ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

HC Deb 06 April 1909 vol 3 cc1039-119

[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]

Postponed Proceeding on Amendment proposed on consideration of Clause 4.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

At the interruption of the business I was trying to make one last effort to induce the Secretary for War to reconsider the effect of the whole of this clause. I was endeavouring to point out that the confusion which was almost certain to arise in times of emergency would be very great and would lead to a great deal of difficulty. I think we are entitled to have direct control over the Army through the Secretary of State for War, who is responsible to this House. It is now proposed to hand over not merely the whole of those powers to the Army Council, but also to give them distinct powers to overrule the Secretary of State. But when the time of stress or difficulty comes, the question will be asked: Who cancelled these orders? Who gave these orders? Who is responsible for the state of confusion which has arisen? And we shall be met, not by the right hon. Gentleman, but by a Secretary of State who has not his ability, with the reply: "Oh! the Army Council have done all this. I am very sorry, but I was not consulted." Is that right? We understand that this proposal is brought forward because the Secretary of State desires to free his Department from a great deal of trivial and unnecessary work. What is to prevent the Secretary of State to-day from delegating any number of these powers to anybody he likes? If it was a great commercial undertaking, such as a bank, the manager would be responsible to the directors, who would be in the same position as the House of Commons. The manager would be entrusted by the directors with the responsible management of the whole business. Supposing he went before the directors and said, "Do not hold me responsible; hold the staff or half a dozen sub-managers responsible for various matters directly to yourselves." That would be all right if the directors had the right to deal directly with those people, as they would have in the case of a bank. But where the analogy breaks down is in the fact that this House has no control over the Army Council. The Secretary of State has pointed out to us that whatever the Army Council does, he is supreme, and if the Army Council does anything of which he disapproves he can override them. If that is so—and, of course, we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that it is so, although no one in this House knows by what authority it is so—why delegate all these powers or transfer them to the Army Council? As a matter of principle, I solemnly object to handing over to an irresponsible and nebulous body powers vested by the Constitution of the country in the House of Commons, through the control which it has over the Secretary of State. That is the crux of the whole matter. I make one last appeal to the logical mind of the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter in this light. If he is over-burdened with his office, let him delegate to any number of colonels or other people the duty of looking after the lunatics and special gentlemen to whom he referred, so that his high and honourable office may be free to be responsible to this House for all the serious matters which by the Constitution are vested in him.

Mr. RENWICK

Since we were discussing this question before a quarter past eight I have taken the trouble to get a little further information with regard to it. We are afraid that the Secretary of State for War is being effaced by the Army Council. Certain Members appear to think otherwise, but I propose to prove that our fears are well founded. I consider that the Committee at present is called upon to deal with a very grave constitutional question. It is nothing more nor less than a Bill for the effacement of the Secretary of State for War. I have in my hand the memorandum showing the Amendments proposed on the Army (Annual) Act. At the beginning of clause 78 the words "The Secretary of State" are crossed out, and then the clause proceeds "The Army Council may from time to time by general or special resolutions vary the conditions…" At the beginning of sub-section (2) the words "The Secretary of State" are again crossed out, and the words "The Army Council" are inserted. If that is not effacing the Secretary of State I do not know what it is.

Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH

He is still to get his salary.

Mr. RENWICK

If hon. Members will turn to page 5 of the Memorandum they will see that in clause 79—[Interruption.] I am surprised that supporters of a Liberal Government should be laughing at an attempt of this description to deprive the House of Commons of the right which it has exercised from time immemorial to have control over Army matters. In clause 79 the words "The Secretary of State" are crossed out. In clause 80 the words "The Secretary of State" are again crossed out.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member is going to read these quotations he should try to make them in some way relevant to the Amendment before the Committee. That is not being done.

Mr. RENWICK

With all due deference I am trying, to the best of my ability, to make this absolutely relevant by proving that the power is being taken from the Secretary of State by the Army Council. I am dealing with a document published by the Secretary of State, and I will deal with the clauses in general terms. Take clause 80, 84, 86, 88, and 91. In every one of these clauses "the Secretary of State" is to be crossed out. The line is to be passed through "the Secretary of State," and "the Army Council" substituted. If that does not mean the abasement of the Secretary of State by the Army Council I do not know what does. After all, we admire the right hon. Gentleman, although he is a Member of the Liberal Government. We have the greatest confidence in him. We recognise the great sacrifices and great exertions which he has made on behalf of the Territorial Army. He is the eyes of the Territorial Army, yet he himself has abased himself. If he is suffering from pressure, let him come over to this side of the House, and we shall be glad to welcome him. But, Sir, notwithstanding the levity of certain Members of this House, we are calling attention to a very grave matter. When hon. Members in the House change sides, as they will do very shortly, we shall—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment, and I must warn him that he is digressing.

Mr. RENWICK

I conclude by supporting this Amendment in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman, the House, and the Army.

Captain CRAIG

I should like to make one comment—

Mr. BOWLES

My Amendment appears next on the Paper to that of my hon. Friend. May I ask you, Sir, if his Amendment will cut mine out? Will it be in order for me to move it later?

The CHAIRMAN

Of course it will be cut out if this Amendment is defeated.

Captain CRAIG

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in answering the various criticisms in regard to the matter at present before the Committee said, quite rightly I think, that there was a certain amount of difficulty in settling the question as to who was to have the supreme control in this matter. I understood him to say in the earlier part of the debate that the orders he had hitherto made as Secretary of State might be overriden by the Army Council, and that the Army Council might again, in turn, be overriden by himself. That seems to me to be a very dangerous and roundabout way of arriving at a simple expedient, which might be more easily arrived at by doing what we have been urging all the night, namely, omitting clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman admits that in the past, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, he has made certain orders, and signed certain documents, and that now. under this sub-section, the Army Council could come along and say he was wrong. He could then come along and say the Army Council was wrong and override them. That seems an anomalous position. The next thing that struck me on hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that he seems to have taken some advice from

Division No. 56.]	AYES.	[11.30 p.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hedges, A. Paget	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Henry, Charles S.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Higham, John Sharp	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Beale, W. P.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Robinson, S.
Beauchamp, E.	Horniman, Emslie John	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Bennett, E. N.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Black, Arthur W.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rowlands, J.
Bowerman, C. W.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Brace, William	Jardine, Sir J.	Seely, Colonel
Brodie, H. C.	Jenkins, J.	Shackleton, David James
Brooke, Stopford	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Byles, William Pollard	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Levy, Sir Maurice	Strachey, Sir Edward
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Lewis, John Herbert	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.	Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Summerbell, T.
Clough, William	Lyell, Charles Henry	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	M'Micking, Major G.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A	Markham, Arthur Basil	Verney, F. W.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Walton, Joseph
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Marnham, F. J.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duckworth, Sir James	Mond, A.	Watt, Henry A.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Essex, R. W.	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Evans, Sir Samuel T.	Nicholls, George	Wiles, Thomas
Everett, R. Lacey	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Wilkie, Alexander
Fenwick, Charles	Norton, Captain Cecil William	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ferens, T. R.	Parker, James (Halifax)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Partington, Oswald	Williamson, A.
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Haldane, Rt. Hon, Richard B.	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Radford, G. H.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Rainy, A. Holland	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Hazel, Dr. A. E.

the Admiralty. He seems to have yielded to some pressure brought to bear upon him in the Cabinet, or from some other source, to have these changes made in the Army. I think he is trying to follow the Admiralty pattern, which will not suit the Army. I think in cases where grave Constitutional changes like this are suggested the right hon. Gentleman might be frank and say straight out why it is that he could not do what he seeks to do by an Order in Council instead of by an Act of Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN

It is not a question of what this Bill or that Bill does; it is a question whether we should leave out the second paragraph (A) of clause 4, and I invite the hon. Member to speak to that and not to wander all over the whole Bill.

Captain CRAIG

Very well, Sir; I will not wander all over the Bill, because I have Amendments down later on which deal with other subjects. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was very concise in explaining why he objects to leaving out this sub-section. Perhaps he would tell us something more definite on the subject.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'under,' in line 20, stand part of the clause." The Committee divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 41.

NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Hazleton, Richard	Nolan, Joseph
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hills, J. W.	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Banner, John S. Harmood	Hodge, John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Houston, Robert Paterson	Remnant, James Farquharson
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hudson, Walter	Renwick, George
Cave, George	Jowett, F. W.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kilbride, Denis	Seddon, J.
Craik, Sir Henry	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Stanier, Bevilie
Doughty, Sir George	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Macpherson, J. T.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Fell, Arthur	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Glover, Thomas	Mooney, J. J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Craig and Mr. Bowles.
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morpeth, Viscount
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Newdegate, F. A. Newdigate

Mr. BOWLES, in moving after "Secretary of State," to insert, "the Commander-in-Chief or the Adjutant-General," said: If the Amendment is not accepted, I really cannot understand why the position should have been made which I propose to fill up. The clause proposes to transfer to the Army Council all powers and duties conferred or imposed on a Secretary of State and powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant-General. Proviso (a) provides that nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any rules, regulations, orders or other documents made by the Secretary of State, but apparently the result of the thing as it stands would be to invalidate all rules, regulations, orders or documents which may hitherto have been made by the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant-General. I see no escape from that position, I am bound to say, and I beg to move.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of WAR (Mr. F. D. Acland)

The only desire is to keep back such rules, regulations, orders, and documents as may be considered by the Secretary of State. There are no rules, regulations, orders, or documents made by those two officers. There are a considerable number of rules and regulations made by the Secretary of State, and their validity has to be maintained, otherwise they would all have to be reordered.

Mr. BOWLES

I do not think the explanation satisfactory from the point of view of this Committee or of the Army. The hon. Gentleman says, as far as he knows, there are no orders, rules, or regulations made by those officers, or documents made by either of those defunct officers. If that is so the inclusion of the words could do no harm.

Mr. ACLAND

They are not needed.

Mr. BOWLES

I agree they are not needed. He is right in saying there are in the whole archives of the Army no rules, no regulations, no orders, or documents of any kind signed by the officer who held the office of Commanding-Chief not so long ago or by the Adjutant-General to which either now or hereafter some appeal might be made.

Mr. ACLAND

Such orders are under the Army Act.

Mr. BOWLES

They had no power to do so, otherwise I think the hon. Gentleman, having admitted that those words can do no harm, and that unless he is right in the very wide statement he made, namely, that not one of their rules and regulations can be called into question, unless he is right in that great injustice might be done by not making provision such as I propose. It does seem to me that those words should be inserted.

Mr. JOHN WARD

I am rather surprised at the reply of the Under-Secretary for War, especially if one looks at the Memorandum that has been submitted to the House, and looks at 30, 42, 57, 59, 64, 67, 73, and 75, all striking out the authority and power which the Adjutant and Commander-in-Chief had in previous years. I can quite understand that this alteration of the law was required if all these powers now abrogated have never been put into execution, if there has never been any order issued under any of them, and never been any regulations made under any of them. But I am afraid that that cannot possibly be the fact, that there must be some exceptions to the sweeping generalisation of the Under-Secretary, and if you will look at the subject for a moment and look at the Memorandum issued from his own office, and if it then appears that there has never been any order issued under any of these extensive powers which are now to be abrogated then all I can say is that the War Office must be a most peculiar institution.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

May I be allowed to point out that section 161 is very important with regard to evidence of any fact that is required either before a judge or for any purpose of any kind. Suppose that the certificate or any copy of any other document which has been signed by the commanding officer or the Commander-in-Chief is wanted to be given in evidence. It is conceivable that there might be a case next year in which some document that has been authenticated by one of these defunct officials was brought up and tendered in evidence. It would be perfectly good evidence under section 163 as it stands. But now if you pass this section without this Amendment that my hon. Friend proposed the effect would be to invalidate that document, because all orders and documents signed by these defunct officials become of no use. The effect would be to invalidate the evidence and prevent justice from being done. I feel quite certain that the hon. Gentleman representing the Government in this matter cannot be serious in stating that all documents and orders signed in the past are now to be set aside in that way. It seems to me that he must admit that he has made a mistake.

Mr. CLAUDE HAY

Is not the case even worse than is represented by my hon. Friend? Take the Memorandum—take clause 59. I understand from the Under-Secretary that none of these documents or decisions in writing, or otherwise, or the rules or orders of the late Commander-in-Chief or Adjutant-General are any longer valid. If that be so, how on earth would a sentence of, say, five years' penal servitude imposed be valid if the documents by which the unfortunate person was sent to penal servitude are no longer legal or binding? Then go to clause 75, and we have a somewhat similar provision. Here you have a provision which might unquestionably have resulted in imprisonment or the serious punishment of soldiers under the authority of the two constituted officials to whom allusion has been made. Yet, on the ipse dixit of the Under-Secretary, we are to be told that though these persons are in durance vile, this authority no longer exists." Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform us by what Statute the words proposed to be inserted are necessary, because otherwise it seems that the assertion of the Under-Secretary goes further than facts justify?.

Mr. HALDANE

There is nothing—take section 59, it indicates that the committal authority remains.

Mr. HAY

What about the past?

Mr. HALDANE

There is nothing in the Bill that invalidates anything that has been made in the past.

Mr. HAY

Surely if you take away the authority to commit a man to prison ipso facto the man remains?

Mr. HALDANE

That is not really law. If a man is in prison he remains in prison until his sentence expires. Take another case. Once a document has been certified it remains in existence, and is exactly like a judge's certificate. The fact that a judge dies does not invalidate the document. Once certified, the death of the judge does not revoke his certificate. The extinction of the office of Commander-in-Chief four years ago does not invalidate Acts. The clause has been drawn to meet the practical necessity of any cases that can possibly arise.

Captain CRAIG

The right hon. Gentleman says there is no question of invalidating what has gone before. Surely if that is the case there is no necessity for this at all. That is the whole point. Why should it be necessary in the case of the Secretary for War. and not necessary in the case of the two other officers? He makes an invidious distinction between the Commander-in-Chief and himself. The question is that of their signature to a document, without which signature the document would be invalid. Of course, it is perfectly right of him to say that if a judge dies that does not make his decision invalid. If you take any document signed by any person in the exercise of his ordinary capacity that signature makes the document legal or illegal; and, according to this clause, everything that has been done by the Commander-in-Chief in the past becomes illegal simply because it is not valid. The Secretary of State makes a special exception of his own office, and then says it does not matter about the others. That seems to me to be absolutely extraordinary. His predecessors in office I presume have signed many documents, and if this saving clause is not to be put in with regard to them, I presume those documents will be invalid. Therefore, just as his predecessors signed documents in a similar way, so will those documents become invalid. That is the sole point. I think the whole of these clauses have been drawn up in a very careless manner, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.

Mr. JOHN WARD

The answer of the right hon. Gentleman seems to contradict a good many of the reasons and justifications put forward in the early part of this debate on the very subject we are debating now. He told us that the reason for the particular form in which this clause stands is because the office of Commander-in-Chief was abolished. In consequence it has been found utterly impossible to degrade even an ordinary non-commissioned officer without securing the King's sanction. We are told that the office of Commander-in-Chief has been abolished for a considerable time, and in consequence all the- regulations, all the authorities, and everything relating to his office have been in abeyance and have died with the office of Commander-in-Chief. Both of those suggestions cannot be true. One may be true, but you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either the office was abolished and all its powers have fallen into abeyance or else the statement that the power of the Commander-in-Chief is vested in His Majesty is true, and not even a non-commissioned officer can be degraded without His Majesty's authority. Which of those views is correct?

