Commons Sitting of 7 March 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Several Members took and subscribed the Oath, and other Members made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Brighton and Hove Gas Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Cardiff Railway Bill,
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Devonport and District Tramways Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
East Grinstead Gas and Water Bill,
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Exmouth Gas Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Great Western Railway (General Powers) Bill,
Pontypridd Water (Extension of Time) Bill,
Slough Water Bill,
To be read a second time to-morrow.
Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill—"to confer further powers upon the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland); to vest in that company the undertaking of the Castleblayney, Keady, and Armagh Railway Company; and for other purposes."
Presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
East India (Loans) [Railways and Irrigation],
Committee to consider of authorising the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise money in the United Kingdom, on the security of the Revenues of India, for the construction, extension, and equipment of Railways in India by State agency, or through the agency of companies, and for the construction of Irrigation Works (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—[Mr. Pease.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Sporades Islands.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had received any recent information as to the intentions of the Turkish Government with regard to the Sporades Islands; and whether he could now renew the former successful intercessions of His Majesty's Government with the Sublime Porte, so as to secure for the delegates from the islands now at Constantinople a speedy and favourable response to their petition that the ancient privileges of the islanders should not be interfered with?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. Member on 9th December last, and, for the reasons then given, I do not consider that it would be in the interests of the islanders for His Majesty's Government to intervene in the internal affairs of the Turkish Empire.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Are we to understand that the Government are not going to follow precedents, but refuse altogether to intervene?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not think it is a question of following precedents. The position and circumstances are entirely altered, as was explained in the answer of 9th December.

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the First Commissioner of Works if he could state how much of the £70,000 voted as a Supplementary Estimate for the accommodation of the Labour Exchanges had so far been expended; and whether it was proposed to suspend expenditure upon permanent buildings pending an opportunity for ascertaining the utility of such exchanges?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): My Department is practically committed to the expenditure of the full sum of £70,000 provided by the Supplementary Estimate for the accommodation of Labour Exchanges during the current financial year, though some small surplus may have to be surrendered in respect of accounts which may be outstanding on 31st March next. The Board of Trade is empowered by the Labour Exchanges Act to establish and maintain Labour Exchanges in such places

  1129
  as they think fit, and I shall be prepared to comply with the lawful requirements of that Department.
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of applications for employment made to the newly-established Labour Exchanges for any period of time since they were opened, and the number of these cases in which the exchanges have been instrumental in securing employment?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD Of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): As I have already pointed out in reply to a similar question asked me by the hon. Member for Burnley on 23rd February, it is the intention of the Board of Trade to compile and issue periodical statistics of the operation of the Labour Exchanges, but only five weeks have elapsed since the opening of the first exchange, and hitherto the attention of those in charge has been largely occupied with the preliminary work of organisation and the registration of applicants. Present statistics would, therefore, be of little value. I may, however, say that as far as can be judged from the information received the exchanges have made a promising start.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman not himself got the information we have frequently asked for?
  Mr. BUXTON: A certain amount, but not in any sense in detail such as, I think, would be of value to the House. There is no desire whatever to withhold information from the House, but statistics founded upon the first two or three weeks of an entirely new system in which the officers concerned are engaged in organisation and registration would give no proper idea of the value or extent of the use to which the Labour Exchanges are put.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRIS: Is it not possible, at all events, to give the number of applications made?
  Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand from the answer it will not be possible to obtain the figures for the first month or the number of applications or the number of jobs found?
  Mr. BUXTON: I did not say so. I said I would like to give an opportunity to these exchanges to get into working order before statistics are produced, which might put—I do not say they would—an
  1130
  entirely erroneous view as to the likelihood of the success of these exchanges. That is the sole object I have in view. I am sure the Noble Lord desires, with me, that these exchanges may be a success.
  Earl WINTERTON: We shall have it eventually?
  Mr. BUXTON: Yes.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are the Labour Exchanges new to London?
  Mr. BUXTON: The National Labour Exchanges are. The others were only local.
  Sir WALTER MENZIES: Are these Labour Exchanges, on the whole, fulfilling the expectations of the Government?
  Mr. BUXTON: The phrase I used was that as far as we could judge they are making a promising start. I make some appeal to the House that we should give them a fair opportunity of carrying out their work.
  Mr. SCANLANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the trades council of Sligo and the workers in a number of other towns in the West of Ireland, as well as the county council of Sligo have called upon the Government to establish a Labour Exchange in Sligo for the province of Connaught; and whether, in order to meet the needs and the convenience of the artisans and labourers in this province, he will take steps to establish, as soon as possible, an exchange in the town of Sligo?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have received from the hon. Member a copy of a resolution passed by the Sligo Trades Council requesting the Government to establish a Labour Exchange in Sligo for the province of Connaught, and I have also received from the hon. Member for South Sligo a copy of a resolution to the same effect passed by the Sligo County Council. Both these resolutions have been noted. The further development of the Labour Exchange system in Ireland is receiving careful consideration, but it is not possible at present to provide exchanges in every important area.
  Mr. STRAUSSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether any representations have been made to him with regard to the difficulty of enabling unemployed to obtain work at a distance through the Labour Exchanges; and

  1131
  whether increased facilities for helping the men to secure work outside London are contemplated?
  Mr. BUXTON: My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has asked me to deal with this question. No representation of the kind described by the hon. Member has been received. Each Labour Exchange is in constant communication with Exchanges in other districts with a view of enabling men who cannot get work in their own districts to fill vacancies which cannot be filled by local workmen. The General Regulations made under the Labour Exchanges Act provide for the advance of travelling expenses under certain conditions.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take action to ensure that the advisory committees for juvenile employment to be formed in connection with the Labour Exchanges shall not be exclusively composed of employers and workmen, but shall include persons of experience or knowledge of education, or of social conditions, or of the problems of adolescence?
  Mr. BUXTON: I beg to refer my hon. Friend to Rule 2, Sub-section 1, of the Special Rules with regard to the registration of juvenile applicants in England and Wales, of which I have sent him a copy. He will see that it is expressly provided that the special advisory committees for juvenile employment in connection with Labour Exchanges shall include persons possessing experience or knowledge of education or of other conditions affecting young persons.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it would be within the duty of the advisory committees for juvenile employment to be established in connection with Labour Exchanges to make inquiries and issue reports with reference to local trades and industries, particularly with the view of guiding boys leaving school to occupations which give them a reasonable hope of a career as men?
  Mr. BUXTON: Rule 5 provides that the advisory committees for juvenile employment which it is proposed to establish in connection with Labour Exchanges
  1132
  "may take steps, either by themselves or in co-operation with any other bodies or persons, to give information, advice, and assistance to boys and girls and their parents with respect to the choice of employment and other matters bearing thereon." I am not at the moment prepared to define more closely the duties of these proposed committees, but the point raised by my hon. Friend shall be borne in mind.

  Queen Victoria Memorial.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he could say when the Queen Victoria Memorial, facing Buckingham Palace, would be completed; whether any time for the completion was stated in the original contract or commission; and, if so, would he state the time; and was he aware that the present condition of the Memorial was an eyesore to everyone using the Mall?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I anticipate that the work will be finished in the course of the next twelve months. No actual date for completion was fixed in the original contract; the progress of sculpture is always doubtful and it is not usual to name a date. Mr. Brock, the sculptor, asked for ten years, and the Memorial will probably be completed within seven years from the date of contract. This is probably an unexampled rate of progress for a work of this magnitude. In reply to the last paragraph, I have never yet seen any scaffolding that was not displeasing, and this one is no exception to the rule.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: What was the date of the contract?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not carry it in my head. I suppose it was six years ago; and it is likely to be completed in twelve months.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it proposed to defer the opening of the Mall into Charing Cross until the completion of the Memorial?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Oh, no. I hope to open it as soon as possible, but I am rather dependent on some work of the county council outside the confines of the Royal park.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the thoroughfare be opened this year?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Oh, certainly.

  Government Offices (Architectnre).
  Lord CLAUD HAMILTONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he would consider the expediency of removing the painted wood boarding which had for so many years disfigured the stone screen facing the entrance to the Admiralty in Whitehall; and whether he could hold out any hopes of the completion of the towers of the Home Office in Whitehall in accordance with the design of the architect?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; but the cost will be considerable, and I am not prepared at this moment to incur it. I much regret that financial exigencies will not permit me to undertake the completion of the towers at present.

  Election Sub-Agents (Elementary School Teachers).
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he had any official information showing that teachers in public elementary schools were appointed as sub-agents of political parties during the recent General Election; and, if so, whether such action on the part of Civil servants had the sanction of the Board of Education?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have no official information on the subject. My attention has been drawn to certain cases in which it is alleged that teachers in public elementary schools were so employed, and I shall be glad of any further information as to the extent to which the practice may have prevailed. Teachers in public elementary schools, however, are not technically Civil servants, and I am not sure how far the Board have any authority to interfere with their liberty of action outside the school hours. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me that, in view of their relations to the parents of their pupils, it is most undesirable that teachers should act as political agents or sub-agents in the immediate neighbourhood of their schools.

  Public Elementary Schools and Canvassing.
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention had been called to the use made of certain public elementary schools for canvassing purposes during the recent General Election; and whether
  1134
  the Board of Education could take steps to secure that no school supported out of the rates and taxes should be used during school hours for party purposes?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been called to certain cases in which teachers in public elementary schools are alleged to have attempted to influence the minds of the children under their charge in favour of a particular political party or candidate. I think it would be extremely difficult to frame rules which would effectually remove all possibility of such practices, and I am satisfied by experience that the Local Education Authorities may be trusted to suppress such practices when their attention is directed to them. I should prefer, however, to believe that the good sense and right feeling of the teachers would lead them, as a rule, to avoid any such abuse of their position.
  Mr. SILVESTER HORNE: May I ask if the question is one for the teachers when people came in from the outside; and there is real power to stop this invasion of the schools during school hours?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like to have a specific case put to me before I commit myself to a definite answer on the subject. But I think the invasion of the schools by outsiders for political purposes is to be deprecated by the local governing authorities, and by all others concerned.

  Concession of Native Lands (East Africa Protectorate).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, whether he could give the terms or consideration on which the concession of 64,000 acres of native lands were granted to Captain E. S. Grogan, by the Acting Commissioner of the East African Protectorate in 1904; whether the terms of the grant have been fully complied with; and if not, will he explain why this has not been done
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): The agreement provided for the payment by the tenant of a yearly rental of 2,000 rupees and of a royalty for every tree felled. The rent was to be deducted from any sum payable as royalty, provided that in no case should a less sum than 2,000 rupees be paid by the tenant in each year. The tenant was to fell and utilise, sell or export at least 1,000 trees in every year. The terms of the grant have not

  1135
  been fully complied with. The tenant maintains that this is due to circumstances beyond his control, and that the Government are not free from responsibility for his failure to comply with the terms of the agreement. The Government are unable to admit this contention, and have instituted proceedings for the cancellation of the agreement.

  Transvaal (£5,000,000) Loan.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he will inform the House how much of the Transvaal loan of £5,000,000 guaranteed by the Imperial Government has been raised and how much of the money has been expended; and to what specific purposes the money has been applied and particularly how much, if any, has been allocated to agricultural development, irrigation purposes, land bank operations, and pensions, respectively?
  MASTER of ELI BANK: Four million pounds have been raised, and the following are the amounts according to the finance accounts of the Transvaal issued from the Exchequer up to 30th June, 1909:

  Transvaal Land and Agricultural Bank

  £950,000

  Railways

  325,000

  Irrigation

  14,750

  Agricultural settlement and development

  55,600

  making a total, including the cost of raising the money, of £1,538,923 9s. 2d. I have no later information.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What has been the expenditure with regard to pensions?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will put that question to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, whom I hope will be in his place to-morrow.

  Chinese Labourers (South Africa).
  Mr. VERNEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether the last of the Chinamen imported into South Africa have now been sent back to their own country; whether he can give figures showing separately the numbers of white men and of natives employed in the mines in the year preceding the importation of the Chinese coolies and in each succeeding year, and the numbers of Chinamen
  1136
  leaving South Africa and remaining there in the period during which their repatriation has been going on; and whether he can give figures showing the output from the mines where the Chinese coolies were at work, beginning from two years before the Boer War down to the present time?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: The last of the Chinese labourers are, I understand, sailing to-day. I will circulate the figures with the Votes, as they would take a long time to read. [See Written Answers this day's date.]
  Mr. BYLES: May I ask the hon. Gentleman why a reply to a similar question of mine was neither given in the House, nor circulated with the Votes?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I gave directions that it should be circulated with the Votes and Proceedings, and I regret very much that it was not done. I will make inquiries. Evidently a mistake has been made.

  Lunacy Act, 1890 (Fowler v. Grant).
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had now inquired into the circumstances disclosed in the action of Fowler v. Grant, tried at the Manchester Assizes a fortnight ago, in which it appeared that a person now admitted to have been perfectly sane was committed to a lunatic asylum, and there treated as a lunatic for upwards of a year, and especially to the observations of Mr. Justice Walton that a man or woman, not a pauper, might be taken to the workhouse, shut up in an imbecile ward, and then declared to be a lunatic and placed in a lunatic asylum, without any public inquiry, any hearing before a magistrate, or any notice of what was going on; and whether he will consider the advisability of making inquiry, by means of a Select Committee or otherwise, into the working of the Lunacy Act, 1890?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Master-man): The Secretary of State has seen reports of the case, and has made inquiry. He is advised by the Lunacy Commissioners that the procedure in connection with the plaintiff's removal to an asylum was regular throughout. The action was settled by an agreement between the private parties, on which he can express no opinion; but he may say that he agrees with the Commissioners in Lunacy that when there is opportunity for legislation Section 13 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, should

  1137
  be amended, so that a patient admitted under that Section should have the same right to see a justice after admission as is conferred upon a private patient under Section 8.

  Factories and Workshops Inspection.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether the Factory Department has formed any estimate of the proportion of its inspectors' time devoted to office work during the year; and whether that proportion has increased during the decennial period ending 1909?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The proportion of the time of the district staff spent in office work in 1909 was 29 per cent. Information is not available for the years before 1904, but the proportions in that and the following years were as follows:—1904 and 1905, 26 per cent.; 1906, 27 per cent.; 1907 and 1908, 29 per cent.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary what is the number of factories and workshops not visited in 1909; and the number not visited since 1907?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: During 1909, 23,110 factories and 44,388 workshops (including men's workshops) were unvisited by factory inspectors, and 5,249 factories and 14,736 workshops were unvisited by the district staff either in 1909 or 1908. I may add that the effect of the additions recently made to the staff was not fully felt in 1909, and that considerable demands were made on the time of the staff in connection with inquiries by Departmental Committees. Four thousand new factories and workshops also were added to the list during the year, and an unusually large number of additional works were brought under regulations for dangerous trades, for which more frequent visits are required.
  Captain CRAIG: Do the figures include convents, laundries, and other monastic institutions?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think they include all the factories and workshops registered as factories and workshops?

  Newport Disaster (Recovery of Bodies).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Home Secretary whether he can state what efforts, if any, are being taken, by the dock company or their contractors to recover the bodies of the thirty-four workmen who were killed in the disaster at Newport last year, and if he has any knowledge of the difficulties of identification experienced
  1138
  by the county court judge at Newport in the compensation claims owing to the failure of the people responsible to re-excavate the collapsed trench; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Secretary of State is informed by the superintending inspector of factories for the division that owing to the shifting nature of the soil and to the incursion of water the cavity containing the wrecked timber and the bodies had to be filled with dry sand last autumn, and the newly made ground required time to settle. It was then found to be unsafe to begin the reconstruction of the collapsed trench owing to the tidal pressure, and the construction of concrete monoliths was decided upon as a precautionary measure. The engineers advised that these must be completed before the excavation of the collapsed trench could be undertaken with any measure of safety, and the work of constructing them is actively going on. The Secretary of State has no information as to the proceedings in the county court. As the hon. Member is aware, he has no jurisdiction at present in regard to works of construction of this kind, and there does not appear to be any action which he can usefully take in this matter.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Arising out of the last part of the answer, can the hon. Gentleman intimate to the County Court judge that cases ought not to be dismissed for want of identification if it is the absence of re-excavation that makes that lack possible?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the hon. Member communicate with me as to the proceedings in the County Court?

  Public Works and Accidents.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Home Secretary if he can state when it is proposed to appoint the promised Committee to inquire into the causes of accidents upon public works and possible regulations for preventing the same?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In view of the accidents which occurred last year at Birkenhead and Newport, my right hon. Friend's predecessor was intending to have special inquiry made into the dangers arising from deep excavation work in connection with the construction of docks. He agrees with his decision and proposes to appoint a small expert Committee to inquire into the matter.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate the date on which the Committee will be appointed, seeing the matter has been open for about twelve months?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: At the earliest possible moment.

  Telegrams and Telegraph Forms.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Postmaster-General what proportion the number of telegrams sent per annum bears to the number of telegraph forms printed and issued; and what the cost of these forms is per 100,000?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The proportion is, roughly, as five to six. It will be understood, of course, that a single telegram may cover more than one telegram form. As regards the cost, the contract is placed with the Stationery Office, but I may say that the prices in such contracts are usually regarded as confidential.

  Telegraphic Communication (Ireland).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Postmaster-General whether telegraphic communication between London and the South of Ireland offices, including Limerick, was totally interrupted on 20th February; whether he can state when communication was finally restored to Limerick; what delay occurred as a result of the stoppage; what provision was made to meet the extra work entailed in the affected Irish centres; and what steps, if any, were taken at either end to restore communication earlier?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Telegraphic communication between London and the South of Ireland was not totally interrupted on the 20th ultimo. Communication on the direct lines between London and Limerick was stopped on the evening of the 20th ultimo until the 23rd, but telegrams were sent by way of Dublin with a delay which, at its maximum, was of six hours. The staff was employed on overtime, and, generally, every effort was made by my officers to remedy at the earliest moment the damage caused by the storms, and to deal with the work as quickly as the wire upstanding would allow.

  Local Government Board (Additional Staffing).
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSONasked the Lord Advocate whether the scheme for additional staffing of the Local Government Board will include the appointment
  1140
  of an official with a practical knowledge of agriculture?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Alexander Ure): The scheme does not include provision for such an appointment.
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the extraordinary regulation affecting farm buildings in the different counties of Scotland to the detriment of the health regulations, as well as to the detriment of agriculture, owing to the lack of skilled central supervision?
  Mr. URE: If my hon. Friend will communicate the details I will cause inquiries.

  Wick Harbour.
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked whether the hon. Member for the Wick Burghs, or his election agent, had any authority from the Government for stating that the Government would more readily provide funds for Wick Harbour were the proposal made by a Liberal representative than they would if the application were put forward by a representative who sat upon the Opposition Benches?
  Mr. URE: The answer is in the negative.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the issue of leaflets on the eve of the election containing such assurance as embodied in the question is an infringement of the Corrupt Practices Act?
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Has not the time arrived when some extension of the Corrupt Practices Act should be made in order to cover cases of this kind?
  Mr. URE: Unanimity on this subject seems to prevail on both sides of the House.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not a fact that the facts are the other way to that indicated in the question, and that the Liberals get nothing in Scotland while the friends of the hon. Member opposite get everything?

  Dublin Brushmakers' Strike.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that a prolonged strike prevails in Dublin between the Brushmakers' Society and Messrs. Varian and Company of that city; whether any efforts have been made by his Department to bring the strike to a conclusion; and whether he can see his way to put the provisions of the Conciliation

  1141
  Act into force by offering conciliation or arbitration between the parties?
  Mr. BUXTON: As the hon. Member is aware, the good offices of the Board of Trade are always at the service of the- parties to trade disputes if they desire to avail themselves of them Inquiries have been made into the circumstances of this particular case, and I am considering whether any action can usefully be taken by my Department in the matter.

  Wheat Consumption (France and United Kingdom).
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade if he would state what was the difference between the average price per imperial quarter of wheat in London and in Paris for the year 1909?
  Mr. BUXTON: The official average price of all British wheat sold in the London market in 1909 was 37s. 6d. per imperial quarter. The official average price of all wheat—mainly home grown—sold in the Paris market was 42s. 5d. In 1909 the import of wheat and flour into France was insignificant, amounting to only about 2 per cent. of the total consumption. In 1907, when the French import was about 4 per cent. of consumption, the corresponding prices were:—London, 31s. 6d.; Paris, 41s. 1d. In 1903, when the French import was between 5 and 6 per cent. of consumption, the corresponding prices were:—London, 27s. 3d.; and Paris, 39s.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say what octroi or other duties beyond the 12s. 2d. a quarter import duty are payable upon foreign wheat sold in Paris, and what the cost of transport on foreign wheat from Havre to Paris amounts to?
  Mr. BUXTON: No octroi duty is leviable on wheat brought into Paris. I understand that the railway rate on wheat carried in sacks from Havre to Paris is from 8½ to 9 francs per metric ton, or about 1s. 6d. per quarter.
  Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say what is the average annual consumption of wheat and wheat flour per head of the population in France and the United Kingdom, respectively, for the period 1905–8?
  Mr. BUXTON: The average annual consumption of wheat per head of the population in the years 1905–8 was 511 lbs. in France and 361 lbs. in the United Kingdom. In these figures wheat flour has been taken at its equivalent in grain.

  Companies Consolidation Act (Balance Sheet Details).
  Colonel GREIGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would issue instructions to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies that the annual balance sheet required to be furnished to the Registrar under Section 26, Sub-section 3, of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, shall, in the case of public companies registered prior to the passing of the Act, be deemed sufficient and in compliance with the sub-section if it states the general nature of the assets and their value, without stating in detail the values for stock in trade, machinery and plant, and goodwill, respectively, as now required by the Registrar; and when the practice of requiring in detail such values to be stated was adopted?
  Mr. BUXTON: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Statute provides that balance sheets of public companies shall be filed annually with the Registrar, giving such particulars as will disclose the general nature of the liabilities and assets and how the values of the fixed assets have been arrived at. The Board of Trade were advised in 1908 that under this provision fixed assets must be separated from floating assets, and that the tangible or separately realisable assets, such a ships' stores or investments outside the business, should be distinguished from intangible and evanescent assets, such as goodwill. I may remind my hon. Friend that under the Companies Act, 1900, the amount payable for goodwill was required to be specified separately in the prospectus, and by the Act of 1907 this requirement was extended to statements filed in lieu of prospectus. Some difficulty in placing any separate value on "goodwill" has been experienced by companies which were registered before there was any requirement with regard to the separation of goodwill, and I am now considering whether any relaxation of the requirements can properly be made as regards such companies.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the Board of Trade see that these balance-sheets are lodged and filed, especially in Ireland?
  Mr. BUXTON: If the hon. and learned Member will give me notice I will inquire.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: And whether the Board of Trade keep a record of the companies and check off the balance-sheets received or not?
  Mr. BUXTON: I should be glad to have notice of that question.

  Lighthouses (Ireland).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of the principal lighthouses on the south coast of Ireland from the Fastnet Rock on the west to the Tusker Rock on the east, including the latter; what are the names of the fog-signal stations on the same coast, and what distance are they from each other; and can he say whether any vessels have been lost owing to fog on this coast during the last ten years?
  Mr. BUXTON: The number of principal lighthouses on the coast mentioned by my hon. Friend is ten. With his permission I will have the list with the particulars asked for printed with the Votes.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman gratify the hon. Member by printing the information in Irish?
  Mr. JOYCE: I have not the least objection if the right hon. Gentleman will do so.

  Antarctic Ship "Scotia."
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that during the Antarctic voyage of the Scottish National Antarctic ship "Scotia," in 1902–3, the captain of the "Scotia" put in at the Falkland Islands and applied to the representative of the Board of Admiralty for a supply of coal; what price was charged by the Admiralty; whether any purchase of coal was made by the captain of the "Scotia;" and whether the Admiralty made a charge for scientific apparatus lent to the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): Supplies of coal were made to the captain of the "Scotia" in December, 1903, and February, 1904, from the Admiralty stock at the Falkland Islands, and repayment was made to the Admiralty at the then standard official price, namely, £170 for 68½ tons of coal, including labour charges for handling. No charge was made for loan of scientific apparatus.

  Welsh Coal (Reserves).
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the First Lord whether, in view of his statement of 30th March, 1909, that it is not considered in the interests of the Service to use north-country coal, such reserves of Welsh coal are at hand so as to render the Admiralty independent of the consequences of a possible coal strike in Wales?
  Mr. McKENNA: On the assumption that no strike will occur unprecedented in length and extent of area covered, provision is being made to render the Admiralty independent; but it is not in the public interest to furnish details of the arrangements made.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the reserves of Welsh coal have been increased since last July?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not carry the figures in my head, but if the hon. Member will give me notice I shall be glad to supply him with the information.
  Mr. PETO: Is it not a fact that there is something in the north country coal injurious to the boilers?
  Mr. McKENNA: North country coal can be used when sprinkled with oil, but I do not think it is quite as good for the boilers as Welsh coal.
  An Hon. MEMBER: Is it not a fact that north country coal cannot be used only in cylindrical boilers with oil without injuiry?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is a much controverted question, and I do not think the representatives of north country constituents will agree with that contention.

  Southsea Beach (Storm Damage).
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that recent storms have damaged the breakwater off Southsea beach, and swept away the dolphins, he will consider the possibility, for the satisfaction of the seagoing population of Portsmouth, of now widening the entrance between the blocks forming the breakwater and to replace the dolphins by buoys which could be removed in case of need?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not proposed to alter the design of the obstruction, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given on 9th December, 1908, to the Member for Fareham, and on 28th October, 1909, to the late Member for Portsmouth.

