector in which the latter stated that he was satisfied that the window and door of the room were open and that the shutters were not shut. It was not until after the district inspector's statement of 11th September, which states the same conclusions, had been
    1422
    communicated to the parties that the county inspector submitted a report expressing his dissent from those conclusions. This report was received on 16th September, and the county inspector was at once directed to communicate to the parties his statement indicating dissent from District Inspector Preston, which he did by letter on 18th September. It has already been stated that the Inspector-General in declining to produce the police reports was not acting upon instructions, but upon his own authority in accordance with the usual practice. The Attorney-General has not stated that the Inspector-General was given instructions to produce the antecedent report of District Inspector Preston, but, for reasons already stated, the Inspector General was informed that he was at liberty to produce the document if the circumstances should require it. As the right hon. Gentleman asks for the publication of the two reports of County Inspector Jennings, in fairness to Lord Ashtown as he says, and I presume with his authority, I will lay those documents upon the Table at once.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland what were the reasons which prompted him to instruct the Inspector-General of Constabulary to depart from the usual practice and to produce in Court District Inspector Preston's report of 7th September, whereas no instructions were given to depart from the usual practice of claiming privilege in respect of County Inspector Jennings's reports.
    MR. CHERRY: The Question does not correctly state the facts. The Inspector-General was not instructed to produce in Court District Inspector Preston's report of 7th September, but as I have already stated he was informed upon the advice of the Law Officers, that he was at liberty to produce the original report in question if circumstances should require. The reason for giving this advice was that District Inspector Preston's character had been personally assailed, and it had been repeatedly alleged, contrary to the fact, that he had allowed the report to be altered with a view to making unfounded charges against Lord Ashtown. No such question arose in regard to any report of County Inspector Jennings.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain from the Inspector-General why he objected to the production of the document at the trial, and on what ground he objected to do so?
    MR. CHERRY: The Inspector-General states that during the course of the trial this advice was not present to his mind; in fact he forgot the instructions.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether County Inspector Jennings made any report or communication to the authorities at Dublin Castle with respect to the Glenahiery explosion before his report dated 14th September, other than the communication accompanying the report of the district inspector dated 18th August.
    MR. CHERRY: Yes, Sir. The facts have now been stated in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Why has the right hon. Gentleman been so long in admitting it?
    MR. CHERRY: The Question was not asked before.

    City of Dublin Registration.
    MR. LONSDALE: I bog to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he will state the result of his inquiries into the allegation that requisition forms issued by the town clerk of the city of Dublin for registration purposes have been improperly collected, filled up, and signed by party agents; and whether, having regard to the fact that he has received assurances that evidence is forthcoming, he will direct proceedings to be taken in the matter.
    MR. CHERRY: Proceedings have been commenced in respect of the matters referred to, and the first case will, I expect, be heard to-morrow in the Dublin Police Courts.
    MR. MOONEY: Is it not a fact that one of the principal witnesses in this case I is a Unionist registration agent who four years ago was sentenced to six months imprisonment for forging registration forms?
    MR. CHERRY: I am not aware of that. I know nothing of the details of the case.
    MR. MOONEY: Is it not within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that four years ago a Unionist registration agent was sentenced by Mr. Justice Gibson to six months imprisonment for I forging registration forms for the county of Dublin?
    MR. CHERRY: Yes, certainly. It is on the authority of that case that the present prosecution is instituted.
    MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what bearing that Answer has to the original Question?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Ballyshannon Police Barracks.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Head Constable Gilmour, of Ballyshannon, although having accommodation in barracks, draws a sum of 13s. a month lodging allowance at the expense of the Constabulary Force Fund; whether a single or married head constable will be transferred to that station to take up the vacant apartments provided in barracks and thus save £7 16s. annually; whether he is aware that two sons of Head Constable Gilmour are in employment in the town of Ballyshannon, contrary to the regulations bearing on that point; whether he is aware that on Wednesday evening, the 11th March, in presence of civilians. Head Constable Gilmour abused two Catholic constables on the public street in Ballyshannon when on duty, and threatened to have them banished from the service in a short time, and that a sergeant at present stationed in Ballyshannon had some time ago to report the head constable for similar conduct, resulting in the reprimand of Head Constable Gilmour; and whether, in view of the fact that 75 per cent. of the police in Ballyshannon are Catholics, he will consider the advisability of placing them under the control of a Catholic head constable.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Inspector-General informs me that there is no room

    1425
    in Ballyshannon Barracks for the; head constable, and in. the circumstances he is exempted by statute from the usual deduction of 4s. 4d. a month for barrack accommodation, and draws the regulation lodging allowance of 8s. 8d a month. This allowance is paid from the Vote and not from the Constabulary Force Fund. There are no vacant apartments in the barracks. There has bean no infringement of the regulations in the employment of the head constable's sons in the town. On 11th March the head constable found fault with two Catholic constables, who were on patrol duty, but he denies hiving abused or threatened them, and states no civilians were within hearing. The Inspector-General is inquiring into the matter and will take any disciplinary action that may be necessary. About three years ago a sergeant complained that the head constable had reprimanded him in public, but the latter subsequently expressed regret at having unintentionally hurt the sergeant's feelings and the matter ended. The head constable was not reprimanded. The proportion of Catholics in the entire force is about 75 per cent., so that there is nothing exceptional at Ballyshannon in this respect. The Inspector-General does not propose to remove the head constable from this station so long as he performs his duties satisfactorily.

    Blennerhasset Estate, Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received from Mr. Thomas O'Connor, of Camp, county Kerry, an application for reinstatement to his farm on the Blennerhasset estate, Ballyseedy; whether these lands have been in the possession of his family since 1853; and what action is to be taken in the matter.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have not received from Thomas O'Connor an application for reinstatement as an evicted tenant. They have received from him a copy of a letter sent by him to a newspaper, but this does not contain sufficient information to enable the Commissioners to inquire into the matter. They have, therefore, furnished him with a form upon which he may make an
    1426
    appplication if he so desires. Upon its receipt, the Commissioners will inquire into the case in due course.

    Irish Land—Originating Requests.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of estates in which originating requests under Section G of the Land Purchase Act of 1903, were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in each of the years ending March 1904, 1905, 1906, and 1907; and how many estates, with the names of them, in which originating requests lodged in the year ending March, 1905, have not yet been dealt with, as well as the cause of the delay.
    MR BIRRELL: The number of originating requests under Section 6 of the Land Act of 1903, lodged with the Estates Commissioners was, in the year ending March 1904, twenty-one; 1905, eighty-three; 1906, seventy-three; and 1907, ninety-one. Out of the eighty-three estates as to which requests were lodged in 1905, fifteen cases remain in which the formal agreement for purchase has not yet been completed. These cases will be closed as soon as the statutory requirements as to title and resale have been complied with. The Commissioners are dealing with all of these cases as rapidly as possible, and they do not think that anything would be gained by giving in answer to a Question the names of the particular estates in which delay has occurred or entering into the causes of delay in each particular case.

    Sir R. Hudson's Cavan. Estate.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: L bag to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the Estates Commissioners have decided not to take any action in the cases of the evicted tenants, Patrick Carolon, William King, and Catherine Carolon, all on the estate of Sir R. Hudson, E. 1313/8, county Cavan; and will he have these cases further investigated, or state in what respects the claims of Jane Bock and Hugh Foreman differed from the three evicted tenants named above.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners fully investigated the claims of

    1427
    the five evicted tenants named in the Question. On the cases of the three first mentioned, they decided, upon full consideration of all the circumstances, to take no action, and they do not intend to have the cases further investigated. In the other two cases they decided to find holdings for the applicants if possible. The Commissioners do not think it desirable to enter into a comparison of the merits of the different cases.

    Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1901 with respect to the pay and conditions of service of the Royal Irish Constabulary will be introduced; whether any provision has been made in the Estimates for the next financial year for the increased expenditure; and whether he will state how many years have elapsed since the members of this force were granted an increase in their annual pay.
    MR. BIRRELI: The Bill in question will be introduced at the earliest opportunity, but I am not at present in a position to fix a date. It would be quite irregular to anticipate the decision of Parliament by making provision for the increased expenditure in the coming Estimates. The pay of the force was last increased by the Constabulary Act of 1883.

    Irish Congested Districts Board Fund.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Boards use public funds for the relief of unemployment; whether these funds are raised locally or imperially; whether these boards have any and, if so, what representative element; and how much money was disbursed by the Boards in the last financial year, altogether and in respect of those services which might reasonably be said to be in relief of unemployment.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board hold that their funds cannot be applied to the relief of temporary distress, and they have always-acted upon this principle. The Board's funds are
    1428
    derived partly from the Irish Church surplus and partly from the annual votes I of Parliament. The member of the Board other than ex-officio members are nominated by the Crown; none are elected. The total expenditure of the Board in 1906–7 was £341,581, details of which will be found in the Annual Report presented to Parliament.

    Harlech Estate, Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the farm of Leitrim Hill, situate near Tubbercurry, in the county of Sligo, and forming portion of the Harlech estate, recently sold to the tenants under the Act of 1903, is still in the possession of Mr. Charles Phibbs, J.P., an extensive landlord and grazier, who uses it as a grazing ranch; and whether, seeing that this farm is much required for the enlargement of the small holdings surrouning it, and that Mr. Phibbs, who owns estates and farms in other counties, has expressed his willing to give up Leitrim Hill on being paid compensation, steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners to have this farm taken over for the relief of congestion in the district?
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have already made inquiries regarding the farm in question, and have ascertained that it does not now form I part of Lord Harlech estate, but is the property in fee simple of Mr. Phibbs, who purchased it from the late Lord Harlech some years ago, and who does, not now desire to dispose of it.
    MR. O'DOWD: Is not this grazing land situated in the centre of the congested portion of this estate, and did not Mr. Phibbs tell a deputation who waited on him that he was willing to surrender the farm?
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estate Commissioners inform me that he does not desire to dispose of it. I will inquire further.

    Medical Inspection of Irish School Children.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement

    1429
    recently made by the President of the Board of Education to the effect that the Education Department were prepared to recommend to the Treasury that provision should be made in the coming financial year for the medical inspection of children attending schools, and that this provision should be made in the form of a special grant; and whether he intends to take steps to have a similar procedure followed and a similar grant made in connection with medical inspection of schools in Ireland, and more especially with regard to the medical inspection of the eyesight of children.
    MR. BIRRELL: My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education informs me that the newspaper report to which the hon. Gentleman evidently refers contains a very material mistake. My right hon. friend did not say that he was prepared to make the recommendation in question to the Treasury. What he said was that he was asked to make that recommendation; and the sense of his reply is shown in a subsequent passage of his speech in which he asked the deputation not to press him to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the ensuing year, for in the first place he thought it would be a mistake to introduce any special grant at a moment when they were anxious to get rid of special grants, and secondly he feared that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to meet their demands at present, having regard to the existing claims that were made upon him.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the National Board had taken any steps in regard to the medical inspection of children, especially with reference to their eyesight. Could not the right hon. Gentleman induce them to take some steps in that direction?
    MR. BIRRELL: I believe they are very anxious on this subject, but I will take care that their attention is specially called to it.

    Land Purchase at Aghatubrid.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu tenant of Ireland whether he is aware
    1430
    that by agreement between the late Mr. J. W. Leahy and his tenants at Aghatu brid, near Cahirciveen, the purchase price of the estate was left to the Estates Commissioners; can he say when the Commissioners conveyed to the agent the terms on which the purchase was to be carried out; whether he is aware that processes have now been served on all the tenants for the Killarney sessions to be held on the 4th of April; whether, in view of the fact that the tenants have fulfilled their side of the bargain, he will state why the delay has been caused; and will he take steps to secure the withdrawal of these processes.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are aware of the agreement between the late Mr. Leahy and his tenants which is referred to in the Question. The Commissioners furnished, on 1st June, 1907, a preliminary estimate of price to the owner, who died in September following. In November, 1907, the attention of the Commissioners was directed to the fact that processes were being issued against the tenants by the new agent and they thereupon forwarded to him a copy of a letter which they had previously written to the late owner, intimating the price they were prepared to advance; and at the same time they furnished him with a copy of the agreement entered into between the late owner and the tenants in which the owner agreed to wipe out all arrears. The Commissioners are not at present in a position to make a formal offer to purchase the property, as the title of the present owner has not yet been proved. They cannot exercise any control as regards proceedings for the recovery of rent.