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

May I point out the dilemma into which the right

Division No. 57.]	AYES.	[12.6 a.m.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Hazleton, Richard	Renwick, George
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Hills, J. W.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Houston, Robert Paterson	Seddon, J.
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Kilbride, Denis	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Cave, George	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Stanier, Beville
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Craik, Sir Henry	Morpeth, Viscount	Younger, George
Dalrymple, Viscount	Newdegate, F. A.
Doughty, Sir George	Nolan, Joseph	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Remnant.
Goulding, Edward Alfred	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Hay, Hon. Claude George

NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	Hudson, Walter
Alien, Charles p. (Stroud)	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Illingworth, Percy H.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Essex, R. W.	Jardine, Sir J.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Everett, R. Lacey	Jenkins, J.
Beale, W. P.	Fenwick, Charles	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Beauchamp, E.	Ferens, T. R.	Johnson, W (Nuneaton)
Bennett, E. N.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Black, Arthur W.	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Levy, Sir Maurice
Bowerman, C. W.	Glover, Thomas	Lewis, John Herbert
Brace, William	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Brodie, H. C.	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Brooke, Stopford	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Macpherson, J. T.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	M'Micking, Major G.
Byles, William Pollard	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Haworth, Arthur A.	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Marnham, F. J.
Clough, William	Hedges, A. Paget	Mond, A.
Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Henry, Charles S.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Higham, John Sharp	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Nicholls, George
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Hodge, John	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)
Duckworth, Sir James	Horniman, Emslie John	Norton, Captain Cecil William
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Parker, James (Halifax)

hon. Gentleman's explanation has placed us. There is one way in which he can get rid of these orders, and it is that he can call upon the Army Council to invalidate what he himself signed last year. There is no way of getting rid of any order in existence which the Commander-in-Chief may have signed.

Mr. REMNANT

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the omission of the words "by a Secretary of State"? I think that would meet the objections which have been raised. I should like to move the omission of those words.

The CHAIRMAN

We have got beyond those words already.

Mr. HALDANE

This clause has been very carefully considered, and it is most efficient for its purpose.

Mr. REMNANT

The right hon. Gentleman does not say whether he accepts my suggestion. Surely he sees that there are serious objections, which he must admit are worthy of consideration.

Question: "That those words be there inserted"—put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 111.

Partington, Oswald	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonsh.)
Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Seely, Colonel	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)	Shackleton, David James	Wiles, Thomas
Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wilkie, Alexander
Radford, G. H.	Stanley, Albert (Stalls, N.W.)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Rainy, A. Holland	Strachey, Sir Edward	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Ridsdale, E. A.	Summerbell, T.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Robinson, S.	Verney, F. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.
Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Rogers, F. E. Newman	Watt, Henry A.
Rowlands, J.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Mr. HALDANE rose in his place and claimed to move: "That the question that clause 4 stand part of the Bill be now put."

Question put: "That the Question that clause 4 stand part of the Bill be now put."

Mr. HUGH LEA

On a point of order, I wish to ask whether after this clause has been put it will be in order to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, namely: "Nothing in this Act shall in any way be retrospective"?

The CHAIRMAN

Not on this clause.

Division No. 58.]	AYES.	[12.14 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hedges, A. Paget	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Ridsdale, E. A.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Henry, Charles S.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Higham. John Sharp	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Beale, W. P.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Beauchamp, E.	Horniman, Emslie John	Robinson, S.
Bennett, E. N.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Black, Arthur W.	Hudson, Walter	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Bowerman, C. W.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rowlands, J.
Brace, William	Jardine, Sir J.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Brodie, H. C.	Jenkins, J.	Seely, Colonel
Brooke, Stopford	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Byles, William Pollard	Jowett, F. W.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Levy, Sir Maurice	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Clough, William	Lewis, John Herbert	Summerbell, T.
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	M'Micking, Major G.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Verney, F. W
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duckworth, Sir James	Marnham, F. J.	Watt, Henry A.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Mond, A.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Everett, R. Lacey	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Fenwick, Charles	Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Wiles, Thomas
Ferens, T. R.	Nicholls, George	Wilkie, Alexander
Fuller, John Michael F.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Norton, Captain Cecil William	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Glover, Thomas	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Radford, G. H.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Rainy, A. Holland
Hazel, Dr. A. E.

NOES.
Banner, John S. Harmood-	Craik, Sir Henry	Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Dalrymple, Viscount	Hazleton, Richard
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Doughty, Sir George	Hills, J. W.
Cave, George	Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)	Houston, Robert Paterson
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Essex, R. W.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Lupton, Arnold

Mr. HUGH LEA

Will it be in order to move a new clause, so that the Wood case may be excluded from its scope? I take it that the case is still going on, and that this clause is being moved now so as to rule it out of court.

The CHAIRMAN

Any question on a new clause should be put when we come to-new clauses.

Question put: "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 32.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Renwick, George	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Macpherson, J. T.	Rutherford, w. W. (Liverpool)	Younger, George
MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Seddon, J.
Morpeth, Viscount	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Remnant.
Newdegate, F. N.	Stanier, Seville
Nolan, Joseph	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Question put accordingly.

Division No. 59.]	AYES.	[12.20 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Hedges, A. Paget	Ridsdale, E. A.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Henry, Charles S.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Beale, W. P.	Higham, John Sharp	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Beauchamp, E.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Robinson, S.
Bennett, E. N.	Horniman, Emslie John	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Black, Arthur W.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Bowerman, C. W.	Hudson, Walter	Rowlands, J.
Brace, William	Illingworth, Percy H.	Seely, Colonel
Brodie, H. C.	Jardine, Sir J.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Brooke, Stopford	Jenkins, J.	Simon, John Allsebrook
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Byles, William Pollard	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Levy, Sir Maurice	Summerbell, T.
Clough, William	Lewis, John Herbert	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lyell, Charles Henry	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	M'Micking, Major G.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Verney, F. W.
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Duckworth, Sir James	Marnham, F. J.	Watt, Henry A.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Mond, A.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Essex, R. W.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Everett, R. Lacey	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Wiles, Thomas
Fenwick, Charles	Nicholls, George	Wilkie, Alexander
Ferens, T. R.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Hardy, George. A (Suffolk)	Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Radford, G. H.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Rainy, A. Rolland

NOES.
Banner, John S. Harmood	Hazleton, Richard	Nolan, Joseph
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hills, J. W.	Renwick, George
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Houston, Robert Paterson	Rutherford, w. W. (Liverpool)
Cave, George	Jowett, F. W.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Kilbride, Denis	Seddon, J.
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Craik, Sir Henry	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Stanier, Beville
Dalrymple, Viscount	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)
Doughty, Sir George	Macpherson, J. T.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Younger, George
Glover, Thomas	Mooney, J. J.
Goulding, Edward Altred	Morpeth, Viscount	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Remnant.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Newdegate, F. A.

Clause 5—Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict. c. 58, s. 115. —(1) In sub-section (2) of section one hundred and fifteen of the Army Act (which relates to the supply of carriages and vessels in cases of emergency), after the words "carriages of every description" there shall be inserted the words "(including motor-cars and other locomotives, whether for the purpose of carriage or haulage)."

(2) At the end of the same section the following sub-section shall be added:—

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 36.

"(9) The Army Council may, by regulations under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, assign to county associations established under that Act the duty of furnishing in accordance with the directions of the Army Council, such carriages, animals, and vessels as may be required on mobilisation for the regular or auxiliary forces, or any part thereof, and where such regulations are made an officer of a county association shall have the same powers as are by this section conferred on an officer of the Army Council."

Captain CRAIG

I beg to move to leave out the word "including" and to insert ""which shall be deemed to include."

Mr. SEDDON

On a point of order. I beg leave to move that progress be reported.

The CHAIRMAN

I have called on the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Captain CRAIG

I do not intend to press this Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his wording of the Clause is better than mine, but it seems to me rather complex as it stands. The clause contains the words "including motor-cars and other locomotives." Considering that later on reference is made to this matter only in the word "carriages" there may be confusion. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is right as it stands I shall not press this to a division list, but I think that if he wants to safeguard himself he should accept the words I have, proposed. I agree with the inclusion of motor-cars, but in what he describes as "this carefully-drafted Bill," the right hon. Gentleman seems to treat motor-cars later on in the same way that he treats Irish cars, a matter I shall raise on the schedule.

Question proposed, "Clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out 'including' and insert 'which shall be deemed to include.' "

Mr. HALDANE

This clause has been drawn up with great care, in order to remove any possible doubt about motor-cars and locomotives of that kind. These words fulfil the purpose for which they are put in, which I think is properly appreciated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Captain CRAIG

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain CRAIG

I move the next Amendment, after "other" to insert "road traction." I think we ought to raise this important question, but as the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied me that the draftsman is correct, I wish to ask to what locomotives the right hon. Gentleman refers. If any hon. Members read the clause carefully, they will find that after the words "carriages of every description" there will be inserted the words "including motor-cars or other locomotives." Other locomotives must mean locomotives on the railways, and if one takes up the Army Act and carries this to its conclusion one will find that an officer under the regulations will be able to commandeer all locomotives on any railway. That is rather a large order, which ought not to be left to some officer, who, in time of emergency, may take it into his head to hold up the whole railway system of this country, perhaps against orders from headquarters. I should not be against this if it were necessary in time of sudden emergency, but we ought not to do anything which will make it possible for some officer to upset the control of the railway system, and may possibly create national peril. To understand the question fully we must take the Army Act, and there we see that hitherto this has only extended to ordinary horse-drawn vehicles. Now we are dealing with modern motor-cars, and I presume that the words "other locomotives," though they seem rather indefinite, refer to other road traction locomotives however they are driven. If that is the case I am quite in accord with the clause. If it is suggested, however, that an officer is to have the right to go to a station and commandeer railway locomotives, I think the right hon. Gentleman is defeating the very purpose he has in view in this very important matter. The careless drafting of this clause may lead to great danger. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what locomotives are referred to, and why they do not coincide with the schedule. I hope he will tell us also how he reconciles the 3d. a mile for Irish jaunting cars with the charge for locomotives.

Question proposed. Clause 5, page 4, line 1, after "other" insert "road traction."

Mr. SEDDON

I beg leave to move, "That progress be reported, and ask leave to sit again." I do so because of the Vote which has just been taken on clause 4, and the closure of that clause. There was a very serious and important amendment to that clause.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not reflect on the action of the Committee.

Question proposed "That I report progress and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. HALDANE

I appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman, and I know what he refers to. I give him my personal assurance that I scanned carefully the whole of the words which could have had a bearing on a certain case. Not one of the Amendments to this section touch that case, nor are there any words which could make the clause retrospective. If the clause could bear on the case I should have regarded it as personally dishonourable to closure it. I have taken the opinion of Parliamentary counsel on the subject, and we satisfied our minds that there was not a shadow of doubt that that case will not be affected. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be content with that assurance.

Mr. BOWLES

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw his Motion on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, though it is very admirable. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that this clause does not bear on a certain case, but there was one Amendment of very great importance to this clause affecting his own responsibility, and I think in view of all the circumstances, and considering the late hour and the fact that the House will meet again at noon to-day, the hon. Member is thoroughly justified in his Motion.

Mr. HAY

I venture to join in the appeal which has just been made. The House will meet again in less than twelve hours, and it must be evident to everyone that there is no chance of finishing this Bill. If we go on the business for to-day cannot be proceeded with, and it will, therefore, be much better for the Government and the whole House if we can have two or three hours given to us to discuss this important matter on another occasion. Failing that, there is nothing but the prospect of a hard debate, though I hope there will be no acrimony, because obviously anyone who really has given any attention to these subjects must recognise that the Army (Annual) Bill this year is one of very great importance. It is not a Bill involving questions of detail. It touches first principles and matters of the highest Constitutional moment. When matters affecting Army government were before the last Parliament the second reading of Bills by no means as important as this took not one, but two days, and the Government devoted more than two days to the Committee stage of a Bill which is by no means greater than this. I would, therefore, urgently represent to the right hon. Gentleman that his own convenience and that of his Department and of the House of Commons at large, would best be consulted if we adjourned now, and came to some agreement whereby the Bill may be discussed on a future occasion, and when all sections of the House would perhaps be fresher, and therefore we shall arrive at conclusions more easily than now.

Mr. HALDANE

I would appeal to the hon. Member not to discuss the Bill in this tone. It is vitally important that it should be proceeded with. I cannot possibly, at whatever cost to myself, and this is the third disturbed night I have had from various causes, leave what is a duty without doing my very utmost to put the Bill through. The other House sits to-day to take the first reading of it, and the hon. Member knows it is vital that this Bill should get through within a definite time. There is another thing. We are coming to a very important point of principle. The national defences are not in a satisfactory or proper condition. Why should the hon. Member wish to prevent them from being put in a proper condition? Why should he wish to make it difficult to make the necessary amendment of the law without which the mobilisation of the Territorial force cannot be made a reality. I would really appeal to the hon. Member not to discuss this Bill in this fashion. It is meant to improve the machinery of national defence, and I would earnestly ask for the cooperation of the House.

Mr. REMNANT

I hardly think the speech we have just listened to is calculated to expedite or improve matters. We are just as anxious, and always have been, as the light hon. Gentleman, to do the best we can to put the new arrangements on a proper footing in reference to our Territorial force, and for him to assume that he alone and his party are trying—

Mr. HALDANE

I never have. I think I have given the fullest credit to the other side for the great assistance they have rendered in putting this through.

Mr. REMNANT

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I hope, although we could not draw that inference from his speech, we may take it that that is his intention, and as such we accept it. But not one single concession has been made during the debate to any recommendation which has come from this side. He has said that clause 4 had nothing whatever to do with a certain case which has been referred to. The whole question could have been raised on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutherland-shire.

The CHAIRMAN

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was not in order at that place. If the question was in order at all it could be raised as a new clause. The particular Amendment in the form in which it was put down was not in order on the clause.

Mr. REMNANT

I am sorry I referred to the Amendment, but the whole Clause, there is no doubt, gave us an opportunity of raising matters in reference to cases which have occurred and which are very likely to have occurred in the past, and which would have given us an opportunity of calling attention to a matter which, to say the least of it—

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is reflecting on the action of the Committee in passing the closure, and also I think on my discretion, which he has no right to do, in accepting the closure.

Mr. REMNANT

I apologise if I have done that. The matter was raised and referred to by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and I thought I should not be out of order in also referring to it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, anxious as we are and as now we understand he and his party are, to let us postpone the matter to a later period, when we shall be fresh to deal with it. There is no urgent necessity for it. We have until 30th April, therefore why try by force to push the matter through to-night? I am quite sure the majority of Members, apart from party feeling, are really, in their inmost hearts, anxious that we should defer it until such time as we shall be able to discuss it when we are not tired and weary of the work we have gone through.

Mr. JOHN WARD

I hope the hon. Member for Newton will insist on putting his Motion to a Division. It is quite clear that we are discussing really two Bills. Clause 4 was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman as an absolutely separate Bill of sufficient importance to warrant the whole business and the formulae of the House being gone through to consider it in its single aspect, and if the matter is being delayed at all it is largely because the right hon. Gentleman is making such great constitutional changes in the proposal now before the House that we are entitled to use every form of the House as a protest.

Mr. RENWICK

The right hon. Gentleman has made a very serious admission, and almost a charge against this side of the House that we are pressing this appeal at a time when we are preventing him putting the defences of the country in a satisfactory condition. I wish to discuss certain clauses in the Bill, but if I thought for a moment that I was endangering the country by preventing defences of the country being put in a satisfactory condition, I would not stand in his way. After a serious admission of this description; the House is entitled to an explanation of what is meant by the defences of the country being in this unsatisfactory condition.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

The many Members who are interested in the Wood's case will have heard with great interest the statement of the Secretary for War, and I am sure no one who knows him would think he himself would be capable of the rather contemptible trick of endeavouring to non-suit the plaintiff in: that case by inserting a clause of this kind. But I must confess that does not entirely remove my doubts. There is no doubt about it that lawyers of great eminence have advised the plaintiff that the effect of this clause will be to non-suit him.