  Portland Harhour (Coaling Facilities).
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether attention had been called to complaints made by shipowners of the difficulties placed in the way of merchant ships coaling at Portland by the Admiralty; was he aware that the needs of the mercantile marine for coaling in Portland Harbour are now inefficiently served by ten small coaling ships without any power of self-propulsion, that these ten only contain in all 12,000 tons, and that their coaling gear is worked by hand; and will he consider the propriety of making or allowing arrangements to be made whereby one or more of these ships should be, replaced by a self-propelling coaling ship containing 8,000 tons, and fitted with modern steam appliances for loading coal, and the latest arrangements for weighing it?
  Mr. McKENNA: The subject matter of the question is the subject of litigation between the proprietors of a coaling ship and the Admiralty's representative at Portland, which has recently been decided by the Court of King's Bench, and may presently come before the Court of Appeal In the circumstances it is not desirable to make any statement which might prejudice the proceedings.

  Royal Dockyards (Pensions).
  Earl WINTERTON (on behalf of Lord Charles Beresford)asked whether the conditions as to age limit and eligibility for pension applicable to Devonport Dockyard apply equally to Portsmouth and other Royal dockyards?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply is in the affirmative.

  Returning Officers (London Boroughs).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the sheriff for the county of London is about to be appointed and that it will be part of his duty to appoint the Parliamentary returning officers for the various London boroughs, the Government will take steps to ensure that in the case of all Metropolitan boroughs for Parliamentary elections the town clerks shall be made the returning officers, as in the case of municipal and county council elections?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The duty of appointing fit persons to be returning officers for the Metropolitan boroughs rests by statute with the incoming sheriff of the county,
  1146
  and it is not within the province of the Government to interfere, whether by way of suggestion or otherwise, with the exercise by the sheriff of his statutory discretion in that behalf.

  Budget for 1909–10 (Reproduction).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked whether it is the intention of the Government to reintroduce the Budget for the year 1909–10 immediately after the House of Commons has disposed of the Resolutions dealing with the powers and privileges of the House of Lords, or whether it is the intention of the Government not to introduce that Budget until after the Resolutions have been disposed of by the House of Lords?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York on 3rd March.

  Distress Committees.
  Mr. NANNETTIasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to continue the work of the distress committees in the United Kingdom and Ireland during the years 1910–11; and, if so, will he ask Parliament for a Vote of the money to defray the expenses of these committees?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, under which distress committees act, has been continued until 31st December, 1910. The question of its further continuance and of a further Parliamentary Grant will be considered.

  Ex-Ministers' Private Income.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether, on the occasion of an ex-Minister declaring that his private income is not sufficient to maintain him, any statement is made as to what that private income is; whether any steps are taken to verify the statement; and whether the Treasury take into consideration whether that private income is or is not sufficient?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No case of the kind has occurred since I have held my present office, and I cannot say what was the practice of my predecessors. So far as official records are concerned, they appear to be confined to a statement that the First Lord of the Treasury had satisfied himself that the case was within the intention of the Statute.
  Mr. BARNES: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement reported in the "Star" newspaper of 22nd January to the effect that an ex-Minister had stated his income to be £12,000 per year for the last twenty-five years, land of a further statement made in the "Wimbledon Gazette" that that £12,000 was after all expenses were paid? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to that statement, and does he propose to take any steps in the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been called to the matter, and I was not aware that ex-Ministers were in such a happy position. Such a case has not arisen since the present Government came into power, and if it does arise I will consider it.
  Mr. BARNES: Now that the matter has been mentioned here, does the Prime Minister think there is sufficient justification for doing something in the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If any ex-Minister applies to me, I shall certainly make careful inquiries.
  Mr. WATT: Are these political pensions limited in number?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, they are limited.

  Insurance Against Unemployment.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgency of the proposal for insurance against unemployment, the introduction of which was promised by the Government last year, and in view also of the probability that such a measure would be practically non-controversial, he will take an early opportunity of ascertaining the feeling of the House on the matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are most anxious to introduce and carry into law the legislation which they have prepared on this subject. In existing circumstances I cannot say more than that I have not yet abandoned the hope that it may be found possible to treat the matter as non-controversial.

  Septennial Act Amendment.
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether the Resolutions to be submitted to this House on 29th March next will include one to substitute five years for the seven years specified in the Septennial Act, 1714?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Resolutions will include proposals for shortening the duration of Parliament.

  Spring Recess.
  Sir MARK STEWARTasked the Prime Minister at what dates the Spring Recess after Easter will commence, and for how long will it continue?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it is impossible to make any definite statement at present.

  New Order of Honour.
  Mr. BIRDasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the proposed action of the Government respecting the House of Lords, he will take whatever steps may be necessary to recommend the institution of a new order of honour, neither hereditary nor legislative, for the reward of former members of the Ministry, or its present supporters?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  House of Lords Resolutions.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state when the terms of the Resolutions dealing with the status of the House of Lords will be placed upon the Paper?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, I cannot say at present.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to set up a time limit within which the House of Lords will be expected to approve or reject the Resolutions dealing with the status of the Second Chamber; and whether postponement of the Resolutions by the other House pending the introduction of the Bill embodying the Government proposals will be regarded as rejection.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot undertake to answer purely hypothetical questions.
  Mr. LONSDALE: In the event of the House of Lords disapproving or refusing to consider the Resolutions, will the right hon. Gentleman think it proper to tender his resignation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can only repeat my previous answer. I cannot undertake to answer purely hypothetical questions.

  Rosyth Dock Explosion.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any Report as to the cause and circumstances of an explosion which occurred while quarrying at the Rosyth Dock works in November last from the contractors; and what are the precautions taken by his Department to prevent such accidents in the future?
  Mr. McKENNA: No report has been received. The contractors are responsible for the adoption of proper precautions. Inquiry will be made respecting the matter.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Do I understand that the Admiralty contract with contractors and make no regulations for the proper provision of medical attendance for the men? Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Admiralty, having done this, they have absolutely no liability in the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. In employing any particular firm the Board always endeavour to satisfy themselves that it is a good employer of labour, and they make all necessary provision for the proper safeguarding and care of the men employed.

  House Famine (West Fife).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the house famine in West Fife and the lack of decent accommodation for the workmen at the new dock works, Rosyth; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take to deal with the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: It has not been the policy of the Admiralty to arrange for housing contractors' workmen. Having regard to the magnitude of the operations at Rosyth, and the number of years which will elapse before their completion, and the absence of any existing provision for housing workmen at Rosyth on a scale adequate to the prospective needs, the Admiralty placed a site at the disposal of the contractors. This site can be used for no other purpose than that of the erection of workmen's dwellings.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to an article in the "Glasgow Herald" of 23rd February last, describing a most disgraceful condition of affairs with reference to the housing of workmen working under the right hon. Gentleman's department?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not seen the article to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will mention to me the date of the paper I will take care to see it.

  Naval Programme, 1908–9 (Destroyers).
  Mr. RICEasked how many destroyers of the 1908–9 programme have been completed?
  Mr. McKENNA: None have yet been completed?

  Treatment of Pauper Lunatics (Signing of Reception Orders).
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Local Government Board in how many cases has the Lord Chancellor empowered the chairman of the board of guardians of a union (in lieu of a justice of the peace) to sign orders for the reception of persons as pauper lunatics in institutions for lunatics, in pursuance of Section 25 of the Lunacy Act, 1891; what are the names of the unions in which this has been done; and in how many cases has such an application been made to the Lord Chancellor and refused?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. I am in communication with the Lord Chancellor on the subject.

  Local Authorities' Power to Raise Loans.
  Mr. E. M. POLLOCK (for Mr. Nield)asked the President of the Local Government Board if his Department gives permission to boards of guardians or local authorities to raise money by loan when they have omitted to collect equivalent sums due to them by the ratepayers?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Bums): The purposes for which the Board can sanction loans are expressly limited by statute, and I am not aware that the precise question put by the hon. Member has arisen.

  Home-Grown Sugar Beet (Excise Duty).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what statute it would be necessary to charge Excise duty on sugar beet grown in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state under what statute it is necessary to put an Excise duty on sugar manufactured in this

  1151
  country from beet because there is a Customs duty on sugar imported into this country?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): It is held—although the question has not yet been settled—that the terms of the Sugar Convention Act, 1903, are such as to necessitate a charge of Excise duty on sugar manufactured from sugar beet grown in the United Kingdom, but I am advised that the actual charge of duty would have to be the subject of special legislation.
  An HON. MEMBER: Does that apply to sugar for home consumption as well as for export?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware that there is any distinction between the two.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does that mean that is the opinion of the Law Officers?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No; it is the assumption on which the Excise authorities have acted up to the present. I am not sure that the opinion of the Law Officers has been sought on the subject. If it should be necessary, I will ascertain it before any further steps are taken.

  Rebate of Petrol Tax (Hired Cars).
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there is uncertainty whether the rebate on petrol can or cannot be granted in respect of cars duly licensed for hire, but which do not stand or ply for hire in a public place; and if he will take steps to issue a regulation on the subject?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am advised that under the Finance Bill as drawn the rebate referred to cannot be allowed in respect of cars which do not stand or ply for hire in a public place, and this is in accordance with my intention, which was to draw a distinction between hackney carriages of the ordinary kind and cars which are more of the nature of private vehicles hired for short periods. If my hon. Friend is in possession of any evidence to show that owners of vehicles of the former class are prevented by causes outside their own control from standing or plying for hire in a public place, I shall be glad to consider it.

  Oriental Studies in London.
  Mr. G. A. LLOYDasked what steps, if any, the Government are at present taking
  1152
  to carry into practice the recommendations of the Treasury Committee appointed to consider the organisation of Oriental studies in London; whether they have made any proposals or given any assistance with regard to the provision of the necessary buildings; whether they propose to financially assist in carrying out the committee's recommendations; and, if not, what hopes can they hold out for the completion in the near future of the general scheme outlined by the Committee?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State for India has appointed a Committee, over which the Earl of Cromer has consented to preside, to prepare a detailed scheme for the institution of a School of Oriental Languages, upon the lines recommended in the Report of Lord Reay's Committee. The Committee will include, besides the chairman, Lord Curzon, the Lord Mayor, Sir Charles Hardinge, Sir Charles Lyall, and Dr. Frank Heath, Director of Special Inquiries and Reports to the Board of Education. The answers to the other questions will partly depend on the scheme, when it is prepared.
  Mr. REES: May I ask how, if no money grant is made this year, it will be possible to do anything in the new financial year?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is premature to discuss making a grant of money before the scheme has been decided upon.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee have already asked for a sum of money?
  Mr. MONTAGU: Lord Reay's Committee did not furnish a detailed scheme on which it would be possible to start the school in question.
  Mr. GEORGE LLOYD: Will the hon Gentleman allocate that sum of money which Lord Reay's Committee said would be initially necessary?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That matter must be postponed until this Committee just appointed has completed its work.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the work will be entrusted to the University of London?
  Mr. MONTAGU: That also is one of the points deferred until this Committee has completed its work.

  Development Act, 1909 (Application for Advances).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the Treasury had yet framed the regulations prescribing the mode of application for advances out of the Development Fund under Part I. of the Development Act; and, if not, when it is proposed to do so?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The regulations will be drawn up as soon as the Development Commission is constituted.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: May I ask whether these regulations cover applications made by a Government Department?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should hardly like to anticipate what the views of the Commission will be. They ought to have a free hand as to the advice they give as to the character of the regulations.

  Income Tax (Applications for Refundment).
  Sir JOHN RANDLESasked the Chancellar of the Exchequer whether persons who have paid Income Tax during the last few months in the mistaken belief that the Government would carry through the Budget and so legalise the tax before 31st March, will have their payments refunded should they so wish on making application to the Inland Revenue officers?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: This is a question of law on which I am taking the advice of the Law Officers.
  Sir JOHN RANDLES: Assuming the money was obtained, would the Chancellor pay interest to the persons by whom the money is being asked during the period the Government borrow it?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that by the Income Tax Act any taxpayer who pays his Income Tax before it is due is entitled by law to 2½ per cent. discount per annum?
  Mr. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not also the case that the officers of Inland Revenue take care that money shall not be received in time to allow any such deduction to which my hon. Friend refers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible to answer questions put in that way. Perhaps hon. Members will put them down.

  Deduction from Bank of England Dividends.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Norman Craig)asked whether the deduction of Income Tax from dividends by the directors of the Bank of England has been made with the concurrence of the Treasury Commissioners; whether the amounts so deducted have been paid to the Exchequer; and whether such concurrence and payment are based on the assumption that the collection of Income Tax will eventually be legalised?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer to the first and third queries is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
  Lord BALCARRES (on behalf of the same hon. Member)also asked why the Government, being willing to receive Income Tax collected without objection by the Bank of England by deduction from dividends, will not request and, so far as objection is not offered, receive payment from individual Income Tax-payers?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Payment of Income Tax assessed on individuals is accepted when tendered at the rate specified in the Resolution of 17th May last. The issue of demand notes is primarily a question for the decision of the local commissioners of taxes, with whose discretion I have no power to interfere.

  Old Age Pensions Act (Poor Law Relief Disqualification).
  Mr. STRAUSSasked whether any date has yet been fixed for introducing the Bill for extending old age pensions to those at present in receipt of Poor Law relief?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir.

  Budget, 1909–10 (Permanent Loss to Treasury).
  Mr. H. P. CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be able to inform the House what is the permanent loss to the Treasury owing to the continued delay in passing the Budget?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The amount which will be permanently lost cannot be estimated until the whole of the revenue for the year has, so far as may prove possible, been collected and brought to account.

  Suspension of Sinking Fund (Amount of Saving).
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount has been paid up to 5th March, 1910, in

  1155
  respect of interest on money borrowed to make good the deficit in the revenue caused by the failure of the Finance Bill, 1909, to become law; what is the estimated amount that will be paid in interest up to 16th April, 1910; what interest will be saved and by what amount will the borrowings be reduced as a result of the proposed suspension of the Sinking Fund?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The amount paid for interest on Ways and Means borrowing (including discount on Treasury Bills), from 1st October last to the 5th instant, inclusive, has been £151,674, as compared with £29,015 in the corresponding period of last year. The difference between these figures is due in the main to the delay in the passing of the Finance Bill. The amount payable from the 6th instant to the 16th proximo inclusive will depend on the prices obtained for the Treasury Bills to be issued between those dates and the currency adopted for the Bills, since the whole of the interest in respect of borrowing upon Treasury Bills is paid in advance in the form of discount. The suspension of the new Sinking Fund to the extent of £6,300,000, as proposed in the Treasury (Temporary Borrowing) Bill will have the effect of reducing the amount which would otherwise have had to be borrowed on or about the 31st instant by £2,800,000, as compared with the position which would have been created if the Finance Bill had become law in ordinary course. This will save the interest on Treasury Bills to a similar amount which would otherwise have had to be issued.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say exactly the amount due to the delay caused by the Government not taking the necessary steps to collect the Income Tax?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is exactly the point put by the Noble Lord in his question, and which I have answered most fully.

  Harbour of Karachi (Defence).
  Mr. H. BOTTOMLEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether one of the members of the board charged with the defence of the harbour of Karachi is the German Consul?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The German Consul at Karachi is a member of the Karachi Port Trust, but that body is not charged with the defence of the place. The Consul
  1156
  is a naturalised British subject, and sits on the Board of Trustees as the elected representative of the Karachi Chamber of Commerce.

  New Indian Tobacco Duties.
  Mr. JOSEPH KING (on behalf of Sir Howell Davies)asked the Under-Secretary for India if any advice had been tendered to the Indian Council at Calcutta recommending a modification of the proposed duties on tobaccos and cigarettes which, if confirmed at the proposed level, would mean throwing out of employment many hundreds of persons in Bristol and Liverpool?
  Mr. GIBBS alsoasked the Under-Secretary whether he can see his way to make representations to the Government of India to the effect that the proposed increase in the import duties on tobacco and cigarettes, in addition to being prohibitive and unscientific from a revenue point of view, will inflict hardships on those engaged in the industry in this country in Bristol and elsewhere?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has been in communication with the Government of India on the subject. The Government of India have fixed the rates with reference to the necessity they are under to provide from other sources revenue to meet the loss of opium revenue. They report that they do not consider that the duties will seriously affect consumption as a whole. The Secretary of State will carefully watch the effect of the new duties, and has directed the Government of India to submit monthly Returns of imports of tobacco under classified heads.
  Mr. KING: May I ask if the hon. Gentleman is aware that 90 per cent. of these imported cigarettes are smoked by British soldiers in India, and that it is calculated that the amount of the duty payable indirectly by them will be over £250,000 sterling per annum?
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, I was not aware of that.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary what are the new duties on tobacco imported into India, what sum the new duties are estimated to produce beyond the revenue produced by the old duties, and whether a counterbalancing Excise duty on native-produced and manufactured tobacco will be imposed?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The duties are: On unmanufactured tobacco, 2s. the lb.; on cigars, 3s. 4d. the lb.; on cigarettes, 2s. 8d. the lb., with a minimum of 6s. 8d. the 1,000; on other manufactured tobacco, 2s. 2d. the lb. The net additional revenue which the duties are estimated to yield is £394,000. The Government of India have undertaken to examine without delay the question of levying corresponding taxation on native tobacco. They do not, however, consider that there is effective competition between the native and the imported product.
  Mr. KING: In view of the discharges from employment in this trade already, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of immediately imposing a countervailing Excise duty?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I have already told the hon. Member that the Government of India is considering the possibility or advisability of levying a corresponding Excise duty.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Why should there be any doubt about levying an Exise duty in the case of India when there has been no doubt whatever about levying an Excise duty in the case of Irish tobacco?
  Mr. MONTAGU: There is considerable doubt in the mind of the Government of India as to whether native tobacco in any way competes with the imported tobacco.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Does Irish tobacco interfere with the imported product?
  Mr. RICEasked the Under-Secretary on what date the proposed new duties on cigarettes, imported into India, comes into force; and whether it is intended to impose an Excise duty equal to the import duty!
  Mr. MONTAGU: The duties took effect from 25th February, the date when the Tariff Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council. With regard to the second part of the question, I have already said that the Government of India have undertaken to consider the matter.

  Prisons Closed (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many prisons have been closed in Ireland in the last twenty years; and for what are these buildings at present being used?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The number of prisons which have been closed in Ireland
  1158
  during the last twenty years is twelve. Of these eight have been handed over to the local authorities, and I have no means of knowing how they are now used. Of the others one is a lunatic asylum, one is an inebriate reformatory, and two are available when required for prisoners at Winter Assizes, Quarter Sessions, or in case of emergency.

  Old Age Pensions Withdrawn (Ireland).
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that old age pensions have been withdrawn from Mary M'Garry and Margaret M'Garry, of Cullea, and Pat Devanny, of Kingsfort, all in the parish of Killery, Collooney, county Sligo sub-committee; whether he is aware that the pension officer notified these pensioners to attend the committee meeting in Collooney, on 10th September, 1909, alleging they were not seventy years of age, and that these pensioners attended and produced evidence which satisfied the sub-committee, one of the witnesses being Mr. Hugh M'Guire, J.P.; whether he is aware that these witnesses offered to swear to the accuracy of their statements; whether birth certificates were forwarded to the Local Government Board in support of these statements; and whether, if so, he will order a reinvestigation of these cases?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As regards Mary M'Garry, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question asked by him on 25th February. The pensions in the other two cases were withdrawn as the result of questions as to age raised by the pension officer. According to the Census Returns Margaret M'Garry was only two months old when the Census of 1841 was taken, while Patrick Devanny was only eight-years old in 1851. The Local Government Board cannot say what happened before the sub-committee, but no certificate of the birth of any of the three pensioners was furnished to the Board; nor WAS any proof afforded that they had attained the statutory age, though Mr. Hugh M'Guire, J.P., furnished a statement of his belief that Margaret M'Garry was entitled to a pension.

  Kilmacnmsey Estate, County Roscommon.
  Mr. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the tenants on the Kilmacumsey estate, of Elphin, county Roscommon, have applied to the Congested Districts Board for the enlargement and purchase of their holdings; whether the estate is a congested one, half the tenants' holdings being valued from £7 to £3;

  1159
  whether he is aware that there is a non-residential farm of 120 acres on the estate, the owner of which farms 500 acres of land in another district; and whether the Congested Districts Board will take steps to put an end to the congestion of this estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have received a memorial from some tenants on this estate, and will cause inquiries to be made into the case in due course.

  Killalaghton School, Galway.
  Mr. JOHN ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will direct the Commissioners of Education in Ireland to forward the grant applied for over twelve months ago for the purpose of building a new school at Killalaghton, county Galway?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have no authority to give the direction which the hon. Member suggests, nor is it possible to say at the present moment when a grant can be issued for this school. A large number of grants have been sanctioned which will have precedence of the present case.

  Captain Smyth's Westmeath Estate.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that Captain Smyth, a Westmeath landlord, agreed two years ago to sell all his tenanted estates at reductions of 7s. in the £ on first-term and non-judicial rents, and 5s. in the £ on second-term rents, all arrears to be remitted, and, while carrying out those terms on all the other estates, and receiving interest in lieu of rent, in the case of the Coole estate goes back on his own proposal, which all the tenants accepted, refuses to sell, and demands the accumulated rents on the old scale; whether the Estates Commissioner? will, in these circumstances, exercise their power under the Act of 1909 to compel him to carry out his agreement with the tenants, or to sell the holdings at such price as the Commissioners find them to be worth; and if any further action on the tenants' part is necessary to induce the Commissioners to do this, will he say what it is?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that the purchase agreements in the case of the estate of Captain Thomas James Smyth, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, were lodged in the form prescribed under the Irish Land Act, 1903, in the Land Commission by the owner, but as they were
  1160
  not lodged until after the date mentioned in Section 13 (b) of the Irish Land Act, 1909, they could not be dealt with as "pending purchase agreements," and have accordingly been returned for amendment under the new Act, or to be replaced by new agreements.
  MEMBER SWORN.—Mr. Maurice Healy, for the County of Cork (North-Eastern Division), in the place of Mr. William O'Brien, who, having been returned for more than one constituency, had elected to sit for Cork City.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
  The following Bills were presented, and read the first time:—
  Mr. CATHCAET WASOK—Parochial Medical Officers (Scotland)—Bill to emend the Law relating to the tenure of office of parochial medical officers in Scotland. (To be read a second time upon 14th March.)
  Mr. MUNRO FERGUSON—Scottish Land—Bill to establish a Department of Agriculture in Scotland, and to amend the Law relating to agriculture and crofter holdings and allotments in Scotland. (To be read a second time upon 5th April.)

SUPPLY.