    Whaling Stations on Irish Coasts.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the prohibition of the establishment of whale-fishing stations in county Donegal in consequence of the evidence as to its disastrous effects upon other fisheries in Norway and in Shetland given at the recent inquiry by the Irish fishery inspectors in Londonderry, the Government will for the same reason prohibit the establishment of any whale-fishing station on any part of the coasts of Ireland.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): As my hon. friend is aware, a proposal was recently made to establish a whale-fishing station oft' the coast of Donegal, in the immediate neighbourhood of an extensive fishing industry. After holding an inquiry, the Department issued a bye law prohibiting the station being established. But there are parts of the Irish coast whore no fishing industry exists, and I think the proper method of dealing with the matter is by legislation, under which the Department will be enabled to license the industry where it can be carried on without injury, and to exercise a veto where the circumstances appear to demand it.
    MR. MORTON: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say it cannot be done without legislation?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I do not think it can.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whaling industry is calculated to injure the whole fishing industry, not merely in the particular locality of the station, but 200 or 300 miles off.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I am acting on the advice of experts in this matter.

    Finance.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to laying upon the Table of the House before the close of the financial year, or soon after, a Memorandum in a form similar to the Civil Service Estimates, showing what is the estimated expenditure under the head of Other Consolidated Fund Services and payments to Local Taxation Accounts for the coming year; and, if so, whether he will include in that Memorandum a table showing how the expenditure upon the various items appearing on pages 43 to 69 of the Finance Accounts for 1906–7 compares with the estimated expenditure upon the same items in the years 1907–8 and 1908–9.
    MR. ASQUITH: The charges under the head of "Other Consolidated Fund Services" are set out in full detail in the published Finance Accounts, of
    1432
    which they occupy twenty-seven pages. The great bulk of these charges consists of salaries, pensions, and other fixed allowances, all under statute, in which only slight variations occur from year to year through deaths and retirements, which cannot be foreseen. Occasionally, variations of a more important character may occur among the few items classed as "Miscellaneous Services" on page 69. In those circumstances, there does not appear to be any justification for incurring the expense of publishing a detailed estimate of Consolidated Fund Services in addition to the detailed account of the issue. The usual Financial Statement will be circulated on the introduction of the Budget, showing the issues made in 1907–8 for Consolidated Fund Services, including the National Debt Service and the payments to the Local Taxation Accounts, with Estimates under the same heads for the ensuing year. The local taxation payments are dependent to some extent on the Revenue receipts, so they could not be published beforehand without forestalling the Budget.

    Scottish Education Bill.
    MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to proceed with an Education Bill for Scotland, and, if so, when would it be introduced.
    MR. ASQUITH: It will be introduced to-morrow under the ton minutes rule.

  LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 101.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 101.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Lotteries and Advertisements—That they concur with the Commons in the Resolution of this House communicated

1433
to them on Monday last, "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of Five Members of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of an equal number of Lords to consider and inquire into the law (1) as to lotteries, including the sale of lottery bonds, competitions for prizes which involve an element of chance, and advertisements relating thereto; (2) as to indecent literature and pictures and advertisements relating to things indecent and immoral; and to report what amendments, if any, in the law are necessary or desirable," as desired by this House.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Henry Cubitt Gooch, esquire, for the Borough of Camberwell (Peckham Division).
The hon. Member was received with cheers from the Unionist side of the House, which the Ministerialists answered with cries of "Beer, beer."
*MR. W. JOHNSON: All total abstainers give a cheer!
MR. BOTTOMLEY: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your ruling whether it is in order for any Member of this House to greet a new Member with offensive epithets?
*MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not; they did not reach my ears, or I should have intervened.

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) [EXPENSES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of Salaries, and remuneration, and of any expenses that may be incurred in pursuance of any act of the present session to amend the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884 (King's Recommendation signified). To-morrow—(Mr. Whiteley.)
NEW BILLS.

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
  "To amend the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876," presented by Mr. George Greenwood; supported by Sir Francis
  1434
  Channing, Mr. MacNeill, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Lehmann, Mr. Maddison, Mr. Luttrell, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Winfrey, and Mr. Mansfield; to be read a second time upon Monday, 6th April, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

  BALLOT (TRANSFERABLE VOTE) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Votes at Parliamentary Elections," presented by Mr. Dundas White; supported by Mr. Cleland, Mr. Boulton, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Watt, Mr. Arnold Herbert, and Mr. Smeaton; to be read a second time upon Friday 15th May, and to be printed. [Bill 177.]

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 2—
MR. ASHLEY,MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool), moved to omit the clause in order to draw attention to the extremely complex and intricate form in which the Bill was submitted to the House, and in consequence of the great difficulty which a private soldier had in knowing exactly what penalties he was liable to when he enlisted and also during the time that he was serving. This question had been raised before in the House several times, and he thought in 1905 it was raised in a concrete form by the hon. Gentleman who now occupied the position of Under-Secretary for India, who pointed out how hard it was for a private soldier to know what he might or might not do, and what the penalties were, and he had the support of many hon. Members then on the Opposition side of the House. In fact, he had the support of two present Cabinet Ministers, the President of the Board of Education and the President of the Board of Trade. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies also joined his colleagues in impressing upon the then Secretary for War that something should be done. It was impossible in the Army regulations to find out exactly what had to be done. He had spent some hours that morning in wading through the Army regulations, and he could find no mention in them of

1435
any rules laid down by the War Office to the effect that copies of the Army Act should be available for private soldiers. It was known that copies were kept in the orderly room, but that was the last place a private soldier was likely to go to voluntarily. He was not asking the War Office to do anything but what other Government Departments did. In the Coal Mines Regulation Act they had it laid down that the scale of fines and things of that sort should be readily accessible to the workers, and he therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell them how the private soldier could easily find out what the penalties were, and if no advance had been made on the position in 1907, whether he would see his way, as he was sure he would, to make things as easy as possible.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAR FOR (Mr. HALDANE,)said he had great sympathy with the wishes of the hon. Member, and it was a question which had also boon raised in Questions put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. The difficulty was that the Army Act consisted of 190 sections, and covered an immense ground. To condense the Army Act as such would be impossible, and it would be no good to the private soldier to give the whole of it. It was desirable, therefore, if they could, to put him in possession of it in a form which he could understand, and they had got a plan for so doing. He did not know whether the hon. Member, who took so close an interest in these things, had seen "The Soldiers' Small Book," which was given to every soldier on his joining his corps. The purpose of the book was two-fold. It was a sort of pocket book, in which he put certain entries relating to his name, place and date of enlistment, and so on, but there was something more to the point. The principal object for which the soldier was required to be in possession of this book was that he should be provided, among other things, with certain information which he would find useful to him during his service. One of the first things in it was this, "Notes from the Army Act," which set out in popular language a summary of the first fortyfour sections, which closely concerned the private soldier, and it gave him a good deal of information besides.
1436
For instance, he thought the whole of the penalties were explained in clear and popular language, and that was more convenient to the soldier than supplying him with a copy of the 190 clauses of the Act. But that did not touch the point as to the inconvenience of the form of the Army Act. It was quite true that it was inconvenient. The Army Act had no right to be enforced for more than a year, and therefore every year they had to bring in this very peculiar Bill, and the Act was given vitality every year by a short clause and the necessary amendments desired to be made. In the Army Act dating back eighteen years, it enacted that it should be reprinted every year with emendations. The Act was not put in the Statute Book, because that was already a fat book—during the life of this Parliament it had been a very fat book—and it would be very inconvenient to put in the whole Act, but what they did was that the King's printer, acting under the provisions of the section, reprinted the Army Act as it had been altered, and the result was the big volume which he had in his hand, and which could be got for a few pence. It was a cheap form which anybody? could get. They were preparing a convenient volume for the Territorial Force which would contain all the regulations put together. They were also preparing regulations in the same form for the Special Reserve, and he would see what could be done in the way of preparing the other regulations in a handy form. The King's Regulations had actually been reprinted, and he thought that the new edition of them would be completely distributed in a fortnight or three weeks. The new edition would have to supersede the old editions. It was so long since the last edition came out that they thought it worth while to meet the reasonable complaints that had been made and prepare a special edition.
MR. McCRAEthought the Secretary of State for War might very well see whether some method other than that of the soldiers' pocket book might not be adopted of bringing penalties and fines incurred more closely into the purview of the private soldier. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman

1437
on his proposition that a similar pocket book ought to be issued for the Territorial Army, as he thought that something of the kind was very necessary. They had been so alarmed and so disorganised recently, that what they wanted was to lot the men know exactly what they had to do, and he was sure there was nothing which would tend more to that desirable end than the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman had made. He hoped the new pocket book would be issued without any undue delay.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid he wanted to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to a point which he thought would cause a great deal of difficulty in future unless the Army Annual Act of the year was made a little more extensive, for as far as he could make out, from a legal point of view, the Act would not apply in any shape or form to the Territorial Force. Running all through the Act was found the expression "Auxiliary Forces," which was defined as meaning the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers.
MR. HALDANEsaid that that was being altered. The Militia were still under training in their old form, and so they could not alter it in the Bill, but they would see that later on the words were put right. If the hon. Member would look at Section 175 he would see that the Territorial Force was referred to, and as they got the whole thing complete the wording of the Act would be brought up to date.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he wanted to refer to an important statement made by the right hon. Gentleman about the Territorial Army. He had announced that he was going to bring out a pocket book dealing with functions and duties and so on. There had been a good deal of anxiety in the last few weeks about the attestation form for the now Territorial Army, and he hoped the now pocket book would be an exact, precise, and authentic account of what the liabilities and engagements of the Territorial soldier were. Six weeks ago hon. Members interested in Volunteer questions were caused great anxiety by the Territorial attestation form, but that
1438
form was withdrawn and a new one substituted, and there were certain differences in those two forms. Instead of saying "You are required to attend at such and such a place," the revised form said "Please attend," and so on, but what he wanted to point out was that in the original attestation form there was nothing inconsistent with the Territorial Act as passed last year; it might be said to be the logical and mathematical deduction of the Act of last year. But that had been revised, and all sort of things had been cut out of the new form. He thought that was very wrong indeed. It did not set forth upon the face of it the full liabilities and responsibilities of the Volunteers. If it was necessary from the provisions of the Act of last year to state that a certain series of questions, if untruly answered, involved imprisonment with hard labour, he considered that the War Office was unjustified in having suppressed that fact in the now form.
MR. HALDANE: It is called "heavy punishment" instead.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that that was not the same thing as imprisonment with hard labour, and if that was the penalty—and there could be no question about it—then it ought to be clearly stated on the attestation form. The attestation form which was being handed to the Volunteers did not state the material facts. He himself strongly disapproved of the old attestation form, but it was perfectly accurate. He would not dream of blaming the right hon. Gentleman nor the officials, who had followed the Act with meticulous accuracy, and it was not the fault of the War Office if the attestation form was impossible. It was the fault of that House, and the hasty and hurried way in which they had rushed the Bill through last year, under the guillotine.
MR. HALDANEsaid the attestation form followed exactly the form which was adopted by the late Government for the Yeomanry Force.
LORD BALCARRESsaid the matter would not be passed over by a reference to predecessors. The fault, if it lay anywhere, lay with the House. He did not wish to labour the point beyond