The CHAIRMAN

Order, order; that does not really arise. We are not discussing whether clause 4 does or does not do what the hon. Member says.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

I am not discussing it. I am only dealing with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State himself, to which surely we are entitled to reply. Lawyers have advised the plaintiff that the effect of this clause will be to non-suit him. We all accept without the slightest reservation the declaration of the Secretary of State for War that nothing could be further from his intention than to do so; but I suggest that it would be in the interests-of expeditious discharge of business—and I ask him to do it—if the right hon. Gentleman makes it clear in the Act itself that such will not be the effect of the Bill. That will remove the objection that many of us have. The right hon. Gentleman has taken legal opinion. Other legal opinions will be advanced. And it may be, although counsel waive the point before the judge, and do not plead the Act, that the judge may conceivably prefer to take his own view of the Act. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that strict justice will be done in this case. In my opinion he has a grievance, and should have a fair trial.

The CHAIRMAN

Order, order; the hon. Member is now really discussing the Wood's case. The question is whether I shall report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

I was going to appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion if the right hon. Gentleman gave the explanation we desire.

Mr. HALDANE

The remarks of the hon. Gentleman have been most moderate and reasonable. But to put in a new clause such as is desired, and that would have no effect, would simply lead to confusion. If I had the least doubt that this would rot be the case, and the question arose, I would at once take steps to set the matter right. There is no shadow of a foundation for the imputation that anything in this clause affects the case referred to. I do not think it can possibly do so. If I should turn out to be wrong, I will find some means to put the matter right.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

I appeal to my friend to accept frankly the full statement that has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman. But there is still another question of importance left in this Bill; that is the question of general billeting. There is some justification for the long time that has been occupied up till now, and some justification for the Motion before the Committee, for this is an exceptional Army (Annual) Bill. It not only contains important small matters, but two matters of absolute novelty and of very considerable constitutional importance. One is the matter that has consumed so large an amount of time this afternoon—the handing over of these powers dealt with under clause 4—and the other question which has still got to be dealt with, is this very important one of general billeting. We are bound, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, in the interests of the defence of the country to see this clause through to-night, because the defences of the country are in an absolutely unsatisfactory condition. If the Government insist on this, then may I appeal to the hon. Member who has moved this Motion to withdraw it? May I also appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House not to oppose these Amendments, which are, we are told, practically drafting Amendments. It is none of our business to make the Bill of the Government grammatical or more lucid. Let it alone Let us get on to the more important matter of general billeting.

Mr. SEDDON

I only want to know whether I have got the right idea. Do I gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that if Lieutenant Woods is non-suited he will find some other way whereby he will have access to the law courts. If so, I will willingly withdraw my Motion, because I want the business to proceed. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is because I feel that this man has certainly got a grievance—[Cries of "Order, order!"]—and that this is the only form of protesting against an injustice.

Mr. HALDANE

If the House lets the Bill pass and Lieutenant Woods be nonsuited by anything in this Act, I should conceive it a dishonourable act on my part if we did not take care to use some means to make good anything that happened.

Mr. SEDDON

I beg leave to withdraw.

The CHAIRMAN

Is it your pleasure the Amendment be withdrawn?

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Mr. HAY

No, no.

The CHAIRMAN

Hon. Gentlemen should be a little quicker. I am very sorry if the hon. Member wishes the Amendment not to be withdrawn.

Mr. HAY

Is it not the practice that the Chairman puts the question, yes or no, from the Chair in respect of a Motion for leave to withdraw or a Motion to report progress?

The CHAIRMAN

Never.

Captain CRAIG

With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member below the gangway, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation, as perhaps he has forgotten the point.

Mr. HALDANE

There may be locomotives other than road traction. For example, we have had at Aldershot locomotives which go over fields and up hills. There is no difficulty about railways, because the railways are not under the Army Act but under the National Defence Act of 1888, and we can take possession of them in times of great national emergency. The hon. Member may rely that the language chosen by the Parliamentary draftsman with myself was in order to make provisions for this and insure that we could get possession of any kind of locomotive that we want.

Mr. HAY

I cannot find any provision as to the form of payment for motor-cars and other forms of mechanical conveyance which would be requisitioned. It is obvious that the payment made for either horses or carts would not be adequate for a motor-car or for the petrol or other fuel consumed in driving a mechanically driven vehicle. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, what words he will insert in the Bill whereby there will be proper remuneration given to the persons who have got to lend these vehicles under this section?

Mr. HALDANE

The provision is in the Army Act in a special section, I think it is 115—"The Army Council shall cause due payment to be made for carriages, animals, and vessels furnished in pursuance of this section." We amend the section by putting in the words, and then the whole provision of sub-section 4 applies.

Mr. HAY

I underlined the very words which the right hon. Gentleman has read in my copy, but I cannot see that they form any provision for payment for these motor-cars and other vehicles. Surely some more definite words are required. This is another instance of the hasty way of dealing with these matters. Words should be inserted on a proper business footing safeguarding the rights of citizens whose property is used in the manner covered by the section.

Mr. HALDANE

The hon. Member will notice that there is provision that the amount of payment for the carriages, which include the locomotives, is to be determined by the county court judge having jurisdiction in the place where such carriage is furnished or through which it travels in pursuance of such requisition.

Mr. HAY

Am I to understand that before a man can get reasonable payment he has to appeal to the county court judge—that is, practically sue the Secretary of State? Surely there ought to be some more equitable and rapid and friendly arrangement between the State and those whose property is used for the defence of the country.

Mr. HALDANE

It is only to come before the county court in case of a difference. You could not make a scale.

Mr. HAY

Some of these county court judges are very prejudiced in regard to motor-cars, and will take a very drastic view of the value of the services. I would ask some indication of the scale of payment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say what payment was made the other day in connection with the journey made by motor-cars to Hastings under some arrangement made by him, because in all seriousness it is a matter of importance to a large section of the public, and in a year or two hence, when these motorcars are much more numerous and are owned by persons of smaller means than those who now own them, the matter will be one of very widespread public interest.

Mr. HALDANE

The other day these motor-cars were lent very generously by certain gentlemen, and nothing was paid at all.

Mr. RENWICK

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to define what is meant by vessels—ships, steamers, canal-boats, or what does it mean?

Mr. HALDANE

Vessels can only be local vessels. They are the only kind of vessels which are meant by the clause.

Mr. RENWICK

Would it mean County Council steamers, for instance?

Mr. HAY

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what a "local vessel" is?

Mr. HALDANE

You will find it in Section 115. A local vessel includes barges, boats or other vessels used for transport on any canal or navigable river.

Mr. HAY

"Local"—

The CHAIRMAN

Order, order. We have passed these words and it is not in order to discuss them.

Mr. HAY

I only wish to ask a question in connection with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not raise the matter.

The CHAIRMAN

Sometimes we have an inquiry made which is not strictly in order, but if it is likely to facilitate business I allow it. If, however, hon. Members are led to go on discussing the point, it is really quite out of order and must be stopped.

Captain CRAIG

I beg to withdraw my amendment. [Cries of "No."]

Question: "That these words be there inserted," put and negatived.

Captain CRAIG

I beg to move to leave out from "thereof," to the end of line 13. "and where such regulations are made an officer of the county association shall have the same powers as are by this section conferred on an officer of the Army Council." This would have the effect of leaving the regulations to the Army Council. I hope eventually to get something out of the Secretary of State. By sub-section (2) of this clause, a subordinate officer of the county associations is to have the same powers as are conferred on the officers of the Army Council. Is a subaltern officer of the county association to have the same powers as the officer of the Army Council in commandeering transport throughout the country in time of war? My slight experience in this matter is that the mistake has been made of putting powers of this nature in the hands of junior officers, and if the scheme of commandeering transport in this country in time of emergency is to be carried out by junior officers of the county associations instead of by officers who understand all about the movements of troops, if the right hon. Gentleman really means to delegate to boys the duty of commandeering locomotives, motorcars, carriages and horses, boats and vessels, then the matter is very serious. The powers given to the Army Council under this Bill are, in the opinion of many of us, far too wide, but when you come to take them away from the Army Council and give them to the junior officers of the county associations, it appears to me to be absolutely ridiculous.

Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

Mr. HALDANE

In discussing the Army Estimates I explained fully what we propose to do here. At present a general mobilisation can only take place in a national emergency. It is necessary to get horses and carriages to mobilise the Army. These can be taken and are paid for. At present the officer of the Army Council can make up his list and then go and get the justice's warrant to take the carriages. This proposal is to give that power in addition to the officer of the county association, and there are enormous advantages in that. To begin with, the county association can take a census of the horses and vehicles in the county very much better than the Army Council can do. Our machinery at present is imperfect, and the object of introducing this power is to enable the county associations of the country generally to do that which they can do in a way we cannot. Nobody's horse and carriage can be taken without a warrant of the justice, and the only effect of this will be to enable the county council to make a preliminary census of the means of transport, and then their officer can make the same application to the justice for a warrant as the officer of the Army Council.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment. It is quite clear that this clause only empowers the Council to make regulations under which the officer of the county association can carry out most valuable and important work. It is not likely that the regulations will be framed in such a way as to cause difficulty or injustice to any responsible person.

Captain CRAIG

I certainly do not wish to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that if the Army Council make the regulations, then any officer of the county association can claim under the section to exercise all these powers.

Mr. HALDANE

Only on mobilisation.

Captain CRAIG

My hon. Friend below me is of course well up in the law, and I accept his advice, though I am still doubtful on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN

Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? ["No."]

Mr. MOONEY

I wish to ask whether it is in order to withdraw the Amendment when a Member desires to speak upon it.

The CHAIRMAN

I put the question whether the Amendment should be withdrawn, and I heard the cries of "No." The Amendment, therefore, still remains alive and can be discussed.

Mr. HAZLETON

I wish to ask the Secretary for War what difference this proposal makes in regard to Ireland. We have in Ireland no county associations, and therefore I presume that the provisions of this new clause will not apply to Ireland. Will Ireland under this Bill stand in the same position under the law as she stands in to-day? I presume that a county association can have no jurisdiction outside its own county, and I suppose the law in Ireland on this question will stand as it is to-day. If the people of England and Scotland think the law is not adequate to meet their needs, that, of course, is their concern, but the whole interest of my hon. Friends on these benches in this Bill is concerned with clause 7. Under the circumstances I am quite willing to allow this matter to remain as it is.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6.—Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict., c. 58, s. 122 (6).—In sub-section (6) of section one hundred and twenty-two of the Army Act (which defines "qualified officer" in relation to convening and confirming the findings and sentences of general courts-martial) for the words "on whom the command of any body of regular forces may be conferred" there shall be substituted the words "on whom the command of any part of His Majesty's forces may be conferred."

Captain CRAIG

I desire to move an Amendment in clause 6, page 4, line 19, to leave out the word "part" and insert the word "body." In the old Army Act the word "body" is used, and this Bill changes it to "part." It used to mean "a body of troops," but the introduction of the word "part" may make it include a rifle or a gun, whereas a body would refer to a unit. I have put this Amendment down to ascertain why, after being a stickler for the ancient and honourable terms handed down to us for generations past, the right hon. Gentleman has suddenly superseded this very ancient term of "body" and inserted a change which makes it read "part of His Majesty's forces."

Amendment proposed: "In page 4, line 19, to leave out the word 'part' and insert the word 'body.' "—[Captain Craig.']

Question proposed: "That the word 'part' stand part of the Question."

Mr. HALDANE

The ground for using the word "part" is that we want to make the case as wide as possible, so as to include an irregularly formed body. The curious position is that at the present time, when you are dealing with the Colonies, the Colonial Governor is all right because he has got all the necessary powers under his local military Acts so long as the troops are within the Colony, but when they are in some other part serving with the Regulars then they come under the Army Act. When in transit from the Colonies to this country or vice versa, the troops are under no proper law, and there is no power to deal with them. Although that is the case, it will not be so under the terms of the Army Act if the Governor-General has command of even a few Regulars with the local troops. The Governor-General may have Colonial troops, and perhaps a few garrison engineers or garrison artillery. Take the case of the Governor-General of Canada who has got no regular troops serving with him. This new provision places him in as good a position as the Governor of a smaller province who has some regular troops. Under section 122, "Any part of His Majesty's forces" will include any Colonial troops which may not bo formed in the same bodies as here, and the power which is given gets rid of the temporary disqualification which prevents the Governor of a great colony at present from having power.

Captain CRAIG

I beg to withdraw under the circumstances.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. JOHN WARD

This is the most important clause in this Bill. When discussing the Territorial Bill last year, the Labour Members and the Irish Members were particularly anxious to see that the Territorial Army would not be placed under martial law and all the ruthless provisions of the Army Act. This clause we are now asked to accept without a division is a subversion of all the promises that were made during the passing of that measure. We were told that they would be treated as citizen forces, and we understood everything would be done to preserve their citizen character. Now if this clause becomes part of the Army Bill all the promises that the Territorial Forces would not come under the disciplinary regulations of the ordinary Regular Forces will be abrogated or destroyed. Therefore I protest most strongly against this, and more especially against the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman just given to my hon. Friend above the Gangway. At present it states that the officers qualified "for convening and confirming the sentences of general courts-martial," which may include death sentences or any period of imprisonment shall be the officer "on whom the command of any body of Regular Forces may be conferred." We are asked to translate what is in the Army Act "body of Regular Forces" into "any part of His Majesty's Forces," which includes the Territorial Army, or any of the forces that are established by the Act of last year. It is only necessary to refer to one or two of the later clauses to see clearly what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. By this clause he is securing all the powers for military tribunals, for imposing military law, and for allowing the Territorial troops when embodied to be under the discipline of ordinary military law, which is no law at all. The very thing against which we protested most strongly during the passage of the Territorial Forces Bill the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to secure by a method which is not fair to those who supported him then. The right hon. Gentleman will now understand why I have taken such interest in opposing this Bill. I told him the other night that I intended to protest against his attempting to militarise the Territorial Force. It was no use attempting to fight the matter on these few words; they would soon be disposed of. One has to fight the whole thing, and I am going to fight it unless there is some alteration in the principle here attempted. On this point I should probably part company with hon. Members above the Gangway, because they are in favour of the military code being applied to the citizen soldiers, while I am not. All enlightened communities are reducing the power to interfere with the citizen, but the right hon. Gentleman is going in exactly the opposite direction. Almost every proposal he has put before us during the last year or two has been to exalt the military at the expense of the civil—

Mr. HALDANE

May I interrupt the hon. Member? He is under a complete misapprehension. The clause has no more to do with the Territorial Forces and the application of martial law than it has to do with the forces of the Emperor of China. Sub-section (6) of clause 122 of the Army Act defines "qualified officer," in so far as relates to convening or confirming the findings and sentences of general courts-martiaI as "any officer … on whom the command of any body of regular forces may be conferred." There we propose to substitute the words "on whom the command of any part of His Majesty's forces may be conferred." If the hon. Member will turn to that sub-section, which is the only thing with which we have here to deal, he will find that the words we propose to leave out appear at the end of the sub-section, and that the reference includes "the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Governor-General of India, and a Governor of any Colony"—it has nothing whatever to do with the Territorial Forces—" on whom the command of Any body of regular forces may be conferred." These are officials who have nothing whatever to do with any troops at home. The sole object of the clause is to get rid of the technical difficulty that troops brought from the colonies to the theatre of war where martial law would prevail are at present under no jurisdiction at all. I can assure my hon. Friend that the clause is limited in the manner I have described, that it has nothing whatever to do with the Territorial Forces, and that it does not extend military law any further than it extends at present.