  ARMY ESTIMATES 1910–11.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): On the question arising now I propose to make the statement which the modern custom of the House permits. The Noble and Gallant Admiral who represents Portsmouth in this House the other day observed that he found himself so full of information that it was difficult for him to keep within the limits of moderation. I have deep sympathy for him. On such topics as the Army and the Navy the opportunity for discussion occurs only once a year, and it is very difficult to do it, but this year the task of restraining myself is not quite so difficult as on previous occasions. There are no great far-reaching schemes of reorganisation to be discussed as the purpose

  1161
  of these Estimates is simply to endeavour to perfect what we have already got, to make improvements in the Territorial Force, and to bring the arrangements for mobilising the expeditionary force as near as we can to perfection. There is one matter to which I should perhaps allude at the outset. The Estimates involve an increase, and I observe that that has not escaped the attention of hon. Friends of mine below the Gangway, but that increase is due to a sharp and rapid rise in the size of the Territorial Force, and I may point out that of the £325,000 increase £304,000 will be balanced in the year which follows the one for, which I am making provision, by the dropping in of a large loan annuity. The policy of not resorting to loans has at least this advantage, that it enables us to keep down the rise in debt, and when, added to that, it is borne in mind that there is a charge this year of £1,150,000 for loan annuities, it is not surprising that fruit should have resulted in the dropping in of an annuity of £304,000, which will begin to take effect in 1911. Therefore the burden of the Estimates, whoever brings them in for next year, will not be so heavy in that respect as the burden to-day. Moreover, the howitzer equipment is approaching completion. That, again, will afford a certain measure of relief, and while it is very wrong to speculate on what Estimates may be in a year, the conditions of which have not yet emerged, I see no reason to suppose that the figure which we have reached this year may not be in excess of that which the Estimates next year may present.
  The fact remains that there has been a sharp rise, not only in the Estimates, but in the number of men, at any rate, in the Territorial Force. My hon. Friends may say why did you not foresee this, and why did you not make more provision in last year's Estimates for the men who have come in? I am in the position of not having been sufficiently optimistic—it is not a usual fault of mine—on principle I am an optimist, but last year I did not foresee that the progress of recruiting in the Territorial Force was going to be so rapid. I would ask my hon. Friends not to reproach me for that and for having to make provision for a sharp rise. After all, there are parallels. My hon. Friends, like myself, may recall the story in the Scriptures of Nehemiah. Nehemiah had a commission from the King to rebuild Jerusalem,
  1162
  and the City he built was large and great. Then he had a period of depression, for few there were who dwelt therein. So it is recorded, and then we have his reflections. He goes on to speak of difficulties which I have not yet had to encounter. He tells us that the nobles obstructed him, and refused to help him. Whatever may be the case of other Ministers who sit on this bench, my experience has been quite different. The Lords-Lieutenant in their associations have helped me splendidly. Moreover, I have had other advantages which Nehemiah did not possess. The "Daily Mail" did not exist in his days. I have had to assist in recruiting not only the powerful influence of that journal, but the devoted help of other newspapers on both sides of politics The "Daily Chronicle" and the "Westminster Gazette" threw themselves with great zeal into the cause. I have even had the assistance of the theatres. I do not know whether there were theatres in Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah, but there did come days when he had a recruiting boom, because we read in the end quite suddenly that the people blessed the names of those—who were many—who willingly offered themselves to dwell in the city. The position of the Territorial Force is that we have got 40,000 more men than we took money for in the Estimates of last year, and the year is not completed. By care and frugality we have been able to avoid what the House of Commons detests—we have been able to avoid coming for a Supplementary Estimate; but it is absolutely necessary for the safety of that force to make better provision this year, and the whole of the £325,000 which represents the growth of the Estimates is taken up in making provision for a much larger number of men. I will come to the figures in a moment, but I will only say now that from the way in which recruiting is progressing I have not thought it safe to estimate for less than 300,000 men at the end of the year.
  That may seem to be an over-sanguine estimate, but it seems to be borne out by the state of recruiting. On 1st January there were in the Territorial Force 271,737 of all ranks. Of these since 1st January and up to 25th February—a period of about eight weeks—4,302 have gone out, some men with short engagements on the termination of their engagements—old Volunteers and others—illustrating the curious phenomenon that the Territorial Force finds a considerable number of recruits not only for the Army but for the Navy. I

  1163
  think it is a very good sign. It is a sign which is making itself markedly manifest. To balance that 4,802 who have gone out there have come in a larger number of over 9,000–between nine and ten thousand have come in. The result is that recruiting has been going on at the rate of over a thousand a week, and that is certainly not a bad result when you consider that the General Election occupied a good part of the time. If recruiting goes on at that rate there is not much doubt as to what will be the position of the Territorial Force. I now come to the figures on 25th February. The force bad risen from 271,737 on 1st January to 276,618 on 25th February—that is to say, the force on that day stood at 88.5 of its establishment.
  4.0 P.M.
  It will probably never reach more than 98 per cent. of the establishment. The force to-day is therefore within 10 per cent. of the size which, so far as I can see, it can possibly attain. The House may be interested to know how the various parts of the country are doing in the way of recruiting. First of all stands that wonderful Birmingham district, the South Midland. That district has to-day attained to 96.9 per cent. of the establishment. The North Midland District comes next, and has reached 93.4 per cent. Third comes the Lowland Scots with 91 per cent., and I think it suffices for the rest to say that the very lowest of all the districts is 81.9 per cent., so that there is no part of the force that is not above 80 per cent. of its establishment. Of the arms the most successful in recruiting has been the Yeomanry with 98 per cent. of its establishment. Next comes the Artillery with, I think, 90 per cent., and the Infantry are 88 per cent., so that all arms are well up in their percentage. So much for the recruiting of the Territorial Force.
  Perhaps I may refer to the state of the Regulars at this point. The Regulars, so far as recruiting is concerned, are in a very satisfactory condition. We have taken fewer recruits this year for a very good reason. We had to exclude them. We could not take them. The Regulars are choke-full. There is not a single branch of the service in which we were not either compelled to refuse men who came up and wished to enlist or in which, by slightly lowering the conditions, we could not get as many as we wanted. The state of things at the present time is that we have all the recruits we could possibly take, and the
  1164
  difficulty is to keep the force within the establishment. Of course, there are always fluctuations. Some time ago it was below the establishment, the reason being that drafts were going out; but if you take a period a little later you will find them absolutely full, and I am afraid there may have been times when, notwithstanding my vigilance, the Parliamentary establishment was for the moment exceeded. The object of these Estimates is, as I have said, a single one. It is to do what in us lies at the War Office to improve the conditions of the Territorial Force and also what in us lies to improve the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force. That purpose is based upon a very important principle, and one which is becoming increasingly important. A great writer prefaced three volumes of a notable work by saying, "This book is the exposition of a single thought," and I believe that the Army Estimates might be prefaced by the expression of this single thought, that what is to be aimed at is to bring the Army and the nation generally into closer relations than they have been in the past, so that the resource and skill and ability of the civilian population may be brought to the aid of the military power. So only in this country shall we have an efficient Army, and our strength and powers of expansion alike depend upon the extent to which that is done, and properly done.
  I want to draw attention to the provision in the Estimates for training and improving the conditions of the Territorial Force. This year we made an inspection of the entire Territorial Force through the General Officers commanding in the units of their stations, and they have sent us in information in great detail which is in some respects very interesting. The first thing that is brought out is the enormous advantage to the force of being organised in great divisions. A lot will have to be done in the way of training before you can hope to be able to mobilise efficiently a Territorial division, but you can call them out for training and you can apply the machinery of divisional organisation to every one of the units composing a division, and the effect of each division being commanded by a regular Major-General, with a general staff of trained officers under him, has been very marked upon the quality of the force. The advantage of this is shown in the rapid assimilation of the administration in every point to the administration in the Regulars. A second advantage has been the

  1165
  uniformity of method in the training of the units. The regiment, the battalion, the brigade, throughout the Territorial Force are now being trained on the same principles as the whole force. A third advantage is the uniformity and the increased efficiency in the theoretical and practical instruction of officers throughout the year, and the fourth advantage has been that the Army Service Corps, the Medical Corps, and so on, have not only flourished under the divisional organisation, but by enlisting the services of civilians of a very high degree of business training, and sometimes scientific knowledge, those services are becoming very efficient indeed, and compare very favourably with those we have in the Regular Army. We are so impressed at Whitehall with what is reported to us of the progress owing to the divisional organisation under Regular General Officers and staffs that we propose to see how we can extend it, and a Committee has been sitting, under Adjutant-General Sir Ian Hamilton, which, I hope, will lead to our extending this to the smaller formations, at least to some extent. The last thing we wish is to discourage Territorial officers, but we think that temporarily, at any rate, in the higher commands, the Territorial officers would be glad to be brought into close contact with Regular officers who give them the benefit of their experience which only a lifetime can impart. As regards numbers and efficiency, the Territorials have done well. A very large proportion of them have remained for fifteen days in camp, and the reports to us are that they are progressing. The Yeomanry in particular have shown themselves anxious to take the very utmost advantage possible of the opportunities given them for coming out into camp.
  I come to a much more difficult Territorial arm—the Artillery. The Artillery we always knew would be a great difficulty, and many people believed the Artillery was a plant which would never blossom, but the indications are that it promises to blossom, though a great deal of time has to elapse before it bears fruit. It is a very difficult business to train artillery, but progress is being made. The great difficulty hitherto has been to enable the Artillery to manoeuvre and do gun practice during camp. In some cases, owing to want of ranges, no firing has been done, and the other gun practice had to be carried out on ranges unsuitable for Field Artillery. In others, they have to go for a few days to
  1166
  some distant land range in order to get opportunities of practice. We have under consideration, and something more than under consideration, the provision of two new artillery ranges. The Treasury have given us the money for the range at Salisbury, and we are also in a position to look out, and we have done something more than look out, for another range in the North, which I hope, when we find—we have not yet satisfied ourselves as to the best locality—will do a great deal to remedy the deficiences of which I have spoken in the training. All arrangements for the acquisition of the second range are made. The only thing which remains is to be satisfied which is the best range. The efficiency of a battery of Artillery depends largely on its commanders, and it will not reach the normal until the commanders have passed through all ranks in the Field Artillery. One hopeful sign is the immense zeal of Territorial Artillery officers. They spare no pains, time, or trouble, to make themselves efficient. They have had considerable obstacles to overcome, and I am glad to say this year we have provided breast harness for their horses, which they wanted very much. The Mounted Artillery Brigade is proving a success. The training will be more easy than for other branches of the Artillery arm and the gunnery arrangements are good. Driving is still difficult to get up to standard. It is very difficult to make a good artillery driver, and there are many other details in which difficulties have to be overcome. But the reports we have received from the Regular officers inspecting are in the main encouraging, and I have no doubt that the determination of the British nation will in the end produce a very fairly efficient Territorial Artillery.
  Then as regards Engineers, it is a much easier story to tell. The Engineers naturally are recruited from the very highest skilled class, and are very efficient. The Infantry are progressing. The new musketry course has, on the whole, been successful, and there has been an advance on the old course. We are going to make further provision for supervision by Regular officers of outside corps, and to make provision for their pay and allowances. More range accommodation is badly required. It is not the fault of the Treasury or the War Office that we have not got it, it is the difficulty of getting ranges. We are buying ranges wherever we can, but where we cannot we are providing short ranges—military ranges—for the unit. Of course, nothing except the large range is

  1167
  satisfactory. This year local courses of musketry are to be held by the highest class, beginning in April. By this means some 448 officers a year will be trained. Then the Army Service Corps were able this year to do their training for their position in the Territorial Force, and they did it on the whole very well. So did the Army Medical Corps. That is progressing satisfactorily. That is the general position of the Territorial Force as regards training.
  There are one or two details which I should like to mention. There were complaints last year that the training grants were too limited. We have taken the following course this year. We are asking the General Officers Commanding to work out what training they want to give this year to the Territorial officers, and to prepare an estimate of the cost. That will be communicated to the General Staff at headquarters. I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with the methods in regard to the training grants. The training grant to the Territorial Force is based upon the difference between the number of men to whom we give money and the number of men attending camp. In the early days that did very well, but the boom in recruiting has put the General Officers Commanding in a difficult position, and therefore we have put a very substantial guarantee fund at the back of the General Officers Commanding, and we have increased our estimate of the number of men who will join the force in the ensuing year. I have no doubt the training money will be forthcoming.
  Another point which interests those connected with London is that the Chelsea school for training Territorial officers in the London district has this year been placed on a more satisfactory footing, and will be kept up so long as the General Officer Commanding thinks it useful. I have reason to believe that already there is a prospect that a great many Territorial officers will take advantage of it.
  I come to various other details. To begin with, we found that the manœuvres last year, which were on a larger scale than previously, exercised a very beneficial effect both on the Territorials and the Regulars; and this year, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been very generous in this respect, we are going to have larger manœuvres still. There is an extra sum of £100,000 in the Estimates for these manœuvres, and with good
  1168
  reason. My right hon. Friend looked into the matter, and he agreed with the War Office that it is impossible to make sure of what you have unless you test it thoroughly under elaborate manœuvres. The expenditure this year is exceptional, and I am glad to say that manœuvres on such a colossal scale are not likely to recur for several years. The Cabinet took the view that it was worth while occasionally to have manœuvres on a very big scale which will thoroughly test the efficiency of the machine. It is proposed in the autumn of this year to take up an area of country under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, for the purpose of divisional training and manoeuvre of the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Divisions quartered in the Alder-shot, Southern, and Eastern Commands, and for the training of the Cavalry Division, which it is proposed to assemble again this year in the manoeuvre area. This area will consist of portions of Hampshire, Dorsetshire, Somersetshire, and Wiltshire.
  In addition to the ordinary annual training of the troops under their several commanders, it is also proposed to hold Army manœuvres this year during September in the manoeuvre area, one of the primary objects being to test the supply and transport services by raising one of the divisions at Aldershot to war establishment during these manœuvres. Last year we mobilised a division at Aldershot, but that was essentially not for the purpose of testing it in manœuvres, but for the purpose of seeing how it could march past. I think it occupied sixteen or seventeen miles. This year we are going to mobilise on a much more real scale with the aid of Reservists, or, if we cannot get sufficient Reservists, with soldiers from other units. We propose completely to mobilise one of the divisions with all its auxiliary services and to put it in the field. It will take part in the manœuvres with the other divisions of which I have spoken. A new feature of these manœuvres will be that certain Territorial units will also be given an opportunity of participating. These units will consist of one Infantry brigade, one mounted brigade, and two additional Yeomanry regiments from the Southern command and detachments of Yeomanry scouts and telegraph units from the Western command. I hope that Wales will be represented in these detachments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will there be Artillery?"] Oh, yes; there will be Artillery, but not Territorial Artillery, in these manœuvres.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to give an opportunity to certain branches of the Territorial Force to take part. Are the Artillery to be excluded?
  Mr. HALDANE: I think the Artillery will have their own manœuvres this year, but these special manœuvres will be of a high standard, and I should be sorry to risk them by bringing in anything not up to that standard. So far as at present decided, therefore, the Artillery in these manœuvres will be Regular Artillery. It is also proposed during the month of August to test, in conjunction with the Regular troops and in cooperation with the Navy, the degree of efficiency attained by the Territorial Force with special reference to its functions in repelling attacks directed against coast defences. I wish to take this opportunity of expressing obligation to the Navy for the way in which it has co-operated. It is very satisfactory that the Army and Navy are working progressively closer together, both in the Defence Committee and with respect to the relations between the two offices.
  The remainder of the funds available will be expended in holding manœuvres on a considerable scale in Ireland and South Africa, and on special manœuvres in the Southern command to test the efficiency of the Army Medical Service in the field. I should also like to mention that Canada will take part in these manœuvres. She is sending over the 2nd Regiment Queen's Own Rifles of Canada and they are expected to arrive about 28th August and take part in the Aldershot Command training and the Army manœuvres. I hope the effect of that will be to give us a good deal of ground for our Army manœuvres.
  Now I come to mobilisation equipment. The mobilisation equipment is now in the course of completion, and I hope they will have practically everything for this training. Before I pass from the Territorials, I may mention that the provision of the reserve which the House sanctioned last year is now being carried a stage further. We have made preparations, which I hope will become effective in a few days, for calling the new Reserve of Territorials into existence. Of course, it must be small at first because it means that there must be a certain amount of training, but I hope that in a few weeks men will be able to pass into it. The effect of that will be not only to mobilise quickly the fourteen divisions, but also to enable us to supply mature and trained men if mobilisation
  1170
  takes place. Besides that Reserve there are two other Reserves which we have under close consideration, and about which we are negotiating with the associations. One is a Veterans Reserve. These veterans can serve a very useful purpose by keeping the Army in contact with the nation and the nation in contact with the Army, and in giving the Army information in regard to bridges and all sorts of local conditions. We propose to have veterans who can be relied upon, if war broke out.
  Again, we are collecting what is of great importance, not through the associations but elsewhere, namely, a reserve of technical units—electricians, railwaymen, engineers, and so on—who would be invaluable in time of war, but who would be very difficult to get unless we had them carefully selected in the intervals of peace. Then there is the question of Cadets. We propose to give considerable freedom to-the associations. In all these matters we have made tentative proposals to the associations, but these must not be taken as representing any iron decision on our part. I come now to the associations themselves, and that, of course, raises the question of their funds. The first observation I have to make is that the work of the associations is increasing; the work of the non-commissioned officers who instruct the Territorial Force is also increasing; in both cases because of the increase of the labour which has to be performed. There are plenty of instructors if it were only military duties they had to perform, but what oppresses them is the clerical work. We are going to give the associations a substantial sum this year to enable them to supply clerical assistance and for other purposes. It will work out at about £100 for each Infantry battalion, but we do not want to tie the associations. We are going to give them a little in respect of the salaries of secretaries. The War Office is sometimes blamed for being too niggardly, but if those who make the charge had to watch the giving out of public money as I have to do they would know that you can only get money properly spent if you watch every penny. We tell them that they would not have to return their balances to the Treasury at the end of the year, and that they could keep them for themselves, and this year they have provided no less than about £200,000 of unspent money to their credit. We propose to increase the establishment grant for clerical work and leave them free to increase the salaries of the secretary, of

  1171
  course, under effective supervision; but we want them to proceed on the footing that they must consider well the justification for the increases which are asked.
  The associations have done splendid work this year. The amount of pains and labour which has been given to the solution of difficult local questions is beyond all praise. Every class in the community is represented in the association. We have working men and labour representatives; we have veterans who have served in many campaigns; we have people of every rank and every degree, and some of the best men in the country. The result is that they have done the work with a smoothness and a celerity that are beyond all praise; and not only that, but there are evidences that their permeating effect is being felt in the districts in which they worked. For example, the red cross work is a very valuable work, and the red cross movement is now being brought into line with the work of the associations by the establishment of medical units for the purpose of conveying the wounded from the front to the general hospitals, where, in the event of the invasion of this country, they will be treated. That work is being taken up under the organisation of Sir Alfred Keogh, the Director-General of Medical Service. What he advises has been carried out by all classes, with the result that the country has every prospect of being covered by a network of organisations which will be very valuable for other than war purposes. The first thing that is taught to those who join the associations, women as well as men, is to enable them to deal with accidents and ordinary medical cases, which, I think, is a very valuable piece of training, so that from all we can tell, the red cross movement has a great future before it.
  So much for the Territorials. I now come to the Regulars. I first wish to speak of the expeditionary forces. The equipment for the six divisions and the Cavalry Division is, to the best of my knowledge, perfect in every respect. There is nothing wanting for mobilisation. As regards the personnel, that requires more close consideration. There are two points which are very difficult and of which a solution has not yet been completely reached. I refer to officers and horses. Do not let the House imagine that I do not realise the difficulties and the shortcomings that have to be made up in the composition of the Army. Nobody knows them better than I do, as these difficulties have been brought
  1172
  before me, and I shall deal with them presently. But before doing so I wish to say that it is with officers and horses we have most trouble. If you take the question of what we could mobilise in the six divisions, the answer is this, that, including officers, you could mobilise completely the fighting line of six divisions and the Cavalry Division. I say the fighting line because the auxiliary services are not perfect in every respect, but I wish to add I have no doubt that, although those auxiliary services are not perfect in every respect, the material which we have now our hands on would enable us to mobilise the whole six. Certainly, we could mobilise on the lines of communication with everything complete for five divisions and the Cavalry Division. That brings me to remark that the difficulty is not, as I have said, the fighting line. The personnel of the fighting line is complete. The difficulty is in Army Service Corps and Army Medical Transport. But these exist in what we may call the first and second line, where the big parts of divisions and the lines of communication are concerned, and it is there that the difficulty arises. As regards those, we have now made arrangements which will before long provide the Army Service Corps with such a reserve as will obviate every difficulty, and there are arrangements now completed which I hope will supply the very little that is wanted to make the six divisions perfectly complete, if necessary, in every respect.
  I now come to the Cavalry. Here I mar Kay again a word of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As he is absent perhaps I can speak of him more freely. He is essentially a fighting man and was a Volunteer once, and last Autumn, at the solicitation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Churchill) and myself, he accompanied us down to see the great manœuvres. We also had the Prime Minister on a separate day. I always like to bring up a big reserve. But it was quite unnecessary, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered into the matter with such zest that there was no doubt at all in our minds that we put our fingers on the weak spots that had to be dealt with. The Cavalry who were mobilised last year exhibited themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was taken up to a high place, and the Cavalry manoeuvred before him, and the Inspector-General of Forces stood by him, pointing out the faults, while my right hon. Friend and I stood at a respectful distance. The

  1173
  result was that the one impression in the mind of all of us was that the needs which had to be made up in the Army were the deficiency of horses and men for mobilisation in the Cavalry Division. And perhaps it would be convenient if I tell the House at this juncture exactly what is being done.
  The Cavalry, as the House knows, was not reorganised by Lord Cardwell when he reorganised the Infantry, but remained in the state of single independent regiments. Those abroad were fed with drafts from the large composite depot at Canterbury, which consisted of detachments from all the regiments in India and the Colonies; and all service recruits for regiments abroad were sent there for training before joining their regiments, while the troops for home regiments joined their units at once on enlistment. This was a very bad system, because the recruits who were only trained at the depot were sent away to foreign parts, and they were quite unfit to go away for mobilisation in India. In 1893 another step was taken. The Cavalry was divided into three corps—Dragoons, Lancers, and Hussars—and recruiting was established for the corps in general, and not for particular regiments, the intention being that the regiments at homo should feed those of the same corps abroad. That turned out to require change. Up to 1904 there was a draft-finding depot in Canterbury. In that year it was abolished, and each of the fourteen regiments abroad was linked for supply of drafts with one at home, and all recruits received a training in regiments at home before being drafted away. My predecessor, Mr. Arnold Forster, had proposed to have two large depots for draft-finding purposes, but owing to building considerations this was not carried out. The linked system has worked well so far as drafts are concerned, but the great defect in mobilisation was that there were no proper arrangements for the clothing and equipment of Cavalry Reservists on mobilisation. In the absence of any mobilisation centre each regiment carried about on its back, so to speak, all the arms, clothing, and equipments required for its Reservists on the outbreak of war. There was no provision for organising and training the men at home after the expeditionary force had left.
  Part of the reforms of this year consist of this, that six new depots are being created, one in each command, where all
  1174
  recruits for the Cavalry will be received and drilled for about three months before being sent to their regiments. One of these depots is already at Woolwich. Another depot will be opened at Dublin on 1st April, and one at Scarborough will be opened on the same day. There are also one at Edinburgh, one at Seaforth, near Liverpool, and one at Bristol. These will be the six new Cavalry depots, one for each command. They will fulfil the functions which I have stated. They will perform very different functions from those of the old Canterbury depot and Mr. A. Forster's projected depots. They will not find drafts, which will continue to be supplied by regiments at home. They will serve as mobilisation centres, where the arms, clothing, and equipment of reservists will be stored in peace. On mobilisation they will throw off "reserve regiments" for the reception of recruits, surplus reservists, etc., and for the training of drafts for regiments abroad or in the field, in the same manner as the Infantry 3rd (Reserve) Battalions. The transfer to the depots of the duties of training recruits, looking after mobilisation equipment, etc., formerly done by the "Reserve Squadron" of each home regiment, enables the reserve squadron to be abolished and the establishment of the regiment at home to be reduced, from 714 to 678 all ranks, without loss of effective strength; the result being that the depots will be found without appreciable increase in numbers or cost of the total establishment of Cavalry. Of course, the establishments abroad are not affected by the change, but it was necessary to provide for training of recruits.
  Apart from any question of organisation of existing numbers, the experience at the Cavalry manœuvres last year demonstrated that the available strength of our regiments at home was too small to enable them to take the field without incorporating on mobilisation such a number of reservists and untrained horses as would seriously affect their fighting efficiency. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has enabled us to meet the difficulty. The Cavalry is likely to be most severely tested in the opening stage of the campaign before the Reservists have got into shape. Sir John French considers it undesirable, as the result of his inspection, that men who have been a considerable time away from the regiment should be called in immediately on mobilisation. To meet this weakness, eighteen privates and thirty-six horses are

  1175
  added to each regiment at home, bringing the establishment to 696 all ranks and 523 horses, the total increase being 252 men and 504 horses, at a cost of £30,000 a year, plus £20,000 in the first year for the purchase of horses. In addition to this, we are going to restore the position of Inspector of Cavalry. This was not the only thing which was done on the occasion of the visit of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We also observed that the Army, spread out as it was, showed itself to be very defective in communication organisation, which is so necessary to an Army acting as a whole. We are making a change in this respect. We are going to create six communication companies—one for each division. They will consist of signalling and telegraph companies, and three special corps of cyclists, while a special officer will be added to the General Staff at headquarters to look after them. I pass to the Artillery, about which I need say very little. We have got now a complete personnel, and at last we are in a position to have a complete mobilisation—the howitzers will be completed, I hope, in the course of this year.
  The Infantry Reserve needs a word of notice. At the present time it is very large, being 134,000, but as I indicated to the House some little time ago, in a normal year the establishment would not exceed 115,000. It probably will be larger than that, because we have added 5,000 Reserve Artillery; but I am not satisfied with the future Reserve. As regards the Infantry, we have just now a large surplus. All the regiments do not produce the same amount of Reserve, though I do not know why it is so. While at the present time, and for a little time to come, the Reserve will be a little larger than is required for mobilisation, yet this question will require attention. There is not now so much diminution by wastage as formerly, owing to the better quality of the men, the better standard of recruits, and the better care that they take of their bodies and their minds all round; so that it will be understood that the power of an Infantry Battalion is greater than it used to be, and that the establishment of 720 is much better than 720 would have been a few years ago, when the wastage was larger. But the problem still remains to be considered whether that establishment will produce a proper Reserve. There is certainly no danger for two or three years to come, but it is a subject which ought not
  1176
  to escape attention, and that is why I like to state to the House everything about it in order that there may be no mistake. As for the men themselves, my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board knows how they have improved in their marching and in other qualities, so that I need not say anything further upon that.
  I come to the Special Reserve. There has been a good deal of interest evinced and criticism passed about the Special Reserve. It is a new organisation, and there are no doubt a great many points in which it could be made better, and, therefore, I have appointed the strongest committee I could get, under Major-General Ewart, to investigate the whole question and suggest what improvements we could make in the organisation of the Special Reserve. To illustrate the point, the House overruled me three years ago, or, rather, I will not say overruled, but proposed that we should put all the establishments on the same footing. I am not quite sure whether they were not a little too hasty in that. The twenty-seven third battalions are in a very different position from the seventy-four home battalions for mobilisation. The fourth battalions may be required to be sent abroad or to relieve the Regular troops, or they may have to go to the fighting formation, whereas the third battalions will be in a very different position. The third battalions are battalions in which it is impossible that the bulk of the men should be anything but new to their duties, but the General Staff are satisfied that the men will be able while at that work to receive training and send drafts to the troop battalions oversea. It is obvious, that being so, that the third battalions are in a very different position in these respects from battalions whose function it is to go abroad. I do not say that these third battalions may not go abroad, nor that they cannot be organised up to the battalions that will go abroad, but a great number of them will not be wanted for those functions. Anybody who has the interests of the Army at heart will put the business of getting troop battalion drafts in the first place. It will have to be considered whether the third battalions ought to be linked yet more closely to the Line. In the permanent arrangements that, and a multitude of other questions, will have to be considered, and the problem is not one that can be solved in a hurry. As regards the Special Reserve, the training is to be