1439
drawing attention to the fact that the attestation form did not accurately and fully set out the state of affairs. He sincerely trusted that the pocket-book would contain things which would be stated completely and with legal accuracy.
COLONEL SEELYsaid that what the noble Lord had stated might cause alarm and dismay in connection with the Territorial system which they were now considering. Might he be permitted to say that he was closely familiar with all the different forms, as he knew the noble Lord was also; but speaking with all respect to him, he really thought that the noble Lord was in error in supposing that any material fact was passed over in the new attestation form. It followed in every respect, as his right hon. friend had stated, what was called the Yeomanry form, which had been used by the Yeomanry for the last two or three years. He had never heard of any man, and he supposed there were 100,000 men in that force, who thought that insufficient information was given to him in the attestation form. The difference between the old and new forms was this. Whereas under the old one it was said: "Do you wish to join the Territorial Force? If you do it will be at your peril," under the new form, the words were more civil and more accurate, owing to the fact that it was drawn up by persons more conversant with the Territorial Army. He could not sec how the noble Lord could say that the new form was deceptive. The liabilities of the Volunteer were most clearly stated, and with the solitary exception that "heavy punishment" had been substitute for "hard labour," he did not know of any alteration. Whereas under the old form they said to a man: "If you want to become a Territorial soldier, look out," under the new form they invited people if they could spare the time to become members of the Territorial Army, and they knew plainly what their liabilities were.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 3:
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. ASHLEY MR. ASHLEY moved to omit the clause for the purpose of calling attention to the prices for billeting put in the schedule. The prices agreed upon last year were not excessive or generous, but since then another state of things had arisen, and they might have to alter altogether the scale of taxation which was to be placed upon the licence holder, and also the scale of compensation which he was to be paid if his house was taken away. If the House chose to alter the amount of money a licence holder had to pay to carry on his business, then surely they ought to raise the scale under the Schedule. Therefore, he moved to leave out the clause in order to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.
MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Member had raised a very great question which they would be debating, he had no doubt, at very great length in a very short time from now. The question was whether the holder of the licence would be worse off than he was at present. The licence holder was not the owner of the premises, and whether he would be worse off was a question about which hon. Members would hear a great deal from that side of the House. He was afraid he would not be in order if he were to express his sentiments on the subject of the Amendment. He would only say that the Schedule was considered the year before last, and the alterations embodied last year, it was substantially agreed, were as right and just as they could make them.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 64. (Division List, No. 51.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Astbury, John Meir

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Atherley-Jones, L.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Gulland, John AV.

Rendall, Athelstan

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Richards, T F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

Barker, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Richardson, A.

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Hart-Davies. T.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Barnes, G. N.

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Harwood, George

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Beauchamp, E.

Hedges, A. Paget

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Bell, Richard

Helme, Norval Watson

Robinson, S.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bennett, E. N.

Henry, Charles S.

Runciman, Walter

Berridge, T. H. D.

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

Russell, T. W.

Bertram, Julius

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Black, Arthur W.

Higham, John Sharp

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Branch, James

Hobart, Sir Robert

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Brigg, John

Hodge, John

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Holland, Sir William Henry

Sears, J. E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Holt, Richard Durning

Seddon, J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Seely, Colonel

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Horniman, Emslie John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Byles, William Pollard

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hudson, Walter

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Idris, T. H. W.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Soares, Ernest J.

Clough, William

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Clynes, J. R.

Jardine, Sir J.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jenkins, T.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Corbett, C H (Sussex, B. Grinst'd

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Jowett, F. W.

Summerbell, T.

Cox, Harold

Kearley, Hudson E.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lambert, George

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Crooks, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Crosfield, A. H.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr

Crossley, William J.

Lehmann, R. C.

Thomasson, Franklin

Curran, Peter Francis

Levy, Sir Maurice

Toulmin, George

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lewis, John Herbert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Lough, Thomas

Ure, Alexander

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Verney, F. W.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Dewar, Arthur-(Edinburgh, S.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Vivian, Henry

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Walsh, Stephen

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Waring, Walter

Duckworth, James

M'Crae, George

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M'Micking, Major G.

Waterlow, D. S.

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Maddison, Frederick

Watt, Henry A.

Elibank, Master of

Mallet, Charles E.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Whitbread, Howard

Erskine, David C.

Marnham, F. J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Evans, Sic Samuel T.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Menzies Walter

Whitehead, Rowland

Fenwick, Charles

Montagu, E. S.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Morse, L. L.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Findlay, Alexander

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wiles, Thomas

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Myer, Horatio

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Nicholls, George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Gill, A. H.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew).

Nuttall, Harry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Glendinning, R. G.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Winfrey, R.

Glover, Thomas

Partington, Oswald

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Grant, Corrie

Pirie, Duncan V.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

Griffith, Ellis J.

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

NOES.

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

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Baldwin, Stanley

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Balcarres, Lord

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

1442

1443

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

Fardell, Sir T. George

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Fell, Arthur

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Batcher, Samuel Henry

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East

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

Guinness, Walter Edward

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Haddock, George B.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hill, Sir Clement

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Thornton, Percy M

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Valentia, Viscount

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kimber, Sir Henry

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Winterton, Earl

Cross, Alexander

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Younger, George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Doughty, Sir George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ashley and Captain Craig.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Morpeth, Viscount

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Nield, Herbert

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
MR. ASHLEYsaid he wished to move a new clause dealing with specialenlistments. He was very strongly of opinion and he thought most hon. Members would be so too, that it was not advisable, certainly in our Regular forces, that any man should be enlisted except under very special circumstances, who was less than eighteen years of age. The regulations laid down that no man might be sent to India who was less than twenty years of age, and it was not likely in case of invasion that men between eighteen and twenty would have had sufficient training or be of sufficient physique to repel an invasion. Therefore it came to this, that if they enlisted a man under eighteen years of age, unless he was exceptionally strong they might have him on their hands for two years at least. They had had it laid down by the Secretary of State for War that he proposed in the Special Reserve to enlist men at seventeen. His Amendment aimed at putting an end to such a state of things as that. It aimed at compelling the War Office authorities not to enlist any man of seventeen for the Special Reserve, but to put that force on exactly the same footing as the Regular Army. Because sifter all men who were enlisted in the Special Reserve were to be used, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, for exactly the same purpose as the Regular Army. They were going to be used in case of war to expand the ranks of the Regular battalions
1444
which were depleted through men having been left behind owing to sickness or insufficient physique, to expand battalions which might be decimated or brought down very considerably in their strength owing to losses at the front, through disease or casualties, and they might also be sent abroad in their units. Therefore, it seemed to him that it was a waste of public money to enlist men of seventeen for the Special Reserves, when it was considered that eighteen was a sufficiently low age for the enlistment of men for the Regular Army. He had, therefore, two objects in introducing the clause, first of all to ensure that a man should under no circumstances be enlisted for the infantry of the Line or for the Guards, unless he was eighteen years of age, or unless there were some very special circumstances coming within the provisions in the clause, and secondly, that the Special Reserve should not consist in the future as it had in the past—because the Special Reserve was the old Militia—to a considerable extent of boys even less than seventeen years of age, who, by the very terms of the War Office regulations, could not be sent to India for at least three years and would therefore be costing the country money when they could not possibly be of any use in case of a serious war in India or any of the Colonies. As to the difficulty of carrying this clause into effect if it was enacted, he would draw the attention of the House to a question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen in 1903

1445
to Lord Stanley. The hon. Member asked—
"Whether, with a view to securing that no man shall now be enlisted under the age of eighteen years he will consider the advisability of amending the attestation paper by placing before the recruit his liability to punishment for a false answer as to ages, of carrying into practice Sections 33, 34, and 99 of the Army Act and of the addition of a question asking for an opinion as to age, to Army Forms B. 64 and 97, as well as forwarding these forms whenever practicable to the school board under whom the recruit was schooled."
Lord Stanley answered—
"I am desired by my right hon. friend to say that as regards the liability to punishment his legal advisers inform him that conviction for making a false statement as to age cannot be held good unless the man pleads guilty, or the prosecution proves that he knew his correct age, a man's actual age not being a matter within his personal knowledge."
That went to support his belief that it was no use asking a man what his age was, because, if he gave a false answer, he could not be punished for it. But this new clause would place his age practically beyond doubt, because he would produce a birth certificate, or the officer would take such stringent measures that there would be no reasonable doubt about it.
New Clause—

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section no recruit shall, after the passing of this Act, be enlisted in the Regular Forces unless he can produce a certificate of his birth to the recruiter, nor unless he is eighteen years of age.

"(2) A recruit may be enlisted without the previous production of his birth certificate if the approving officer shall be satisfied that every reasonable effort had been made to obtain such certificate, and that it is not practicable to obtain it, but in that case such officer shall state in writing what steps have been taken to obtain such certificate, and why he is of opinion that it is impracticable to obtain it.

"(3) A recruit may be enlisted who is known or believed by the approving officer to be more than seventeen, but less than eighteen years of age, if such approving officer shall be of opinion that, by reason of exceptional physical health and development, such recruit will make an efficient soldier; but in that case such officer shall state in writing the height, weight, and chest measurement of such recruit, and any other circumstance which shall appear to such officer to justify the enlistment of such recruit. Every written statement made by an approving officer in pursuance of this section shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State, and a return of all such statements made in any year shall be laid before Parliament not later than
1446
the presentation of the annual Army Estimates to the House of Commons in the year following."—(Mr. Ashley).

Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the clause, though highly technical, struck one as being very reasonable. The whole policy of the Government and the Secretary of State for War was to go in for a small Army, but he trusted a very efficient one. He was not sufficiently expert himself, but he would listen with interest to his colleagues who knew far more about the subject than he did, though it seemed to him that anyone under the age of eighteen could hardly be a very efficient soldier. Hon. Members opposite were all in favour of a time limit upon other questions, and he thought an age limit of eighteen in this case was a very fair proposal indeed. The subject was one of such importance that he was almost disposed to appeal to the Secretary of State for War as to whether he would not adjourn the further discussion. The Government had a number of measures they intended to bring before the House, but they did not seem in any pressing hurry to urge them on. The House had adjourned again and again at a very early hour during the past few weeks, and night after night had been wasted, and he thought it would be better, in view of the vital effect this new clause might have on the constitution of the ideal Army which the Secretary for War was bent upon constituting, if he would agree to adjourn the further discussion of the clause until a later date when they might have the advantage of expert opinion upon it.
MR. WATT: Does the hon. Member object to the limit in the new clause of seventeen years in exceptional cases?
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the hon. Member had evidently grasped the clause in a way he could hardly profess to have done. He understood this was to prevent any young man under the age of eighteen from being recruited.