Mr. JOHN WARD

That appears to be a very good explanation, but, without wishing to give offence to the right hon. Gentleman, I say distinctly that after reading the Memorandum issued by his own Department in explanation of the clause I am not satisfied. The most important words he has omitted to mention at all. He has read the latter part of the sub-section referring to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and so on, but he left out the first part, which says that: 'qualified officer' for the purpose of this Act, so far as it relates to convening or confirming the findings and sentences of general courts martial, means any officer not below the rank of a field officer commanding for the time being any body of the regular forces either within or without His Majesty's dominions. And then follow the other words. These are the men who may convene a court-martial, order a man to be tried, confirm sentences, and so on, without reference to anybody else. For the words "on whom the command of any body of regular forces may be conferred," it is proposed to substitute the words "on whom the command of any part of His Majesty's forces may be conferred—"

Mr. ACLAND

Only the Governor of a colony.

Mr. JOHN WARD

It does not say anything of the sort. The Memorandum contains section 122 sub-section (6) as it will read after it has been amended. The terms of the section as amended are "'Qualified officer' for the purposes of this Act, in so far as it relates to convening or confirming the findings and sentences of general courts-martial, means the Commander-in-Chief and any officer not below the rank of a field officer commanding for the time being any body of the Regular Forces either within or without His Majesty's dominions; it also includes the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Governor-General of India, and a Governor of any colony on whom the command of any part of His Majesty's Forces may be conferred by His Majesty." These are the terms of the section, and it is only necessary to read several other sections to see clearly that, unless there are some words inserted limiting the power of these officers in respect to the convening of courts-martial, when the members of the Territorial Force are embodied they will be subject to the provision, and therefore I resist the proposal now before the Committee. That is to say, the Territorial Force are going to be subject to the roughest, rudest and most brutal code of our military law. There is not the slightest doubt about it, and for that reason I shall vote against the proposal.

The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely)

I was glad I was in the House when my hon. Friend spoke. He knows that before I took a seat on this bench I took the view that it is desirable not to extend, but rather to diminish, the scope of what is termed martial law. As representing the Colonies in this country, I have to say in regard to this particular clause that it has been put in at the request of the Colonial Office, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it has absolutely no more to do with the Territorial Force than with the inhabitants of Mars. Can I put it more forcibly than that?

Mr. JOHN WARD

The clause says that it is to apply to "any body of the regular forces either within or without His Majesty's dominions."

Colonel SEELY

I have put it as strongly as I can, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I would be the last person to deceive this House, when I tell him that this has been put in at the request of the Colonial Office, and that it has nothing to do with the Territorial Force, I am sure that he will accept the assurance that that is my belief, and the belief of the great Department I have the honour to represent. All that he complains of has been the law of the land for fifty years past. Some hon. Members will remember that I took some part in the discussion of this question in years gone by. I am therefore familiar with the pitfalls in connection with it. If I may pass this paper across to my hon. Friend, I think he will understand the pitfall into which he has fallen. [Paper was handed to Mr. Ward.] We are referring here to clause 122, subsection (6) of the Army Act itself. All that happens under the new clause in the Army (Annual) Bill is that we enable the Governor General of a colony to be put in the same position in regard to troops in transit as he would be in supposing the troops were in the colony. The reason for this is that it is the desire of those great units themselves which have been greatly embarrassed owing to the interregnum when there is an absence of such provisions. No man either in the Colonies or in this country can be in a worse position by the provisions of the proposed new clause, but it will in the view of the Colonies be convenient to them if the clause is passed. If I can make any further explanation in the matter I am sure that I shall be glad to do so. I ask my hon. Friend to accept my absolute assurance that it has nothing to do even remotely with the Territorial Force in this country.

Mr. HUGH LEA

I desire to identify myself with the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent. I do not think that anybody who has had any experience of or come under the jurisdiction of martial law can do anything else than oppose tooth and nail the proposal in the Bill to extend the provision to a civilian force in this country.

The CHAIRMAN

The question has been put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Having since looked into the matter I must say that the meaning of this section and of the section of the Army Act which is altered by the clause is so clear that the line the hon. Member is now taking is quite out of order. The words of the Bill cannot apply to the Territorial Force.

Mr. HUGH LEA

I bow to your ruling. I would ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether this has been done at the request of English officials—that is to say, officials like the Governors of Colonies or the Viceroy of Canada—or has it been put in at the request of the Colonial Legislatures themselves?

Colonel SEELY

Of course, nothing is done in this House with respect to Colonies which are self-governing Colonies except at the request of the Governor acting on the advice of his Ministers. This is the result of consultation between this country and the Colonies, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that it has been done at the request of the Governors so acting.

Mr. HUGH LEA

I am prepared to accept the assurance the Under-Secretary has given. The Secretary of State said that the clause was to fill up a kind of gap or interregnum when troops are on board ship at sea—that is to say, during the time they are going from one colony to another, or going on active service abroad—and when they are passing from the jurisdiction of one Military Act and coming under the military law provided for here. To my mind that martial law is hateful, and for that reason I shall oppose the clause and take the question to a Division. I do not for an instant believe that our colonists know what is being done, and I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that every man in our Colonial Forces has been warned that it is proposed to bring them under this clause. If we were engaged in war, say in Abyssinia, can the right hon. Gentleman state that Australians who volunteer for service there would be aware that directly they left Sydney they would become liable to martial law as constituted by the Army Act? I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance on that point.

Mr. JOHN WARD

I wish to say, after reading the section of the Act itself and knowing exactly the bearing of the words which are to be altered, I can see that the explanation of the Secretary of State is correct. Therefore, under those circumstances, I accept the explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7.—Billeting in Cases of Emergency. —The following section shall be inserted in the Army Act after section one hundred and eight:—

1. (1) Where directions have been given for embodying all or any part of the Territorial Force, His Majesty by Order distinctly stating that a case of emergency exists, and signified by a Secretary of State, and also in Ireland the Lord Lieutenant by a like Order, signified by the Chief Secretary or Under-Secretary, may authorise any general or field officer commanding His Majesty's regular forces in any military district or place in the United Kingdom, to issue a billeting requisition under this section.
2. (2) Any officer so authorised may issue a billeting requisition under his hand reciting the said Order and requiring chief officers of police to provide billets in such places and for such number of officers and soldiers, and their horses, and for such period, as may be specified in the requisition.
3. (3) The provisions of this Act as to billeting shall apply to billeting under such 1074 a requisition as if for references therein to a route there were substituted references to such a requisition, subject, however, to the following modifications:—
   1. (a) The occupiers of all public buildings, dwelling-houses, warehouses, barns, and stables shall, as well as the keepers of victualling houses, be liable to billets, and the said provisions shall apply as if references to-victualling houses and the keepers of victualling houses included references to such public buildings, dwelling-houses, warehouses, barns, and stables, and the occupiers thereof:
   2. (b) The powers and duties conferred or imposed on constables shall be exercised and performed by the chief officers of police, and accordingly for references to constables in the said provisions there shall be substituted references to the chief officers of police, and for the reference to a justice of the peace in subsection (7) of section one hundred and eight there shall be substituted a reference to a court of summary jurisdiction, but a chief officer of police in selecting the persons required to provide billets, and in determining the number of officers and soldiers to be billeted on any person shall, so far as practicable, have regard to the convenience of the several occupiers, and shall act in accordance with any general instructions which may have been issued by the police authority:
   3. (c) The prices to be paid to an occupier other than the keeper of a victualling house for accommodation furnished, and food and fodder supplied by him shall be such as may be fixed by regulations made by the Army Council with the consent of the Treasury:
   4. (d) Sub-section (2) of section one hundred and three (which defines a route), paragraph (6) of section one hundred and eight (which relates to the power of a justice to vary a route) and paragraph (2) of Part II. of the Second Schedule to the Army Act (which requires billets to be made out to the less distant victualling houses) shall not apply.
4. (4) Any regulations as to prices so made shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are 1075 made, and if within forty days after they have been so laid either House presents an address to His Majesty praying that any such regulations may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the regulations so -annulled shall thenceforth become void without prejudice to anything done there-under in the meantime.
5. (5) For the purposes of this section— The expression "public building" includes any building wholly or partially provided or maintained out of the rates, and any building to which the public habitually have access, whether on payment or otherwise;

The expression "chief officer of police"

1. (a) As respects the City of London, means the Commissioner of City Police, and elsewhere in England has the same meaning as in the Police Act, 1890;
2. (b) In Scotland has the same meaning as in the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890;
3. (c) As respects the police district of Dublin metropolis, means the Chief Commissioner of Police for that district, and elsewhere means a county inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

1. (6) Compensation shall be paid by the Army Council out of money voted by Parliament for Army services in respect of any damage caused by any officer or soldier billeted under this section to the premises in which he is billeted, and the amount of such compensation shall in the event of disagreement be determined—
   1. (a) In England by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889:
   2. (b) In Scotland in the same manner as a question of disputed compensation under sub-section (10) of section twenty-five of the Local Government Act, 1894;
   3. (c) In Ireland by arbitration under the Common Law Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1856, as amended by any subsequent enactment.

Captain CRAIG

I wish to ask the Secretary of State if he will explain the word "distinctly," which appears in this clause. Who is to be the judge that His Majesty is "distinctly" of opinion that a case of emergency exists. If the Army Council thinks that a case of emergency exists, then I take it that there is no necessity for this word to appear in the Bill. If the Order in Council is placed before this House, I suggest that someone will arise on the point of order to discuss the question whether the Order in Council was sufficiently distinct. I am quite sure this matter will appeal to everybody who is devoted to the end which the Secretary of State intends to achieve. I beg to move that the word "distinctly" be left out.

Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

Mr. HALDANE

The word "distinctly" is stated because under section 115 of the Army Act the word is used. We are using the same phrase which is contained in that Act. I will call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the way in which the provisions are restricted. This clause can only be operative where directions are given to embody all or any part of the Territorial forces. Then His Majesty, by Order, can distinctly state if a case of emergency exists. The conditions of embodiment are described in Section 17 of the Territorial Act. According to the Reserve Forces Act of 1882, Section 12, in any case of imminent national danger the Army reserves shall be called out. If Parliament is not sitting Parliament must be convened; and there is the safeguard. Parliament must be consulted, and it must be distinctly understood that a national emergency exists.

Captain CRAIG

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HAZLETON

I hope it will not be necessary for me to detain the Committee at very great length. At the same time I must say that this question is one of great importance. There are two reasons why I regret that it should be my duty to bring forward this matter. The first is that we are at a very late hour in the sittings in this House. It is a very late period of the night to introduce a subject of this importance. The second is that the question has been given an unexpected turn. It is a matter of very considerable importance to Ireland, and the Irish Members have gone to Ireland for the Easter Recess. With regard to clause 7, I must confess it was with very considerable astonishment that I read it in this Bill. The conclusion I arrived at was that the clause as it stands must be a mistake on the part of the Government draftsman. It seems to me that whoever was responsible for drafting this clause he entirely overlooked the fact of the difference that exists between Great Britain and Ireland with regard to the armed forces of the Crown. In the recent Session of Parliament this House was engaged in passing for Great Britain a measure of great importance in the Territorial Reserve Forces Act, and I would remind the Committee that under that Act there is not in Ireland to-day a single county association or a single member of the Territorial Force, because the Act does not apply to Ireland. That fact raises a very marked and a very clear distinction between Ireland and Great Britain. Now, so far as I understand this clause 7 in the Bill we are discussing, the new provisions with regard to billeting affects not only the Territorial forces, but the regular Army as well. If I am wrong in that, I should be glad if the Minister for War would correct me. But I take it this new provision applies equally to all the forces of the Crown. What is the justification for that? I do not propose to discuss the merits of the question opened up by this clause in its general application. I am only concerned mainly as to how this Bill and this clause affects Ireland. What is the position created by this proposal? At present under the law as it exists billeting can only take place upon licensed premises. This clause proposes to change that, and to give power to billet troops on all kinds of private houses and public institutions, and from the wording of the clause troops could be billeted on St. Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Cathedral, or upon any church or chapel in the country. That is a very wide and far-reaching change in the law. My purpose in rising to move this Amendment is to show the Committee and, if I can, to convince the Secretary of State for War that he cannot make out, and has not made out, any good reason why this provision should be extended to Ireland. As I pointed out, there are no Territorial forces in Ireland at the present time. I am not going into the question of why that is so. The Government and the Minister for War no doubt will be able to provide the Committee with good and sufficient reasons as to why the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman was not extended to Ireland. But my contention is that the very reasons which have seemed good to the Secretary for War and to the Government for not extending to Ireland the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman and establishing there the Territorial system ought in this case to hold equally good for not extending to Ireland the new provisions proposed by this clause. I tell the Committee fully and frankly that it ought to pause before forcing this new regulation upon the Irish people. As we have no Territorial Army in Ireland there can be no possible necessity for putting this new regulation upon us. As I understand it, the whole case for this regulation is that you will have in Great Britain under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme a larger force to deal with. You will have more soldiers for whom to provide accommodation, and therefore the existing provision in the law is not adequate to provide it. But nothing that this House has done within the past few years has increased the number of soldiers in Ireland, and therefore you can make out no good case for increasing the accommodation. The proper course would be for the right hon. Gentleman to recognise frankly that there is a case in Ireland for differential treatment upon this question. The Government have shown in their Army reorganisation scheme that they recognise that Ireland stands in a special position apart from the rest of the United Kingdom, and I ask the Minister for War to recognise that fact in this matter as well. I should much prefer to ground my objection to this proposed sweeping change in the law on the plea that, so far as Ireland is concerned, it is unnecessary, but at the same time I am fully aware that there are other considerations of a broad character which enter into this question. I have no desire or intention whatever of shirking those considerations. What are those considerations? The Irish people at the present day are unalterably opposed to the present system of Government in Ireland. They are frankly and openly disloyal to that system. They will not be otherwise until they are given the right which they demand of managing and directing their own affairs.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell)

The hon. Member is going away from this particular Amendment, which is, whether this clause should be applied to Ireland.

Mr. HAZLETON

I am endeavouring to point out why this particular clause ought not to be applied to Ireland, and I will keep within the limits of your ruling; but I submit that I am entitled to show that existing conditions in Ireland are such that this law ought not to be applied to Ireland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I wish to point out to the hon. Member that it is not a second reading, but an Amendment in Committee, and therefore the discussion cannot be so elaborate as on a second reading.

Mr. HAZLETON

I submit that this matter is of very great importance to Ireland. I have no desire to make a second reading speech, and no intention of doing so. Nor am I on this occasion going into the question of the system of Government in Ireland, but I do wish to point out that in the lifetime of the present Parliament the Chairman of the Irish party declared here that if there were the remotest possible chance of success he would have no hesitation whatever in advising his countrymen in Ireland to take up arms to drive English rule out of Ireland as it exists there at present. England has it in its power to change all that so as to make the Irish people loyal and reconcile them to the Empire as she did in the case of the Transvaal. Until that is done disloyalty will continue in Ireland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Order, order; that is obviously the question of Home Rule.

Mr. HAZLETON

From what I have said it must be clear that you are proposing under this clause to billet in Ireland English soldiers upon a population entirely out of sympathy with them under existing conditions. I say that the Irish people would bitterly resent such action as that.

Captain CRAIG

I should like to point out that the hon. Member is speaking for a certain part of Ireland only, and not for the North of Ireland.

Mr. HAZLETON

I am speaking with full confidence that in what I am saying I shall have the approval of members of the party to which I belong, which represents three-fourths of the population of Ireland to-day.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

And the majority of Ulster.