  1177
  under Regular officers. I quote from the Report which will be issued to the House presently on the subject of the Special Reserve troops, and which states that as regards the troops for the Special Reserve it was almost unanimously conceded that they were generally good all round—in character, education, and physique. So they ought, for the training is far longer and better, and it may not be undesirable to consider whether the training for the short period should be added on to the annual training, and whether a change of that kind might not be profitable. That is a matter under the consideration of the Committee of which I have spoken, but until I have got the facts before me, I do not propose to commit myself to any statement. As regards the numbers of the Special Reserve, the establishment is at present 76,166, but that is rather a nominal than a real figure. The Special Reserve Artillery has been reduced by 6,000, and the true number of the establishment will be 70,166. We have at present 67,948, so that the number of Special Reservists is satisfactory. I may mention, as regards employment, which affects both the Regulars and Special Reservists, a good deal was done last year. A great many passed from the colours to civil life, and there were over 20,000 Reservists for whom, through various agencies, over 20,000 places were found. That, I think, is not a bad record. Good work has been done by the Army Medical Corps in reducing disease and illness, assisted through the agency of the chaplains of regiments, and by Dr. McKay in Scotland.
  I pass to a wholly different topic. From my earliest youth I have found the horse a most difficult animal to manage, and the worst of it is that one cannot get any advice upon which to act. [An HON. MEMBER: "No advice?"] Oh, yes, I get plenty of advice, but quot homines tot sententiœ. I get advice from hundreds and perhaps thousands of people. Under the circumstances, I was compelled to go to nature as one of my sources of advice. We have divided the question into two heads. One is mobilisation and the other breeding. For twenty years or more this question has been talked of, but absolutely nothing has been done, and therefore it is the intention, lest we make mistakes, to proceed tentatively and do the best one can. We are putting a plan in force very tentatively, and it is based on the existing powers we have under Section 114 of the Army Act. Those powers have existed for many years, though not much, apparently, is known
  1178
  about them. The police have power under that section to make a census of horses, and everybody is bound to give the police proper information, so that the horses may be ready for mobilisation at the proper time.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Is there any limitation put upon the price?
  Mr. HALDANE: If they do not quite agree it goes to a local tribunal. With the existing powers they possess and with the assistance of the Home Office, and I expect with that of my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, as well as that of his predecessor, who has rendered great help in this matter, the police took steps to obtain a census of horses in the United Kingdom. I have not got all the results of that census yet, but I give to the House figures which will, I think, prove of great interest. It is quite clear, I think, that the number of horses in the country is diminishing, but I would point out that the number of horses required for transport will not be so great, as motor transport will take the place of horse transport to a very much larger extent. The question is, what do we require on mobilisation? The mobilisation figures are that we require at present 67,278 horses for the Regulars and 86,287 for the Territorials, making a total of 153,000.
  5.0 P.M
  Mr. WYNDHAM: In giving the horses of the Regular Army is the right hon. Gentleman including the horses in the second line transport? The argument was that motor traction would diminish the number required.
  Mr. HALDANE: I am including all the horses required for mobilisation on the present establishment—that is, 153,000 horses altogether. The natural question one puts to oneself is what have we got towards that, and having found what we have got, what can we get? We have got a peace establishment of the Regular Army, after the usual 10per cent. deducted for defective horses, 16,029, and we have got some 20,000 registered horses. I think that those in the course of time will diminish, but at any rate we have got that number now. It may be broadly taken that we lave got to meet a deficiency of something approaching 120,000 horses in the supply for mobilisation of the Regular and Territorial Forces, excluding what we have in the peace establishment. How has that to be got over? The plan that has commended itself to us is to use the existing powers. I am

  1179
  far from saying that it is perfect machinery, but I think it is machinery which ought to be put into operation in the fist instance. I could advise a more perfect plan, but I am not sure that I could induce this House to accept it. Under the French system the mayor would be directed, under penalty of heavy fine, to summon every citizen, also under a penalty of a heavy fine, to bring up his horses on a certain day to a certain place to be inspected by the military authorities. I should prefer some other Minister than myself to do that. I think that if such a request were made to a local mayor his reply to the Government would not be very polite, and we should have no control over him of any sort. You have to educate your masters gradually before you get a plan of that kind.
  I think the more conservative course is better, and that we should use existing institutions. You have got the power to have a horse census; you may have to make various improvements in the machinery which the sections of the Army Act provide for enabling you to get the horses, but you have got these powers, and the plan we propose is this—to first of all take the number of horses in the Police Census and use that as a preliminary basis, and from the numbers so furnished to work out what will be the percentage in each county that will be required on mobilisation for the Regulars and Territorials, respectively. I may tell the House that the Regulars will only be about one-fifth of the Territorials.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Have all the counties complied with the Police Census?
  Mr. HALDANE: I think the whole of them. Some of them have to come in, and we have the Irish figures. But the census is being taken everywhere. We propose to ask the association to work out on the per centage the number required in each county to produce the quota and the classifications required, so as to give us a list in this way of where the horses are, and descriptions, ages, etc. of the horses represented. That may be a difficult task, or it may be a very light one. I know that in the parish in which I live in Scotland it should be a very easy task. I have not much knowledge of horses, but I spoke to a steward there who should know every horse within three or four miles. There are other people also who, working in the same spirit, could make a rough classification of every horse in the vicinity. It is not every horse that would be required.
  1180
  You do not want draught horses, or the horse, perhaps, of some distant man with a small farm. What you want to do is to classify only a small percentage out of the total number. You want to distribute the burden easily, and make a list of horses easily got at, and have regard to the burden on individuals. The horses may be taken at war time, but, of course, they would be paid for. I think that is a far better way of dealing with the matter through people resident in the counties on the spot who know their neighbours than to commence in a spirit of officials, and I am satisfied that until a good many years have passed, and until the system has broken down, we are not likely to make much progress in that direction. We shall furnish the association with such money as is necessary for doing what I have mentioned.
  That being the plan, how many horses exist, and how many are going to be available? I have not got in the whole of the census, but I have got in the census for the vast bulk of the counties, and for Ireland, and I am in a position to say that there are probably 2,000,000 horses in this country over four years, excluding brood mares and stallions. We want only 150,000, and it is obvious the work of classification is therefore a lighter work than it at first sight seems. This year we are purchasing a good many horses for the peace establishment, which will somewhat diminish the burden. Last year we bought 200 horses and boarded them out, and this year we are buying some more and sending them out on the boarding-out system. We have also supplied the Artillery last year with 452 extra horses, and we are making additions there also. In fact, within the last two years we have added 1,500 horses to the peace establishment. One word about breeding. The President of the Board of Agriculture has been in consultation with me about this matter, and he has worked out with me a plan which the War Office has elaborated with the officials of his Department, and with the consent of my right hon. Friend they hope to bring it forward very shortly. His plan is this: That stallions and mares found suitable for breeding foals for Army purposes should be registered as such at the Board of Agriculture; second, that owners of registered stallions should receive a bonus for every foal produced by their stallions and registered mares; third, that owners of registered mares should receive facilities for offering the foals produced, and fit for sale, direct

  1181
  to the War Department, and that the War Department should buy three-year-olds instead of four. The earlier sale is more convenient for the owner, as it gives him the opportunity of disposing of those horses which are not accepted. The number of stallions registered would be, say, 500, and of mares not more than about, 25,000. Those would produce about 150,000 foals. By this we should have 60,000 suitable for remount purposes, and if we adopt that system we should get rid of registration altogether. This plan wants a good deal of working out. It is the best we can devise. My right hon. Friend has taken the matter in hand, and I hope we will be able to make an announcement about it before very long.
  I pass to another subject, and that is the subject of officers—a subject about which there has been a good deal of conversation and writing, and on which I think also there exists a good deal of misapprehension. It is quite true that the tendency of the time is to provide so many other appointments for young men that there is not that tendency to go into the Army that there once was. On the other hand, the number of capable young men in the country is increasing, and there ought to be no lack of officers, and it does not appear now, after things have been looked into, that there is any great deficiency. Some deficiency there is, but not a deficiency to the extent which is popularly believed. Sir William Nicholson, Chief of the General Staff, with another member has investigated the subject thoroughly, and they have got the bed-rock facts. They took the five years period, 1895 to 1899, and they compared it with the period between 1905–1909. They took those periods so as to avoid war time, and comparing one quinquennial period with another we find that, although there is a diminution in the officers of the Army, it is only a diminution in the second quinquennial period as compared with the first of twenty-one candidates every year. I have no doubt the popular impression is very different. It is probably based on the fact that we have been plucking a good many more, as a higher standard is required.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: It is the case that you have been plucking more?
  Mr. HALDANE: Undoubtedly we have. In the old days nobody thought of training an officer on certain matters, and we have got a considerably higher standard
  1182
  before we say a candidate has qualified. The tendency is for the standard to go up. Referring to the tables, the average of candidates who came up in the first periods—
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Regimental officers?
  Mr. HALDANE: All officers in the Regular Army. That number used to be 871; it is now 850. These 871 are candidates coming up for the first time. Looking at the position as it stands at present, the situation is not so bad as it seems. There is another cause which has made the deficiency in officers seem greater than it is. We have very much enlarged the establishment during the last four or five years by the new staff appointments in the Regular Army and in the Territorials, and we have had to fill up this establishment. Hon. Members will readily appreciate that to fill up an establishment is a different thing from keeping it full when once it has been filled and only the wastage has to be made good. The General Staff are of opinion that the prospects of finding a proper supply of officers are not such as need cause apprehension. But they want very careful watching, because the profession of officer might become less popular than it is to-day. If, however, things should remain as they are, when the establishment is full we shall probably have enough or nearly enough. But we propose to take certain steps to put ourselves in a safer position. To begin with, we have already altered the age at which candidates enter to seventeen and a half, and as soon as the course at Sandhurst becomes a one-and-a-half years instead of a one-year course, we shall lower it to seventeen. We have already settled with the Advisory Committee, of which the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik) is chairman, that we will give nominations to cadets from selected public schools who have taken the leaving certificate. A proportion will be nominated by the head-masters and recommended to the Army Council. We hope in that way to-encourage a certain number. There are also other means under consideration with which I need not trouble the House.
  Then it is said that the pay of officers is insufficient. If you compare it, as I have done, with the pay of Civil servants, you will find that the officer is at least as well off in the earlier portions of his career. We have, however, already done something, and other things will have to be

  1183
  done, particularly with regard to the captain and the major. For efficient mobilisation officers we look to the Officers Training Corps, which was called into existence for that very purpose. To mobilise the six divisions there is no deficiency of officers; but to provide for the units left at home, at the depots and so on we should require to draw largely from the Reserve of Officers. The Officers Training Corps, which was designed to give us the means of filling our great deficiency, namely, subalterns, will, I hope, next year reach the very respectful total of 21,000 candidates in the public schools and universities. Just now it is nearly 20,000. Already we are beginning to reap the fruit of that organisation, as fifty men have quite recently taken commissions in the Special Reserve. The only other thing I wish to mention in connection with officers is this. We attach—certainly I attach—the utmost importance to the Staff College. We have decided to increase the Staff College this year by adding substantially to the number of instructors and also something to the number of students who can be accommodated. The General Staff goes on expanding, and after the conference of last year it became in fact, as well as in name, an Imperial General Staff. Sir William Nicholson receives weekly communications with regard to organisation. Lord Kitchener, on behalf of the War Office, accepted an invitation from Australia and New Zealand, and that great organising soldier has given full advice concerning the organisation of their forces, which I hope will bear practical fruit. Sir John French, similarly at the invitation of the Dominion Government, is going to Canada in the summer to give them like advice on the organisation of their forces.
  There are one or two other topics to which I wish to refer. The first is the question of the rifle. As the House knows, other nations are considering an automatic rifle. We are considering an automatic rifle, too. But our investigation has led us to suppose that the proper type of automatic rifle has not yet been reached, and that it will be some little time before an automatic rifle becomes a practicable thing. Several have been put on the market, but none of them yet suitable. On the Continent there has been adopted a new bullet which gives remarkable results, and which has a muzzle velocity considerably greater than ours. There they
  1184
  have an advantage which we do not possess, in that the rifles of the great Powers have a stronger breach mechanism than ours, and, taking a greater charge, can fire a lighter bullet. We have had to deal with this question—how to improve our service rifle so as to get results at all events analogous to those obtained on the Continent. As the result of four years' work we have produced a new bullet which very satisfactorily responds to the tests we have made, and which we propose to adopt tentatively. It is a bullet which resembles in material respects the German Spitzer, which has a very high muzzle velocity and a flat trajectory. The bullet we propose to adopt is larger than the German bullet, and weighs 160 grains against our old 212 grains and the German 150 grains. We have been able, thanks to the researches of the experts, without altering the present rifle at all, to produce much better results than we have under the existing system. Our new 160–grain bullet has a muzzle velocity of nearly 500 ft. greater than the present bullet, and its dangerous space approximates to, though it is not quite so good as, that of the German bullet. That is at 800 yards. The service rifle bullet has 13.7 feet trajectory; with the new bullet it is 8 ft. We are going to proceed experimentally by arming a certain number of companies in various parts of the country and making a test on a large scale. We believe the bullet will turn out well.
  I want to say a word about dirigibles and aeronautics. We made a start last year in this subject by getting a plan worked out by the Defence Committee for future progress, giving the rigid dirigibles to the Navy and the non-rigid dirigibles and the aeroplanes to the Army. Then the Prime Minister set up within the organisation of the National Physical Laboratory an Aeronautical Department on a considerable scale. That department got to work almost at once. Since then it has been found necessary to increase its buildings and staff. The Treasury have responded very freely, and the work at Teddington is now in full swing. Since last year we have also reorganised the Construction Department at Aldershot. It used to be under the care of an officer who did remarkably good work, Colonel Capper; but we want his great ability to train the officers and men who are to form the Balloon School and the corps which will navigate the dirigibles. We feel that the practical instruction

  1185
  should be in the hands of a civilian expert. We have got a man, I think, of great capacity, Mr. O'Gorman, who is very well known in connection with the construction of motor engines and all other matters connected with motors. Mr. O'Gorman has been at work for some time, and has now organised a staff at Aldershot. The Construction Department will be four times the size of what we have had up till now. Various plants have been set up. The next step we propose to take—and we have already decided on the lines of it—is to substitute for the present corps a regular Aeronautical Corps, such as exists in Germany, separate from any other corps in the Army, and devoted to aeronautics. As we develop our dirigibles we shall draw for officers and men on that corps. The present Ballooning School will become the training school for that corps. These are all our arrangements at the present time. Very many people will say: "You seem to be always making arrangements, and never getting any further." But I am convinced Of this, that until we get everything perfectly clear we shall only make very slow progress. For example, Lord Rayleigh's Committee at Teddington, presided over daily by Dr. Glazebrook, has been engaged on all sorts of things in conjunction with Colonel Capper and the experts of the Army and Navy. Such subjects, for instance, have been dealt with as defects in engines and in steering and anchoring apparatus, defects in fabrics, gusts—people do not realise what an extraordinary thing the atmosphere is—the weather influence on the surface of these balloons which may lead to their destruction—the question of electrical charges induced on airships, the illumination of the sky for the detection of foreign dirigibles, the question of the propulsion of dirigibles. These conditions need to be very carefully investigated, and have been under close investigation, and the results are being used for the designs which we are now at work upon. At present we have got one small dirigible at Aldershot designed by Colonel Capper, and so far it has done well. There are coming over from France two more—the Clement Bayard—negotiations for which have been undertaken by the Aeronautical Committee of the House, and if this is satisfactory it is not impossible that the War Department may purchase it. There is also the Lebaudy, which through the patriotism of the "Morning Post" has been offered to us. These are coming over before long. Then we are
  1186
  working on the designs for a large dirigible of our own, which I hope will be built in the course of the present financial year—certainly we hope to commence it, if it is not brought to completion. Then there is the great Navy dirigible, which is rapidly approaching completion. I believe it will be launched in the summer. As soon as we have made ourselves acquainted with the lessons which these teach, we shall go on working at the construction of dirigibles. We are making our Construction Department at Aldershot under Mr. O'Gorman of such a size that it can cope with the working out of our designs for a fleet, and I hope that the Aeronautic Corps and School, reorganised as it will be under Colonel Capper, will provide for the rest.
  So much for dirigibles. The whole subject is, I think, very much in its infancy. I am never alarmed when reading of the progress of other nations in this matter. No doubt we are behind. So we were in other matters. In motor cars, for instance. But when we had mastered the thing we went ahead very quickly. And again, so much in this matter that has been undertaken by foreign nations has already turned out to be unsatisfactory. However much they seem to lead the way, I trust I have made it clear that when we put our backs into the matter we shall find ourselves all right.
  Then I should like to say a word or two on a great subject upon which we are concentrating, that is the improvement of married quarters. This—involving the addition of sanitary annexes—is being carried out as rapidly as possible. The item has been increased to £270,000, of which £94,000 will have been spent by the end of this year. The balance will, it is estimated, complete the work. The abolition of single-room quarters cannot be completed until sufficient new quarters are built to house the families whose quarters are taken by the alteration, but where quarters can be had the alteration is proceeding without waiting for new quarters. In the new barracks at Edinburgh it has been decided to build accommodation for an infantry battalion as well as for a cavalry regiment on the new site at Red-ford. An item has also been taken for replacing the huts at Lichfield, and for completing the accommodation for a battalion at Fort Burgoyne, Dover, which will give a much-needed improvement to the barracks accommodation there. We are also improving the lighting of barracks. The electric installation at Aldershot is being extended under the advice of an

  1187
  eminent firm of engineers, and an installation is to be provided at the Curragh under the superintendence of the same firm. Considerable experience is being obtained of various installations of air gas, and for small barracks this illuminant will probably be the most satisfactory and its use extended. The re-arrangements will take some time, but it is very important they should be undertaken, because I myself have seen that the men cannot read with the lamps we have supplied them with. The improvement of the hospitals is progressing. This year the enlargement and improvement of Arbor Hill Hospital has been in hand, and next year Chatham and York hospitals will be dealt with, and a new hospital will on the loan be commenced at Tidworth. Officers' wards are now being provided at various hospitals. The alterations to provide these at Millbank are in hand. There should be in the future no difficulty in officers obtaining up-to-date accommodation when sick and injured.
  The only other subject I have to mention is that of the re-organisation of the Army Accounts Department. By this reorganisation the Army Accounts Department will get what the Public Accounts Committee have wished for some time, that is the strengthening of control by Parliament. The re-organisation is desirable for another reason there is saving of £38,000 per year, of which £11,000 goes into this year's accounts. The system has been worked out very carefully by one whom I miss very much in this House, Mr. Acland, whose services the fortune of a General Election has deprived me of. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that his loss is not only great to me, but great to many Members of the House, whose servant he always was with his great knowledge of all financial matters connected with the Army. However, I have got the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Mallet). The purpose of this reorganisation is to prepare for war. It is not, like the last, a civilian organisation, which made no preparation for war. On war we should have been compelled to improvise a new system, that would have been disastrous. The training of military men is being carefully proceeded with under the permanent financial heads of the War Office in the whole Army Accounts Branch. The system will also provide for the auditing being separated from the accounts.
  1188
  I feel that I have detained the House very long, but I have almost done. For five years in succession I have brought in these Estimates. I know not whether I may bring them in again. The future will not disclose its secrets. Great changes have been made in these five years. The old Volunteers and Yeomanry have been transformed into an organised Army. The Militia have been incorporated into the Regular Line as its Special Reserve. The Cardwell system has been completed and carried to its logical conclusion. The Home troops of the Regular Army have been organised into an expeditionary force of six divisions and a Cavalry division. Yet these things are only the beginning, and not the end of wisdom. One of the very greatest of modern military writers in a book, which, although I am a civilian, has been my constant companion during these years, General von der Goltz, in his "Nation in Arms," uses these pregnant words:—
  "The enigma to be solved in the present state of affairs is how to produce a complete relation of the-military to the social and industrial life of the people, so that the former may impede the latter as little as possible, and that on the other hand the full wealth of the resources of the latter may be widened by the healthy state of the former."
  That is emphatically our problem in Great Britain. I have faith that the foundations have been laid and the structure commenced of an edifice in which the nation and the Army, the civilian and the soldier, will live and work together, and know and sympathise with each other far more closely than in days gone by. Yet how much has still to be done before this ideal can be accomplished no man in this House can realise more keenly than I, who have been engaged all these years in the struggle towards that ideal, do. So little done: undone vast! before we get the sympathy, confidence, and understanding that there ought to be between that branch of the service of the State and the nation. Let us throw our efforts into the work of bringing these two more closely together, and I believe we have not anywhere got within sight of the extent to which you can go under the voluntary system. I believe it is the voluntary system which gives you the greatest chance of bringing the Army and the nation closest together. I see no reason why, if you want to expand the Army or the Reserves, and bring them nearer to civilian sources, you cannot do it but on the voluntary system. Let us throw our efforts into this work—our passionate efforts, for without passion nothing great can be

  1189
  accomplished. It may be given to me to do what little I can for a little longer, or it may be that the work will pass into other hands. But whatever happens I have small doubt of the result. The burden would be borne by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite as cheerfully as it has been borne by us. Parliament has, I think, already made it manifest that we have quitted the day of idle talk, and that nothing short of strenuous work will be accepted. The War Office and the Army have responded nobly to the call made upon them during these years, and I may add during the South African War. I believe the days of strenuous labour have come to stay for all of us, officers and men.
  I feel that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have the same convictions as we have. They may make changes; that I do not dread, if, as I believe, these changes prove to be the outcome of further knowledge and experience. Errors and shortcomings, of which I do not doubt there are many, will be discovered and corrected. I have confidence that as I myself have striven to do my duty in no party spirit, so will those who come after me, whatever be their political faith. If so, progress is assured, and the end will ultimately be attained. And if I am, in days to come, a Member of this House, I shall hope to help them as freely as they have helped me. There must be criticism. It is the advantage of the party system that it provides that criticism, which, restrained within proper limits, is necessary to maintain the level of administration, and that criticism is all the more potent for good if it is not factious.
  I have made my confession of faith in a closer relation of the Army to our people believing in the reality of a growing and a better understanding of the needs of the Army by the nation and by Parliament. I leave these Estimates in the hands of the House with the hope that, their shortcomings notwithstanding, they may help to make a step further towards the attainment of that goal which we all have at heart.
  Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: Old and new Members of the House must have admired the spirit which imbued the closing sentences of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I should say that only a man who has worked as hard and devotedly as he has worked during the last few years would have been entitled to speak in the ones of those concluding sentences, and
  1190
  I will add that no other man who has done so much work would have the clear vision and the frankness to say, as he did, that so much more work remains to be done by himself or by those who may succeed him. If I may say so, not in a spirit of criticism, the new Members of this House who have not had the pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman before will admire his self-restraint and industry, by virtue of which he compressed his remarks-within the modest compass of two hours. He promised at the outset that he would achieve that because there was nothing new in this scheme so far as the design and plan of our land forces is concerned. I agree that is so. These Estimates contained nothing sensational. They show an increase of a handful of men and a slight increase in the cost of the Army, and indeed we are considering the Army Estimates this year under conditions which, apart from the speech, suggest that the Army Estimates are a mere part of a mechanical finance which has to be got through somehow in order that the Government may be carried on anyhow. The danger of not making the best of the opportunity is increased by the fact that after Easter we shall be plunged into an acute constitutional controversy. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has mollified the asperity of that controversy by the tributes which he paid to Noble Lords for the assistance which they have given him, and the reiterated tributes he paid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the generosity of his support of his most darling project. But this is the proper annual occasion upon which we take counsel together in order to perform our common duty towards one great branch of national defence. The Secretary of State appreciates this. He showed he appreciated it, and his speech shows he appreciated it. He granted, as we all do—and I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friends behind me—the zeal with which the distinguished soldiers who assisted him have laboured in improving the organisation of the Army, but, as I say, this is the occasion for taking stock of the actual results of the things that have been done.
  In the speech to which we have listened the points which awakened the most interest on this side of the House and the closest sympathy were the points which dealt not with the present, but the future. We were delighted to hear that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider increasing the establishments of