1447
He moved to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the clause was a very good one when it was originally moved. There had been an immense change in recruiting for the Army during the last few years and what was contained in the clause had been practically carried out. When a great change was going on in the Army they should be careful to make as little difference in the conditions of recruiting as possible, and they wished the recruits to understand that they would be expected to do practically what they did before. They wanted to make the recruits who came up for enlistment feel that there had been no alteration from the old conditions. He was aware there had been some very slight alterations, but that was the feeling they wanted to maintain. If they inserted fresh clauses of this kind the men would think they were enlisting for quite a different purpose, and that was exactly what they wished to avoid. An alteration like the one suggested in the clause was bad both for recruiting and for the very objects it was brought forward to support.
MR. COURTHOPEdid not think altering the age would have the effect contemplated by the hon. Member for Lichfield. He did not, however, think the clause was a desirable one, because if they limited the recruits to those over eighteen they would be striking a serious blow at recruiting in general without gaining anything whatever. By insisting upon a birth certificate they would be imposing an irksome and difficult condition in regard to which it would be very difficult to get accurate information. He did not sec that the certificate was at all necessary, because there was no special virtue in the exact age of eighteen or seventeen years. That age was adopted as the age at which the average young man was considered fit to begin soldiering. Some of them were fit a year earlier and some a year later than others. There were to-day many young fellows of sixteen years of age fit to start life as soldiers whilst others at eighteen or nineteen years of age might be quite unfit. Therefore there was no special virtue in an exact age, and
1448
he did not think anything would be gained by insisting upon the production of the birth certificates except in the case of service in tropical climates, in places such as India. He would be sorry if the House adopted this clause because he believed it would strike a really severe blow at recruiting.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had listened with surprise to the arguments of the hon. Member opposite, because they seemed to him to have nothing whatever to do with the question before the House. The new clause provided that "No recruit shall be enlisted in the Regular Forces." Therefore, the great change referred to by the hon. Member for Lichfield could not be in the Regular Army at all, but in the Territorial Forces. [Cries of "No."] He always understood that Regular Forces meant Regular Forces and those forces were not altered. Therefore there was no change going on in the Regular Army to which this clause applied. His hon. friend had said that the clause might have a bad effect on recruiting because the age limit would be no advantage. Did the Secretary of State for War agree that a recruit at eighteen did not do better than one at seventeen?
MR. HALDANEsaid he would have been disposed to agree with that, but the hon. Baronet voted against that clause last year and that had shaken his judgment.
SIR F. BANBURY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not think that he ought to be obstinate in his opinions when the conditions changed. Because he had once done a thing it did not follow that he should adhere to it. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question. His view was that a young man of eighteen was for the purposes of soldiering better than the same young man at seventeen. His hon. friend had said there would be a difficulty about getting the birth certificate, but that condition appeared to be modified, because further on in the clause it was provided that a recruit might be enlisted if the recruiting officer was of opinion that physically such recruit would make an efficient

1449
soldier. They did not care whether the recruit was seventeen, eighteen, or nineteen, if he was well developed and strong physically. Therefore subsection 3 of the new clause met the objection raised by his hon. friend. The Secretary of State for War not long ago stated in reply to a question by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that recruiting was never better than it was now. If so, there could not be any objection to this clause. In 1905 the Unionist Government were desirous of having a large and efficient Army, and it was found necessary to get as many recruits as possible. In order to accomplish that it was considered advisable not to have the age too high. At the present moment, however, they had a smaller Army because they had reduced the Regulars by 20,000 men. If the Army had been reduced they ought not to have the same difficulty in regard to recruiting as with a large Army. It was claimed that by making the Army smaller they made it more efficient. That being so, he intended to vote for the clause proposed by his hon. friend. He would be very glad if any hon. Gentleman opposite would show him where he was wrong. His own contention was that if the Army was reduced, it was not necessary to take such a large number of recruits. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the arguments of his hon. friend had not converted him to the support of this clause. It was not the first occasion on which the clause had been moved. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool in past years had been amongst its strongest supporters. He himself was still open to conviction on the subject, and if those hon. Gentlemen could adduce arguments to convince him he would be prepared to reconsider his opinion. He rose to put a specific point to the Secretary of State for War. It arose out of some remarks of his hon. friend, in regard to the age at which men were sent to India. The practice was not to send them to India under the age of twenty. That was true
1450
in regard to men, but boys were sent to India under that age. Whether or not there was a physical disadvantage in that was an open question. There was evidence both for and against the practice. There was a strong body of evidence that boys sent out did not suffer the same physical disadvantages as young recruits did. There had recently been brought to his notice a case of considerable hardship which had arisen under the existing state of affairs—the case of boys enlisting from the Duke of York's School or the Royal Hibernian Academy who happened to enlist in a regiment at the time in India. They discovered that in spite of the existing regulations in regard to boys not being sent under twenty they were liable to be sent at once. What had been put to him was that, at all events, the War Office should take some steps to warn the parents or guardians that if the boys did enlist in a regiment which was in India they would incur this liability. At present no such warning was given.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the point raised by the hon. Gentleman was a very exceptional one for the reason that the Government of India would not receive the boys. They held strong views on the subject. He wanted to know when the House would be in possession of the Recruiting Report.
*MR. HALDANEsaid the Recruiting Report would be ready in a few days. Comparatively few boys were sent out to India. The officers were instructed to tell the parents that the regiment was going to India, and if there was any objection that was the time to state it. The Government had considered the matter with the medical authorities and with the Government of India. He would inquire as to whether anything further could be done. He thought this debate had been conducted on a misapprehension. He agreed with the hon. Baronet opposite that the new clause had nothing to do with the Special Reserve. If the Committee had seen the clause, somebody would have drawn attention to section 190, sub-section 8 of the Army Act. In that sub-section the expression "Regular Forces" was defined as including only those who are "presently under obligation to proceed abroad."

1451
The Special Reserve was not presently under that obligation; it only came under that obligation on mobilisation. Therefore the Special Reserve was excluded by the Army Act from forming part of the Regular Forces of the Crown. When they came to that conclusion the controversy assumed a different complexion, because the motion of the hon. Member, which ought to be carefully considered, was to allow under certain circumstances recruiting for the Regular Forces at an age less than eighteen. They might encourage enlistment at a lower age than eighteen in the case of the Militia and the Special Reserve for the reason that it was a good thing for a young man of seventeen to get six months training; but they did not allow it in the case of Regulars. Moreover, they had instructed the recruiting officers to use their discretion in asking for birth certificates. In many cases they could not get the birth certificates, and if they tried to enforce their production they would lose the recruit. In those cases the officers were asked to use their own judgment, as to the age of the recruit. He was in sympathy with the hon. Baronet's old view on this matter, and he doubted whether he had good reasons for altering his attitude. He was certainly entitled to show that as things had improved, and as the number of soldiers became less, fewer recruits were required. But it was not the case necessarily that because the number of men was smaller a smaller number of recruits was required. They might have the three years system still in operation. In that case the men passed away from the establishment of the battalion into the Reserve more rapidly than they would under a longer system, and they might require more recruits, although there were fewer men. They had still the three years' system in operation. It was not even at its worst; it would be at its worst this year, and then there would be a gradual improvement. Fortunately, recruiting at this moment was very good. The step proposed in this clause should not be taken without careful consideration, and he thought that if it had been realised that the clause did not touch the Special Reserve it would not have received so much support.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the debate was very
1452
interesting, not only on account of the speech of the Secretary of State for War, but also because of the speeches of other hon. Gentlemen. Those who cared to look into what had passed in Parliament in recent years would find that they had reached an interesting juncture. He gathered that the Secretary of State opposed the clause. He would like to get an explanation why a number of the members of the Government had made a complete volte face on the subject. The first right hon. Gentleman who had changed his opinion and had given no reason for doing so was no less a personage than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On 2nd April, 1903, the right hon. Gentleman supported this very clause when it was moved by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool. Other Members of the present Government who supported the clause were the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Halifax. He thought that not only the House of Commons but the country was entitled to know why, when our Army organisation was more or less being put in the melting pot, members of the Government had given no explanation of so complete a change of opinion on so vital a matter. He thought the Secretary for War should tell the Committee whether during the time he was responsible for the Army he had been unable to obtain sufficient recruits. Everybody inside and outside the House of Commons had heard for years reproaches that many of the recruits for the Army were immature youths, and that the Government should not enlist such youths to undertake the arduous work of a soldier. He did not think it proper that responsible Ministers of the Crown should completely change their opinion without offering a word of explanation to the House of Commons; and nothing had fallen from the Secretary for War which could be held to be a good excuse for this extraordinary change in their action.
COLONEL SEELYsaid he was still very much of the same opinon as he was in 1903, viz., that no man should be enlisted in the Regular Army under the age of eighteen years; and that in all reasonable and

1453
practical circumstances a birth certificate should be obtained. The hon. Member would remember that, in conjunction with Lord Hugh Cecil, a long and arduous fight was engaged in on this matter, and that they finally compromised with the then Secretary for War, to put in certain words in the clause enabling the Government to enlist youths under particular circumstances at the age of seventeen. They understood that that would be accepted, but unfortunately, there was a misunderstanding and Lord Hugh Cecil was very angry because the words were not inserted. The clause now contained a provision that under regulation the recruiting officers should under certain circumstances enlist youths at the age of seventeen; but that the men were not to be enlisted as a rule for the Regular Army under the age of eighteen and that a birth certificate was to be obtained if possible. He thought he was right in saying that by passing the clause proposed by the hon. and gallant Member they would lose part of the ground which they already occupied, because they would open the door for recruiting men at a lower ago than now. If that were so, he would unhesitatingly vote against the clause which would undo part of the work in which he had taken a humble part in getting rid of the possibility of enlisting boys of sixteen and seventeen years of age.
CAPTAIN FABERsaid he associated himself with what had fallen from his hon. and gallant friend near him, but not quite on the same grounds. He did not disapprove of recruits being taken at the age of seventeen, for he would like to see every boy in the country have military training, and the earlier they came into the Army the sooner they would learn their exercises, and the sooner would their physique be improved. He would be very glad to hear from the Secretary for War whether he thought the part of the clause referring to the production of a birth certificate would or would not be a dead letter. He thought that that part of the clause should be left out, because he could not see how men of that class who joined the Army could at the age of eighteen produce a birth certifi-
1454
cate; and to insist upon it he believed would hurt recruiting.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that the Secretary for War ought to have made an effort to circulate the Reports on recruiting before this Bill came on for discussion. The hon. and gallant Member for Abercromby had that day performed one of the somersaults with which they were getting familiar on the Radical benches. He thought the hon. and gallant Member ought to have stood up manfully for an Amendment which he himself had proposed in an impassioned speech in 1903, when Member for the Isle of Wight. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when Member for Abercromby Division of Liverpool, confessed his error and said that he was formerly entirely wrong. He did not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks could bear any great weight. The Mover of the Amendment had made a statement in its support which fell something short of what should have been said in order to impress on the Secretary for War the importance of putting into actual words which the right hon. Gentleman admitted should be in the Army Annual Act. Nobody for a moment believed that the clause as it stood would carry out to the letter what his hon. and gallant friend wanted. What objection had the Secretary for War to put into the Army Annual Act that which would give great satisfaction on that side of the House and would not hurt recruiting? Hon. Members opposite did not take any interest in the Army except to move a reduction of 10,000 men on economical grounds. But surely it would be economising to adopt this Resolution. Instead of having recruiting under the age which the Secretary for War and his advisers thought was the proper age for recruits for service abroad, it would secure that only good men were put on the strength of the Army. The Secretary for War had shown very good grounds for accepting the Amendment, and during nine-tenths of his speech he thought the right hon. Gentleman intended to accept the clause moved by his hon. and gallant friend