Mr. HAZLETON

Yes, and the majority of Ulster. If the right hon. Gentleman will not yield to Irish public opinion upon this question it can only add to the existing friction and misunderstanding, and make matters worse than they are to-day in Ireland. For a Liberal Government to propose this change in opposition to the representatives from Ireland is a most reactionary step, and before it is too late I urge the Minister for War to reconsider the proposals in this clause, and accept the Amendments I have placed upon the Paper.

Amendment proposed: To leave out from "State" to "may."—[Mr. Hazleton.]

Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

Mr. HALDANE

The hon. Member is really under a misapprehension as to the intention of the Government in proposing this clause. They are not asking for some privilege for the Territorial Force. Ireland, unfortunately, has one thing in common with the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is that Ireland may be invaded.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

I wish someone would.

Mr. HALDANE

I cannot join the hon. Member in that wish. The position of Ireland in that case would be worse.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

It could not be worse.

Mr. HALDANE

The purpose of this clause is to provide for rapid and effective mobilisation in an emergency. The emergency is very carefully safeguarded, as I have already shown, but on very great emergency it is necessary to send troops rapidly to the point of attack. I hope these powers may never have to be put into operation, but it is necessary, if you are to make your national defences efficient, to have the power of putting your troops swiftly and efficiently at the point where, it may be, you are weakest. That may happen in Ireland, as in any other part of the country, and it may be necessary to send Regulars or Territorials there. These provisions are put in, not in the interests of the Territorial Force, but for the protection of the people of Ireland as much as for any other people in the United Kingdom against the possibility of any invasion.

Captain CRAIG

I would just like to say that, although we have great objections to many parts of this Bill, we should not like it to be thought that we are associated with any way with the sentiments of the hon. Member below the Gangway. I am quite sure Ulster would be only too glad to billet, if necessary, all the solders of His Majesty's Army in Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way in this matter. I assure him I shall vote with him if the hon. Member goes to a Division, and I am sure my colleagues from Ulster will do the same.

Mr. MOONEY

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given us any explanation of the great change in the existing law with regard to Ireland. I submit that the necessity for private billeting does not arise in Ireland. You are seeking, under the guise of providing further facilities for billeting, to impose upon Ireland a provision which was in existence 30 years ago, when you could billet troops in private houses. On the motion of a Conservative Government that power was taken away when the old Act was abandoned and the Army (Annual) Act was first introduced. They said it was not right that that power should exist in Ireland, and they did away with it. It is left to a Liberal Government in the guise of a popular Act to say the power shall be re-established to billet troops on private houses in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to explain that this will be under the control of a public authority, but there is no watch committee in Ireland, and the power will be in the hands of the police inspector. The right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of the working of the Irish Police Act, and we have. He goes out of his way to allay public anxiety in England by pointing out that after all there will be public control in the matter. There will, however, be no public control in Ireland. Let the right hon. Gentleman confine himself to England, and do not let him go back to a power of 30 years ago, which was found to be obsolete. There has been no case made out for it. I believe it is recognised that in England under the new scheme private billeting would be necessary, but there is no such necessity in Ireland, because there you are decreasing your force and you have no Territorial Army. You are taking power not only to billet the Territorial force if they are embodied, but also regular troops, and not only on public buildings but on private dwellings. If this power is to be exercised by head constables in Ireland, private grievances will often be worked off in this way. You do away in the case of Ireland with the public control which you specifically give in England, and you put the power in the hands of paid officials. That is not the way you should differentiate between this country and another; and I am surprised that a Liberal Government should tell us that from this date we are to go back to the old system of private billeting found to be so bad and given up 30 years ago. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment.

Mr. ACLAND

The hon. Member would not have suggested that we are restoring the conditions of thirty years ago if he had had any knowledge of the facts. The power of thirty years ago was the power of billeting on private houses in times of peace, and now it is only proposed that the power shall be exercised in times of great national emergency. May I point out that the only alternative is to provide barracks for the men everywhere we may possibly want to have them stationed; and I am perfectly certain the taxpayers—both of this country and of Ireland—would refuse to incur the enormous expenditure which that would entail.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

I should not have intervened if it had not been for the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for East Down. The hon. and gallant Member does not speak for the province of Ulster or the North of Ireland. He said the whole of the North of Ireland, with the exception of one black spot in South Down, agreed with him. There happened to be 33 Members returned for the province of Ulster, and the hon. Member belongs to a small band of 13, which is only a minority of its entire representation. Instead of representing the whole of the province, they represent only a corner, and, if it would not be unparliamentary, I would describe them as the "Corner Boys of Ulster." Even the great and loyal city of Belfast provides one black spot.

Captain CRAIG

May I point out that it is only a very temporary black spot.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

All I can say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that there are a lot of temporary black spots. There are four in Donegal.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Order, order. It has nothing to do with the Amendment how many black spots there are in Ireland.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

I am only pointing out that the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to speak for the province of Ulster, and, as another Ulster Member, I may be allowed to say that altogether we have got about 18 black spots. The Under-Secretary to the War Office said the effect of this clause will only be to empower billeting in Ireland in the case of a national emergency. But we are always in a national emergency. At the present moment we are in a national emergency. Hon. Members above the Gangway are fond of telling us that they are afraid that the Empire will go to pieces unless we have eight "Dreadnoughts." We do not know how soon the same argument may be used in favour of billeting these soldiers in Ireland because of some other national emergency. We have got historic memories not only of an unpleasant but of a hideous character in Ireland, and no man who has given even cursory attention to the history of Ireland can pretend ignorance of the dislike of billeting which exists in every corner of Ireland, and in no part more bitterly than in the Constituency of the hon. and gallant Member, which, in 1798, suffered as much from billeting as any part of Ireland. This does involve a startling departure from what has hitherto been the practice. Billeting has up to the present been confined to licensed premises. I am not concerned about that. Licences are granted subject to that condition, and those who apply for licences know what they are asking for when they make their application. I say it is intolerable that the military authorities should have the right to billet soldiers on private individuals. Government after Government has laid it down that Ireland cannot be trusted with volunteers—you cannot even trust Ireland with your new Territorials. Every Secretary of State for War comes up with a new Army scheme, and almost before we have had time to tell him that it will not do, we get a new one; but never yet has any War Secretary proposed that Ireland should have a Volunteer or Territorial force. As they have not given us that privilege, I think the Government might at least spare us the operation of billeting. In the meantime we are entitled to point out that you deny to Ireland the right to have a citizen Army—

An HON. MEMBER

What would you do with it if you had it?

Mr. MacVEAGH

We would see what we would do with it when we have it. I was saying that you deny to Ireland the right to have a citizen army, and, that being so, we object to the penalties that a billeting scheme would impose upon us.

Division No. 60.]	AYES.	[2.32 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Bowles, G. Stewart	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Brace, William	Corbett. C H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Brodie, H. C.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.
Beale, W. P.	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Beauchamp, E.	Byles, William Pollard	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.),
Bennett, E. N.	Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Duckworth, Sir James
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)
Black, Arthur W.	Clough, William	Essex, R. W.

Sir W. COLLINS

There is some similarity between the case of Ireland and the case of London in this matter. The police in London are not as they are in places in the provinces, under popular control. I hope it may be possible in the case of London (in view of the peculiar position of the police authority) to secure that the convenience of householders with regard to billeting shall be respected, and to set up a reference to the London County Council in the same way as householders in the provinces have some popular authority to appeal to.

Mr. HAY

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the General Instructions shall be laid upon the Table of the House?

Mr. LEA

On a point of order, Mr. Caldwell, are we discussing England now?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

This Amendment is limited to Ireland.

Mr. HAZLETON

Before this matter goes to a Division, I desire to protest against the offhand manner in which both the Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for War have dealt with this question. They seem to consider that it is a matter of no importance whatever and that it can be disposed of in the cavalier fashion in which they have sought to dispose of it in this debate. I tell them that this is a question which will come up again. Most pf the members of the Irish party have left the House; but we who remain here intend to press the matter to a Division and to bring it before this House on every possible occasion.

Mr. REMNANT

The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to London. I do not know whether we shall be in order in saying something upon that aspect of the-question before the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

No.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 19.

Everett, R. Lacey	Lupton, Arnold	Rowlands, J.
Fenwick, Charles	Lyell, Charles Henry	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Ferens, T. R.	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Seely, Colonel
Fuller, John Michael F.	M'Micking, Major G.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Markham, Arthur Basil	Simon, John Allsebrook
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Stanier, Seville
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Marnham, F. J.	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Mond, A.	Strachey, Sir Edward
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Morpeth, Viscount	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Haworth, Arthur A.	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Hazel, Dr. A. E.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Hedges, A. Paget	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Verney, F. W.
Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)	Partington, Oswald	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Henry, Charles S.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Higham, John Sharp	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Hills, J. W.	Radford, G. H.	Wiles, Thomas
Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Rainy, A. Rolland	Wilkie, Alexander
Horniman, Emslie John	Remnant, James Farquharson	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Ridsdale, E. A.	Wills, Arthur Walters
Jardine, Sir J.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Jenkins, J.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Robinson, S.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Levy, Sir Maurice	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Lewis, John Herbert	Rogers, F. E. Newman

NOES.
Bowerman, C. W.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Summerbell, T.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Macpherson, J. T.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Doughty, Sir George	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Nicholls, George	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Hogan, Michael	Parker, James (Halifax)
Hudson, Walter	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hazleton and Mr. Mooney.
Kilbride, Denis	Seddon, J.
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Captain CRAIG

I do not propose to move the next Amendments which stand in my name, but I do desire to raise the one dealing with billeting. Now I am thoroughly in favour of billeting, and the only fault I have to find with this clause is that throughout it the right hon. Gentleman refers to "occupiers," and not to "owners." The object of my Amendment to this clause is to make it obligatory on the owners of houses which may not be occupied for the time being to permit the buildings to be used for the purposes of billeting. Take the case mentioned under sub-head A of this particular clause. It provides that it shall have reference not only to public buildings, but to barns and stables, and the occupiers thereof. The point I wish to make is that the occupiers of barns and stables would not always come within the meaning intended to be applied by the right hon. Gentleman, and I would throw out to the right hon. Gentleman a suggestion that he should appeal to the Committee to allow him to make the necessary Amendment in no fewer than five parts of this clause, I beg to move.

Amendment proposed, clause 7, page 5. line 1, after "occupiers" to insert "and owners."—[Captain Craig.]

Question put, "That these words be there inserted."

Mr. HALDANE

I would suggest that in the context the meaning of the word is quite clear. The object of 'the clause is this: that when the owner and the occupier are separate persons one, of course, deals with the tenant in possession, and when there is no tenant in possession then the owner would be deemed to be the occupier because nobody else is in possession. Therefore, for the purpose of this context I am satisfied that the right expression has been used. You want to deal simply with the question of occupation, and the question of occupation is constructive occupation.

Mr. BOWLES

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation amounts to this: That in his opinion "occupiers" in this clause means "occupiers or owners." That being so what can be the objection to putting in these words?

Mr. HALDANE

You want to know with whom you have to deal, and you have to deal with the occupier.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 105.

Division No. 61.]	AYES.	[2.45 a.m.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hogan, Michael	Renwick, George
Bowles, G. Stewart	Kilbride, Denis	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Seddon, J.
Dalrymple, Viscount	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	Stanier, Beville
Doughty, Sir George	Macpherson, J. T.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Mitchell-Thomson and Mr.Remnant.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Mooney, J. J.
Hazleton, Richard	Morpeth, Viscount

NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Hedges, A. Paget	Ridsdale, E. A.
Baltour, Robert (Lanark)	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Henry, Charres S.	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Beauchamp, E.	Higham, John Sharp	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Bennett, E. N.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Robinson, S.
Black, Arthur W.	Horniman, Emslle John	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Bowerman, C. w.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Brace, William	Hudson, Walter	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Brodie, H. C.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Rowlands, J.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Jardine, Sir J.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyns)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Jenkins, J.	Seely, Colonel
Byles, William Pollard	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Clough, William	Levy, Sir Maurice	Strachey, Sir Edward
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Lewis, John Herbert	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lupton, Arnold	Summerbell, T.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	M'Micking, Major G.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Duckworth, Sir James	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Marnham, F. J.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Elibank, Master of	Mond, A.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Essex, R. W.	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Everett, R. Lacey	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Wiles, Thomas
Fenwick, Charles	Nicholls, George	Wilkie, Alexander
Ferens, T. R.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Williams, J. (Glamorgan;
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wilts, Arthur Walters
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Radford, G. H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.
Haworth, Arthur A.	Rainy, A. Rolland

Mr. MOONEY moved in sub-section 3, section (b) to omit the words "and for the reference to a justice of the peace in subsection (7) of section 108 there shall be substituted a reference to a court of summary jurisdiction." He said: I would not have troubled the Committee with an Amendment of this kind if the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend behind me had been accepted. If the clause only dealt with England I would not have very much to say about it, but there are two points raised by this sub-section. Over and over again the right hon. Gentleman has told us he could not accept Amendments, because he stated that the wording of the clause had been most carefully considered, and there was not the least possible chance of a loophole of escape. The right hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of English law, but he is now embarking on Irish law, and I do not think he had that in his mind quite when he or his Parliamentary draftsmen drafted this section, because the ques- tion of what is a court of summary jurisdiction is probably one of the most difficult things you can find in Irish legal annals. Every year this House passes an Act, and every Act passed for Ireland sets up a new court of summary jurisdiction in that country. You have therefore to be very careful when you are referring to a court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland to define what court you mean. I do not understand why the power which is at present given by the Army (Annual) Act to a justice of the peace should be taken away. I gather that at present if he has reason to think a constable is exercising the powers of billeting unduly or unfairly he may require him to give an account of numbers of officers and soldiers and their horses billeted on public buildings; and if that is so, in the case of billeting as applied to public buildings only, I think there is a much stronger reason when you are billeting on private houses for having some check on the power of the constable. By this Bill you take away the power from the individual of going to a justice of the peace and tell him he must go to a court of summary jurisdiction. I do not think that is a proper procedure, and the principal reason I move my Amendment is that I would like to know what is a court of summary jurisdiction in the case of Ireland. There are about 17 different courts of summary jurisdiction there, and I would like to know to which of them you are to go. Are you to go to the court set up by the Dublin Act or to the court set up by the General Act, or to the court set up by the purely Irish local Acts? One of the courts of summary jurisdiction under the Irish Act may be one justice of the peace sitting by himself in a public place or a court house. That would be going back to the old way of going to a justice of the peace. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be very careful in dealing with courts of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. I object to the safeguard being taken away from the individual who thinks he is being unfairly treated by the method of billeting of being able to go to a justice of the peace and to his being obliged to go before a court of summary jurisdiction. I also object to this power being given to the constable. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to make this section palatable by stating in the Memorandum which he has issued that the clause proposes that the duty of selecting the house and the men to be billeted should belong to the chief officer of police, and that there would be public control over him, because he is responsible to the watch committee or the police committee. That may be so in England, but it is not so in Ireland. The police authority in Ireland under this section would be the county inspector, and he would never bother his head about it. The thing would therefore be done by the head constable. It is too big a power to put in the hands of a head constable. You have no right to put such a power in the hands of such subordinate officials. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has sufficiently considered the question of what is a court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland, and therefore I would ask him to accept my Amendment, which would leave things exactly as they are.