  1191
  Infantry battalions above 720 men in the home Army. We were glad to know that the organisation of the Special Reserve was to be inquired into by a Commission. We were pleased to know that we may have remounts in order to secure a proper supply of horses for the Army, and we were glad of the impression that the right hon. Gentleman did not preclude the idea of increasing the pay of the officers. Each of these four points, to every one of which we attach importance, related to the visionary and problematical future. When we come to consider, on the occasion of the annual Army Estimates, what progress has been made and results obtained. I think, in order to gauge these results, we must look at them from two points of view—from the point of view of what was possible and what was done under the old system before the right hon. Gentleman, and, I will add, his predecessor, undertook their measures, and we must look at these effective results from the point of view of how much has been done. The right hon. Gentleman admits that there is much more to be done before we can be satisfied at the progress made. I only touch upon the first point of what has been done—I need not dwell upon it. We are not to forget two things. First, that the old Army could do a great deal. Last May the right hon. Gentleman signed, in common with his colleagues, a very interesting Memorandum, which reminds us that during the war 228,000 odd officers and men of the Regular Army were sent from this country to South Africa. It is well we should remember that, for people often believe that the great bulk of the troops sent to South Africa were Volunteers or Militia, or contingents that came from our Colonies. The second thing we are to remember is that the system which produced that result was universally condemned everywhere upon the ground of its insufficiency and in respect of the number of fully trained men. I need not say another word upon that point, except this, that in respect of the number of fully-trained men there is not much difference nowadays from what was the case when these results were described as inadequate.
  6.0 P.M.
  I do not want to trouble the House now, but if we are to take stock of the situation and compare the present moment with, say, four years ago, I think we should make other comparisons than taking the actual changes which are published in these Estimates. We have 14,000
  1192
  odd fewer Regulars, we have 33,000 more added to Reserve, nearly 24,000 less in the Special Reserve than four years ago in the Militia, and 7,000 more added to the Territorial Forces than we had in the Yeomanry and Volunteers. That is to say, that altogether taking the Regular Army, Regular Reserve and Special Reserve, and Territorial Forces, we have 2,469 more men than four years ago, comparing the beginning of this year with 1906. Yes, but in order that that comparison will tell us the truth, we must remember that a large number of the men now in the Reserve are due to provisions which rightly or wrongly, it does not matter, have been abandoned, and we must recollect that the Army Reserve will not continue to stand as it does now, at nearly 134,000 men, because in the Memorandum to which I have referred, the Memorandum of the Army Council last May, we are told that the normal of the Reserve will only be 116,000 men. If that be the case, I suggest that the true comparison between where we are now and where we were four years ago is that we are decreased in numbers by 15,515 men. Granting, as we do, how admirable has been the work done upon the Army—the work of the right hon. Gentleman and his assistants—on organisation it cannot be said that in respect of the number of fully trained men we have acted upon a view universally held and authoritatively expressed with respect to the old Army which sent that large force of Regular troops from this country to South Africa. If we look at what is really effected from the other point of view, namely, from the point of view of what has been done, that impression is intensified. No one can deny that in respect to naval supremacy and to liability to invasion we have been forced to reconsider what was the official Estimate four years ago in respect to naval supremacy. The possibility of our maintaining the two-Power standard is officially discounted in respect to the liability of our shores to invasion. The official raid by 10,000 or 15,000 men has now been increased to an official raid of 70,000 men, and, therefore, many believe it is conceivable that a larger number of foreign troops might be placed upon our shores. That is important. If those to whom we must look for advice tender that advice to this Government, or any other something has happened which we have to take into account since the time when we were told authoritatively that we had not enough fully trained men in this country. What we have to do in the light of this reconsideration

  1193
  of official authority is to consider how far the results already effected go to meet the exigencies of our military problem. I think we may congratulate ourselves upon the fact that what these needs are is now denned much more clearly and in a manner to secure much more general assistance than was the case not very long ago. We know we have to maintain an Army overseas; that is not disputed. We may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman of having worked out an exact balance between the number of Infantry battalions overseas and those at home, and the exact balance between the number of Cavalry regiments overseas and those at home, but we must regret that that balance is precarious and depends upon the aspect of foreign affairs in other quarters of the world, and we must continue to deplore that the right hon. Gentleman got rid of a certain number of regiments that would have afforded a useful margin for the future. Upon the point of maintaining the overseas army, it is sufficient to say that it would be madness to reduce it or to contemplate its reduction. The second great need is that the Regular Army at home should be organised into a Cavalry division, twelve regiments, and six divisions of all arms, and that the Expeditionary Force ought to be ready to go at any moment when it is thought proper to send it from this country. That is a very important definition. The third need which our force must be prepared to meet is defined in this way. When that expedition has gone we must, in the Territorial Force and in any leavings from the expedition, have a sufficient number of men sufficiently trained in this country to deter any other country from attempting invasion, or enough to secure the defeat of invasion if it is attempted. The right hon. Gentleman will admit, I think, that I have not overstated his account of what the needs are which we have to meet. The question is, Can we meet those needs as stated by me when the right hon. Gentleman accepts my statement that I am not exaggerating those needs?
  Let us take the second need, that of being able to send from this country an expedition of six divisions of all arms, and, I ought to add, of being able to maintain it in the field. That is a crucial point. The right hon. Gentleman, in the opening part of his speech, said he would speak about the Territorial Force and about the Expeditionary Force. He made special reference to the body which should maintain
  1194
  the Expeditionary Force in the field, but all he told us about it was that he intended to appoint a Commission to see whether it could be improved on or not.
  Mr. HALDANE: Not a Commission, but a Departmental Committee within the War Office.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I think it is more useful that we should speak on different aspects rather than we should each dilate upon the same aspect. Taking the sending of this force out of the country the question of mere numbers does arise, although I admit not nearly with so much force in regard to mobilisation as to what happens afterwards. It is much more important that we should consider the maintenance of the Army after mobilisation, because if you have a spare number of fully trained men then the period in which you have to have recourse to less fully trained men is more remote. The third great need is after the Expeditionary Force has gone, because if you can leave a certain excess of fully trained men you have a stiffening of your Territorial Force, and you have a model upon which that force can be worked. I do not think I am going too far when I say that it would be madness on our part to fix the number of fully trained Regulars and Reservists in this country down to the bare limits of the requirements of the Expeditionary Force. That would be madness until progress has been made with the numbers and the training of the Territorial Force to which no approach has been made up to the present time, and to which no approach can be hoped for in the near future.
  There is another aspect in close connection with mobilisation of the Regular Army upon which I will dwell, in addition to the aspect of mere numbers, and that is the relation of the number of Regulars with the colours to the number of Regular Reserves. The right hon. Gentleman has himself touched upon this point, and it was one of the points which attracted and awakened our notice and riveted it, and we were disappointed when we found he had not made up his mind that the establishments of the Infantry at home ought to be greater than they are. I will give some reasons for thinking that that is a change which should be made. I could submit a good many reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should be ready to consider whether the establishment of 720 in the Infantry battalions ought to be increased. I am going, however, to confine myself to the Infantry, the so-called "Queen of Battle."

  1195
  My reason for thinking that it would be well to increase the establishment is, in the first place, that in order to have progressive training, and in order to have throughout the year an efficient battalion, you want more than 720 men. Every military adviser, ten years ago, dinned it into the Minister of the day that you could not carry out properly the training of a Regular battalion unless you had 720 men in it. I think if the right hon. Gentleman asked his military advisers they would tender him the same advice which they tendered ten years ago.
  But there is another reason for this, and it is one which the right hon. Gentleman himself touched upon. To get a Reserve you must have a certain number of men with the colours, and all the more since, rightly or wrongly, you now require seven years with the colours and five years with the Reserve. Of course, when you have your men serving seven years with the Colours and five with the Reserve your establishment must be greater. On mobilisation, with a battalion of 720 men you have too great an influx of new and unfamiliar faces, and in order to make that up to war strength you must take in at least 500 men. I think you will be lucky if you get 500 serving with the colours and 500 serving with the Reserve. That is too great a change to take place on mobilisation on the very eve of testing your machine by the greatest test that can be applied to men's knowledge and men's nerves.
  The fourth reason I submit is, that if it be possible it is well that the peace strength of any military body should approximate to its war strength, and that the size of the battalion should not show too great a difference. Practice at manœuvres, the importance of which the right hon. Gentleman has insisted upon, is not good practice if it takes place with bodies much smaller than those which will actually have to be wielded in war, and that is almost the whole problem. The position you are called upon to defend, the manner of getting to it, the time it takes, and the occupation of that position all depend upon the size of the body you are leading. This is an important matter for the battalion commander, and how much more important is it for the brigadier and the divisional leader commanding smaller numbers. It makes all the difference to the Staff work what is the size of the body they are working with. Staff work, to be of any use when exposed to the
  1196
  terrible conditions of war, must be almost-automatic in its accuracy and speed, and it is not wise or fair to ask Staff officers who have been doing Staff work with troops of one size to do Staff work in the face of the enemy with troops twice the size, which take twice as long to get to the place to be occupied. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, can see the principle of my argument in his Memorandum. He is going to have a division of war size made up by taking in voluntary reservists or accepting volunteers from other regiments. Why is he doing that? When you come to deal with four divisions clearly in order that our General Staff officers may know their business they ought to work in peace with the huge, unwieldy weapons they will be called upon to handle in war.
  Then there is a fifth argument which may appeal to the Secretary for War. He is placing the establishment at 720 for the Infantry battalions. May I point out that in the Colonies the infantry battalion establishment is 840, and in India in round numbers it is 1,000. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make some beginning towards having, as far as may be, symmetrical or less hasty methods of commands in the British Army. It would be well if we could approach something nearer to symmetry in the size of the commands. On the ground that there is something to be said for increasing the total number and improving the training of our battalions and helping to create a Reserve, on the ground that our commanders ought to practise in peace with bodies of the same strength which they will have to wield in war, I trust the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider favourably the number of men now serving in Infantry battalions.
  My next point is the maintenance of the Army in the field after it has been despatched from this country. I think the case for increasing the establishment of our Infantry is strong upon mobilisation, but it is much stronger when we come to consider the duty of maintaining these bodies when in the field. You do not want too great a burden placed too soon upon your Special Reserves. The right hon. Gentleman has made himself a party to a strong statement in favour of the necessity of maintaining the Army in the field properly, and I am certain, if he can, he will do all that in him lies to strengthen the machinery we have for maintaining our Army in the field. In the Memorandum I have already referred to (Command Paper 4611 of the Army Council

  1197
  of last May) the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at the War Office have accepted and approved a very important statement contained in that Report of Mr. P. MacDougall's Committee of 1872, which states:
  "The completion of the expeditionary battalions to war strength forms the smallest part of the task imposed upon the administration of the Army. These battalions must afterwards be maintained in the field in undiminished numbers and efficiency."
  How is that met by the Special Reserve? The Special Reserve is far less, even in numbers, than was the Militia four years ago. Then look at the establishment of these seventy-four battalions—the 3rd battalions as the right hon. Gentleman calls them—seventy Line and four Rifle battalions. I cannot agree—and I doubt if any of those who sit behind me, and many of whom are far more qualified than I am to offer an opinion, having served much more recently in the Army will agree—that an establishment of 550 men makes a battalion at all.
  Mr. HALDANE: On mobilisation it is swelled up to 1,200 or 1,300. The whole of those figures are worked out.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am perfectly aware of that, but surely the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that, if you are looking at these battalions for the drafts which are to maintain your Army in war within a week or a fortnight of going to war, you would rather have a Reservist who has been trained in his battalion instead of a man merely taught the rudiments of it in a barrack yard. If these battalions are to be schools for the terrible experience of war, then they ought to be made more like the real thing than a battalion, so-called, of only 550 men. I see an hon. Member dissents from that, but will it be asserted that in such a machine as that a man learns all that he ought to know, and know by instinct and habit, in order to be ready to take his place in the front line of the British Army within a fortnight of that army being engaged in war? It might be made better if you had more officers better suited for the work which has to be done in these battalions. We know that the difficulty about officers which occurs throughout the Army really reaches a point in connection with the Special Reserve which seems to ask for something more than a Departmental Committee. Where do the officers come from? Some enter these battalions under compulsion. They are Cavalry officers who might very fitly be very efficient officers in the
  1198
  Yeomanry; but no, they are sent to do Infantry drill. That retiring allowance or retiring pay or deferred emoluments they have earned by their services are not given to them unless they take up this work instead of officering the Yeomanry—work they are fitted for by their training.
  I am not making any charge against the right hon. Gentleman; it is an expedient. But here is one of those weak spots which has got to be strengthened if our protection is to be a reality and not a sham, and it occurs in that part of the machinery for war which, he says, is a greater task than the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force. Some of its officers are Cavalry officers who are compelled to take service in these battalions in order that they may not be mulcted of the deferred pay which they have earned. The other officers are old Militia officers, often young men who were officers in the old Militia. I regret to believe, but I do believe, that there is a great prejudice against the employment of the young men who were officers in the Militia. I should like to see a greater interchange of officers throughout all the branches of the Army, but I am certain you cannot get the kind of recruit you want in these Special Reserve battalions, and you cannot train them as they ought to be trained unless you can still attract some of the young men who used to go in the Militia and unless you can offer them some career in a service of that kind. That is not being done. A few are hanging on in the hope of things improving, but the time is not far distant when you will lose that sort of officer, and there will be no sort of officer except Regulars, who are compelled to take this somewhat distasteful work in order to secure the pay they have already earned. Until you can make these battalions more like real battalions, they will not be proper schools for immediate warfare, and you cannot make them real live battalions unless they get a better and more congenial stamp of officer than now is the case. Until those two reforms are effected, they are not in any sense proper schools for war, but mere multiplied barrack-yard squads.
  The right hon. Gentleman also touched upon the twenty-seven extra battalions of the Special Reserve. He called them the fourth battalions. I do not know whether he means to affiliate them to Line battalions. Those battalions have no reserve at all. They hardly exceed the others in number—I think a little over 560, instead of 550–and they have no

  1199
  reserve at all. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says, and says truly, that he looks to these battalions on the outbreak of war to take up the positions of garrisons in the Mediterranean to do the work the Militia did during the last war. Is it possible to ask a battalion of well under 600 men to take up work of that kind, if there are no reserves behind them at all?
  Mr. HALDANE: They were originally to be 800 establishment, but at the request of the right hon. Gentleman opposite I made an alteration to 550.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he concedes that we must increase the establishment of these battalions?
  Mr. HALDANE: I think it is very likely.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: We will take it at that for the moment, but just consider how great is the burden now cast upon the Special Reserve, a reserve of the character I have described. It has to do three things, according to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. The Special Reserve has to grind out the drafts to maintain the Army in the field; it has to find sentry garrisons for the ports of this country; and in more dubious terms we were told that these battalions might also be expected to support the Army in the field and to expand the numbers engaged. All those are necessary functions of our plan if it is to be a good plan, and yet we are asked to believe those three functions can be carried out by boys too young or too short to go into the Army, who go for six months into a barrack yard and are drilled by officers compelled to serve or officers merely tolerated as the remnants of a retiring Militia.
  Mr. HALDANE: I think if the right hon. Gentleman would go and look at the Special Reserve on Salisbury Plain he would get a very different impression.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am sorry if I have overstated my case. I have been credibly informed that the men of this Special Reserve are better than might have been anticipated, and have profited enormously by their six months' training. I agree, and I am delighted to hear it, but it does not affect the argument in principle I have adduced to the House, that these bodies, so formed, so trained, so officered, cannot discharge the triple duty which is placed
  1200
  upon them under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. I am sure he does not wish me either to magnify the progress that has been made or to minimise the needs which have to be met. It is no use deceiving ourselves in this country, because we certainly are not going to deceive anybody else. If it is agreed that you have to maintain in the field an expeditionary force of a Cavalry division, and six divisions of all arms, and then it is stated you are going to do it by this means, I do not think we can even deceive ourselves. Some other, some fuller, and some better means must be devised for carrying out the duties now cast upon the Special Reserve.
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt first with the Territorial Force, and, secondly, with mobilisation. I think I have said all I have to say upon mobilisation. There are three other weak points affecting our first line. The horses, the officers, and the conditions under which manœuvres are now carried out in this country. Those three points affect the Territorial Force even more gravely than the first line of the Expeditionary Force—the Regulars, the Reserves, and the Special Reserves. For the moment I pass to our second line, as at present constituted, and I come to the third great need which has to be met, as defined by the right hon. Gentleman and all who take an interest in the matter—I mean the need of protecting this country against invasion after the Expeditionary Force has gone. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken exception to the language in which I said that liability to invasion was a risk which was officially believed to be nearer and greater than was the case in official circles four or five years ago. It is admitted on both sides of the House, and by those who have been responsible for the Army and by the Minister who is now responsible for the Army, that the risk of invasion is not now what it was some years ago, but is a greater risk, and one more imminent than was then the case. It is in the light of that reconsideration of an assumption, coupled with the fact that our capability of maintaining the two-Power standard is officially discounted, that we have to consider what progress has been made with the Territorial Force to meet our needs. If we look at mere numbers I think we may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that he has got a great many more men this year than he had last year. Speaking at Halifax, he pointed out that the risk of invasion was one which ought to be taken into account He spoke to employers of labour. They

  1201
  responded, and he had the "Daily Mail" to help him, with the result that there are now 274,188 men in the Territorial Force. Will anybody pretend that in mere point of numbers an establishment of 315,000 would be enough? Not if we consider the duties which are cast upon the Force in accordance with the definition of the needs to be met—the Expeditionary Force gone, the Special Reserve busy performing its triple functions, for not one of which it is adequate, and 315,000 men left to perform the duty of deterring an opponent from attempting an invasion or of defeating an invasion if it is attempted. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would not contradict me if I state—I am quoting figures given me by the military correspondent of "The Times," and I think they give the views generally entertained—that you will want at least 100,000 of the Territorial Force for local mobile defence. You cannot leave the Wolds of Yorkshire to look after themselves. There are many spots in this country where, if you treat invasions as a real risk, you must have a force to meet it, and a force which must be taken from the Territorial Force. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Special Reserve can do all the garrisoning needed in this country. It would have to be helped out by drafts from the Territorial Force. I think it has been said we must have a central force of at least 300,000 men in order to crush a raid of 70,000 men. It seems to me that on the mere question of numbers this establishment of 315,000 men represents rather what the right hon. Gentleman aims at, than what he thinks the country needs, if our Territorial Force is to be of such a character as to liberate the Expeditionary Force at the right moment. Nobody knows in war when the right moment for striking a blow may come, and unless we have a better second line than we get under this scheme no Government of the day could liberate the expedition at that strategical moment when it must be driven home if the fortunes of this country are to be assured. Just as in the lifetime of a man a chance comes which he takes or misses, so in the case of a nation the chance comes, and this nation must be empowered to take that chance when it does come. You ought not to have to forego it because our second line is admittedly incompetent to discharge the duties placed upon it.
  Then I come to another question, that of training, which is, perhaps, more important. The training is to be fifteen days,
  1202
  and it must be timely, and if the Expeditionary Force is to be liberated it must be simultaneous. We know men dribble into and out of camp, with a result that no commanding officer is aware what the strength of his regiment will be on parade on a particular day. Unless we face the fact that longer training is required and simultaneous training as well, we are only deluding ourselves in this matter. Our Second Line as constituted cannot perform the duties put upon it. This is not the moment to sketch an alternative policy. Nobody wishes to do so. We are bound to give the plan of the right hon. Gentleman a fair trial, and we mean that it should have one. But it is not giving it a fair trial to say that it does something which its author knows it will not do. It is not fair to our country to say we believe it can do this thing when we do not believe it. I think we must realise that our Second Line is not adequate for the needs which we all agree it may have to meet.
  I pass now to a weak point which affects both the First and Second Lines—horses. I am surprised to hear that it is upon the machinery of the county associations which are trying to keep in being the Territorial Force the right hon. Gentleman thinks he can cast additional labours of any kind. I do not think he can. The county associations of this country have been willing servers of their country, but nearly all the men upon them are the men who are busy because they are useful in other walks of life. It so happens in England—I do not know if it is the case in foreign countries—that the man doing nothing and having no business is already on the county associations, but it would be no good asking him to classify horses, although naturally he would be quite ready to undertake the job at a reasonable remuneration. He is not the man who should be called upon to do this work. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman's description of the horse problem. There are two aspects, both important and distinct. First, there is the aspect of getting the horses you require when you want them, and the second aspect is embodied in the question of seeing that you have enough horses of a suitable kind in this country whenever you want them. As to the first point I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can look to the county associations. Just think of the magnitude of the task. I think we have had it that for the peace establishment of the Army we required 15,000 horses, which would

  1203
  need a register of about 23,000 and that would require on mobilisation of the First Line 31,000 or 32,000 horses. Where are you to find those 32,000 horses? Nobody knows at present. Then, how long does it take to get the horses passed? I believe that in foreign countries three experts, working far more than eight hours per day, cannot pass more than 150 horses a day. Imagine the county association, overburdened at the outbreak of war, undertaking this impossible task and sending experts to examine at the rate of 150 horses per day from 50,000 to 60,000 horses which will be necessary for the mobilisation of your First Line! It cannot be seriously contended that we are grappling with this great problem. If it be contended for one moment that it can be dealt with in this way, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me in the spirit in which I say it, that while we are very grateful to him for having put the problem in the forefront of the discussion, we do not think that his present proposal will very long hold its place, in view of the magnitude of the task which has to be performed, and of the fact that we have no men to do it. The men must be trained experts, they must be both officers and veterinary surgeons; they cannot be mere Skimpoles of the countryside who have nothing better to do. In order to mobilise you must have your classification of horses and concentration as well, and you must by some means or other place obligations on the persons who have the horses, and make it clear to them that they owe it to the nation to bring them up when they are required. Until our countrymen understand that when war breaks out and horses are needed they must be forthcoming, I think it cannot be said that they will be in a state to meet our demands. I know the right hon. Gentleman has been doing his best to educate them on this point during the last few years, but I am convinced that great as is the receptivity which has been displayed there must be a greater increase of it in the days still to come. The other aspect of the horse question is equally importent. How are we to keep up the general supply of horses in this country? I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he is prepared to favourably consider the idea of buying horses when they are three years old and keeping them until they are four years old on remount farms to be established in suitable parts of this country. I take it that the right hon.
  1204
  Gentleman puts that forward as the best solution of the problem. But this is a matter which cannot be left in doubt. Are you to buy three-year-old horses on a sufficient scale to make a market at home for young horses, and are you to buy the land on which they are to be kept until they are old enough to be broken? That appears to be the idea in the mind of the Minister of War.
  Mr. HALDANE: The general plan is to be carried out by the Board of Agriculture, and then I come into it. I only want to guard myself against the suggestion that the War Department is undertaking the whole organisation.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: We are very pleased to hear of this idea for making a market for young horses in this country. We are glad it has been taken up by the Government. I am surprised as well as pleased, because the right hon. Gentleman said the other day, in reply to a question, that he thought the purchase of young horses by foreigners was a good thing, because it encouraged people to breed. At that my spirits sank to zero. We have to create a market at home for these horses, and to prevent other countries, who may be our antagonists in war, from making a market of their own country for our young horses; otherwise they may have a chance of ham-stringing the whole of our preparations for war.
  The second weak point is as to the supply of officers for the Army. Only the other day it was stated that the officers of the Army and Ministers of the Crown were the only two classes of Englishmen who had received no increase of emoluments during the last sixty years. That is now no longer true. Two Ministers of the Crown at least are now being more adequately paid for their services, and I think it would be well if the Government would now turn their attention to the other branch and see that the officers of the British Army are given remuneration which would enable them to remain in the Army and will attract others to the Army.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: How about the private?
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I pointed out that there were only two classes—Ministers of the Crown and officers of the Army—whose remuneration had not been increased for a long number of years. Privates in the Army have had their wages increased by more than 25 per cent. in very recent years. Nobody suggests that that

  1205
  has been done for the officers, and some increase is undoubtedly necessary if you are to get into the Army the type of man you require. You cannot ask him to work harder and enjoy less prestige on a falling wage in a falling market. There is another point I wish to raise, and that relates to the conditions under which our troops take part in manœuvres. I am not speaking of the restrictions as to access to land, though I was glad to read the report of the Military Manœuvres Commission, which urges the Government to give larger rights of access to the public parks. That was no doubt in consequence of the attitude of members of the Commission, which was largely composed of landowners, and actually presided over by a Duke. They were all in favour of the Army going on the land they would have to defend, and learning their trade without regard to the mere amenities of the very people whose lives the Army protects. That was not what I had in my mind, however, though I hope the right hon. Gentleman will act upon that permission. What I had in my mind was the night lodging of our troops during the manœuvres on the cold ground. That is a matter to which we must turn our attention. I was at the last manœuvres, and I went round with the troops and found they were not protected in any way. I found it very pleasant to sleep in an orchard myself, because it happened to be fine at that time, and I slept on the ground delightfully, but I saw the morass in which one of our first brigades of the British Army had been sleeping three or four nights, a week or ten days before, when there had been continuous rain.
  The right hon. Gentleman desires to bring the nation and the Army more nearly together, and, if that is so, need we take 50,000 of our lads and expose them to the severities of an English summer without any protection of any kind? I happened to see the end of the French manœuvres, and I saw how the troops were welcomed in every village and household by the inhabitants, and at our last manœuvres no foreign attaché could believe that men who had been marching twenty-five miles a day were to sleep in the open close by to barns and homesteads and other palatial buildings in which they might have been billeted. Our Billeting Laws are a relic of the past. Every other army which indulges in manœuvres and without manœuvres you cannot have an army, provides billeting for the troops who take part, but our Billeting Laws belong to a
  1206
  past, and a barbarous past, being enacted at a time when soldiers were caged in barracks all the year round, and then turned out to march from one place to another. Then you had Billeting Laws passed under which they were put up in licensed premises with the statutory right to the cruet stand. Our Billeting Laws were intended only to protect the civil population from the outbreaks which might be expected from the Army in those days. Now all that is changed, and all the 50,000 young men and lads, who were taking part in the manœuvres last year would have been welcomed in any English village and under any English roof, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, that these young soldiers should in accordance with the sentiments he has expressed go, not only to the parks of the dukes, but also have an entry, which is now forbidden, into the homesteads they are to protect.
  Sir CHARLES DILKE: I should not have taken part in this Debate even briefly had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I can assure my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, that it is with no idea of renewing the conflicts on first principles that I have had with him in the past, that I speak to-day, and had it been only his speech to which I had listened, with its most interesting details of the accomplishment of work that he has been doing in his own way and at his own time, I should not have ventured to speak even for a few minutes to the House. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has enunciated, certainly not for the first time, some propositions which seem to me, and I should think to the Noble Lord who sits behind him, such stupendous heresies that I think that some of us in this House ought to put in an immediate protest against them. The doctrine of invasion has always been pushed much further by the right hon. Gentleman than by his leader—always, and that in the three last Parliaments before the present. The Minister has to-day, as War Ministers always do, played a little for his own hand as against the Fleet; but we must remember that the presentation of the Territorial Army to the country as the main object which we have in view in voting these our Military Estimates, is not in accordance with the true facts. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has asked us to come to the true facts.