1455
and embody it in the Bill. But at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman jumped the traces and went the other way. A very valuable column had been added to the recruiting Returns, which said that the Secretary for War would have to lay on the Table of the House a return of the number of men recruited under the age of eighteen. At present the returns did not show how many of that age were recruited to the strength of the Regular Army, and the information would be invaluable. The fact remained that they were living in a fool's paradise so far [as the young recruits were concerned, because up till now no returns had been presented to the House showing how many young men under the prescribed age had been actually recruited. If the clause now suggested were passed that information would be readily obtainable by every Member of the House, and he thought they were discussing the matter very much in the dark in not knowing definitely what the number of these men was. He would therefore ask the Secretary of State for War if he had any information to give them, or could let them have an approximate idea of how many men were affected by matters standing as they were. Surely when a new clause of this sort was moved it would be worth the while of some of the numerous advisers which the right hon. Gentleman had at his command to give him a rough estimate of how many men were recorded as being enlisted under the ago of eighteen under special circumstances. His hon. and gallant friend had suggested that it would be very interesting to know in how many cases, during the past year, birth certificates were available for those under the age of eighteen. If they had some statistics of that sort he thought those who differed from them would, like themselves, be put into a more advantageous position for approaching this thorny subject. Both those who were opposed to having a limit of eighteen years imposed upon recruits and those who would like to see a rigid limit drawn would, under this clause have the whole position before them. The whole point which they raised and which had escaped the right hon. Gentleman's attention was the fact that where young men were
1456
not taken for the Regular Army they could be taken for the Militia and other Forces, so that really deserving young men of proper military spirit who were desirous of serving their country were not in any way shut out. He was sure that it was not the intention in any degree of his hon. and gallant friend to prevent any recruit from serving his country in any branch of the Service he might choose. If that had been the idea of the Amendment, he would have been the first to oppose it, but he knew that the hon. and gallant Gentleman took a great interest in the recruiting of the Army; his idea was that the country feared that the Army was not composed exactly of the class of men they should get, and that consequently proper precautions should be taken that boys were not sent abroad before they were fit for duty. He really thought that as the question affected the very foundations of the Army, they might have had a little more interest displayed in it upon the Radical benches. They were talking now not in the middle of the night, but in the middle of the day when every one was fresh. But it was the old story. Hon. Members opposite were never present when it was a question of strengthening the Forces of the Crown but only when it was desired to reduce them. When, however, they were seeking to maintain the Army at its highest level it was interesting to observe that there were only five Members of the Radical Party who wished to take part in the debate.
MR. ASHLEYthought there was some misapprehension as to the reason why he moved this new clause. He did not attach any great or lasting importance to the exact age of eighteen or nineteen, but his object was to endeavour to ensure that every recruit enlisted in His Majesty's forces should be of efficient physique and likely to pay for his training and to be able to defend his country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had made great efforts in devising practical improvements, and he was quite willing to admit that certain improvements had been made. The right hon. Gentleman had indeed told every recruiting officer that he should, if possible, get a birth certificate from

1457
every man to prove that he was eighteen years of age. So far so good, but they were no better off. Supposing a mm said he had not his certificate with him, he might be sixteen or seventeen or any age. They had no opportunity of pinning him down, but under this new clause a man would be obliged, if possible, to bring forward his birth certificate. If he could not do so, that was where the new clause would come in over the present system, because the recruiting officer would have to satisfy himself that in weight, height, and measurement the recruit was of sufficient physique for His Majesty's forces. It would not be sufficient that a recruit should state he was eighteen years of age; he would have to satisfy these medical requirements, and what was of more importance a report would have to be made by this officer; the War Office would have to put on the Table a Return showing the number of men who were enlisted of this type, and whether an undue number of them were entering the Army.
MR. HUNTasked whether it was the fact or not that if recruiting was difficult youths could be recruited at seventeen years of age. It appeared to him that our Army was very small and particularly smaller than it was formerly, and at all events we ought to have recruits who were up to a proper standard. They walked about in towns and saw very youthful and small people dressed up in His Majesty's uniform. He did not say they were absolutely infants, but they ought to be at school. But these youths would be of no use at
all in case of war; they would not be able to stand the hard work of campaigning. Unquestionably they wanted "an old dog for a hard road," and these young men could not until they reached a certain age endure the hardships of war. The country, therefore, would only waste money upon them if they were of this very youthful age. For the purpose for which they were wanted they were of no use, as even at twenty years of age a man could not stand a campaign. It was shown in the South African War that a man of far greater age could do harder work and was much less liable to go sick than were the younger men, and even at forty the men had stood it better than the "young'uns." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them whether he was going to keep up the rule that recruiting officers, to the best of their ability, should not take men under eighteen years of age.
MR. HALDANEassented.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he quite agreed that they should not take young men in the Army, because they were limited to a certain number. If the right hon. Gentleman would extend the numbers and say 450,000 he would certainly vote for sixteen instead of eighteen. As it was he supposed he should have to vote with his hon. and gallant friend for his new clause.
Question put.
The Committee divided;—Ayes, 67; Noes, 241. (Division List No. 52.)

AYES.

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

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Forster, Henry William

Ashley, W. W.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm

Gardner, Ernest

Balcarres, Lord

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Baldwin, Stanley

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Gretton, John

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Courthope, G. Loyd

Guinness, Walter Edward

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Haddock, George B.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craik, Sir Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Cross, Alexander

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Boyle, Sir Edward

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Helmsley, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hill, Sir Clement

Bull, Sir William James

Doughty, Sir George

Hunt, Rowland

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Kimber, Sir Henry

Castlereagh, Viscount

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fell, Arthur

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Winterton, Earl

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Younger, George

Morpeth, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Captain Craig.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Thornton, Percy M.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Valentia, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Kekewich, Sir George

Acland, Francis Dyke

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Lambert, George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Elibank, Master of

Lamont, Norman

Alden, Percy

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Erskine, David C.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Essex, R. W.

Lehmann, R. C.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Everett, R. Lacey

Lewis, John Herbert

Astbury, John Meir

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Atherley-Jones, L.

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Lough, Thomas

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Fenwick, Chares

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lyell, Charles Henry

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lynch, H. B.

Barker, John

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk Bg'hs

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Maclean, Donald

Barnes, G. N.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Macpherson, J. T.

Bell, Richard

Gill, A. H.

M'Callum, John M.

Bennett, E. N.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Crae, George

Bertram, Julius

Glen-Coats, Sir I. (Renfrew, W

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

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

Glover, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G

Black, Arthur W.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Maddison, Frederick

Boulton, A. C. F.

Grant, Corrie

Mallet, diaries E

Bramsdon, T. A.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Branch, James

Griffith, Ellis J.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Brigg, John

Gulland, John W.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hart-Davies, T.

Menzies, Walter

Byles, William Pollard

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cameron, Robert

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E

Middlebrook, William

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Harwood, George

Mond, A.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Helme, Norval Watson

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu, E. S.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Henry, Charles S.

Morse, L. L.

Clynes, J. R.

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murray, James

Collins, Stephens (Lambeth)

Higham, John Sharp

Myer, Horatio

Cooper, G. J.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Napier, I. B.

Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Hodge, John

Nicholls, George

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cowan, W. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cox, Harold

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nuttall, Harry

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Hudson, Walter

O'Grady, J.

Crooks, William

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Parker, James (Halifax)

Crosfield, A. H.

Idris, T. H. W.

Partington, Oswald

Crossley, William J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Curran, Peter Francis

Jackson, R. S.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

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

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Jardine, Sir J.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jenkins, J.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Price, C. Edinb'gh, (Central)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Radford, G. H.

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rees, J. D.

Duckworth, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Rendall, Athelstan

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jowett, F. W.

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

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Richardson, A.

1460

1461

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waterlow, D. S.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Soares, Ernest J.

Watt, Henry A.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Whitbread, Howard

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Robinson, S.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Summerbell, T.

Whitehead, Rowland

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliff

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax

Rowlands, J.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Runciman, Walter

Thomas, Sir A. Glamorgan, E.

Wiles, Thomas

Russell, T. W.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Thomasson, Franklin

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Tomkinson, James

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Toulmin, George

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

Sears, J. E.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Seaverns, J. H.

Vivian, Henry

Winfrey, R.

Seddon, J.

Walsh, Stephen

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walters, John Tudor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)

Walton, Joseph

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Waring, Walter

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

*MR. ASHLEY*MR. ASHLEY moved a new clause amending Section 42 by substituting the words "Chief of the General Staff" for the words "Commander-in-Chief." The officer who unhappily had reason to make a complaint against his commanding officer was in the clause told to make it to the Commander-in-Chief, a person who had been abolished for some years. Therefore they had to consider what authority should be substituted. Two authorities could be substituted, the Army Council who in practice did deal with these complaints or an individual member of that Council. So long as the right hon. Gentleman held his office he would be pleased to move that he should be the proper official to whom complaint should be made, but he could quite see that it might be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister to take that duty upon himself. They had, therefore, to consider what authority should take the place of the defunct Commander-in-Chief so as to receive complaints. He himself preferred that complaint should be made to an individual rather than to a body like the Army Council, because he would be able in all probability to give more attention to it. It was under these circumstances that he begged to move.
New Clause—
"Amendment of Army Act, 1881, Section 42, by substituting 'Chief of the General Staff' for 'Commander-in-Chief.'—(Mr. Ashley)—
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought that as the Amendment was of an important character the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider it. He certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the way to accept it, because since the article was framed the Commander-in-Chief had ceased to exist. His hon. friend had left the matter rather open in his Amendment as to whether complaint should be made to the Army Council or an individual member of the Council. He himself was in favour of sending the complaint to the Army Council rather than to one officer. He supported the Amendment.
MR. HALDANEsaid it was quite right that this question should be raised in order that the mind of the House might be set at rest. His objections to accepting the Amendment were two, first, that it was not necessary, and secondly, that the case had already been provided for. The position of Commander-in-Chief having been abolished, provision had been made for this very case. An Order in Council was passed in 1904, which provided that all the powers of the Commander-in-Chief other than statutory powers should rest in the Army Council. This was a statutory power, but that did not matter, because

1463
the Commander-in-Chief being abolished, the statutory powers lapsed, and it was the duty of the Army Council to deal with these matters. It was a mere formality, because, as he had said, the Commander-in-Chief was no longer existing, and automatically, by the mere fact of the Order in Council, the Secretary of State would be guided in the exercise of his prerogative by the Army Council.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHasked whether it was advisable to have a term of an obsolete character—"Commander-in-Chief"—in an Act of Parliament which was brought up every year.
*MR. HALDANEsaid the Bill which he had stated he would bring in, dealt not only with that, but with a good many of these statutory powers; it would be purely a drafting Bill. He had not yet had an opportunity of bringing forward the Army Council Powers Bill, but he hoped to introduce it later in the session. He wanted to pass it as soon as he got an opportunity, but until that Bill became law it was impossible to deal with these mere formalities. Questions of discipline, and this was one, could not go to the Chief of the General Staff. All these important appeals ought not to go to a single individual; they would go to the King, and the King, who would be advised by the Secretary of State, whether by virtue of the Order in Council, or the directions contained in it, consulted the Army Council. It was the Army Council which, under the provisions of the Order in Council, took the place of the Commander-in-Chief. Several cases happened to which this section applied. They went to the Army Council, which directed the proper procedure and made exhaustive inquiry. The result of that inquiry went to the Secretary of State, who himself took part in the Army Council administration. The military and civil members would sit together at the inquiry, and then the Secretary of State gave advice to the Sovereign, whose directions would be issued. In other words, they had got the most complete tribunal just now which it was possible to have. The object of the hon. Member in moving his Amendment was precisely that which
1464
was served by the state of things now existing. The Chief of the General Staff could not possibly cope with it, and therefore the Army Council had been selected under the Order in Council to discharge these duties.
MR. LAMBTONsaid he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the drafting Amendment in this case.
*MR. HALDANE: No, not the Chief of the General Staff.
MR. LAMBTONunderstood from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that the matter was provided for, and that it was not necessary to alter the wording of the Bill. But they wanted words which officers would understand.
MR. HALDANEsaid it was very difficult to consider this as a drafting Amendment. He was in this position: he had never seen the Amendment until five minutes ago. It had not been put upon the Paper, and it was impossible for him to drive a steel ram rod into a delicate piece of mechanism. He must consider what he was doing; he must consider the words before he could possibly assent to them; it was much better that the matter should be dealt with in the Bill which he had promised to introduce before long, and which would deal with all these subjects.
MR. LAMBTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was not sufficient. He talked of driving a steel ram rod into a delicate piece of mechanism, but he was employing words which were utterly unintelligible to any officer. If no Commander-in-Chief existed now, how on earth was application to be made to him to obtain justice? It was a really important matter. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman in five minutes—if he were assisted by the Attorney-General for Ireland near him—could easily find words to convey to the House and the Army his position. They really must press the Amendment.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: was sure the House would think absurd the retention of the term "Commander-in-Chief."