Mr. HALDANE

I do not think the hon. Member has quite recognised the trouble which has been taken to get this thing out. Our object was to get a stronger court than might be ordinarily obtained if you merely have a justice of the peace. The hon. Member knows that the sub-section referred to in the clause says a justice of the peace may require a constable to give an account in writing of the number of officers and soldiers and their horses billeted by such constable, together with the names of the victualling houses. It occurred to us it might be insufficient protection for the subject. A justice of the peace might be a person with strong military views, and we thought it better that a subject should have the right of going to a stronger court. Accordingly, we have made an Amendment saying it should be a court of summary jurisdiction, as defined by 166 of the Army Act, sub-section 5. That sub-section provides that a court of summary jurisdiction when hearing and determining cases under the Army Act, shall be constituted by two or more justices of the peace sitting at some court or public place, or by some magistrate or officer sitting alone, or with others, at some court or place appointed for the public administration of that justice. Our purpose was to have the proceedings in some public court where reporters may be present.

Mr. MOONEY

You are taking away the chance of going before a public justice of the peace and going before a stipendiary magistrate, where the public cannot go.

Mr. HALDANE

He must be sitting at some court or place appointed for the public administration of justice. The tribunal within the meaning of the section is not qualified unless sitting at a court or place appointed for the public administration of justice. I think we have really done the very best we could.

Mr. KILBRIDE

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has paid any attention to the administration of the Act of Edward III. during the last two years in Ireland. He must be aware that sane people have been sent to gaol under the Act by a court of summary jurisdiction sitting in places which were not public courts of justice. Where were these places? They were not public courts of justice. Very often it was the private house of the resident magistrate himself. There is nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman has read out—nothing as the section stands—which would prevent anybody being brought before the resident magistrate in his own house. Such a thing would not be tolerated in England. It may be the law in England, but if it is it is more respected in the breach than in the observance. But we are accustomed to resident magistrates in Ireland, and it is because of our knowledge of them that my hon. Friend has raised his objection and moved his Amendment. There is no analogy between the administration of the law in Ireland and in England. The police in Ireland under an Act of Edward III. every day bring men before the resident magistrate sitting in his own house. That is the recognised place for exercising summary jurisdiction.

Mr. HALDANE

We are not proceeding under that Act of Edward III. We are proceeding under a special section of the Army Act, which requires that the application should be made to a magistrate sitting alone or with others at some court or other place appointed for the administration of justice. The second point is that this is a case in which you may apply to any justice you like, or to any petty sessions or magistrates to compel the officer to give an account in writing of the soldiers and houses which the constable is billeting, and if you like one tribunal in preference to the other, you are entitled to resort to it. This is a kind of check which is given by the calling in of the intervention of the court, and, when you do that, it is in some public place. I really think that whatever may be said about the Act of Edward III., this section of the Army Act will make a considerable improvement.

Mr. MOON EY

Any Acts in recent times have been so complicated that it has always been found best when setting up a court of summary jurisdiction to say under which Summary Jurisdiction Act you are setting it up. Cases affecting the rights of individuals have in recent times been known to be tried in police barracks, or in a back room to which the public have not had access. The resident magistrates have held courts in their own houses, and that action has been upheld. You are again putting these people under the power of the Act of Edward III. That does not get over the difficulty. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would get over the difficulty by making it clear that the proceedings will be under the Summary Jurisdiction Ireland, 1897, Act.

Mr. HALDANE

If the applicant does not like the resident magistrate he can go to the bench of magistrates.

Mr. HAZLETON

I am sorry to have to continue the complaints which I have been making against the right hon. Gentleman since 3 o'clock yesterday, but I must say that I think that every speech he has delivered has been more reactionary and democratic than the last. I do not wish at all to impeach the motives with which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward his defence of the clause which we are now considering; but I do say this, that there will be—rightly and justly—very far-reaching suspicion in Ireland as to what have been the motives of the Government in making this proposal. Under the existing law the people can appeal, if they feel aggrieved, to a justice of the peace. You are seeking by this proposal to remove that power from the people, and you are seeking to put in its place a court of summary jurisdiction, which may be one resident magistrate. Why is that proposed? I think the reason is that since the Army Act was passed you have adopted in Ireland a Local Government Act under which representatives of the people all over the country—chairmen of county councils and district councils—have been made er-officio justices of the peace, and this Liberal Government, which is so loud in its professions with regard to the democracy comes before the House of Commons, and asks us to go back on that Act, and to deprive justices of the peace in Ireland of their proper jurisdiction.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

I am not continuing this debate in any spirit of opposition. My desire is to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to believe for a moment that his Parliamentary draftsman may not know everything. Here is a case where, if you use the words "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" both for this country and for Ireland, you are using an expression which in one case means half a dozen things, and in the other something entirely different. Now the people of Ireland have a grievance with regard to the way in which courts of summary jurisdiction are carried on in Ireland. Some 150 years ago in England courts of summary jurisdiction were held by magistrates in their own houses, but now we have something like reasonable public procedure. There are, however, parts of Ireland where resident magistrates have taken upon themselves to hold courts in barracks and in their own houses, and they deny access thereto to a considerable number of the public. I believe they always make some kind of pretence of admitting some representatives of the public, and that has been held on appeal by the Court of King's Bench to be under such circumstances a court of sum- mary jurisdiction and to be a place where justice was being publicly administered, although that was obvious that it was nothing of the sort. This Amendment could possibly do no harm to the clause. In Ireland there are many different courts of summary jurisdiction, constituted under a variety of Acts of Parliament. I think if the right hon. Gentleman were a little more conciliatory he would save a good deal of time, but apparently he will not lend an ear to my suggestion, however reasonable and useful, and thereby it is simply prolonging the discussion.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has referred us to a clause in the Army Act, which be suggests gives us perfect protection against any abuse. But the words of which we complain are "Some magistrate or officer sitting alone," and as I gather that may not mean a magistrate at all; a military officer may act. Throughout this debate the right hon. Gentleman has displayed a great deal of suaviter in modo, but at the same time he has given us a little too much fortiter in re. He has not made a single concession, although he might well have met us on many points. I do not know whether it is the object of the right hon. Gentleman to avoid having a report stage, but I do suggest that he saves no time by pursuing this course. I can suggest another reason why he should accept this Amendment. We are considering a very difficult question in connection with the law of Ireland, and we have no Irish law officer present to tell us anything about it I do not know we are much worse off for that, but I do suggest that those learned gentlemen ought to be here, and tell us at least what they do not know about the matter. While we have a profound admiration for the genius of the Secretary of State for War as a member of the English bar, he will, I am sure, excuse us for thinking he knows very little about the law of Ireland. If he did he would understand why this clause meets with so considerable an amount of opposition from us. I entirely fail to see why he should object to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Mr. HALDANE

We have tried to do the very best we can in drafting this clause. It is not one which puts anybody under the jurisdiction of this tribunal. It is a clause which enables a person who wants information to apply to any tribunal he pleases which has any jurisdiction at all. Under it you may pick your tribunal, and if a man does not like the tribunal he need not go to it. We thought it better that it should not consist of a single justice of the peace, but that it should be either two justices sitting together in public court, or some magistrate or officer empowered by law to do the work of two or more justices sitting in open court.

Mr. MacVEAGH

What does the word "officer" mean?

Mr. HALDANE

I have said if a man does not like the tribunal he need not go before it.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Then what tribunal is he to go to?

Mr. HALDANE

He is to go either to two justices sitting in open court or to some magistrate or officer. The latter must be an officer empowered to do the work which is done by more than one justice of the peace, and he must be a judicial officer authorised for the purpose. As I have said, we have taken the section in the Army Act, which has been carefully drafted for this purpose.

Mr. MOONEY

It is quite true that an appeal under this section is an appeal by a person who may be aggrieved or who may want to get information. But that is not our point. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that a court of summary jurisdiction must be constituted of two or more justices of the peace, but I venture to point out that the option does not rest with the individual of choosing which tribunal he shall go before. He may be compelled to go before a resident magistrate, who will not call in the assistance of another magistrate, but will insist on sitting alone. We want to avoid compelling an individual with a grievance to go before a resident magistrate, who will sit where he likes. I do think there should be some clearer definition of this provision.

Mr. HALDANE

If the hon. Member will read section 166 he will see that it is provided that any proceedings taken before a court of summary jurisdiction in pursuance of this Act shall be taken in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Act.

Mr. MOONEY

That is my point. We want a definition of what is a court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. During the last few years such courts have been constituted under many different Acts, and I am asking for a clear definition of the term. Why cannot you define the Act by saying the Act of 1879, of 1884, or of 1852, but whatever you do, take away this power for one individual to sit in summary fashion without hearing evidence at all.

Division No. 62.]	AYES.	[3.29 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Haworth, Arthur A.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Hedges, A. Paget	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Beauchamp, E.	Henry, Charles S.	Robinson, S.
Bennett, E. N.	Higham, John Sharp	Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Black, Arthur W.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Brace William	Horniman, Emstie John	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Brace William	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Rowlands, J.
Burns, Rt. Hod; John	Hudson, Walter	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Illingworth, Percy H.	Seely, Colonel
Byles, William Pollard	Jardine, Sir J.	Sllcock, Thomas Ball
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Simon, John Allsebrook
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)
Clough, William	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Levy, Sir Maurice	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lewis, John Herbert	Summerbell, T.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Lupton, Arnold	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Lyell, Charles Henry	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Duckworth, Sir James	M'Micking, Major G.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)	Markham, Arthur Basil	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Elibank, Master of	Marnham, F. J.	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Essex, R. W.	Mond, A.	Wiles, Thomas
Everett, R. Lacey	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Wilkie, Alexander
Fenwick, Charles	Nicholls, George	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Ferens, T. R.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Williams, W. (Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Fuller, John Michael F.	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Partington, Oswald	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Wilson, p. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)	Radford, G. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	Rainy, A. Rolland
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

NOES.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Kilbride, Denis	Seddon, J.
Bowerman, C. W.	Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Stanier, Beville
Bowles, G. Stewart	MacCaw, Wm. J. Maceagh	Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Macpherson, J. T.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Dalrymple, Viscount	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, s.)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morpeth, Viscount
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Remnant, James Farquharson	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mooney and Mr. Hazleton.
Hogan, Michael	Renwick, George
Jenkins, J	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The next two Amendments have been disposed of, and we come, to the next one, in the name of Captain Craig.

Mr. RENWICK

Before that I move to report progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must wait until he is called upon. I called upon the hon. Member whose name is on the Paper.

Mr. CLAUDE HAY

On a point of order, is it not competent for any Member of this House in Committee to rise to move to report progress?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Member who has the Amendment next on the Question put: "Clause 7, page 5, line 15, leave out from 'police' to 'but' in line 17. That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 23.

Paper has the first right of being called. If he does not rise, of course, someone else may go on.

Captain CRAIG

As my hon. Friend below me had some difficulty in moving to report progress, I will, instead of moving the next Amendment in my name, move to report progress, on the ground that the Secretary of State for War has not, throughout this long, intricate, and most extraordinary Bill, given way one inch to the Amendments moved from any part of the House. It shows that there is something behind the mere explanations which are given from the Front Bench against these Amendments. I cannot recall any Bill of this magnitude going through the House without the Minister in charge agreeing to a few of the Amendments. It has been all take and no give since the debate started, although there has not been one frivolous Amendment moved. This Bill, especially as regards clause 4, revolutionises practically the whole office with which the right hon. Gentleman is connected. I do not suppose any Minister has received during his tenure of office such courteous treatment from the Opposition as the right hon. Gentleman has received to - night. Why has the right hon. Gentleman refused all Amendments? Is it to save a Report stage or not? It will shorten debates very much if the right hon. Gentleman will say he cannot and will not take a single Amendment proposed in any part of the House. Then we shall know where we are, and that under no circumstances no matter how wise we are, and how foolish the clause may be, the right hon. Gentleman will not accept any Amendment, and we on these benches must make up our minds to adopt different tactics. If the right hon. Gentleman admits that he will not amend the Bill, so as to save another stage, it means that discussion is absolutely useless, and the whole debate resolves itself into a farce.

Question proposed: "That I report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Craig.]

The PATRONAGE SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. J. A. Pease)

Of course I am not prepared to criticise in any way the character of the Amendments which have been moved to this Bill. We desire to meet any fair criticism of the Bill perfectly fairly, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that having had some communication with the leaders of the party in opposition, I offered them a morning sitting with a view to enabling them to discuss this Bill during a reasonable period of the sittings of the House. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Somersetshire whether he thought that would be a satisfactory arrangement, and I understood from him that it would be. If he or any hon. Member opposite had made representations to me that there was a desire for more than an ordinary morning sitting, I should have endeavoured to respond to that demand. It has been our desire that every proposal in this Bill should have proper discussion at a reasonable hour, and we were under the impression that by affording the House a full morning sitting there would be ample opportunity for dis- cussion. I regret that the Opposition have not thought it necessary to follow the course which was suggested to the Front Opposition Bench, but I am afraid it is absolutely essential that this Bill must be passed through its Committee stage tonight.

Mr. CLAUDE HAY

Without Amendment?

Mr. J. A. PEASE

With regard to Amendment, that must rest between the Secretary of State and the House. The whole discipline of the Army depends upon this Bill being passed through by a certain period of the year, and, having regard to the Easter holidays, it will be necessary for this Bill to be read a first time this day in another place in order that it may be printed and circulated and considered there at the end of the Easter Recess. Therefore, we are obliged, I am sorry to say, to sit up to-night in order that the remaining clauses of the Bill may be passed through, and I trust there will be no undue delay in passing this Bill.

Mr. MOONEY

This is not an ordinary Army (Annual) Bill, and, even if it were, the hon. Gentleman must remember that a very considerable amount of time has been taken up by the old Army (Annual) Bills, which practically renewed the same provisions year after year. There was no more stout opponent of that Bill than the present Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Colonel SEELY

I regret that I should have said anything to create any misunderstanding. I said that on the occasion when we obstructed the Army (Annual) Bill we did it for a definite purpose of party policy; but, as my right hon. Friend has just explained, there was an understanding with the chief Opposition Whips, and that was the only reason for any interruption. I would be the last to make any charge of bad faith against hon. Gentlemen opposite, but there was a distinct understanding with the chief Opposition Whip that, if the Bill had a morning sitting and was fully discussed, there should be no undue delay in its passing into law.

Mr. MOONEY

I am glad the hon. Gentleman does not say that we have made any bargain. We made no bargain. The hon. Gentleman talks about obstruction, but any Amendment which I put down was not put forward with the intention of obstructing the Bill. All I did was to put down Amendments which I thought fair and reasonable; and I do not think it is fair to say that the Bill, which makes hay with the old Army Act, should go through after a few hours' discussion when the old Bill itself occasionally took the whole day. It makes a complete revolution in our Army system; and yet, when we bring forward perfectly reasonable Amendments, and in no spirit of obstruction, we are met by the right hon. Gentleman, who says he has considered this and has considered that and will not do it. I do not think he is going the best way about to get his Bill through quickly, and I really think we ought to report progress. If my hon. Friend had not moved to report progress I should have done so on another ground, because the Bill makes a complete revolution in police administration in Ireland, and there is no official representative—neither the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General, nor the Solicitor-General for Ireland, here: On that ground, I should have moved to report progress if my hon. Friend had not done so.

Mr. REMNANT

I strongly resent the very unnecessary remark by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The Chief Government Whip, in terms with which no one could find fault, led us to imagine that some arrangement had been made with our own Whips on this side. All I can say is that until he mentioned it a few minutes ago I had never heard of any such arrangement having been made with anybody on this side of the House; and for the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to call across the floor of the House that a bargain was made and had been broken—

Colonel SEELY

I did not say it had been broken.

Mr. REMNANT

What was your objection then?