  1207
  The true fact is that we are voting these enormous Estimates, the greater portion of which concern the Regular Army, for the purpose of keeping an expeditionary Army in addition to the Indian Army, and the Army for Colonial defence and in all parts. We talk a little about the possibility of invasion when we talk of our Territorial Army, but we do not—the overwhelming majority of us—believe the country is open to invasion, or that the Fleet has fallen off in its power of doing its duty as compared with days past. In comparison historically with the time when we did stand open to invasion, namely, in the few months of 1859, when France might have invaded us, but did not, because we lost the command of the sea, as we now know, for a certain time against a single Power, the matter is now quite different, and no one of us who is prepared to pay his part and to call upon others to pay their part to keep the Fleet up to the highest standard of efficiency and safety which we at present enjoy—no one of us ought to be prepared to run the Territorial Army on this occasion as though it were the main and most costly portion of the Estimates that are put before the House. The Territorial Army is defensible as the volunteers were defensible. It is an improvement on the volunteer system, and it might have been made without the statute upon which it is based, but that it will add an enormous expenditure to our Army, putting aside the Regular Army, the Indian Army and our Colonial Army, is not the case.
  Our Territorial Army in fact cannot be kept in view as the first object which we have to consider in the course of these Debates. The details with which the Secretary of State's speech was mainly occupied are details which in some degree concern the reality of the Expeditionary Army, and in some degree concern the Territorial Army, which is so valuable, but so secondary in the scheme of our defence as compared with the Regular Army and the Fleet. The news that the right hon. Gentleman gave us, or which was welcomed as news by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), was, I think, no surprise. It could have been no surprise to the Member for Dover that some slight increase of the home battalions was contemplated. No doubt we shall have to-morrow a Motion before the House for a reduction in numbers upon this Question, if Members wish to go back upon that; but it
  1208
  cannot be forgotten that two years ago, in another place, the Government went almost as far as they have gone tonight with regard to the increase of or the need of increasing these battalions being highly probable, and the announcement which was made on 16th March, 1908, was virtually the same announcement which has been made to-night with regard to their weakness. It was made by Lord Lucas in another place just two years ago and taken notice of by Lord Lansdowne, the Leader of the Opposition. The proposal with regard to the Cavalry is another detail which concerns the Expeditionary Force, but might I urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance which I am sure he knows as well as I do myself, though he did not allude to it, of horsing and of presenting on the field in time of war or at the manœuvres which he is going to have next year a larger proportion of the nominal strength of his Cavalry regiments.
  The Cavalry is very costly. The right hon. Gentleman has the Chancellor of the Exchequer by his side, and he thanked him for his generosity. I never looked upon my right hon. Friend as a Cavalryman before, but he is so versatile that we are always seeing him in a new light, and always charming. In regard to Cavalry, however, there are considerations which ought to lead him to exercise a certain Treasury screw to obtain value for the money which he gives, and if at the present moment he will go through the list of the Cavalry regiments of the present day, and of the men and of the horses, he will find that he does not get the return he ought to get from the Cavalry forces. These Cavalry forces are very essential, and I have always been an advocate for them. I believe it is an absolutely necessary force for an Expeditionary Force to have, although it is so expensive. Just count your forces, count your horses and men, and you will find that these regiments for one reason or another have a habit of diverting from the ranks a large portion of highly trained and highly competent Cavalry soldiers. These highly trained men are diverted, so that the result is that the Cavalry officers do not get a chance of handling large bodies of well-trained Cavalry as compared with Continental bodies of Cavalry which they may have to meet in war. But this is a detail which we shall have an opportunity of discussing on the Army (Annual) Bill, unless the arrangements of the year before last are made again, which led to a more amicable state of things.

  1209
  We shall have, however, at all events, an opportunity of discussing the Secretary of State's plan in regard to horsing on the Army (Annual) Bill, because there is a clause in the Army Act which confers upon him this power of seizing horses, and it has been discussed before on this occasion, when we sat up all night to discuss the matter. The Secretary of State appears to have solved the problem of the way to supply horses in time of war, and the only difference between the plan of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the Secretary of State is that the latter is in favour of having the power of seizing the horses and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover asks us to bring up our horses to have them seized. There was one other point with which the Secretary of State for War dealt fully: he made full confession of the failure of the Territorial Army to produce, or to show any signs of producing, a competent Field Artillery. Some of us upon both sides of the House have urged in successive Parliaments a desire to extend rather than to put an end to the Lancashire experiment of a mixed Field Artillery—a Field Artillery of Militia elements, but containing a large admixture of Regulars. There is a distinguished foreign General, General Langlois, who has written on this subject, and who is a strong supporter of our voluntary system. I can assure my right hon. Friend that he is the greatest living writer on military affairs, and he is a strong supporter, as we are, of the Volunteer as contrasted with compulsory service in this country. General Langlois has most eloquently pointed out the extreme difference between this and other countries in that respect, and has shown many points which he thinks are dominant or most important in which we gain enormously by relying upon voluntary services as contrasted with the system of his own country and others.
  7.0 P.M.
  On this point of Artillery General Langlois sees no possibility of our ever creating a competent Field Artillery upon the present Territorial Army system. If that is so, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to lead us to a speedy remedy, and I am convinced, even now, that it would be well, rather than merely strengthening the Artillery, that we should for Territorial purposes again extend that Lancashire experiment of a mixed system to which my right hon. Friend—who is unfortunately in favour of this new plan—put an end three or four years ago.
  1210
  The words I want to say are on policy, and not on these details. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wyndham) began his speech and almost ended it with this phrase, which he three times used: "The power to maintain the two-Power standard is officially discounted." If it were, and so far as it has been, it has never, I think, been discounted without strong and very general protest. We have heard it from the War Office, and we heard it from the War Office in the right hon. Gentleman's time. At all events, I was one of those who protested—on one occasion very strongly, and not without support from the other side—against the point to which the invasion doctrine was pushed in the War Office when the right hon. Gentleman represented the War Office. We cannot in these Debates fully discuss these questions. As we all know, the creation of a Defence Committee of the Cabinet was for the very purpose of dealing with such questions. But we have debated it on two occasions, and the last of them was not very long ago—last year—and although we began with more difference among us in this House than there was on the previous occasion, when we all exactly agreed, yet last year, before the Debate was over, we came to an agreement, and I, representing the strong blue-water view, found no fault with the ultimate declaration of the Leader of the other side. We have the power to maintain whatever naval position we think it right to maintain, and this country will maintain it. In the Debates the other day that doctrine was asserted by everyone opposite and by most on this side. It is supposed to be the one certain result of the last General Election that there is a large majority in favour of maintaining our naval position, but we cannot maintain that naval position without straining every nerve to do it, and we shall not be able to put all our energy into maintaining that position if we talk about invasion and tell the people of this country that the fleet cannot do its duty. I will not raise the comparatively secondary questions of cost on this occasion. I have raised them often before. But from the mere point of view of cost, if you put the doctrine of invasion so high, and if you tell them that in any degree their safety depends here upon the Territorial Army trained and serving here at home, then you run a great risk of compromising your naval defence, and taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another, and of being weak at both

  1211
  points and creating a Territorial Army which could not face a great Continental force landing on our shores, and at the same time detracting from the power of your Fleet so as to make invasion possible. I think it is useless to labour that point. It is useless to speak longer upon it. But I am one of those who never like to hear this invasion doctrine stated in this House without doing the best I can to point out that it is not what the great majority of us really believe in our heart of hearts.
  The Territorial Army, like the Volunteers, is really defended by most of us in our hearts, if not in our speech, as a Reserve of the Regular expeditionary, offensive Army for fighting across the seas. Although everyone desires that our expenditure should be put to the best end, that for the defence of exposed situations, like the Tyne, the Tees, the Wear, and the Firth of Forth; for such purposes there should be rapid mobilisation for effective defence against any dashing naval officer who might push forward in the night and do great harm. As regards organised invasion of this country, the money obtained for the Territorial Force on that score will really come out of the pockets of the Fleet, and will detract from that great defence which is the real defence of this country and of this Empire. My right hon. Friend Mr. Haldane has always maintained the view, nowhere stated better than by him in his first speech as Secretary of State for War, that your Army and Army expenditure must depend on policy. No one has put that more strongly. It is no good fighting him; he has both Houses of Parliament and both parties in his pocket. He is a man of legions, political as well as military. The school represented by myself and the dominant school represented by him have differed, not upon the question of policy dictating your armaments, but upon the question of how your policy and your armaments together would work out. He has told you in the sharpest terms that it will be impossible to make further diminutions in our Army expenditure on a large scale unless we first reduce the num-number of troops serving abroad. He knows, I think, that some of us who have put that very same view before the House, almost in the same words, have been largely guided in our fears with regard to the existing system by the danger that its cost would be inconsistent with the ultimate maintenance of the supremacy of our Fleet. But when we have
  1212
  tried to show that under the present system you cannot reduce the expenditure which he demands, in the same words I have just now quoted, there is, of course, one exception. There is the reduction already tried in South Africa twice by my right hon. Friend. He brought back 8,000 men at two stages—in the first year, none; in the second year, half; in the third year, none; and in the fourth year, half. He brought back none this year, nor does he propose to bring back any next year. As it is the only means of diminishing the expenditure upon the Army on the present system, I think this Debate ought not to pass over without his being asked what are the circumstances at present existing in South Africa, which make it necessary to still maintain there so large and so costly a force. Were it not that our system depends entirely for its results and for its cost per head upon the force that we keep abroad, I should not press him upon this subject, but the service in South Africa is very costly. The expenditure is not shown on a scale that is applied to India: but is not applied to the Colonies. In considering whether the country can or will bear the enormous expenditure which will be necessary and which will be incurred for the support of our Fleet upon an efficient scale in future years, I think we are bound to press for every opportunity of reduction of military force and military expenditure that is consistent with the safety of the country and the Empire. That force in South Africa is now an exception to all rules. It is a large and a very costly force, and I think my right hon. Friend ought to be pressed on the point.
  Foreign observers, who have written on our Army lately, give a different explanation of our policy from that of my right hon. Friend. He supported that unfortunate explanation in one or two speeches, in which he spoke of the Army Corps as divisions—a great number of divisions, which we could send across the seas, including a very large force from India and a force from the Mediterranean, Egypt, and elsewhere. In that general explanation the appointment of Lord Kitchener to the command at Malta was in some people's minds justified. Upon the same view the expeditionary force, if you include the nine divisions, or, as some now say, ten divisions, from India, and one from Egypt and the Mediterranean, is one in which our divisions from here form only a little more than a third of the Expeditionary, Force

  1213
  and not a half? I will not attempt to press for any statement of policy upon heads so grave on an occasion of this kind, but the garrison in South Africa at one time was defended upon grounds similar to those, and I think the House should be assured that the scale of the garrison in South Africa at present is being reconsidered with a view of applying to South Africa the ordinary principles which prevail throughout the British Empire, and with the view of reducing it considerably at the very first moment when it is possible that that reduction can be safely accomplished
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am fully aware that there are people in this country who seem to think it is perfectly unnecessary to have any Army at all, and would be glad to see it done away with. They are in a minority in this House as well as outside. But I am also aware that there are others who seem to think that whenever they have a grievance of any sort all they have to do is to get up and say, "We will vote for a reduction of the Army by 5,000 or 15,000," or something of that sort. They never consider that by reducing the Army by a fictitious number of that sort they may absolutely injure the whole machine, and that the country expects our principal advisers to tell us exactly what numbers we do require, and they expect us in this House to keep up those numbers and to keep them absolutely efficient, and it is from that point of view that I think we ought all to look at the Army. We want to keep it as small as we possibly can, but big enough to perform the duties which are required of it, and we have to see that sufficient money is spent in order to keep it efficient. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Dilke) stated that he belonged to the blue water school, and he thought it was a very great mistake to have this Territorial Army.
  Sir CHARLES DILKE: That is going much too far for me. I was a very active friend of the Volunteers, and I thought the Volunteers might have been improved without the statute. In that sense only was I hostile to the Territorial Army. I was not anxious to see it put into too prominent a position by the justification of the invasion argument.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: That in fact we must not talk about invasion at all, because the people might begin to think it is their duty to defend themselves and their country, and you take their ideas away from the Navy. I am perfectly
  1214
  certain that the right hon. Gentleman approaches it on a wrong principle altogether. I am perfectly certain that if people are confident that they have a sufficient number of trained men in this country to make invasion impossible, we will not see the Navy tied by the heel in the event of war, as it probably would be if the country was not sufficiently protected by its own troops.
  If we wish to test the Army, we ought to test it by certain points, such as numbers, efficiency, personnel, morale, and so on, and I should like to touch on one or two of these points. I am perfectly well aware what an extraordinarily complex machine the British Army is, and how difficult it is for any Minister to settle how strong one part should be, because we have got to look to India, the Colonies, and to the various parts where the regular Army may be engaged. We have also to remember that it is to the Territorial Force, in the event of invasion, and in the event of the Navy, I shall not say being away, but having to look after its own job, we shall have to look to hold the invaders until help comes, or until we can settle them-quietly in our own country. I take the question of numbers of the Territorial Force, and what I am saying is not in any way criticism of the present Secretary of State for War, for I do not think there is any practical soldier in this country who has served in the Army during the last few years who would not be ready to express his gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for all he has done during his administration. Personally, I have been more or less connected with him in official work, and I for one have the greatest admiration for what he has done. But, at the same time, a great deal still remains to be done, and unless Members of this House can be made to see how much is still to be done, I am perfectly certain we shall never get those weak points put right. We are bound to deal with these questions from a non-party point of view, and try to work them out together, and see if we cannot carry on the system already started and make it thoroughly effective and efficient, no matter what party may be in office. We were told, when the Territorial Army was originally proposed, that we were to expect the number to be 314,000 eventually. We were told also that, in the event of invasion, we might expect the invading force to number 10,000 men. Recently we have been told that we might expect, in such an event, an invading force of 70,000. If the Territorial Army was of the right

  1215
  strength to deal with 10,000 men, it is a great deal too weak to deal with 70,000, or else it was a great deal too strong to deal with 10,000. Possibly an explanation on that point may be forthcoming. If you really worked out the numbers and see what would happen in the event of mobilisation in this country, you would find that 100,000 men of the Territorial Force would be required for the garrisons in the country, and you would find also that quite another 100,000 would be taken up for what I may call mobile garrisons—that is to say, garrisons at different points around the coast which would wait for the invader, and which would hold him until the big central column could be got to the spot to deal with him in the ordinary way. From that point of view, with the Territorial Force at present 41,000 under strength, when there is very great difficulty in recruiting them, and when a great many of the recruits are taken only for one year, the available force is brought to something like 73,000 to deal with an invading force of 70,000. It may be said, perhaps, that that is not a perfectly fair way of stating the case, because mobile garrisons might be there on the spot. But that is not allowing for wastage, men who are sick, men who are not present, and so forth, but it does mean that if we have to deal with an invading force of 70,000–I do not think it is possible there could be so large an invading force, but we are told on high authority that it is possible—we have to ask whether the present system would give 100,000 to deal with them. There is a well-known dictum by Napoleon, in 1809, that if you have got untrained troops, you ought at least to be in the position of four to one if you intend to attack. No one with the best will in the world can possibly say that our Territorial Force is really a highly and well-trained force. I think they have done better than any other troops in the world could have done when you consider the small amount of practice they have had, and it is no reflection on them when I say that they are not properly trained, or trained sufficiently to meet what possibly would be the best troops in the world, officered by the best officers, and with the very best guns. When Napoleon, in 1809, made the statement I have quoted, he also said, "Let them have heaps of artillery." Can anybody possibly say that our Territorial Artillery is the least likely to be able to stand up to trained German artillery?
  1216
  I think it is perfectly impossible. That is one of the weak points in the Territorial scheme. We are told that we need not bother about that, because they are going to get six months' warning, and if that is so, we will be able to train our men to meet the conscripts of foreign Powers. I do not know if the War Office have it in writing that they are going to have six months' warning, but supposing they did get warning for that period, it means that we should mobilise at once. Would any sensible nation sit still and see us mobilising our force? Would any possible foe give us six months to enable us to get six times stronger than we are at the present moment? It would be a casus belli, and they would take the first opportunity of forcing on a war. If we do have six months here at home and a war is started, it would mean that if the Territorial troops are not properly trained, or not in greater numbers, we shall have to have the Navy tied here until we train them, and if we have not the Navy tied here, we shall have to tie the Expeditionary Force by the heels and keep it here. It would in that case be perfectly useless for offensive purposes abroad.
  We are told that this great Territorial Army is going to be efficiently trained in these six months. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Who is going to train them? We know that the Regular Army is short of officers and they will have nobody to spare to train the Territorial Force, and we know that the least trained part of the Territorial Force is the officers themselves. Possibly they want training themselves, and they will not be able to make the Territorial army efficient in six or twelve months unless they know the rudiments of their own work. That is one of the weakest points in the whole of this six-months' argument. There are six divisions here, but it is only four divisions that will be sent on the Expeditionary Force. The policy is to keep two divisions at home. If so, how can foreign countries count upon us if we say that we have six divisions for an Expeditionary Force, and we at the last moment find that we are only going to send four divisions? I do not wish to go further in dealing with this question of the Territorial Force. We have heard a great deal about them already, and I am very glad indeed to see that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the question of mobilisation, because as the Territorial Force stands at this moment it is absolutely impossible for them to mobilise. The whole of the scheme is really a paper scheme.

  1217
  Were it to be carried out it would be a farce, and certain Territorial Associations say that they do not think the scheme will work, and in consequence they have not put it in operation. It is perfectly obvious that the right hon. Gentleman knows the weak spots to which I am referring. He is going to see to the getting of some of the stores supplied—stores which cannot be got from civilian quarters. As regards the Yeomanry regiments in Scotland, I do not think there is one, or if there is there is only one, raised wholly in one county. Most of the Yeomanry regiments are raised in several counties. I know of one regiment which comes under six different county associations. When mobilisation comes you have to send to six county associations before you can get the regiment together. That makes a perfectly impossible situation. You can imagine the position of a commanding officer during the rest of the year in peace time when he has got to deal with six associations who have six different forms of accounts.
  The question of horse supply is one we shall hear a great deal about during the next few days, and I do not propose to say anything in regard to it now. While it is most desirable to increase the horse supply of the country I do not think we have yet got to the point which the Army man cares most about, namely, how you are going to get the horse supply to the Army itself. I cannot see how you are going to do it except by having boards in districts or counties consisting of, say, a veterinary officer and a civilian, keeping a list of the horses in the different districts. It is impossible for the Territorial Associations to take more burdens in the shape of work, and to take on duties for the Regular Army. When you want a licence for a motor car you do not expect the licensing authority to come to you. When you want a licence for a dog you do not expect the licensing authority to come to you. The same thing is done if you want a game licence. Why on earth, then, should not the people who have got horses save us all this trouble inaccuracy and expense? Why should they not be bound to register the horses instead of leaving it to men flying about to find out where these horses are? I cannot think this would be any hardship on any man. This small board of three or four men in the district could then go and look at these horses, classify them, see what they are like, and save an enormous amount of trouble, and at the same time ensure infinitely greater accuracy.
  1218
  With regard to the question of establishment, as a cavalry officer one is naturally very pleased indeed to see that the Cavalry establishment will be increased by thirty-six horses and eighteen men. But I take it that this is more or less simply a beginning in order to begin putting the Cavalry establishment on a proper basis. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, knows as well as I do that this in no way brings the establishment up to the required standard. According to the best advice that can be got on the subject, he knows as well as I do that if you want to make the Cavalry efficient you will have to increase the present numbers by something like fifty horses and fifty men. Cavalry is not like other arms. You want to go straight away with properly trained horses and properly trained men. If you tie up a squadron with a lot of horses that have never been in the ranks they will make the other horses jib and will not go on themselves. You will also find probably that the reservists are put on well trained horses. I have seen it often. They are less efficient than the men who were regulating the ranks; and the men in the ranks who are more efficient are put on the bad horses, with the result that the whole squadron is made less effective. These horses should be got into those depots about which we have been told and should be trained, and the Cavalry regiment ought to be able to start light away with properly trained horses and men.
  And now one word on the question of establishment of the Infantry. We have got three establishments in our Army for Infantry. These are the Indian establishment—our mobilisation establishment, I may call it, or war establishment, of some 9–10, or, roughly, 1,000; then we have got 720 for the home establishment and 840 for the Colonial. If ever we were in trouble the time selected by the enemy would be probably the time in which we were weakest. That would, of course, be the time when our regular Army was weakest, when the drafts go away to India. If you take a battalion at home here of the absolutely full strength of 720, you will find when the drafts go away, and when you eliminate all the sick and the boys, there will be a very large reduction. If you ask a question you will be told that there are no boys under eighteen years old. But the bigger the boy the older he is when he comes up to the Army, and it is an open secret, though we sometimes do not like to look at it, that there are lots of boys of about sixteen whom it would be perfectly

  1219
  criminal to let go away on mobilisation, but who, if well trained for the next year, would make efficient men. The battalion I have been speaking about would be reduced to something like 350 men by this process of elimination, and that means to say that you have got to fill it up with Reservists up to 940 or 1,000 to make it the proper strength fit for war. That is far too great a proportion of Reservists. In addition, it is using up your Reservists a great deal too soon, and it would be very-much better if we could have those establishments brought nearer the strength that they have got to have in case of mobilisation. Take the armies on the Continent. I suppose of all the big armies the least efficient is the army of Italy. The Army of Italy would have too many reservists on mobilisation, or a proportion of something like two to one, and we propose also to have two to one. That is one of the points on which some of the other Continental nations are very much stronger than we are.
  There is one matter which I could not quite make out. Looking at the establishments on page 46 I see that the Special Reserve Supernumerary establishment is 7,552. In trying to make out exactly how many men were there represented on the 1st January, 1910, I found the number was 552. But perhaps I may be wrong in that; I hope I am. Another point to which I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, is that something might be done very cheaply to add a great deal to the comfort of the men. The infantry battalions of most of the foreign armies now have gone in for a system of portable kitchens which follow the Infantry on the march, and the men are able to get good warm food the moment they halt instead of getting half-cooked food or food not cooked at all at 12 o'clock at night. This is a matter of special importance for the young men, who are younger with us than those in any other Army abroad. You will find that if you feed the men properly you will save many lives; and it makes an enormous difference in a man's marching powers, in his pluck, and in preventing grumbling. It is well worth spending a little money on this particular point. I am fond of antiquarian research in some ways myself, but the other day we decided to spend something like £4,000 on digging up a moat under a heap of bottles round a certain Royal palace. I think it was a most excellent thing to have done, but it might
  1220
  have waited, and the money might have been better spent in trying to get these portable kitchens, which mean a great deal for the comfort of the rank and file of the British Army. On the question of officers, when we get away from the various theories advanced as to the cause of the shortage, it all works down again to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not mean the present one, but any one. It is merely a matter of pay. There is no career in the Army now for an officer. His pay for what he has got to keep up is absolutely inadequate. I have been looking at some statistics, and find that the pay of the British officer is exactly the same now to a halfpenny as it was in the time of Waterloo, with the exception of Lieutenant-Colonels.
  Mr. HALDANE: Pay is not everything. The allowances count for a good deal.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: But they do not represent the rise in what you might call wages or salary in other walks of life. The cost of living has risen enormously since that time. There is a far higher standard of living. The officers are expected to educate themselves very much more highly than ever they were educated before. All this costs money. The pay of the soldiers has been raised. Take any skilled tradesman in this country, and you will find that his wages have gone up from 50 to 100 per cent., while his work has lessened during the last 100 years, but that the Regular officer's work has gone up from 50 to 100 per cent., while his pay has not been increased in the least. I do not want to see extravagance or anything of that sort, but I do hope that hon. Members will remember how much these officers have denied themselves lately, and how they have worked trying to train themselves in order to train the men, and how they have backed up all these new schemes, and tried to show that they are worthy officers of a worthy Army. I think that something ought to be done to acknowledge this fact and thus encourage officers to come in. I believe it was stated last year by a certain right hon. Member that it was the same in his own profession—the legal profession—and that the pay was very low; but the whole crux of the question is this—how does it work out in practice? You will get lots of lawyers, but you cannot get lots of officers.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Give the rankers a chance.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this question of the officer's pay. On the subject of arms the Secretary of State has practically told us that we are now going to be given a makeshift weapon, which is not nearly as good as the weapon which is being used at present by any civilised Power in the world. The question of the automatic rifle is being put off to the dim future. I think I know the reason that this automatic rifle is not being dealt with. It is because it is supposed to be expensive, and there is the hope that we will not be forced into taking action by other countries adopting this weapon. They are thinking exactly the same thing. But for every automatic rifle which we have to get they will have to get ten, and it will cost them a great deal more in consequence than it will cost us. So I think in this matter we ought to force the pace, and that we ought to get a rifle that has got a decent trajectory. At present we cannot put in the proper ammunition that foreigners have. They have practically a point blank trajectory at 800 yards. "We are going to have a sort of makeshift that has a 9–ft. trajectory at 800 yards. That simply means that our British soldier will go into battle armed from 50 to 100 per cent. worse than the man who is opposing him.
  Mr. HALDANE: The Noble Lord is clearly under a misapprehension. The German trajectory is 7 ft. Ours is 8 ft. The French is very much higher. The present trajectory is 13.2.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Our present trajectory is fourteen, and the new trajectory is expected to be eight. At 600 yards the German trajectory is something like three, and ours is something like six. In any case the new ammunition has not been tried yet, and therefore it is premature to say what the trajectory of our rifle is going to be; still the fact remains that at the present moment the trajectory of our rifle at present is fourteen feet at 800 yards, while the German is as near point-blank as it can be. I suppose you are going to put off the day when you will get an automatic rifle, which, in the opinion of military experts, is so necessary.
  Mr. HALDANE: We cannot get an automatic rifle, because there is no such thing in existence at the present time as a serviceable automatic rifle. An expert committee has been working at this subject for years.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I do sincerely hope that this question will be settled, and that we shall have a rifle that is efficient for service as quickly as possible. I must apologise for keeping the House so long, but the matter is one in which I take a keen interest. Like my right hon. Constituent opposite, I read the Scriptures, and I know that it is "When a strong man keepeth his palace his goods are in peace."
  Colonel Sir IVOR HERBERT: I hope I may be permitted to congratulate the Noble Lord on his intervention in our Debate. One feature of this Parliament is the number of officers who have come almost direct from active service in their regiments to take part in the legislative business of the country. A soldier, I welcome the fact as one which will lead to great improvements in the military forces, and be of assistance in regard to other subjects in this House. If I do not follow the Noble Lord in the very extensive survey which he has made of military questions, it is merely because I wish to concentrate my observations on one point which, I think, is in the minds of most hon. Members specially interested in the Army at the present time—I mean the question of horses. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, when he touched upon this subject, must have noticed that there was a general increase of interest in his speech when he came to deal with that subject. It was evidently that for which hon. Gentlemen were waiting on all sides. The right hon. Gentleman has somewhat disappointed me. He divided the subject, I think very wisely, into two parts—that which deals with mobilisation and that which deals with the breeding or supplying of horses. He told us something about the arrangements for mobilisation, but he was silent on the question of supply. That is one of the points which I was glad to observe the Noble Lord who has just sat down drew attention to. The question is as to the manner in which horses are to be supplied in sufficient quantities and sufficient quality for use in the Army. We heard fom the right hon. Gentleman an important statement when he said that arrangements were being made for the purchase of horses of three years, but he did not go any further than that. I personally would have been glad to hear that there was some system by which horses would be