1465
The right hon. Gentleman said with truth that the punishments which were inflicted by the Commander-in-Chief had been transferred to the Army Council. They had one definition of the word "Commander-in-Chief" for the purposes of this section; but later in the Act there was another section which defined it as meaning: "The Field-Marshal or other officer, or the Commander-in-Chief of the forces for the time being." Why put in the Act the description of a person who had no existence, and why in another part of the Act give a different definition, which under the existing state of things could have no meaning? From the point of view of drafting he thought that the Amendment was well worth consideration.
MR. HALDANE: I have promised to bring in a Bill.
EARL WINTEETONsaid it seemed to him most important that the Bill in which was contained the whole of the regulations for the governance of the Army those regulations should be set out clearly, so that every soldier could read and understand them. This clause was one of the most important of the whole Bill, and where it was a question of complaints by officers of their treatment, or with regard to the conduct of their commanding officers, it was really important that the law should be quite clear, so that an officer who was anxious to make a complaint should know to whom he was to address it. The specific point on which he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, was whether the commanding officer would be given instructions that the Act should be read or placed in a position where it could easily be read by the regiment, and where it would be seen that the authority to whom power was delegated was the Army Council and not the Commander-in-Chief. It was important that that should be made clear: otherwise, a man who wished to make a complaint would not know to whom he was to make it. The House might be aware of the different alterations that have been made in the Army during the last three years, but they were not so obvious to the men or the officers of the Army. Having
1466
regard to the importance of the matter and to the very large amount of dirty linen which had been recently washed in public, it should be clearly laid down who was the authority to whom the powers of the Commander-in-Chief had been delegated.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid it should be made clear to the Secretary of State, first of all, that things were in a desperately muddled condition so far as the wording of the clause was concerned. Secondly, they were asked to spend a part of that afternoon to turn that muddle into law. Personally, he objected to that process. When the right hon. Gentleman complained that he had not had time to see the Amendment his complaint would not hold water, because if he had chosen he could have given adequate notice of the later stage of the Bill and his hon. friend would have put down a new clause. If there was any difficulty in dealing with the matter, the right hon. Gentleman had only himself to thank. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman at this stage of the Bill undertake to provide words which any man who read them could understand? The difficulty appeared to be that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had not thought it worth while to put their proposals before the House in a straightforward or businesslike manner.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: said the Government proposed to make the alteration by a Bill which was to be brought in, but the alteration would not appear in the Army Act, and it was that point which they were endeavouring to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman. He would venture to make a suggestion which he thought would meet with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. friend opposite, and would give time for this matter to be more fully considered, while it would render more clear the Army Act, which was in the hands of every soldier of His Majesty's forces. He suggested that it would meet the right hon. Gentleman's objection and also that of his hon. friend opposite, if he were to insert in Subsection 3 of Clause 190 words explaining that the expression "Commander-in-Chief" meant "Army Council"

1467
instead of the present "Field-Marshal or other officer of His Majesty commanding the forces for the time being." He would suggest the withdrawal of the Amendment on an undertaking by the Secretary of State to that effect. It would simplify matters very much and allow them to get on with the work of the Committee. Otherwise he thought a great wrong would be done to those who were desirous of having the Army Act in their hands. Any Bill that might be passed later on would never reach the hands of officers, let alone the men, to all intents and purposes for a whole year, and the Army Act would become obsolete on the very day they put it into point.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The question is whether the clause shall be read a second time, and the hon. Member is not speaking to that.
*MR. ASHLEYsaid he would be willing to withdraw with a view to substituting the Army Council for the Chief of the General Staff. But he could see no valid reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
LORD BALCARRESsaid one wondered why the right hon. Gentleman should not amend the Bill rather than propose to introduce fresh legislation. The right hon. Gentleman said it had to be introduced. The matter had been hanging for two years at least, perhaps three. He was not certain that the Party to which he belonged had not delayed it for at least twelve months. The proposal to transfer by Bill the statutory powers vested in the Commander-in-Chief to the Secretary of State for War involved questions of the constitution of the Army Council. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman he must tell him that the Army Council and its constitution was not a matter which was in the ordinary sense of the term non-controversial. Very large questions were raised, and he thought the events of the last week or two in which the Army Council as an entity had been split up into two, three, or four individual subordinate entities, where the opinion of one member of
1468
the Army Council was quoted against the opinions of others, made the whole question of its constitution one of very considerable importance, and no Bill amending it could pass the House sub silentio. The right hon. Gentleman in a purely incidental phrase had said that in addition to transferring the powers of the Army Council, which had hitherto been vested in the Commander-in-Chief, another object was to be served by that Bill. He did not want to anticipate discussion on the new Bill, but he thought it was probably material to this point, as the Bill had to deal with the Act they were now discussing, that they should know what that other point was. It might also, like the amendment of the Commander - in - Chief's functions and privileges, deal with something under the Army Act. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell them when the Bill was going to be introduced. He did not wish to labour the point further, but anything further dealing with the constitution of the Army Council was of considerable importance, and would, he thought, require some scrutiny by Members of the House if it was allowed to pass at all.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that if the intention was to re-introduce the Army Council Bill which was prepared at the time of the creation of the Army Council by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, he should offer strong opposition to it. They would be out of order in discussing the details of the Bill on this occasion, but it raised constitutional issues.
*MR. CARLILEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had told them that all this was going to be put in order in a subsequent Bill, but he could not tell them when the Bill was going to be introduced.
*THE CHAIRMAN: We have really nothing to do with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned that he is going to introduce a Bill to deal with this question, but we cannot go on discussing it. The only question before us is whether this clause is to be read a second time.
MR. CARLILEhoped it would not be read a second time in its present condition. It was a very undesirable thing that officers in His Majesty's service should be referred by the Army Bill, if they wanted any of their wrongs righted, not merely to a nebulous person not having such substance even as a nebulous body had, but to a person who had no existence at all. They could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman hesitated to accept this or some other Amendment which would really embody in flesh and blood some individual to whom these persons suffering wrong might have the opportunity of appealing. If he would put the Adjutant-General in he had no doubt that his hon. friend would accept that Amendment, or the Army Council if the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to fix the matter any nearer. But it was an inconceivable thing that they should be asked at that hour of the day to pass a Bill containing such a provision as that; it was ridiculous on the very face of it. What other Department of the State would submit to such a thing? Since it had been his privilege to be in Parliament he never remembered any Secretary of State coming to the House and telling them to pass such a ridiculous provision on the ground that in the distant future some other legislation was to take place. They were there to deal with business. Why they should not deal with it in a businesslike way while they had their hand to it, passed the wit of man to conceive. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make the matter definite and clear, so that those to whom they were much beholden for their devotion to their service on behalf of their King and country might at any rate feel that there was a Court of Appeal to whom they could go, and not to a supposed individual having no existence, and placed in this Bill merely because the right hon. Gentleman would not accept a most practical Amendment. If he would accept the Adjutant-General perhaps that would meet the difficulty. Anyhow it seemed a preposterous thing that they should be called upon to pass the measure in its present form and he hoped his hon. friend would go to a division un-less he got some satisfactory assurance
1470
that this manifest abuse of the position of officers in the Army was not to be allowed to obtain.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid it had been pointed out that they had a long and laborious task before them, and it was very much better that he should confine himself as briefly as possible to one or two points instead of enlarging upon a number of questions which had been raised. They had an enormous number of clauses to get through. He wanted to ask the Minister for War whether it was a fair thing to put them off what he admitted to be on the whole a reasonable and fair Amendment by the promise of future legislation, when he had already been warned that the very Bill he proposed to introduce would be strenuously opposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. What after all was the proposal made? There either was to be a real appeal or there was to be no appeal. At present there was absolutely no appeal except to this unembodied nebulosity. There was no Commander-in-Chief, therefore the appeal must either be made to the Army Council or to the Chief of the Staff. Did the right hon. Gentleman say he had not read the Bill, that he had not considered where the appeal was to be made, that he did not know perfectly well that there was now no Commander-in-Chief except himself—a very able one? His hon. friend was prepared to accept him as an arbiter, to accept the Chief of the Staff or the Army Council, and to yield to any fair arrangement in the wording of his Amendment which would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. But the right hon. Gentleman like the Chief Secretary for Ireland was prepared to bang the box and say he would do nothing until he introduced a little later on some unknown Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had warned him he would oppose tooth and nail. That was a very unfair condition of things, and he thought it warranted the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone in saying that the Government treated every Amendment moved from that side of the House with absolute contempt. Even although the right hon.

1471
Gentleman admitted that a grave defect in the present Act was pointed out, apparently unknown to him before, and that the Amendment was a reasonable and fair one he would not accept it.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member is not in order in discussing another Bill.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the only answer given to them in opposition to this Amendment was that in future legislation would be introduced.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member is now merely repeating himself.
MR. COURTHOPEthought they ought to press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. They had made it quite clear that the clause required amending, and the right hon. Gentleman said it was going to be amended by future legislation. But the right hon. Gentleman had no right to assume that the legislation to which he referred would be passed. They had pointed out an anomaly which, by the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, was to be redressed and removed, and they must therefore press him to give them some more definite reason for rejecting this very modest Amendment.
MR. HALDANEthought he had made the point clear. The appeal would come through the Secretary to the Army Council. The only use of the Act of Parliament was to put right what was in substance right, and what was constantly working. That would have to be done by a Bill outside this Act, and that would be the proper time to amend the Army Annual Act.
EARL WINTERTONasked what steps had been taken to make clear to those who would come under the Act the alterations which had been made. Many of them did not know that this office had been abolished, and it should be
1472
made clear that that alteration had been made.
MR. HALDANEsaid it was made clear, because the Order in Council said that the right the Commander-in-Chief had now passed to the Army Council.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had met the point to a certain extent, but the officers would find it difficult to understand to whom the appeal was to be made unless some alteration was made. This clause seemed very complicated because it referred to an officer who no longer existed. With that love for symmetry which all legal minds possessed, he should have thought that the first thing the right hon. Gentleman would have done would have been to have found out that those words in the section meant nonsense, or nothing at all. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that they had no meaning. He said the Order in Council was well known and appeared in certain documents. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to alter this matter now and put it right. It was no use saying that he was going to alter it. The Secretary for War was a great apostle of the doctrine of efficiency, and that doctrine laid down that they should never put on until to-morrow what they could do to-day. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman accept the simple words which had been proposed and make this clause run the same as the Order in Council. [Cries of "Divide, divide."]
MR. LAMBTONpointed out that Clause 190 defined the term "Commander-in-Chief." Was he going to make the alteration when that clause was reached? If so, why not make the alteration now?
MR. HALDANEsaid that if he put it in now he would not be touching Clause 190. He could not change the drafting without changing it right through the Act. Not only the Army Act, but other Acts were involved. When the change was made he should correct the draft of the Army Act.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 71 Noes, 243. (Division List No. 53.)

AYES.

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

Doughty, Sir George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

Baldwin, Stanley

Du Cros, Arthur Philip

Parkes, Ebenezer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Fell, Arthur

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Forster, Henry William

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, Sir Edward

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Gretton, John

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Guinness, Walter Edward

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bull, Sir William James

Haddock, George B.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Starkey, John R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Castlereagh, Viscount

Helmsley, Viscount

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hill, Sir Clement

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

Hills, J. W.

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hunt, Rowland

Valentia, Viscount

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Winterton, Earl

Courthope, G. Loyd

Kimber, Sir Henry

Wortley Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Younger, George

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Craik, Sir Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr. Ashley land Mr. Lambton.

Cross, Alexander

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Morpeth, Viscount

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Findlay, Alexander

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Clynes, J. R.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gill, A. H.

Astbury, John Meir

Cooper, G. J.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Atherley-Jones, L.

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Glendinning, R. G.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Glover, Thomas

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cowan, W. H.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Barker, John

Cox, Harold

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Griffith, Ellis J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Crooks, William

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Barnes, G. N.