Colonel SEELY

I am sure I would be the last to endeavour to bring heat at this time into the debate. The hon. Gentleman opposite was referring to me and accusing me of having caused the delay during the debates on the Army (Annual) Acts in previous years. Do not let us have any misunderstanding. In order to avoid any, may I say at once that I did not suggest that there was any breach of bargain, nor did I say one word to suggest it.

Mr. REMNANT

Why did you mention the word "bargain"?

Colonel SEELY

I said that on the occasion mentioned, when we had been fighting the Army (Annual) Act, there had been no bargain, whereas we had just heard that there was a bargain. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that there was an arrangement made through the ordinary channels that the debate should not continue beyond ordinary limits. If that is not the case, or hon. Gentlemen opposite did not understand it was, I at once withdraw any imputation of that kind. I thought it was fully understood that there was a sort of undertaking that we should not sit too late. I assure the hon. Gentleman I wish to say nothing offensive to him or his hon. Friends.

Mr. REMNANT

I could not understand the cause or reason of the hon. Gentleman's throwing the charge of breach of faith across the floor of the House, and neither can I understand his long and rambling explanation. I am, however, quite sure we may leave ourselves in your hands, Mr. Emmott. As an hon. Member has pointed out, it is useless bringing forward any Amendments. They will not be accepted. No concession has been made during the whole course of the debate. I had assumed that after what the Chief Government Whip has said there would have been a strong disposition to accept the inevitable, but after the insulting remark of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott)

I do not think the hon. Member should use that expression with regard to what the Under-Secretary for the Colonies has said. It is said that a bargain had been made with certain hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who-are not present, and who are therefore carrying out their part of the bargain.

Mr. REMNANT

I do not think you understand, Sir. He pointed to us and said a bargain had been made.

Colonel SEELY

I have already said that if the hon. Gentleman opposite knew nothing of this arrangement I will unreservedly withdraw any imputation I may have made. However angry he may be with me, I refuse to be angry with him.

Mr. REMNANT

Of course, I accept what the hon. Member has said—namely, that he did not mean what he said, and that he did not mean to insult in any way. May I ask the Chief Government Whip one question? Will he say whether any undertaking was given by our Whips on this side that this debate was not to be prolonged in this way?

Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

I cannot say there was any bargain in the sense which was perhaps in the minds of the hon. Members when the word was used. But my recollection of the understanding with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Somerset is that if we gave a morning sitting to the Army (Annual) Bill in Committee it would be all right. I understood that, at any rate, there would be no prolonged discussion beyond the morning sitting. I cannot say more.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

Whatever arrangement may have been made by occupants of the Front Benches, nobody will suggest that there was any arrangement with the Irish Members or with the Labour Members. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot be taken as consenting parties to this Bill, and that we must exert strenuous opposition. I support the Motion to report progress. I do so the more readily because I so seldom agree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Down, and I cannot resist the opportunity on this occasion. And I cannot resist the temptation to agree with him on this occasion because he really made a sensible speech. I will suggest a way out of the difficulty which has arisen. As the Secretary of State for War does not want to accept any Amendment, I suggest that he should tell us now that when the Bill gets to the other place he will have this billeting business for Ireland struck out of the Act. If he will tell us that we shall be quite satisfied. We do not want this billeting in Ireland. We have been here now for 16 hours. I was tired over an hour ago, when I remembered that in another eight hours we have to be down here again. If there is no consideration for Members of this House, surely the officials of the House should be considered ! I would urge the right hon. Gentleman, with the object of bringing these proceedings to a close and of letting everybody go home perfectly satisfied, to give us the undertaking that I have suggested. This is a most important Bill, but there is nobody on the Front Ministerial Bench to represent either Ireland or Scotland, and even on the Front Opposition Bench there is not a soul to be seen. All the Members identified with the Front Opposition Bench are slumbering peacefully at the present moment, and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are without a leader. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give the undertaking in the interests of peace and of the dignity of this House.

Mr. HALDANE

The hon. Member who has made such a good-humoured and conciliatory speech has done something to help the situation. Let me say at once that I hope my attitude has not appeared discourteous or unreasonable. I have tried to do my best on the question relating to a possible outbreak of war and provision for billeting in Ireland. I cannot alter my attitude. After all the difficulty as to that is this, that Ireland is an integral part of the defences of the country, and we are trying to make our system of mobilisation more adequate than it has been. On the subsidiary point whether we have taken the best machinery with regard to the matter of summary jurisdiction, I will undertake to consult the Irish Law Officers as to whether we have been right or wrong before this Bill appears in another place, and if I am told we are wrong then I will take care that Amendments are brought forward as Government Amendments in the other House. There are one or two further points which I will consider in the same way. My personal impression is that I have been right in the course adopted. Anyhow, if the Committee will let this Bill go through as it stands I will undertake to have the conclusions I have referred to revised, and if there is anything dubious I will arrange for such Amendments as will meet the justice of the case.

Mr. REN WICK

In the course of this debate there have been two or three suggestions that we have disregarded an arrangement. We never heard a single word about any arrangement. I do not think I can be accused of obstruction. I have not put a single Amendment down on the Paper; but I considered that there were several most important Constitutional changes proposed in this Bill, and I felt it my duty to criticise them. So serious are these Amendments that hon. Members will be surprised when they see the effect of them. I am equally surprised at the proposal that we should hurry this Bill through the House without discussion in order that it may be adequately debated in another place. I maintain that this is the proper place for discussing a measure of this description and I confess I am somewhat astonished at this testimonial from the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the efficacy of another place for debating Bills of this nature. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us now to adjourn. We have several other important Amendments to bring forward. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges there may be points which require further discussion, and he says he will arrange to have them dealt with in another place. But what opportunity shall we have of considering them? I can assure him there is no desire on our part to retard this Bill. I, for one, would far rather help him to carry it through, but I do think it requires further consideration and that the House is not in a fit condition to give it that consideration this night.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

I must express my surprise that when our whips were here at a quarter-past eight nothing was said about the arrangement which we are now told was come to. We fully acknowledge the great courtesy of the Secretary to the Treasury, who has admitted that there really was no bargain made. We acknowledge, too, that the action of the Government in setting apart a morning sitting for the consideration of this Bill was something out of the common for which we ought to be grateful. But in this particular Bill there are two matters of vital importance as well as absolutely new. One is the question of transport and the other is the new proposal as to billeting. Hon. Members opposite. who have shown themselves rather restive should do us the justice to remember that it would have been the easiest possible thing for any of us to have put down 30 or 40 new clauses, not one of which could possibly have been disposed of, even with the aid of the Closure, under half-an-hour, and had we been minded to obstruct the Bill we could have prolonged the debate over Good Friday. There ought, therefore, to be equal courtesy shown on both sides. Now the question of billeting is a very important one. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has been discourteous, but may he not have shown himself a little obstinate? If only he had been prepared to make some concessions at an earlier stage I do not think this debate would have lasted so long.

Mr. HAY

I wish also to join in the appeal for an adjournment of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that this Bill is one of the greatest importance. He has also stated that it is absolutely necessary for the effective defence of Great Britain and Ireland that it should be passed, and surely, under such circumstances, he could not expect it to go through in the course of one afternoon. I have had no knowledge of any bargain or understanding between the sides of the House and I do not think I can fairly be accused of being guilty of any breach of understanding. I would put forward one further reason for adjourning the debate. When the original understanding was come to that the Bill should be taken to-day it had not been printed, and it is only since then that we have been enabled to realise the im mensity of the proposals embodied in it. We now see that it requires close scrutiny and full and careful discussion, and I do think it is a pretty tall order for any Minister to come down with a Bill like this and practically say, "I refuse to accept any Amendment of any sort or kind, big or small; you must leave it in my hands and I alone will make any alteration I may think fit." That is not what we deem to be Parliamentary discussion, and I am perfectly confident, when the proceedings of to-night are made public, the country will realise for the first time the importance of the changes which are being thrust upon it with regard to military organisation—changes which seriously trench on the rights of the people.

Mr. BOWLES

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War throughout this debate has shown the greatest possible courtesy to us on this side, and nobody, I am sure, would desire to minimise the efforts he has made to deal fairly by us. But the situation is this: The right hon. Gentleman and we ourselves must realise that the House of Commons, in dealing with this Bill, is placed, through the action of the Government, in a position of absolute incapacity. That is a position for which the Government is responsible and in which the House of Commons ought not to be put. It is not reasonable. It is in fact an impossible situation from the point of view of the House itself, that, on a Bill like this, which makes great and far-reaching changes in the law, the House should be absolutely prevented from dealing in any way, good or bad, with the provisions of the Bill. It is reducing Parliamentary discussion to an absolute farce.

While the right hon. Gentleman may be wrong, while there may be some matters in which he himself may wish to see this Bill amended, the situation is such that he is unable to make any Amendment, and if it is to be made at all, it must be made by Noble Lords in another place. I do not see, in these circumstances, what earthly good can be served by prolonging the discussion on this Bill. We do not stay here till this hour in the morning to amuse ourselves. I have sat here with the hope, it may have been a vain hope, that some of the arguments which we have brought forward might prevail. Now the House is told that, however forcible the arguments may be, this Bill is to be taken as it stands. I think, and I believe the House itself thinks, and I am sure the country will think, that the House of Commons ought not to be absolutely gagged, tied, and bound on a Bill of this sort.

Mr. HAZLETON

I think it is only right that the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood should be noticed from these Benches. I quite agree with what he has said about the country and the right hon. Gentleman, but hon. Members have felt it their duty, not from any motives of obstruction, but honestly, and on their merits, to oppose certain proposals in this Bill. In regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newry, the right hon. Gentleman has at least weakened in his attitude, but while acknowledging that, I would like to point out that that is only one detail in regard to clause 7, to which we are, on its merits, unalterably opposed.

Mr. MARKHAM

Year by year we get to the same pass on this Army (Annual) Bill, and I entirely agree with a great part of what the hon. Member for Norwood has said. Cannot the Government so divide the time that Amendments which are reasonable can be accepted. We all know the difficulty which the Secretary

Division No. 63.]	AYES.	[4.25 a.m.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Hogan, Michael	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Bowies, G. Stewart	Kilbride, Denis	Stanier, Beville
Dalrympte, Viscount	MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Macpherson, J. T.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Craig and Mr. Remnant
Hazleton, Richard	Remnant, James Farquharson

NOES.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.	Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Beauchamp, E.	Crooks, William	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Bennett, E. N.	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Haworth, Arthur A.
Black, Arthur W.	Duckworth, Sir James	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.
Bowerman, C W.	Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)	Hedges, A. Paget
Brace, William	Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen)
Brodie, H. C.	Elibank, Master of	Henry, Charles S.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Essex, R. W.	Higham, John Sharp
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles	Everett, R. Lacey	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Byles, William Pollard	Fenwick, Charles	Horniman, Emslie John
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Ferens, T. R.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight	Fuller, John Michael F.	Hudson, Walter
Clough, William	Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Illingworth, Percy H.

of State for War is in, and that if he accepts any Amendment he has to go through the report stage. It is exactly the same whichever party is in power. If the Government can see their way to get rid of this system and make the House the deliberative assembly which it ought to be, it will be a good thing.

Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

So far as I am able I shall be very glad to communicate with the various parties in the House, another year with the approval of the Prime Minister, and try to make arrangements by which more reasonable opportunities may be given to the Amendment of the Bill than appear to have been given this year.

Mr. J. MacVEAGH

It would be churlish not to acknowledge the courtesy of the Secretary of State for War. We have secured two satisfactory results from this discussion. We have the satisfactory assurance just given, and we have the assurance that the position with regard to Ireland will be considered. At the same time I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood in regard to placing this House in a position of inferiority to the House of Lords. That is a practice which should not be encouraged. The fact that we are told that these Amendments can be made by the House of Lords weakens the demand made by the hon. Gentlemen opposite that the House of Lords shall be abolished.

Question put, "That I report progress and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided. Ayes, 15; Noes, 107.

Jardine, Sir J.	Partington, Oswald	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Jenkins, J.	Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)	Summerbell, T.
Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Radford, G. H.	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)
Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Rainy, A. Rolland	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Ridsdale, E. A.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lewis, John Herbert	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Lupton, Arnold	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
Lyell, Charles Henry	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Robinson, S.	Wiles, Thomas
M'Micking, Major G.	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Wilkie, Alexander
Markham, Arthur Basil	Rogers, F. E. Newman	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Marks, G Croydon (Launceston)	Rowlands, J.	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Marnham, F. J.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Wills, Arthur Walters
Mond, A.	Seddon, J.	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Seely, Colonel	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)	Silcock, Thomas Bali
Nicholls, George	Simon, John Allsebrook	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Parker, James (Halifax)	Strachey, Sir Edward

Captain CRAIG

The unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves with regard to Amendments places me in an awkward position. As the Government have announced that they will not, or cannot, accept any Amendment, I shall not obstruct the time of the Committee by moving any more Amendments. It was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not let us know earlier in the evening that it was waste of time to move these Amendments. Had he done so I certainly should not have moved some I have moved. The right hon. Gentleman has now led the Committee to understand that Amendments are so much waste of breath, because no matter how sound they may be they will not be accepted by the Government. I take that as a very grave state of affairs, but I bow to the inevitable, and do not propose to move any more Amendments standing in my name.

Question proposed: "That the clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. HAY

I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take steps to lay upon the Table of the House shortly after the passing of this Bill the Instructions which will be issued by the police authorities with reference to billeting, and also a statement showing the prices to be paid to the occupier?

Mr. HALDANE

I have consulted with the Home Secretary, and he thinks we shall be able to meet the hon. Gentleman with regard to the police Instructions. It will require a little consideration whether any general Instructions are to be given, but it looks as though the general Instructions in sub-section (b) would be of such a character that they could be laid on the Table.

Mr. HAY

May I ask whether these White Papers will be laid this Session?

Mr. HALDANE

I hope so.

Mr. RENWICK

May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? In this clause there are two scales of payment for billeting. Surely it would only be fair to put the two classes on the same basis. I cannot see why we should differentiate in this way. I say that as an act of justice to the victualling houses they should both be put into the same category.

Mr. HALDANE

We left the matter open because we thought there were certain conditions, such as the lodgers of the inns of a victualling house also being his customer, which should be taken into account.