  1223
  collected, and that there would be a sufficient supply of immature horses being kept to provide the remounts required from time to time in the service. The three-year-old horse, as the right hon. Gentleman must know—although he deprecated the idea that he had ever had much to do with horses—is an immature animal as regards military service. One of the great disadvantages we have to suffer from is having our horses put into the ranks too young. We have to consider, in dealing with this question of horses, the fact that the breeding of horses must necessarily be going down. We know that it is so throughout the country. There is a time coming when the Army must be the principal customer of those who breed horses. From year to year the demand for horses of various kinds is going down owing to the increase of motor traction and so forth, and the time will come when only the higher class of horses will be required by the private owner. But for the Army there will always be required a variety of classes of horses according to the different services to which they would have to be put. This will necessitate, if we are to maintain our mounts in a sufficient state of efficiency, the breeding of half-bred horses on a suitable scale in the country. Everybody who has anything to do with this matter knows that the breeding of half-bred horses is not a satisfactory enterprise from a commercial point of view. There are a great many risks about it, and what we require in the country is some security that those who put money into it will obtain some adequate and quick return.
  What farmers would gladly welcome would be some system by which horses would be required by the Government at even a younger age than three years, and by which they would be taken into Government farms or depots and maintained, fed up, and gradually brought into a condition which would make them suitable as remounts when they had attained a sufficient age. Everyone knows who has had any experience of the breeding of horses that the risky time for them is when they are running loose, and are liable to many accidents and also to infantile diseases, while in the hands of the farmers. They are more liable to those accidents and diseases than when looked after in large establishments, as they would be in the Government establishments. Therefore I should
  1224
  have been glad had the right hon. Gentleman been able to adumbrate some system by which the great question of horse supply could be dealt with. I recognise it is not altogether a military question. It is a question which, like a great many others, rather lies between two Departments, and consequently comes to the ground. It lies between the Military Department and the Department of Agriculture, and I should welcome very much some form of Standing Committee by which both these great Departments could be represented, and which would deal with this great question in a manner which would be satisfactory to the agricultural interests of the country. I only rose to refer to this question, because it was that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which struck me as the crucial one at the present time. The rest of the very interesting statement which he made to us certainly would meet my approval as a soldier for this reason, that I was glad to see the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is not a harassing policy. He has laid down his lines well, firmly, and with deliberation. I am glad to see that he is going steadily along those lines. There is nothing very sensational or very remarkable in the statement he has made to-day. He told us that the principal aims he had in view were the perfecting of the Territorial Army and the completing of the mobilisation arrangements for the Expeditionary Forces. If I may return once more to the horse question, let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot complete those arrangements unless he goes a little bit deeper into that subject than has yet been done by his Department. Otherwise, I confess that I find little in anything the right hon. Gentleman said either to criticise or to differ from. The question of the supply of officers is no doubt a very important one, and one on which he laid very considerable stress; but I have great faith in the system he has laid down, and I think it is now doing its work well. Therefore, I do not share the alarm which seems to be in the mind of the right hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) on the subject of the supply of officers, nor do I agree altogether with the Noble Lord who spoke last in regard to the insufficient emoluments of officers. The Noble Lord has entirely forgotten one fact in referring to the emoluments of officers, that in the early part of the last century they usually had to put down a considerable amount of capital in order to become officers. Even if their emoluments now have not been

  1225
  increased, officers are, at any rate, spared very much of the additional expenditure which existed even at the time when I joined the Army. On the question of the Territorial Artillery, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have always been an optimist, owing to my experience as to what might be produced in the way of Territorial Field Artillery, and I am still an optimist. Having seen some Artillery work, however, I realise that the weak spot in it is in the horses, and also in the way those horses are driven. You cannot work a team properly when there is no class in it—perhaps a steed of from 14 to 15 hands alongside a long, raking bay of 16–2 to 17 hands—and when you have boys on them who have never done much riding in their lives, and certainly never had an opportunity of driving. The result is you cannot get unity of work, and you lose the whole of your efficiency.
  8.0 P.M.
  We have got to learn the fact that it is not the gunner that requires so much the training, it is the driver, if you want to have efficient mobilisation. There is where I have seen defects in those units of Territorial Artillery which I happened to have had the opportunity of seeing. In this matter, as I have said before in this House, I am an optimist, because I have seen good results. I honestly believe if this great question of the horse supply can be satisfactorily settled we shall be advancing a long way towards the solution of that other difficulty of gaining efficiency.
  There is one point touched on by the light hon. Gentleman in which I have always taken a very deep interest, and on which I may even claim to be one of the founders, that is the system of interchange between our Colonial establishments and our Imperial establishments. I was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman state the fact that a Canadian regiment is coming over here this year. I hope it is only a beginning, but it is a considerable advance. I can remember the time when I made such a suggestion, and when it was treated as the view of a harmless idealist, and as a thing altogether beyond the possibility of ordinary organisation. The right hon. Gentleman and his able advisers have solved that, with the assistance, which I am sure they will always have, of the Ministers beyond the seas. I should like to hear from him in the course of this Debate that we have advanced really a little further than he told us about a few
  1226
  days ago in answer to a question with regard to the interchange of officers between those units of the dominions beyond the seas and this country. I have not got the figures now, but they must have struck everybody who was interested in the question by the extraordinarily small number of Colonial officers who are doing duty with the Imperial forces. I think that this is a subject which should not be lost sight of. I know perfectly well from my considerable acquaintance with Colonial officers that there is no lack of desire on their part to come and improve themselves and to gain that experience where alone they can expect to find it—that is to say, in association with the Regular Imperial Army. Therefore I hope we may see the discrepancy which was noted a few days ago disappearing in the course of a very short period. I think that we have to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Estimates he has put before us to-day. They do indeed increase or exceed those which we considered last year, and I have always maintained that our military Estimates are too high considering what we get for them. Therefore I am not disposed to think that we are doing anything but passing somewhat extravagant Estimates to-day, because I believe that we can get better value for our money than we have been doing. I return to the question of the horse supply to add emphasis to the opinion that in dealing with this great question I think we can by such a system, as I have ventured to state, obtain better material, get it more satisfactorily, and have better value than we are having at present.
  Mr. G. F. STANLEY: The Noble Lord who spoke last from this side so eloquently bore testimony to the chivalry and courtesy which is always extended by this House to any new Member who ventures to address it that that has encouraged me to rise on this occasion, and also because much has been said during the course of the Debate on a subject with which I may claim to have somewhat intimate knowledge during the last five years. I refer to the question of the Territorial Artillery, with which, during the last five years, I have been connected most closely as Adjutant of the Honourable Artillery Company, which, up to two years ago, was the only Volunteer Horse Artillery in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War stated to-day what he had already

  1227
  embodied in the Memorandum he sent us, in which occurs the following:—
  "I am in a position to state that the whole of the personnel required for the Artillery is trained and available."
  It will be very gratifying to know that all the personnel required for the Artillery on mobilisation is available. No doubt it is, but the right hon. Gentleman says that it is trained. I take it that at present, and for the next two years at any rate, we must, to make up the numbers of the Artillery, depend at certain times on a certain number of the Special Reserve, who must be called up. It has always been an axiom with the Artillery, and I do not think it can be disputed, that no man can be considered to be thoroughly trained if he has not had at least one practice camp, and seen live shell firing. If we examine what the Special Reserve do we find that not only have they never seen any live shell fire, but they are never called on to join a battery for active service, that they never will see any live shell fire, and that not only do the Special Reserve never go to a practice camp, but in addition the officers do not get adequate training. I know that every two years all the officers and non-commissioned officers of these training brigades are altered, but there are a large number of gunners and drivers who are kept in these training brigades for many years, and I am perfectly certain it cannot be for the good of the branch of the Army, to which I have the honour to belong, that so many men should go for many years without ever seeing a live shot fired.
  To pass to the question of the Territorial Artillery, many hon. Members during the course of this Debate have laid it down most clearly that they do not think that the Territorial Artillery can be of any good. Without entering into any details as to whether the Territorial Artillery can or cannot I would like to point out that for the present it is the only Territorial Artillery that we have, and I think it is our duty to see to it that it should be made as efficient as we possibly can make it. It is somewhat disheartening to a large number of officers and men who spend a good deal of their spare time in trying their utmost to make this an efficient body when they are repeatedly told whatever they do they will never make it into an efficient fighting force. I only give my own personal view about the Territorial Artillery, and I produce it because I have been for the last five years with the Volunteer Hosre
  1228
  Artillery, and my own opinion is that though it cannot be said to be up to the level of the Regular Artillery, at the same time, I think it can be made into a valuable fighting unit. There are several matters which I think should be insisted upon in order to give them a chance to get up to that degree of efficiency which must be necessary for them. The right hon. Gentleman, Secretary of State for War, says that they are making arrangements to acquire a new Artillery range on Salisbury Plain. I would urge him to acquire that range as soon as he possibly can, for, from what I saw last year when batteries were sent down for practice, what occurred I must describe as a crying shame to them. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman saw it, but I saw it down there. All the batteries had to hurry out as fast as they could, to fire as fast as they could, and they received no instruction, so that the whole system then was a waste, I think, of both time and money.
  If we are going to do any good for the Territorial Artillery it is absolutely necessary that they should have time and place in which they can fire their live shell, just the same as the Regular batteries do, and that they get the same kind of instruction as they do. Fortunately, last year during the time their batteries had to go and fire the weather was fine. I think it is not a satisfactory state of things that it depends entirely on having a fine fortnight as to whether those batteries should fire their rounds or not. The Secretary of State referred to the question of the officers of this Territorial Artillery, and stated, and I think, everyone will agree with him, that the efficiency of a battery must largely depend on its commanding officer. I think the officers of the Territorial batteries agree to that themselves that they are not up to the level of what they should be to command a battery efficiently. I do not say that in disparagement of them. I think it is noble the way they spend all their spare time in trying to educate themselves up to the point at which they should be. But I think it is asking too much of the man to go and conduct complicated operations unless he has had the training by going through the different ranks to fit him to be in that position. As far as the Honourable Artillery Company is concerned that does not apply since all the officers came through the ranks, and had to go through the respective steps before they commanded a battery, but with other batteries I have seen commanding officers go down with little or

  1229
  no knowledge of how to arrange a battery. They have done their best, they have worked very hard, but at the same time I think that the result was satisfactory neither to themselves nor to the batteries which they commanded. As far as the Horse Artillery of the Territorial Forces are concerned, I would venture to urge on the Secretary of State that there is a very simple remedy. You already give them Regular officers, and I would respectfully urge that the officer may not only be Adjutant, but Commanding Officer of the battery until he has trained the other officer sufficiently well to succeed him in that position. As far as the Field Artillery is concerned, the question is rather more complicated. I would urge that the best solution for that is to give them a Regular Lieutenant-Colonel who can instruct the officers and fit them for the responsible position they must ultimately occupy.
  To come to the question of the matériel which is supplied to these batteries. We know that the Territorial Force is only for home defence. I do not say that we shall ever be invaded, but we have always to be ready in case we are, and we may be perfectly certain that any country sending a force to invade this country would not send its worst troops. Not only would it send its best troops, but it would give them the very best matériel possible. Against those troops we should have to oppose our Territorial Force, and it is absolutely necessary that they should be given the best possible matériel. When we come to look at what is given them we see that it is not the best. All they are getting is what I may call the "cast-off" from the Regular Artillery. Take the question of harness. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the War Office are going to give us the breast-piece to the harness. That is a step in the right direction. For the last five years I have regularly put my name to a report condemning the old-fashioned harness issued to the Territorial Horse Artillery. I think the Territorial Horse Artillery ought to be given the very latest pattern of harness. The War Office do not give us this at present; they give us the old stuff, which is cumbersome, clumsy, and generally in a somewhat rotten condition. Every time we have asked for better harness we have been told that the old stock must be worked out first. The best way of working out that old stock is to put it on the scrap heap.
  1230
  With regard to the gun which is given us, it may be a fairly good gun in its way, but it is nothing like the gun issued to the Regular Horse or Field Artillery, and I contend that it is not fair to ask men to give their spare time and to endeavour to make themselves efficient if you do not give them proper weapons with which to do so. My own opinion is that something can be done with the Territorial Artillery, Horse and Field, and it is because I am so keen that it should be a success that I have inflicted myself on the House this evening. I would respectfully press on the Secretary of State that it will be money well spent to equip the Territorial Artillery in the way it should be equipped, instead of waiting for a national disaster, and then to see what we can get out of the wreck.
  Colonel CHALONER: I feel that the whole difficulty with regard to the question both of the Territorial Force and of the Regular Army is overlooked by successive Secretaries of State for War in this country. I join most cordially with the Noble Lord behind me (Marquess of Tullibardine) in his assurance to the right hon. Gentleman that those of us who spent many of the happiest years of our lives in the Army are most grateful to him for the straightforward honesty of purpose, sincerity, and energy which he has thrown into the work of his office, and congratulate him upon the success which has attended his efforts. But the difficulty lies in the system under which the right hon. Gentleman has to work at the War Office. He frankly admitted that in bringing his Territorial scheme into force he owed a great deal to the Press and to the landlords. I am very much struck by the marked difference in the way in which the landlords of England are referred to when it is a question, on the one hand, of raising taxes, and, on the other, of raising Territorials. When it is a question of raising taxes, nothing is bad enough for them. Every word in the English vocabulary which can express abuse is brought into play to run down the landlords. But when Ministers want to get something out of them in order to make their schemes a success, we hear nothing but kind words and high praise. But, personally, I think that, with all their help, what is really wanted is a complete change in the system. We want some form of compulsory service.
  What the Territorial Force fails from now is, first, want of money, and, secondly, want of men. I was glad to hear the right

  1231
  hon. Gentleman say that the question of money is to be dealt with, and that the War Office are going to be more generous in their treatment of different county associations. I know that it is impossible upon the money now allotted to a county association with which I am connected in the North Riding of Yorkshire, to pay the officers, especially the secretary, a salary equivalent to the duties expected, and, consequently, a salary likely to produce the best class of man, and to secure the best class of work. I am glad we are to get better treatment in that respect. But even that will not be sufficient, because it is impossible under the present system to obtain the men required. With the voluntary system under which up to now the Volunteers and the Territorial Force have been carried on, the number of men who are willing to come in is limited, whereas the demand is increasing. But the supply does not increase with the demand. Therefore, the present system having absolutely failed, the only course is to adopt some system by which the number can be compulsorily brought up to what is required. Quite apart from that, I think such a system should be adopted as a mere matter of justice. In my opinion it is a great injustice that under the present system, A, B, C, and D, should be called upon to do the whole of the work, and also to find the cost—because everybody knows to be a Territorial does cost money—of doing that work for the whole of the rest of the population. We ought to have some system under which every man between the ages of, say, seventeen and twenty-one, should be liable, if he has not voluntarily entered the Regular Army, to serve in the Territorial Force. In that way we should be able to select the best, to take the number we require, and, the service being compulsory, to make them undergo such a course of instruction as, in the opinion of experts, was necessary to make them into good soldiers. Under a voluntary system we have to kow-tow to them, and ask them if they will be kind enough to do this or that, or be good enough to come out for training. If a compulsory system came into force we could fix at once a minimum annual term of service, and determine the course of instruction the men should receive. In that way we should be able to produce a far better class of soldier, and obtain them in the numbers that we require. I know that successive Secretaries of State have been frightened
  1232
  at the cry of compulsion. I do not believe in conscription; I do not believe that conscription is necessary. But compulsory service for home defence is a very different thing, and I believe it would not only not meet with the opposition of the people of this country, but that, if properly explained to them, it would actually be popular with all classes.
  I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that something is to be done with regard to a Territorial Reserve, and that the men passing out of the ranks will not be allowed to disappear out of sight, but will be kept in touch, so that should the occasion require they would be there to fall back upon. As regards the Army, I should like to say one word of the question of the pay of the officers, a subject which has already been referred to. I know that hon. Member's below the Gangway think that there is only one person to be considered in this world, and that is the working man—that labour is the only thing that is entitled to attention and respect, and that so long as it is looked after that it does not matter what happens to the rest. I am afraid I do not quite agree with that extreme view. I think the officer of the Army is entitled to consideration, and I think he has had far less consideration than he deserves. One hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said, "Why not give the ranks a job?" My experience, at any rate, in the Army for about sixteen years is that I can answer for it that if you ask the private soldier who he prefers to go into action behind, the man who has gone through the ranks and got his commission or the officer who has not, that ninety-nine out of a hundred of the men there is not the slightest doubt would prefer the man who has not gone through the ranks. It would not be popular amongst the rank and file of the Army if you were to have too many of the commissioned officers coming from the ranks. I am for a certain number. I think it an excellent thing that we should do as we do at present, but to change in a very large degree from the present method certainly would not meet with the approval of the men in the ranks.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke from below the Gangway referred to the fact that in the old days the officer had to pay money in order to go into the Army. That was under the old purchase system. What he said was perfectly true. But he forgot two things. He forgot, first

  1233
  of all, that the present officer has to pay, or, rather, his parents have to pay, very heavily for him in order to bring him to that state of perfection which is expected now of a British officer before he joins. Secondly, he forgot to say that the money the officer paid under the old system of purchase was not paid to a company or to the Government, but was paid to another officer. If one officer had to pay, another gained by a payment which enabled him, if he was hard up, to remain in the Service, and go abroad to India, perhaps, or somewhere else, which he would not have been able to do if he had not got this sum of money. The claim that the officer to-day has for increased pay is a very great one. I would put it on the ground of common sense. If you want to get a really good article—I do not care whether it is an officer, a horse, a carriage, or anything else—you must pay the best market price. If you want to get, as we do want to get, and as we ought to have, the very best men into the Army as officers, we shall have to pay them better, so as to bring up the pay of the officer to something like what he might get if he adopted some other profession. I feel very strongly on the question, and I would like to add to what has been said already on it, and would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the need for improving the pay of the British officer. Once again I should like to say how grateful I am as an old soldier to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done to take the question out of the rut of party warfare. I hope that spirit will be followed by those who come after him, and that from these discussions there will come some great improvement, and that reform for the Army which is so badly needed in order that our defensive forces may be brought to that success they need so much.
  Mr. F. W. VERNEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down asserted that the present system is an absolute failure. Surely he will hardly say that if he looks on page 3 of the Memorandum which has been given to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, in which he tells us, "That in one year there has been an increase of 64,105 of all ranks over the strength of the force on 1st January, 1909." That hardly looks like an absolute failure. I should have thought that with these official figures before him the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not have made remarks of the
  1234
  kind he did. There is one subject to which I venture to call the attention of the House, and that is the subject which was dealt with by Lord Newton's Return in July of last year. It is a subject which has been brought to the attention of the country by the Duke of Bedford in certain articles which appeared in one of our leading journals. That subject is of extreme importance, and it is the necessary amount of shooting required by the Militia. Lord Newton in his return showed that out of the Territorial Forces no less than 7,000 men and 670 officers only fired the recruits' course of musketry. That is to say, that, according to that return, one-fourth of the whole of the Territorial Forces are really not up to the mark, or anything like it, with regard to training in musketry. The annual musketry course of training of a Territorial soldier, so far as practice at the rifle range is concerned, consists of one hour, when he fires twenty-three rounds of ball ammunition. The recruits' course in the old Militia consisted of 105 rounds in ten days, followed by an annual course of seventy-five rounds, lasting about six days. The Territorial soldier then devotes about five hours to musketry in the course of his four years' service, and fires in that five hours only 115 rounds. The Duke of Bedford said:—
  "I do not believe that an annual musketry course for an hour on a range without any judging of the distance practically will teach a man the use of the rifle for the purposes of war."
  We have had greater authorities than the Duke of Bedford. Lord Roberts himself has written and spoken over and over again on this subject, and I cannot help thinking that it is time that we took the question into very serious consideration. It does not involve a very large expenditure. It implies work more than money. It also means that our soldiers and all belonging to our forces, which perhaps are the smallest in the world considering the duties they have to perform, the area they have to defend, and the enormous coast line they have to look after, should have this question settled for them. What can be done should be done immediately. The changes, I think, nobody could possibly object to. At all events, nobody who has the least interest in naval or military questions. The material we have should be the best—and our soldiers are, I think, the best material—and we, therefore, must demand that the weapons put into their hands should be the finest procurable, and also that their use of these weapons should be such that they will be able to really

  1235
  and effectively use them if they come to deal with them in the service of the country.
  I do think that a target that shoots back at a soldier is a very different thing from a target which when he shoots at it does not shoot back at him, and considering that what a soldier has to face in time of war is a movable target which is constantly returning his fire, it is a matter of the utmost importance that the shooting qualities of every soldier should be brought to the highest possible pitch, so that when the time of trial comes they shall have placed in their hands a weapon they thoroughly understand, and which they can use to the very best possible effect in action before the enemy. I cannot help thinking that there is a great deal to be done, and done at once, in regard to this matter. Other things may take time. The questions which have occupied the attention of the House this evening, such as the provision of horses and other matters of Army administration, take time as well as money. But this is one of those reforms which we may look for immediately in the course of this next year. There should be a very great change as regards the firing practice and target practice of our troops. Having served myself as a Volunteer, I know perfectly well that if this matter is taken in time, and if the subject of firing is taken in hand, the practice at target will become not a burden, but will throw a new interest into the life of the Volunteer. I am quite certain it will be a popular movement, and one which I think everyone connected with the Army ought to encourage to the best of his ability.
  Major WILLOUGHBY: Many Army officers have already spoken upon the subject of these Estimates, and upon matters which we all have at heart. I wish to call attention more particularly to matters of detail than to matters of principle. One thing we are told is that our six divisions are ready to be mobilised with six waggons and all necessary equipment. We know that in 907 the general Service waggons which carried stores and blankets for our men were reduced. I had the honour of taking part in the last Army manœuvres, and I know the scale upon which the waggons were issued, which was at a rate of fourteen waggons to the battalion. It seems to me an interesting matter to know how these two figures can be made to agree. Six waggons are to be allowed in mobilisation, while fourteen were issued at
  1236
  the manœuvres last year. I know that two of these waggons in the manœuvres were employed to carry tents, which I suppose we could strike off in time of war, and two other waggons for supplies. The new system of supplies were in force during the last Army manœuvres, and it would be of interest to know whether that system would be put in force in time of war, or whether some other would be introduced. At the last manœuvres we also had general service waggons for the carrying of implements and tools for digging trenches. It would be of interest to the Army generally to know what answers will be given in connection with these matters. I think it has now been decided that when our Army goes out to fight they will only take one blanket for cover at night. That seems to me to be very insufficient, and it would be very much better to have more waggons upon mobilisation, and if the Army is to fight at an inclement time, we should have waggons to fall back upon so that we should have all that is requisite for our men.
  The other point on which I wish to draw attention is the question of ammunition. The hon. Member who has just sat down spoke of how necessary it was that soldiers should be trained in the use of their firearms. I think it is very necessary that that should be done. I noticed in the Army Estimates this year there is a decrease in the amount allowed for small arms and ammunition. It would be interesting to know why this is. The cost last year was much reduced, and I think that is questionable policy. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he could not see his way to meet those who are anxious to practice at other times, who may be near the range, so that in case the Government did not themselves give all the practice that was necessary they could at any rate facilitate the men and meet the wishes of those anxious to practice by supplying them ammunition at a cheap rate.
  Mr. WATERLOW: This is the first time I have ventured to intrude upon Army Debates, and I only do so now because I have come into close contact with some of those engaged in that portion of Army work connected with ballooning and aviation. I should like first of all that we should understand what is being done at present by the Army upon this matter. In the Army Estimates I find the number connected with the Balloon School is only eight officers and 149 non-commissioned