Crosfield, A. H.

Gulland, John W.

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Crossley, William J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Bell, Richard

Curran, Peter Francis

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Bellairs, Carlyon

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Benn, W.(T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hart-Davies, T.

Bennett, E. N.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Harwood, George

Black, Arthur W.

Duckworth, James

Helme, Norval Watson

Boulton, A. C. F.

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

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

Branch, James

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Henry, Charles S.

Brigg, John

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

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

Bryce, J. Annan

Elibank, Master of

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Higham, John Sharp

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Erskine, David C.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Essex, R. W.

Hodge, John

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Everett, R. Lacey

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Cameron, Robert

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Horniman, Emslie John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Hudson, Walter

Montagu, E. S.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Morse, L. L.

Soares, Ernest J.

Idris, T. H. W.

Murray, James

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Napier, T. B.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Jackson, R. S.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Nicholls, George

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jardine, Sir J.

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Summerbell, T.

Jenkins, J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Nuttall, Harry

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Grady, J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomasson, Franklin

Kearley, Hudson E.

Partington, Oswald

Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset, E

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, Robert (Staff's. Leek)

Tomkinson, James

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Lambert, George

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

Toulmin, George

Lamont, Norman

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walsh, Stephen

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Walters, John Tudor

Levy, Sir Maurice

Radfond, G. H.

Waring, Walter

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lough, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Waterlow, D. S.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rendall, Athelstan

Watt, Henry A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Weir, James Galloway

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richardson, A.

Whitbread, Howard

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Ridsdale, E. A.

White, Sir George (Norfolk)

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

M'Callum, John M.

Robinson, S.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

M'Crae, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wiles, Thomas

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

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

M'Micking, Major G.

Rowlands, J.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Maddison, Frederick

Runciman, Waller

Williamson, A.

Mallet, Charles E.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

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

Marnham, F. J.

Sears, J. E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Seaverns, J. H.

Winfrey, R.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Seddon, J.

Menzies, Walter

Seely, Colonel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Middlebrook, William

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T (Hawick, B.

Mond, A.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. ASHLEY MR. ASHLEY moved a new clause having for its object the omission from Clause 136 of the Army Act of the words "or by any Royal Warrant for the time being." He pointed out that Clause 138 laid it down that penal deductions might be made from the pay of the ordinary soldier in eight specific cases. His contention was that there should be embodied in this Bill the specific instances where it was allowable for the military authorities to deduct a certain amount from the pay of the soldier, and that these should be the only instances in which deductions might be made. Why give the Secretary of State power under a Royal Warrant to make deductions for any offence or cause he liked? If the right hon. Gentleman could not be
1476
trusted in respect of one clause, why give him such extensive powers under another. He begged to move.
New clause—
"To amend Clause 136 of the Army Act, 1881, by omitting the words' or by any Royal Warrant for the time being.' "—(Mr. Ashley.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid the sections which distinguished between the two kinds of deductions—those made under the Act as distinguished from those

1477
made by Royal Warrant—were Sections 137 and 138. The deductions made under the Act were penal deductions, and it was right that they should be set out. The other deductions made by Royal Warrant were not penal deductions. The amount due by an officer who left his mess bill unpaid, and certain other charges, might be deducted from his pay, and such debts were dealt with under the power conferred by Royal Warrant. That was why the offences to be treated as penal were put in the Act, and the matters to be dealt with under Royal Warrant were not.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. ASHLEY MR. ASHLEY moved a new clause to amend Clause 137 of the Army Act, which permits the stoppage of the ordinary pay of an officer who absents himself without leave unless a satisfactory explanation is given. He pointed out that under Clause 137 as it stood, if an officer had six months' pay due to him and he absented himself for a few days he might forfeit the whole of his arrears of pay. He thought the intention was that he should only forfeit the pay for the days on which he was absent, as was the rule in the case of a private soldier.
New Clause—
"To amend Clause 137 of the Army Act, 1881"—(Mr. Ashley.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid the deduction under this section was a penal deduction. If an officer absented himself without leave, it might be a small matter, simply measurable by the stopping of his pay during the time he was away. But it might be a matter very grave indeed which would make it right that all arrears due to him should be stopped. In order that justice should be done as between a simple case and an extreme case the qualifying words as to a satisfactory
1478
explanation being given were contained in the Act. That was a matter which the commander-in-chief would determine; he would consider the circumstances and order such deduction as might seem necessary—it might be a few days' pay or six months' pay.
MR. ASHLEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman laid it down that an officer should be put in a worse position than a private soldier. A private soldier could only be fined for the number of days he was absent.
MR. HALDANEsaid the position of an officer who absented himself might be very grave indeed, and it might be necessary not only to stop his pay, but to try him by court martial.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he understood that there was a considerable feeling of dissatisfaction among the non-commissioned officers and men in regard allowances. He moved a new clause, explaining that he did not bring it forward in a hostile spirit, but rather with the view of extracting from the Secretary of State for War, a statement as to what he proposed to do in the way of revising the King's Regulations. Under the operation of the present regulations many inequalities arose, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the subject at a time when the whole of these Army matters were receiving drastic treatment. He begged to move.
*THE CHAIRMAN: Having heard the hon. Member, I think before I can put this I roust ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any public charge involved in it.
MR. HALDANEsaid there were difficulties in the way of accepting the new clause because it involved the raising of the rates for allowances for which he had taken no money on the Estimates. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that he recognised the decrepancies to which

1479
attention had been called, and he would give the matter his consideration.
The proposed new clause was ruled to be out of order.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to omit Clause 44 of the Army Act. He said his desire was to call attention to the question of field punishment. Last year he and others on that side of the House made an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to amend the regulations with respect to held punishment. A sympathetic reply was given, and he wished to know whether anything had been done. There was a very strong feeling against the punishment of British soldiers in presence of natives abroad. He was sure that anyone who had had any experience in the infliction of field punishment would recognise how important it was for the credit of the British Army in the field that punishments should not be carried out in the presence of the natives of the country with which we happened to be at war. Last year the Secretary for War admitted that something should be done to soften these punishments. He moved to omit the clause in order to draw attention to the fact that the new Rules were laid on the Table of the House on 30th January this year, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would arrange in future for a clause which would enjoin officers in carrying out the punishments under Section 6 and at page 99 of the Appendix to do so as humanely as possible, and to see that they were not carried out in presence of natives. Such a clause would give great satisfaction to hon. Members sitting on those benches. A sympathetic answer from the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy him.
New Clause—
"To omit Section 44 of the Army Act, 1881."—(Captain Craig.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a second time."
MR. HALDANEsaid that as a result of the discussion last year a special
1480
Expert Committee was appointed to go into this matter and that Committee revised the whole of the rules as to punishments. There was a certain class of persons—he was glad to say they were very few in number—who, when hostilities were about to break out, and they were at the front, incurred punishment deliberately in order to be sent to the rear. The punishment referred to by the hon. and gallant Member would reach that class. The men would be subject to discipline which was sufficiently severe but much more gentle than was formerly the case. As to the other point raised by the hon. and gallant Member, no British officer would expose a white man to anything which would seem to lower the dignity of the white race in the eyes of the natives, and, therefore, very special care was taken that in those cases nothing was done which would encourage such indignity.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that in view of the very sympathetic reply of the right hon. Gentleman he begged leave to withdraw his proposal.
New clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule:
VISOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he wished to ask a question with regard to the allowance of forage for Army horses. The matter was raised last year, and no satisfactory answer was then given by the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman would see that the allowance ration was only 10lbs., but it was recognised that that was too small for cavalry horses. Many cavalry officers considered that the ration was insufficient for a horse in full work, and that they would not limit their own horses to that slender ration when doing the same kind and amount of work if the horses were to be kept in good condition.
MR. HALDANEsaid that the hon. Member took such an interest in this matter that he would consider any point raised by him. The Schedule of rations had been considered by an expert Committee, and the point raised by the hon. Member had been adequately

1481
considered, but he would make quite sure of it.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."—(Mr Haldane.)
*SIR CHARLES DILKEthought the House might consent to the Third Reading if they were quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would perform all his promises with regard to making the law clear in the future on the point which had been raised.
MR. HALDANE: I will do my best.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that they must have some assurance on the subject, for he was aware that the right hon. Gentleman was not always able to carry out his promises afterwards. They had, been told that the right hon. Gentleman would deal with certain matters which had been raised that afternoon in another measure which he would possibly introuce this session. But the Member for the Forest of Dean had stated that if the new Bill was anything like the measure adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman or the measure suggested a year or two ago, it would receive the most violent opposition, they had been debarred from discussing certain subjects that afternoon, and they had had proof that they would be out of order in discussing them on an Army Council Bill. Therefore, they were in a cleft stick. The Third Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill was the only opportunity they had of discussing questions of the highest importance. On that account he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would meet the wishes of a considerable body of opinion by deferring the Third Reading to another occasion.
MR. HALDANEsaid that if there was any general demand for it he would willingly accede to the hon. Gentleman's request. But when the Bill to which
1482
reference was made was introduced, there would be full discussion not only of form but of substance. He, therefore, asked that the Army (Annual) Bill should be given a Third Reading.
MR. CARLILEsaid that this Bill, which contained a great deal of controversial matter, had been allowed to go through Committee very easily. There was no immediate pressure for the passing of the Bill and bethought that they should have another opportunity of considering its details.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHasked when the right hon. Gentleman intended to bring in the Bill referred to.
MR. HALDANE: In a few days.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
[THIRD READING.]
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
MR. GRETTONsaid he wished to call attention to the question of the two-Power standard.
*MR. SPEAKER: That question cannot be raised on the Third Reading of this Bill. It should be raised on the Shipbuilding Vote, and the Navy Votes are not included in this Bill.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he rose to draw attention to a matter connected with the administration of the Post Office, of which he had given the Postmaster - General private notice. On various occasions during this session attention had been called to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had permitted political and other associations to have being amongst the postal servants, A great deal of feeling had existed on the