Mr. J. WARD

I wish to oppose this clause becoming part of the Bill. I do not think it would be right to allow such an alteration in the Constitution to be made without protest. For the first time in the history of the country we are going to pass into law a provision whereby military authorities will have power to billet soldiers, not only on those who hold licences from the State, but on private dwellings at a moment's notice or without any notice at all. I say that is an innovation which the House of Commons ought never to allow without some protest being made. There may be some who think it is quite proper that we should encroach upon the rights of the civilian population and increase the powers of the military authorities in every possible direction, but I am not one of those who believe in that policy at all. I notice that the clause says that the power may be exercised on the embodiment of the Territorial Army. It is not necessary even for the country to be at war for an embodiment either of the whole or part of the Territorial Army to take place. Under certain conditions, when the first reserve is called out for permanent service, the King by Proclamation can proceed to embody the whole or part of the Territorial Force, and from that moment in that part of the country where they may happen to be embodied they may be quartered, if we pass this clause, not only on public buildings or on licensed victuallers and others who well understand the engagements they entered into in reference to this matter when they took their licence, but the privacy of the home is to be invaded. There need not be any prospect of war at home, and there need be no war in Europe at all to embody the Territorial Army; and yet, immediately on its embodiment, this part of the clause becomes law, and the Territorial Army may be billeted on the citizens. I well remember when the military forces were applied for during the great dispute in the coal trade in Chesterfield in the early nineties. Except for the billeting of non-commissioned officers on the public-houses, the military authorities had no power to billet the private soldiers, and they naturally made their own camping and provisioning arrangements. It would have been a great hardship on the colliers of Chesterfield if they had had quartered on them the military forces called in to threaten, and, it might be, to shoot them. This is a peculiar and most unusual kind of suggestion, and I, at any rate, am going to do all I can to protest against it. I think the House of Commons would be foregoing one of its main privileges if it allowed such a breach of civil rights as this to be enacted without protest. There have been sneers that this is mere obstruction. It is nothing of the kind. I have never stood in opposition to the Government, and do not wish to oppose them now; but I certainly am not going to allow great Constitutional changes of this description to be made without protesting and without taking a Division of this House just because some hon. Gentlemen think it is necessary to support the Government on every possible occasion. I am prepared to use all the forms of the House, and even to sit here a whole week, if I could persuade a sufficient number of Members to do so on this one point, whether the homes of private citizens are liable to be invaded for no national reasons at all. I can quite understand that if there were a great emergency, a possible invasion, or some contingency that one could foresee, all property would become liable to military control. Everybody understands that, and does not object to it, but that is not this clause. It is on the embodiment of the Territorial Army that this billeting power will apply and, when the first reserve is called up proclamations to embody the whole or part of the Territorial Army can be issued at once. There may be no fear of invasion of this country and no prospect of war within 7,000 miles of these shores, and yet the power of billeting on the private citizen may apply. It ought at least to be limited to occasions of national danger, and this enormous power to invade civil rights and privileges ought not to be allowed to be used except under the strictest conditions. One can see that gradually the military spirit is being put foremost. On whom will the private soldier be quartered? Is he likely to be quartered on the villas in the west end of our towns? Nothing of the sort. The officers, I notice, have to pay for everything, and you may be sure that they will be quartered with people who could afford to quarter them for nothing. But the private soldier is to be billeted for sixpence or ninepence per day. Who is he likely to be quartered with for ninepence per day? Why, of course, it is intended that he should invade the privacy of the working man's home. You are not going to quarter soldiers at ninepence per day in villas or to secure grand quarters for them for the money. No; this is intended as a very serious encroachment on the rights of the working people of this country. There are many other reasons for my objection to this policy. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has already power under certain circumstances of national danger to do what is now proposed. That may be so. If we want a Territorial Army and wish to avoid invasion, let us do the thing properly. Let us provide the men with the means of accommodation, and not drive them to invade the homes of the people. If there is only one man who is prepared to go to a Division with me on this subject, I shall put my views to the test.

Mr. HALDANE

I really think the hon. Member might have taken a little trouble to study the matter before he spoke. He has totally misunderstood the law. This power only existed on a great emergency arising. The first reserves can only be called out in case of imminent national danger and of great emergency. My hon. Friend has not done himself justice in this matter before making his statement.

Mr. MARKHAM

I wish to protest in the strongest possible way against the waste of time of this Committee by the hon. Member for Stoke. He has spoken time after time. He opposed clause 6, and—

The CHAIRMAN

I think we had better leave clause 6 alone. We are now on clause 7.

Mr. MARKHAM

The hon. Member has not even read the Bill. He has not taken the trouble to read the Act—

Mr. J. WARD

I would ask the hon. Member to mind his own business. I have read the Act, and spent much time and attention on the consideration of this subject. It is only rudeness on the part of the hon. Gentleman to—

The CHAIRMAN

Order, order. That is not a term that should be used across the floor of the House.

Mr. J. WARD (to Mr. Markham)

Your impudence led you astray.

Mr. MARKHAM

You have got a swelled head.

The CHAIRMAN

Order, order.

Ordered that clause 7 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8—(Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict, c. 58, ss. 175, 176, and 177, as to persons subject to military law).

Ordered that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9—(Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict. c. 58, s. 177, as to persons belonging to Indian and Colonial forces).

Ordered that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10—(Application of Army Act to men of the Reserve forces).

Ordered that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11—(Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict. c. 58, s. 190, as to definition of the expression "Governor").

Ordered that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. HUGH LEA moved the following new clause (clause 12): "Nothing in this Act shall in any way be retrospective."

He said: I listened very earnestly to the protestations of the right hon. Gentleman in relation to clause 4, and what he said about matters to be brought before the Army Council. The right hon. Gentleman gave us only his pious opinions. We have got absolutely no guarantee whatever that his opinions may not be overruled in the first case that comes forward. Turning to Mr. Haldane, the hon. Gentleman said. The first fee I ever paid for a legal opinion was to the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Haldane. It will be competent to introduce this Amendment; it will not interfere with the Act at all, and it is not going to cause the right hon. Gentleman any bother. I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to put in this new clause.

Mr. HALDANE

What the effect of these words would be I cannot tell. There are definition clauses throughout this Act on which the proposed clause might have a very prejudicial effect, and, therefore, I cannot accept it. The best legal opinion has been taken on clause 4, and it is felt that there is nothing in the clause that would prejudice Lieutenant Wood's case, but if I should be wrong in the matter, and Lieutenant Wood's case should seem to be prejudiced by anything in this Bill, I will take steps to put matters right.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

I think after the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has given us his assurance on two occasions it should have been frankly accepted. I am very sorry to find this Amendment moved, but it cannot be done seriously. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with Lieutenant Wood's case, and I think it is a pity that this new clause should be moved.

Mr. SEDDON

I think it only fair to my hon. Friend who moved this new clause to say that when he drafted it the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has now given to the House had not been given. I am certain that he will now withdraw it.

Mr. LEA

I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RENWICK

I have handed in an Amendment to rearrange the maximum prices in the first schedule. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he had left the question of prices open, but. according to clause 3, the keeper of a victualling house is to be paid the prices specified in this schedule. I propose to amend those prices. I suggest that instead of allowing 4d. only for a soldier's breakfast the amount shall be 8d., and that, I think, is small enough. Again, I would give 1s. 10d. for his dinner instead of 11½d., and for his supper 6d. instead of 2½d. I do not, however, wish to press this Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that he will reconsider this schedule on these lines, especially in the case of the mobilisation of troops in times of imminent peril, so that the licensed victuallers' remuneration may be fixed by the Army Council.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

I should like to know what is the meaning of the word "maximum." Does it mean that the licensed victualler may be paid an even smaller amount than the price fixed in the schedule? If it does, then I should like to know what is to be the minimum paid.

Mr. HALDANE

Of course, if the licensed victualler will take a smaller amount we shall only be too delighted, but we cannot compel him to do that. I may point out that the schedule of prices was revised the year before last, and considerable changes were made in it, but I can assure the hon. Member for Newcastle I will further consider this matter with an open mind, although I would point out that the prices we propose are by no means inadequate, and that those which he suggests would very nearly double the cost.

Mr. RENWICK

I quite admit that in normal times the schedule is fair and reasonable, but I want to point out that in the event of mobilisation at a time of imminent peril prices of food may be considerably increased, and I do not think that in that case the allowance to the licensed victualler would be sufficient. Under the circumstances I will not press my Amendment.

Mr. HALDANE

I will undertake to consider the whole thing.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

What is the meaning of the note at the foot of the schedule that an officer shall pay for his food? If the note were not there could it reasonably be assumed that he would get it without paying for it? I do suggest that the next time the right hon. Gentleman brings this Bill in, and I hope he will have an opportunity of doing so, unless my friends on this side of the House should come into office, he will leave out such an anachronism as this.

Schedule 1 put and agreed to.

On Schedule 2,

Mr. J. WARD

Will you put from the Chair parts 1 and 2 of this schedule separately? I wish to vote against part 2.

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot put them separately.

Mr. J. WARD

Then I shall have to vote against the whole schedule.

Mr. HAY

I wish to raise a question about the treatment of military offenders. I do not think any provision has been made to treat first offenders separately from other prisoners, as is done in the case of civil prisoners. There is no provision for the treatment of military prisoners in the detention barracks, or for giving them the benefit of the Borstal treatment. I would strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Commissioners in H.M. prisons with a view to that special treatment for first offenders which has proved so successful elsewhere.

Mr. JOHN WARD

I wish to make an observation or two in regard to part 2 of this schedule. I know that earlier in the debate the right hon. Gentleman said he did not propose to transfer any important powers from himself to the Army Council, and it was decided that it was on part 2 of the schedule that the matter should be discussed. While there may be some minor powers to be transferred there are some which, from the point of view of the common soldier, are very important. If these are transferred from the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible to this House, to the Army Council which is not, it will be very serious. For instance, in-section 77 of the Memorandum the name of the Secretary of State will be struck out, and it will be the Army Council which will decide the terms of enlistment and the conditions under which a soldier-will have to serve. In section 78 the power will be transferred to the Army Council to decide whether a man shall enter the Reserve and to decide his length of service, and one hundred and one other things, which are very important to a soldier, for his pension depends on them. In section 79 the powers as to fraudulent enlistment and punishment for the same are handed to the Army Council. Then in section 80 the powers of the Secretary of State in regard to false entries on enlistment and the right to revise the sentences are transferred. There are other matters in reference to recruiting and other things where the Secretary of State now has power to vary the conditions. It appears to me that the idea underlying all this is to deprive this House of opportunities to discuss these matters. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman requires more time to discuss and decide questions of policy, and that the consideration of details hinders the work of his department, but if we transfer these powers we shall not be able to criticise the right hon. Gentleman as we can now. We may not only lose the power to discuss these details, but we may lose the power to alter the decisions which may be arrived at, for naturally the right hon. Gentleman will consider it his duty to defend the Army Council. That is the reason I want to exclude part 2 of the schedule.

Mr. HALDANE

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have gone very closely into this matter, and my responsibility will not be one whit diminished. The hon. Gentleman says truly that the Minister responsible should be free to devote himself to large administrative policy, but that will not prevent him from looking closely into these matters, for which he will be just as responsible after the passing of this Bill as at the present time.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without Amendment, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott) in the chair.

Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be read the third time."

Mr. HAY

I think it a very strong order that the right hon. Gentleman should try to take the third reading now. The House meets again in a few hours, and it will be perfectly easy to take the third reading then. I protest very strongly against rushing the Bill through in this way.

Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

At any rate, it was a definite understanding with the leaders of the Opposition that the third reading should be taken at this sitting. I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division of Somersetshire that the third reading must be taken to-night or at the commencement of the proceedings this day, and he said that there would be no difficulty whatever in securing the third reading. Arrangements have been made in that direction, and I hope the House may see its way to give the third reading to-day. In that event the Government have put down no other orders for to-day, save the Motion for the adjournment.

Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD

As I understand from the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury there was a definite understanding that the third reading should be taken now. I think it is our duty so far as we on these benches are concerned to carry that understanding into effect. It is only where there is no Amendment made in Committee that it is possible under the Standing Orders for this to be done, and this throws some light upon the way in which the matters have been dealt with in Committee. At the same time we have not been informed that there was any such arrangement, but after the explanation just given we are prepared to carry out the bargain, though we certainly think that this is a Bill upon which there ought to have been a proper opportunity of discussion on third reading.

Mr. J. WARD

I wish to protest against this Bill. I have listened to the whole of the debate, and while I have been satisfied with some of the explanations which the right hon. Gentleman has given it does not in any way mitigate the suspicion which I have to the general tendency of the Bill, or alter my opinion that it is in the wrong direction. Yesterday the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean pointed out that the proposal contained in clause 4, transferring an immense amount of authority from the Secretary of State to the nebulous body called the Army Council, had been proposed by the last Government, and that as a consequence the Liberal Opposition criticised the measure to such an extent that it was decided it should not be part of the Army (Annual) Bill. To come back to the conditions previously condemned by the Liberal party when in opposition, and include these novel and unconstitutional principles in a Bill that is to be hurried through the House in a few days, is not the way to treat the House or the supporters of the Government. Under these circumstances I shall do my best to protest against it. I allowed clause 7 to slip through while resenting the interference of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division. If the hon. Member was put up to insult me so as to divert my attention and thus avoid a Division he was successful.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I think the word "insult" has been flung too often across the floor of the House during the debate.

Mr. J. WARD

The hon. Member's action, however, will not prevent me from going to a Division on the third reading. I object to many things in the Bill, and two things in particular. The proposed enormous delegation of powers to a nebulous body called the Army Council and the billeting of soldiers on private individuals are quite sufficient reasons to justify me and my friends interested in Liberal principles dividing on the third reading.

Mr. HAZLETON

I opposed this Bill in Committee, and intend to oppose it on the third reading. We regard this, so far as Ireland is concerned, as a very bad Bill indeed. We consider it is setting up a bad precedent in Ireland which the Government will one day regret. We have made our protest, and I hope those who have joined us throughout this debate will force that Motion to a Division.

Mr. HUGH LEA

I rise to add my protest to that of the hon. Member for Stoke. I sincerely hope he will carry the matter to a Division. I look upon the proposal to delegate these powers to the Army Council merely as a corollary to the reactionary ideas embodied in the Territorial Army scheme. Two years ago I viewed with the greatest amount of disfavour the idea of transforming the old Volunteers and Militia into a kind of Territorial body and subjecting them to martial law, which

Division No. 64.]	AYES.	[5.30 a.m.
Acland, Francis Dyke	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)	Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.	Robinson, S.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Hedges, A. Paget	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)
Beauchamp, E.	Higham, John Sharp	Rogers, F. E. Newman
Bennett, E. N.	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.	Rowlands, J.
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Horniman, Emslie John	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Black, Arthur w.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Bowerman, C. W.	Illingworth, Percy H.	Seely, Colonel
Brace, William	Jenkins, J.	Silcock, Thomas Ball
Brodie, H. C.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)	Stanier, Seville
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)	Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)	Strachey, Sir Edward
Clough, William	Levy, Sir Maurice	Straus, B. S. (Mile End)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)	Lewis, John Herbert	Summerbell, T.
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	M'Micking, Major G.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Markham, Arthur Basil	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)	Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)
Crooks, William	Marnham, F. J.	Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Dalrymple, Viscount	Mond, A.	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonsh.)
Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.
Duckworth, Sir James	Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C (Kincard.)	Wilkie, Alexander
Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)	Nicholls, George	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
Essex, R. W.	Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)
Everett, R. Lacey	Parker, James (Halifax)	Wilson, Hon. G G. (Hull, W.)
Fenwick, Charles	Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Ferens, T. R.	Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.
Fuller, John Michael F.	Radford, G. H.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John	Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Ridsdale, E. A.
Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

NOES.
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Macpherson, J. T.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. John Ward and Mr. Hazleton.
Kilbride, Denis	MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)
Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)	Seddon, J.
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

should only apply to soldiers; and here you get invasion of the private individual's home and the delegation of powers to a body of men who cannot be held responsible to this House.

Mr. LUPTON

I entirely agree with the objections made to rushing this important Bill through the House in this way. There is no power to amend it, and I think we, who work for the Government and keep them in power, should receive fair treatment in these matters. Having said that, I think the hon. Member for Stoke and the other Members who say they are going to divide will show greater sense of dignity if they simply walk out of the House. I am at a loss to understand why hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway opposite oppose the Bill. They will have it all their own way when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. Surely they have confidence in the discretion of the Upper House! I cannot understand why they should oppose it. but hon. Members on this side of the House may well object to the way in which so important a measure has been rushed through the House.

Question put: "That this Bill be now read the third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 7.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

I beg to move "That this House do meet this day at 12 o'clock."

Mr. HAY

Before that Motion is put I want to be quite clear about arrangements. Is it the intention that no business shall be taken except the Motion for the adjournment for the holidays when we meet to-day?

Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

There will be questions and one or two private Members' Bills. There will be no other public business.

Mr. HAY

Does that mean that there will not be any business beyond the Motion for adjournment?

Mr. JOSEPH PEASE

No Government business.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at Eighteen minutes before Six a.m. (7th April).