1483
subject, because there could be no question that the right hon. Gentleman had shown favour to certain of these associations and marked disfavour to others. It was a most extraordinary thing that while a Free Trade Union should be allowed to exist among the postal servants and be affiliated to Free Trade Unions outside, a branch of the Tariff Reform League was not. The existence of its organisation had been called into question because it was formally affiliated to a central body. That central body had no real connection with it nor had it any subscriptions from it, or any compacts with it. When the question of the propriety of a number of postal servants associating themselves for the purpose of propaganda, for the purpose of promoting tariff reform, was called into question by the right hon. Gentleman, his case was all the more feeble when they remembered that he tolerated the Fawcett Association whose published accounts showed subscriptions of £60 or £70 to the support of the Labour Party in that House. The Fawcett Association was also affiliated openly with that Party, the Trade Union Congress, the London Trades Council, and other associations which actively supported candidates for Parliament. The Socialist Association of the Post Office officials was also tolerated. He was the last to object to a Socialist Association in the Post Office, because he believed that the more men associated themselves in this way for propaganda, the happier would be the conditions of public service, because they would be fighting among themselves instead of organising for the purpose of making demands which the public; felt were not yet due, or which they considered were detrimental to public interest. It was very doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman had any power under the law to allow any associations of the kind. He had not the Act by him at the moment, but he believed every person on the established staff of the Civil Service was prohibited by an Act of Parliament from taking any public part in any controversy of a political character. Personally he would hail with delight the day when that Act was repealed but while the law was such as it was,
1484
he had grave doubts as to whether the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister had power to permit such associations. But he claimed that if he did permit Radical or Socialist organisations to exist in the Post Office, he must not try to prevent the existence of bodies which differed from his views. He denied that the Primrose League was a Party organisation. The matter would be brought before the House again and again, when opportunity offered, until the Postmaster-General permitted Post Office servants without discrimination to combine for political propaganda or social effort.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)said he had already fully explained his position in regard to associations within the Post Office. He had no objection to the formation of associations among the Post Office servants, for, of course, they did not carry on their operations within office hours, and had an educative effect, besides having the additional advantage of distracting the attention of the servants from matters internal to the Post Office. But the question was entirely governed by Treasury regulations; and all he had to do was to see that those regulations were carried out. He denied that he had applied the regulations partially as between different associations. There was no objection to an association being formed within the Post Office so long as it was not a branch of a parent association outside, for, as such, it would come into conflict with other outside associations. The tariff reform and free trade associations within the Post Office had brought themselves into line by severing their connection with the parent association outside. It was immaterial from his point of view whether or not the Primrose League was a party organisation. It could not be denied that it took a part in Parliamentary elections, and therefore members of it came under the Treasury regulation against Civil servants actively engaging in party politics. The Fawcett Association had been in existence for many years, and was recognised by successive Postmasters-General during that period as non-political.
MR. CARLILEsaid the right hon. Gentleman was under a misapprehension if he supposed that hon. Members were satisfied with his explanation on a previous occasion. Hon. Members did not leave the House on that occasion with the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in exorcising even-handed justice. The reason the matter was raised was that it was believed that one organisation formed on what they believed to be constitutional principles was not receiving from the right hon. Gentleman the same treatment as other associations. He did not think that the fact of the Fawcett Association having been in existence for twenty years justified its receiving preferential treatment. He thought the description given by the right hon. Gentleman to these other associations applied with equal force to the Fawcett Association, and that the description applied to the Fawcett Association would apply equally to such associations as the Primrose League and the Tariff Reform League. The Primrose League had always been held to be a non-party organisation. It was true that at the present time it happened that the policy of one of the great parties in the House coincided more with the ideals and objects of the Primrose League in its three main principles, but it was quite conceivable that a time might come when hon. Gentlemen opposite would receive the support of the Primrose League, because it was not bound to any party, and stood entirely alone. No one had stated that the right hon. Gentleman had given preferential treatment to the Socialists in his office, because of any great interest in Socialism there might be in Poplar or elsewhere. He would be the last to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had spread his ægis over this organisation of Socialists in the Post Office for any such reason, but it was certainly a pity that any action of the right hon. Gentleman should create such an impression. He therefore hoped that the Postmaster-General would see the advisability in this case and others of making his position perfectly clear by either refusing to allow any organisations in his Department, or including all, and not excluding cither the Primrose or the Tariff Reform
1486
League. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he was bound more or less by certain Treasury Minutes which laid down that the Postal officials should not take a prominent part in political organisations outside. If that was applied all round, no complaint could be made, but there was a widespread feeling that while the right hon. Gentleman allowed special preferential treatment to the Socialists, he did not extend the same treatment to other organisations.
VISCOUNT VALENTLAsaid he rose to make an appeal to the Secretary of State for War in regard to what appeared to be an injustice to the secretaries of the County Associations under the Territorial Force scheme. He thought it would be within the recollection of the House that when the Territorial Bill was introduced it was provided that officers should be employed as secretaries of the County Associations, and that they would not be penalised in any way if they passed from the Regular Forces to the Territorial It had been a matter of considerable difficulty to the County Associations to find suitable men to fill these offices. It was quite true that a long list had been forwarded by the Army Council of general officers, colonels, and other retired officers of the Army who were willing to serve for the ridiculously small sum which the County Associations were able to give for their services, but it was believed that it would be far better, and would secure more efficient services, if those Associations were served by local men. By Paragraph 510 of the Army Warrant, certain officers had been allowed on condition of their attending the training of the Militia, the magnificent allowance of £100 a year after so many years' service. He believed that these officers had never been asked to do anything except what was connected with the training of the Militia, so that they could not be looked upon merely as Militia officers, in the general acceptance of the term. These gentlemen had been selected by the Associations for the secretary ships of those bodies, but the Secretary for War had told him a few days ago, in answer to a question, that by the acceptance of such a position an officer would sacrifice his retired pay; so

1487
that the effect would be that in small counties where they were unable to pay a salary of more than £50 a year such an officer who accepted the position would really be losing £100 a year to enjoy the magnificent salary of £50 a year. He would have to give up the reward for his past services, and practically to pay out of his own pocket £50 a year in order to enjoy the privilege of serving the Association. He was not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had contemplated, when he introduced his Bill last year, that the officer who accepted the position of secretary to a County Association would have to give up his £100 a year retired pay, granted him for services already given, and, therefore, it was to be supposed services which were approved of. But the treatment was not the same all round with regard to the Territorial Army. There were brigadiers appointed to the Territorial Army—time-expired officers some of them, and some of them on half-pay. They drew their salary of £150 a year, and they were not asked to relinquish any part of their half-pay. They were allowed to add that to the salary given to them under a separate grant of the council. They still enjoyed their half-pay.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (MR. CALDWELL)said this subject did not arise under any of the Votes contained in the Consolidated Fund Bill.
LORD BALCARRESpointed out that these particular officers were losing money in order to qualify for a salary of £50 a year under the Territorial Army.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question arises under the Vote for the Territorial Army, which is not included in the Bill.
VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid he had raised the question of the two different rates of pay—one under the Territorial Army, and the other the half-pay of officers of the Regular Army. He took it that the pay of the officers of the Regular Army would come under this Vote.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid that was so, but the pay of officers of the Regular Army did not raise the question of the pay of the officers of the Territorial Army, and the discussion must be confined to the pay of the officers of the Regular Army.
VISCOUNT VALENTLAsaid he was referring to officers of the Regular Army, and surely that would come under this Vote.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the discussion must be confined to the pay of the officers of the Regular Army.
VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid in both cases they were officers of the Regular Army.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the noble Lord was referring to officers of the Regular Army who took office under the Territorial Army; therefore he was out of order.
VISCOUNT VALENTIA: Yes; but they are losing Regular Army pay.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Only as a consequence of accepting office in the Territorial Army.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he wished to find very great fault with the inadequacy of the pay provided for officers under Vote A. under conditions which had been recently explained. Under this Vote there was a certain class of officers who drew a very humble sum per annum, partly for services already rendered, and partly because of the expectation on the part of the War Office that the men might be of further service in the future. He wished to point out that the pay which was afforded to these men was wholly inadequate. This particular grade of men got £100 a year. When they undertook fresh responsibilities at the direct invitation of the War Office, the pay which they had to receive was wholly inadequate.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERSlid the noble Lord was really raising what he had just ruled out of order.
LORD BALCARRESsaid he was pointing out what he respectfully ventured to submit he was entitled to refer to, namely, that these particular men were receiving a salary which under the new conditions was inadequate.
*MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid the salaries under Vote I had nothing to do with the conditions under which officers served in the Territorial Army. That was a point which he had just ruled out of order.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he had intended to raise the question on the Colonial Vote of the very serious reduction of the grant to the West Indian Agricultural Department by no less than £3,500, but owing to the right hon. Gentleman's mastery of Parliament procedure he had managed to get through the business of the Army Annual Bill that afternoon, with the result that he had not had an adequate opportunity of bringing this subject to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Colonial Office in that House. He felt that it would not be fair to press the point at that moment, and he only rose to give the Patronage Secretary notice that at the earliest possible opportunity he proposed to call attention to this question of the grant to the West Indian Department of Agriculture and ask for some explanation of the reduction.

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Whiteley.)
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had never known the Motion made before under these circumstances. It was a private Member's evening, and there was an absolute pledge given in the strongest possible terms that the time of a private Member's evening was never to be interfered with. Was it intended against the private Members opposite to proceed with a Motion of this description.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he understood that the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was out of order, and the noble Lord the Member for Hornsey, who had also a Motion on the Paper, was ill and could not be in his place. In these circumstances they would have had to have gone on with the private Bills. But that would be unfair, because Tuesday and Wednesday were always understood to be set apart for Motions, and hon. Members interested in the Bills were not present. It would be manifestly unfair to take those Bills in the absence of Members interested.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he could only speak again by leave of the House, but he thought the last point was a perfectly good one. If he were in the position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he should be inclined to yield to it.
VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid he was sorry to stand between the House and the adjournment, but he would really like to get some answer from the Secretary of State for War as to whether he was or was not going to perpetrate a very great injustice by making a reduction in the retired pay of officers who took up work under the County Associations. It was an extremely hard case, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make an alteration in the existing regulations in order to deal with these officers in a more just way, and so as not to deprive them of their retired pay.
MR. HALDANEsaid he would reply at once. There was only one possible answer that could be given. By the law of the Army an officer had no right to retired pay till he had served fifteen years, and, if he retired before having completed that service, it was only on certain conditions. If he came into active service in the Militia or Yeomanry, he got a £100 per year, but that was not retired pay.
VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid the wording of Paragraph 510 of the Army Pay Orders was certainly "retired pay." It was called retired pay, and he did not think it could be put in any other way.
MR. HALDANEsaid an officer retiring before the completion of fifteen years' service only got the £100 if he undertook to go on serving in the active list. He was paid the £100 for service in the Militia or Yeomanry. His case was thus differentiated from that of the officer who had retired pay in that sense. An officer on half-pay might be called for active work, and his half-pay was "less than his retired pay. An officer who had retired had no active service, and he was allowed to take up a secretaryship made the Country Association and draw a salary. An officer who was on half-pay might, under certain circumstances, be allowed to fulfil these functions. If the pay was less than retired pay, and he was not paid for active services actually being rendered, he might he allowed to take it. In the case put the officer was receiving £100 a year for active services being rendered, and it was a principle of the Treasury and of the War Office, and he hoped it would remain the principle of the Government, that a man was not paid twice over for rendering duties to the State. For that reason it was impossible, consistently with that principle, to allow those officers to draw their salaries as secretaries to Territorial Associations in addition to the pay which they received for active duties.
LORD BALCARRESsaid the right hon. Gentleman must forgive him for saying that his defence was wholly technical. What were the facts of the case? His noble friend after prolonged inquiry, and after many candidates had been examined, found that it was only possible for his country to pay £50 a year to the secretary. That particular secretary was enjoying, under Paragraph 510, funds from the War Office to the tune of £100 a year. The War Office had now written to say that because this captain was earning £50 a year from the Oxford County Association and giving his whole time to the service, he was obliged to forfeit the £100 he was earning from the Government. That was to say, the secretary of that County Association was not only giving his whole time to the work, but sacrificing £50 a year into the bargain. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing but work.
1492
on the active list qualified a man for that £100 a year. Let him point out that when this Paragraph 510 was drawn up the conditions of the Territorial Army did not exist. These were new conditions, new responsibilities, new duties, and he had said it was in response to the invitation of such persons as the right hon. Gentleman that men of this calibre had come forward. He gathered that he was wrong in that, but men who had been running these County Associations had been pressed to choose for these responsible places the very best men that could be got. This particular man, who he was assured was a first class man, was not technically speaking on the active list, and would be doing more valuable work as secretary of the Territorial County Association than by that qualification which the right hon. Gentleman said he had forfeited of going out for two or three weeks in the year with a militia regiment. He did not think that on broad grounds the action of the War Office could be defended. It seemed to him to have a flavour of the Treasury about it. The right hon. Gentleman, if he wanted good men, and if he wanted a large choice, must arrange his conditions so that acceptance of this office should not involve a heavy pecuniary fine. This particular individual for aught he knew, might be a millionaire, but he assured the right hon. Gentleman that these small cheese-paring actions on his part were doing far more to injure the future of the Territorial Army than the money which was being poured out and wasted on that force in other directions. They fined this man £50 a year for giving his whole time to the county. A thing like that could not be suppressed. It had got to be known. It was a small and a mean economy on the part of the Treasury. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman, because he imagined other agencies were at work, but by creating a souse of hardship and injustice the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that he was inflicting a very grave blow upon the efficiency of the force he had brought into being.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes before Eight o'clock.