  1237
  officers and men, or a total of 157 officers and men. It seems to me, in view of what has been done in foreign countries, that this part or the service is extremely small for the work that is being accomplished. What have these few men got to do? They have got to run the Balloon School at Aldershot, which is engaged in the training of officers; they have to work the dirigible balloon which the Army has just constructed; they have to work the aeroplanes that the Army has not—and upon that subject I should like to have some information from the Secretary of State for War—they have to work the old balloons and the kites. It seems to me to do all this work, and also to man the two new dirigible balloons which will shortly come into the possession of the Army, you have a totally inadequate number of men for these important services. I understand that the Army is shortly to have two new dirigible balloons, and I am very glad to hear it, because I think the work that can be done by them is very valuable work. Rut I would like to point out that there are two distinct and very clear branches of aviation—there is the aeroplane and the dirigible balloon, and these things have to be dealt with in an entirely separate manner. May I call attention to what can be accomplished by aeroplanes at the present time, and to apply that to a situation easily conceivable? At the present time we have aeroplanes which can rise from the ground and travel forty miles an hour at a height of 1,000 ft. If we had had machines of that description at the siege of Ladysmith and had had men to work them effectively, they could have travelled from our relieving army into Ladysmith and deposited a certain amount of food, and they could have kept up close and intimate communication with our troops in Ladysmith. They could have spied over the whole country and could have brought accurate information of what could be done in that respect, what the country was like, and had that been the case we should never have heard of the difficulties at Spion Kop.
  What is being done in the Army with reference to aeroplanes? With regard to dirigibles, Germany has already six or eight, if not ten, at work. What these balloons are capable of doing I am not sufficiently competent to express any definite opinion upon, but I know some of their difficulties and weaknesses. The dirigible cannot be kept on the ground for any length of time without being supplied
  1238
  with a house of some kind or another to shelter it from the weather; it is a great big, clumsy thing which exposes an enormous surface to the wind, and the difficulty of using such balloons is that wherever they go they have to be followed about by some sort of shed in which to put them, and these sheds are often a sort of small Crystal Palace. That is one of the greatest difficulties of dirigible balloons.
  Then there is the difficulty of anchoring them in case a wind gets up, and that requires the assistance of a considerable number of men, and more than is contained in the crew of those vessels. With regard to work at fixed stations, where it is possible to have a shelter for them when not in use, I think they may be extremely valuable in warfare for spying out what is going on in the surrounding country, and possibly in the not very distant future they may be useful in dropping bombs at places that require to be attacked. I notice in the Army Estimates that the total amount of money now being voted for the purpose of these machines is only £52,000. Last year the amount was only £6,300, so that there has been a considerable advance, and this shows that the Army authorities are giving closer attention to this matter. If the Army is to be supplied with dirigible balloons and sufficient men to work and handle them and build fresh balloons of this kind, I think £52,000 is a very small sum indeed. We know perfectly well that foreign countries are spending very much larger sums than we are in this respect. The problem at the present moment is in its infancy, and I do not know what the future is going to be, but from the little experience I have been able to gain I have no hesitation in saying that if aeroplanes make the progress in the next few years that motor cars have done in the last ten years the warfare of the near future will be a very curious and very difficult problem. I can foresee that invasion and raids, of which we have heard so much, may become entirely altered in their character.
  Take for example aeroplanes being sufficiently secure as to be able to carry men with a considerable degree of certainty. Aeroplanes are not expensive things to construct, and I can well conceive 5,000 aeroplanes containing 10,000 men rushing across the sea, and dropping into this or some other country. I know this is not an immediately serious problem, but it is a problem of the near future, and has to be considered, and I should be glad to hear that the Secretary for War is considering that danger. If it be true that 10,000 men

  1239
  could be landed from the air, then the problem of a raid becomes an entirely different one. I can conceive that such a raid would rush across the sea with the object of capturing some port, and the only defence would be to have afforestation in the neighbourhood of that port, because the one thing that is detested by aviators is the presence of a considerable number of trees; what they require is a wide, open country in order to alight. One of the most difficult problems of aviation is that of alighting successfully, and it may be that the defence of our ports in the future will be afforestation.
  Colonel WILLIAMS: I apologise for drawing the attention of the House to a duller subject than that which has up to the present engaged the attention of hon. Members. My only excuse for doing so is that this is the only chance I may have for some considerable time. I desire to call attention to the recent Army Order of 1909 which makes great alterations in the audit and pay office. I wish to draw attention to the first Report of the Public Accounts Committee Order of 1905, in which certain conditions were laid down as regards accounting and audit. As the Financial Secretary to the War Office knows, the Public Accounts Committee laid down as one of their axioms that all the accounting officers ought to be under the financial member of the Army Council, and ought to be responsible to him. He ought to have entire control over them.
  When the Army Payment Department was done away with in 1905 there were certain provisions in the Royal Warrant which seemed not to carry out this desire of the Public Accounts Committee, with the consequence that an Army Order, 1st August, 1905, laid down very clearly that the Accounting Officer in the different commands should have full power of access to the Financial Member of the Army Council. Where he was desired by the Major-General in charge of Administration to make any payment which he thought not justifiable, not only was the Major-General in charge of Administration to consult the Financial Member of the Army Council, but the Accounting Officer himself was to have full power of access to the same Financial Member, and was empowered himself to report the matter and get directions from him personally. Those provisions in the Army Order entirely satisfied the Public Accounts Committee, and my point is that the new Order does not repeat those provisions. If taken by
  1240
  itself, it apparently cancels the Royal Warrant on which the Army Order of 1905 was based. I suppose, therefore, it cancels all the provisions founded on that Royal Warrant. It is itself founded upon a new Royal Warrant, and neither in the warrant nor in the appendix to the Army Order, 1909, is there any provision for the maintenance of these conditions on which the Public Accounts Committee laid special stress.
  I am quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and others several times last Session assured us that no weakening of the financial control of this House or of the position of the Controller Auditor-General was in any way intended, or would, indeed, be effected by any changes. All I can say is there is nothing in this last Order to justify that. On the contrary, the Order, taken by itself, would seem to separate entirely the accounting and audit branches. It would seem to place the accounting branch under the Major-General of Administration, who will give the branch no opportunity of communicating with the Financial Member of the Army Council. The Financial Secretary (Mr. Mallet) shakes his head, but if that is the desire of the War Office, it is not fulfilling the conditions laid down by the Public Accounts Committee. I hope we shall get some assurance that the conditions laid down as necessary for maintaining Parliamentary control over the finance of the War Office will be fulfilled. If the new Army Order does not fulfil those conditions, it might be altered as was the case in 1905. The first Order 1905, in May, was distinctly altered to make it harmonise with the requirements of the Public Accounts Committee in the same way as this new Order might be altered.

  GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "in the opinion of this House, the conditions of service of Government employés should be in every respect at least equal to those observed by the best private employers or by local public authorities doing similar work, and that, in interpreting the fair-wage clause in assigning contracts, responsible officers should be instructed to see that the spirit of the clause is properly carried out when the actual wording gives room for some doubt."
  In moving the Resolution on the Paper

  1241
  in my name I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is drafted for the purpose of making it perfectly clear that we want no special privileges for Government workers. I believe for the first time that is made absolutely clear in the Resolution moved on this occasion. Up to now there has been a sort of idea that Government service was a special service. We have had special trade unions started for the purpose of dealing with these services and these services only. Demands have been made from time to time by those unions that were not quite consistent with the demands made by similar unions outside. A few years ago, on the initiative of the Trade Union Congress, a Resolution was passed laying down this as a general principle: that in future the organised workers of the country would refuse to recognise special privileges claimed by Government workers, and would insist upon Government workers putting themselves in line with similar workers engaged by private employers upon similar work. This Resolution is drafted in that spirit. We have felt that for far too long Ministers getting up in this House were able to say, "We give special holidays, or we give special privileges of this kind or that kind," and then to defy us to compute that in terms of pounds, shillings, and pence, so that we could see clearly and accurately and in a satisfactory way what was the relative position of the Government and the outside worker. We want all that done away with.
  We think the Government ought now to begin from the beginning again. It should not assume that it is a paternal employer; it should not assume that when a man or a woman takes service under it that he or she thereby have entered a special privileged class; it should not assume, as a matter of fact, that Government service differs in character from outside service. All that we want it to assume is that the Government hope to be a model employer. It should adopt no treatment of its workpeople and no relation to its workpeople except what a good outside employer has done or could do, considering his own economic advantage. For instance, if we ask for high wages in Government service, we ask for them because every private employer has proved by experience that high wages are economical. If we ask for short hours, an eight hours day, it is again because that has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt to be an economical method of working labour. We
  1242
  ask for equitable consideration all round. It is because it has been proved that the employer who enters into human relationship with his workpeople, who treats them fairly, humanely, and justly, is an employer whose business is on a sound and proper economic footing, that that is the general principle we lay down: "A model employer outside and a model public authority other than the Government."
  I am bound to say that the Government, in spite of certain very satisfactory changes it has made, is still very far short of an ideal standard. The material at one's disposal is so ample and so rich that it is really quite impossible for me at this hour of the night, or indeed at any hour of the day, to bring forward the case in the fulness of its working. All I can hope to do, and all I intend to do is to give one or two examples, which I think will convince the House that the Government is still very far off being a model employer. I will take first the clothing factory at Pimlico. Just take these figures. There are 480 storehouse men and porters employed there; 440 out of 480 are actually working for a wage of 23s. per week, and the other forty are working for a wage of 25s. per week. The 440 have got absolutely no chance of increasing their wages, unless one or other of the forty above them should happen to die. Twenty-three shillings per week is the maximum for 440 of those men, and 25s. per week is the maximum for forty of them. There the line is drawn absolutely rigidly, and I venture to say none of my hon. Friends will get up in this House and defend that as a London wage. Let me take next the case of women working in the same factory at Pimlico. According to official publications there are 1,200 skilled tailoresses employed in that factory, and they work upon piece work. If they were working for outside employers, according to my information—and I have taken some care to get it verified—they would be earning from 30s. to 35s. per week, but the average—and this average takes in some very highly-paid workmen at Pimlico—works out at only 17s. 5½d. That statement has been published and circulated, and I have never seen any refutation of it. Nominally these women are piece workers. Those of us who take an interest in wages, and the standard by which they ought to be computed, have always asserted that if you are going to take an advantage and to give an advantage to the piece workers—and there is a good deal of advantage to the employer in piece-work

  1243
  —and if you are going to take advantage of that system, you should not base piece work wages on time wages only—you should pay a certain percentage more to workpeople working piece work than to people working on ordinary time wages. At Pimlico the piece-work rates are computed on time rates, and there have been actual cases of especially competent women who have at the end of the week been getting more than the average of the piece wage whose piece wages have been reduced because they amounted to a sum higher than the time wage allowed. Piece work is indeed the worst form of payment with which every trades union secretary is acquainted. These poor women are not well organised; they cannot be well organised. Though nominally piece workers they are really time" workers, and they suffer all the drawbacks of being piece workers without having any remuneration adequate for it. Let me take another case. This is one showing how the process of reduction is going on. It used to be that buttonholes were paid for in the making per jacket. Under the new system they are paid for at the rate of 100 or 1,000. Taking an ordinary jacket—taking say 100 ordinary serge jackets with 1,100 buttonholes, the making-up of these holes used to paid for at the rate of 10s. 5d. Now the rate has been reduced to 8s. 6d. In another case the rate has fallen from 8s. 4d. to 6s. 11½d. This was the statement made by an official of the tailors' organisation at the Trades' Union Congress in 1908, and the seconder of the motion declared that the Government had attempted a crime on British Labour by accepting a contract for 1s. 4½. for work which could not be done in their own factories at less than 3s. 4½ d. It is these contract prices which are constantly used to cut down the rate of the wages of employes in factories.
  Take the case of Woolwich. I am not proposing to raise the conditions of labour there. But there is a very disputatious point as to the Government policy in taking on boys and discharging them at the age of twenty-one. During the last two or three years I have been an active member of a committee for guarding young persons in that respect, and it has been proved right up to the hilt—it occupies a very considerable place of the Poor Law Commission Report—that there has been no more pernicious influence in our industrial life than the practice of employers taking on
  1244
  boys and girls immediately they leave school, giving them fairly large wages for a year or two, giving them no training and no discipline, and none of that moral or mental capacity to enable them to become independent wage earners, and then, when they have reached the age of eighteen or nineteen or twenty, turning then out into the streets and accepting no further responsibility for them. I am prepared to base my charge against the Government in connection with Woolwich on that fact alone. I am perfectly convinced, although I do not quite know the inside of Woolwich in this respect, but knowing the necessity of similar undertakings—I am perfectly convinced that if the Government liked that wrong could be righted quite easily. All that the Government need to do is to make up their minds to do the right thing, and in this respect it would be a perfectly simple matter. They supplement that by liberal discharges of men when they get to the age of sixty or sixty-five. I cannot help remembering an interesting letter which Sir John Brunner wrote to one of the newspapers, in which he showed that in an ordinary fair day's work, at the age of sixty or sixty-five, a man is really at his prime, subject to accidents, mistakes, and so on. I cannot believe for a single moment that the Government could overlook this matter when once its attention has been called to it, and they must see it is not necessary to make these discharges. Piece work in dangerous undertakings ought undoubtedly to be abolished. It should be done solely on time wage, without any temptation to rush, because it is under such temptations that awful catastrophes may occur. It is surely the duty of the Government to encourage men to do this work quietly and leisurely. It is not wise to ask them to work under conditions of rush; it is absurd, not to say criminal.
  May I then go from Woolwich to another place, just taking samples showing how much the Government could do if they only desired to do it. Take the case of the Weedon Ordnance Department. I would beg the especial attention of the hon. Gentleman to this case. There they have actually labourers working at 19s. a week, which is equal to 4¾d. an hour, while in the neighbouring districts the rate is 5½d. per hour. That is not fair play, those are not fair wages, and that is not living up to the reputation which the Government told us they hoped to achieve. The labourers, moreover, are not labourers in the proper sense of the word, but do a

  1245
  great deal of responsible work. They check stores, they are responsible for checking stores, and are discharged if there is any discrepancy in those stores, and yet their wages are labourers' wages except, perhaps, in a few instances an odd 2d. up to 6d. a day is given to compensate them for the extra responsibility placed upon them. Moreover, if the hon. Member would only ask the Board of Trade to assist him, he would discover that Weedon is an extremely expensive place to live in, and if he were to refer to the Post Office rules, founded upon the Hobhouse Report, and compare the wages with those of the ordinary labourers at Weedon, then I think he would discover that even bad and low as those wages are, those at Weedon are still worse and lower than those which are measured out for the treatment of the Post Office officials.
  These three departments—Pimlico, Woolwich, and Weedon—are only examples of many that could be quoted if we could have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the Government will do a little more to clear out the remnants of sweating which still remain in the arrangements between the Government and their workpeople. The second part of the Resolution deals with the Fair Wages Clause, and the great mistake about the administration of that Clause is that the permanent official is under the impression that it is a sort of legal document, and when we go and present a case which has not exactly been provided for by the actual letter of the Clause the permanent official, in a superior way, says, "I have nothing whatever to do with anything except the wording of the Clause, and as you did not foresee that the Clause could be got round in about a dozen different ways, then it is not my business to prevent it being got round, it is my business simply to administer the letter." That is not the case, and that was not the intention of this House—I do not believe that it was the intention of either side in this House.
  The intention of this House when it passed the Fair Wages Clause was to pass something which should be administered in a spirit of equity. The Clause is not an Act of Parliament, but an indication that the will of this House is that certain methods should be applied to the giving out of contracts—methods which would make the Government a responsible and moral employer. That was the intention of the House, and I think it is the duty of Ministers at the head of Departments
  1246
  to pass that on to their permanent officials and to see that the permanent official concerned carries out the spirit of the Clause and not merely attaches himself to the letter. Let me take an example from my own Constituency. There used to be certain contracts that went to Leicester. They still go as a matter of fact, but in this particular case there was a temporary leakage. What happened? The Fair Wages Clause was applied rigidly to Leicester, and the conditions of Leicester employment were such that even the permanent official could not see any way out of the difficulty. He had to apply the Clause whether he liked it or not. But a certain firm left Leicester and went to Derby, and there was no other industry of the same kind in the town or district of Derby. As a matter of fact, when certain machines were constructed and placed in the factory in Derby, that town became a district by itself.
  The employer told his workpeople that if a single one of them joined the union he would be discharged. As a matter of fact a union was attempted to be formed, and everyone of the workpeople who-joined and became members were turned out. The rates paid were arbitrarily fixed by the employer a very substantial distance below the rates agreed to by the workpeople and employers in Leicester and Derby became, in the opinion of the official administering the Fair Wages clause, a district, and he threw up his arms in holy horror, and said, "I have nothing to do with anything except the district rates. If you can show me that it is not the district rate in other factories in Derby then I will see that something is said to the employer." As, however, there was only one factory of this kind in Derby, that factory created its own rate, and we were told that the Fair Wages Clause did not apply. That is really an absurd situation. This House never meant anything of the kind, neither party in this House ever meant anything of the kind. I have a case from the West Riding of Yorkshire which arrived to-day where practically the same situation has been created. I am going to give the hon. Member that case, and ask him if he will go into it. As I said, it has only come into my possession to-day, but it is on all fours with the Leicester case.
  Take another case which is more complicated. You find nowadays that, owing to the high local rates, high rents, and high dead charges upon manufactures in

  1247
  certain towns, manufacturers find it a very convenient thing to move out one mile or five miles from the town. The workpeople enjoy all the facilities of the big town, and the employers themselves enjoy all those facilities. The cost of carriage is not appreciably increased, and, as a matter of fact, it is just as cheap and easy for them to manufacture a mile beyond as a mile inside the municipal boundary. How do they act? They begin by reducing wages to fair village rates instead of town rates, and I do not complain of that; I think there is good reason for not paying so large wages in villages as in towns. I do not dispute that at all, but what I do dispute is this—the right of the War Office to simply come and say that any village rate which happens to be imposed upon the workpeople is to be recognised by them as the standard district rate. That, again, is not carrying out the Resolution of this House. We know perfectly well that years and years elapse before we can eliminate the feature of sweating from the newly established factories in new district. They get men and women not accustomed to industrial and factory life; they get a population ready to their hands, which has not been disciplined by industrial experience, and it takes half a generation to get those men and women so disciplined that they fit themselves into the industrial system, and meanwhile they are being exploited by the employer. Whilst that process is going on the officials of the War Office stand by and declare that the district rate is so and so, and that they have no power under the Fair Wages Clause to go beyond it. There has been a slight change within recent years, but I want that change to be systematised, I want it to be so regular and its operations so constant that we can turn to our people and say the War Office in particular is going to administer the spirit of the Fair Wages Clause, and is going to take means to compel employers working in what I may call non-district districts, to pay, not the rate they can force on their people, but some sort of equitable rate in relation to other towns in their neighbourhood.
  Then there is another common way of evading the Clause, and that is by mixing up private work with Government work. I have a case that has just been sent to me. A firm refuses to employ anyone who is a member of a trade union, and dismisses a man who has joined the union. That I should say is against the spirit of the Fair Wages Clause. It is a specific attempt to
  1248
  force down wages below the recognised standard. That is particularly the case where we have employers' federations and trade unions having agreed upon a price list, and that is the case in the district to which I refer. I do not want to push my case one inch further than it is required. I admit that in districts where no such agreement exists this is not such a grievous fault. I think still it is a fault, but surely—and I believe I am carrying both sides of the House with me—where organised labour on the one hand and organised capital on the other meet over a table and agree together mutually that a certain statement of prices shall be the official statement, then the firm that makes it an industrial crime to belong to a union that has helped in the settlement of the statement ought to be regarded as having broken the Fair Wages Clause. Then this goes on:—
  "This particular firm, whilst affecting to pay the trade union price, distributes the work with the ordinary work which they do not pay the Government wages upon, so that they get Government work done, taken all round, for 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. less than other firms."
  I only refer to these two ways of evading the Clause because they are familiar to the War Office already, and I hope we can get more definite assurance that steps are being taken to make them impossible than we have had hitherto. The principle that ought to be observed in giving out contricts is that wherever the Government can seize upon the machinery of arbitration and conciliation it ought to do it, and I should lay down this proposition—I should like to know how far I carry the Government with me—that where employers and employed have come together and agreed upon a price list, that of itself ought to ensure preferential treatment, and that where circumstances point to unregulated and arbitrary conditions and wages, that ought to create suspicion in the minds of the War Office. I think if the Government, banishing from its mind once and for all this idea that it is a special employer of labour, would put itself in the position of the ordinary outside employer of labour, recognise its moral and its civic responsibility, and go upon the most economical lines, not nosing as anything except that, and if it would place itself behind all the efforts which are now being made to make arbitration and conciliation the basis of wages and conditions of employment, I do not think we should have very much to say against it. The purpose of my Resolution tonight is to try and get a definite state

  1249
  ment from the Government, first of all regarding its own employés; and, secondly, regarding the administration in future of the Fair Wages Clause.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: The point that seems to me to strike one, in making investigations into the rate of wages paid in various Government Departments in different parts of the country, is how intensely low the wages really are. To begin with, we find that the wages of the labourers at Weedon goes as low as 19s. a week, and in that district we are told that the cost of foodstuffs is practically the same as in all large industrial towns, and that the house rent for a four-roomed house, usual for these people to reside in, amounts to no less than 6s. 6d. per week. The rate averages out at something like 4¾d. per hour, while the rate in a town only eight miles away averages at 5½d. per hour. Does the Government think it reasonable to suggest that it is possible for men to continue to work in these different employment and maintain a wife and family and pay their way honestly, living in anything like decency and comfort, on 19s. a week? If some of the men who sit and have sat on the Treasury Bench would only endeavour to make a trial, it would not last more than two or three days. I made a trial in London on very much more than the ordinary rate paid by the Government Departments. I started in London at 40s. a week as an engineer. Never had I a more difficult problem, though I am a life abstainer, and a member of a trade union, and have done the best I can with the money I got, than to live in London on 40s. a week, and I have no family. This brings me to the Royal Army Clothing Department at Pimlico, and here we have no fewer than 440 men, storehouse men and porters, working for the magnificent rate of 23s. a week. I suppose it will be paid in gold. I suppose a very large proportion of these men will be married. It is only natural and human to expect that they will dare to get married, and we are expecting that these men will be able to maintain themselves and their wives and families in London on 23s. a week. Not only is it impossible, but it seems to me that it is preposterous, for any Government to expect that these men can exist as they ought to do in a country like this.
  It is true, of course, that these men are given certain advantages, for instance, sick pay, which is. I supposed, valued at
  1250
  6d. per week. We have it on record that a Royal Commission sat in 1889 and declared that 24s. was the lowest wage on which a man could live in London. In my judgment he would have a thundering bad time at that, even if he got the whole of the 24s. Here we have no fewer than 440 men, not unskilled workers, but men performing operations demanding a certain amount of ability and skill, and yet they are only paid 23s. a week. We have in the same factory thirty-nine men who, I suppose, will be a kind of superior official, and they receive 25s. a week. What is the prospect of the 440 men? If they are good boys they have an 11 to 1 chance of some day rising from 23s. to 25s. I ask, Is not that a magnificent prospect, when you invite men to do the right thing, to live sober, upright, and God-fearing lives? You give him a magnificent sum like that. If he goes on long enough he might be a millionaire, but it will not be in the Pimlico Clothing Factory. In regard to the tailoresses in the Pimlico factory, we have been told of the change in the rate of payment of these women. The rate for 1,000 buttonholes used to be 10s. 5d., and it was reduced to 8s. 6d. For another kind of jacket the payment for 1,000 buttonholes used to be 8s. 4d., and it was reduced to 6s. 11½d. Here is a reduction of between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent forced upon these people. The prevailing rate of wages there for skilled tailoresses is 17s. 5½d. per week, while we are told upon pretty good authority that these women are paid by outside employers 25s. to 35s. per week.
  As regards the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, we have the same complaint that the rate of wages is 23s. per week. Another complaint is that men are discharged at sixty years of age. They are discharged, I suppose, because they are considered to be too old. They have served the Government so well that they are left to do anything at sixty years of age that they can turn their hand to. It seems to me rather hard that this treatment should be shown to these people, who. I suppose, have endeavoured in their humble sphere to do their duty. They are cast adrift, and if they live until they are seventy years of age, I suppose they will draw the 5s. per week pension. I am told that they have had an advance of wages once in twelve years. I venture to say that there is no other body of skilled men in or around London who have not succeeded in obtaining more than one advance in twelve years. The advance amounted to 6d. per week. I believe that the men in the skilled

  1251
  unions have in the same time received advances amounting to 1s. or 2s. In the Enfield district, where the 23s. rate of wages exists, the district council pays unskilled labourers 25s. per week, so that the local public authority does, at any rate, set an example to the Government. That seems to me to be rather a strong point in the case, for, after all, the men who sit on the public authority have to face the electors every three years, I suppose. If they can do this and justify their attitude to the people who send them there, surely that should be the strongest argument why the Government should follow suit. I wish to call attention to another point, namely, that after a certain term of service these men are entitled to a small gratuity. Yet, if anyone should die while in the Government service, the gratuity is not paid to the nearest surviving relatives. This seems to me to be like a method invented by the Government to rob the widow and orphan when a man dies in the service of the Government. I think it would be exceedingly difficult for the Secretary of State for War to justify a condition like that, and the sooner it is altered the better for them. In regard to the rates of wages prevailing among unskilled workers in Government employment, it seems to me that the matter should receive a reasonable amount of consideration. I quite understand that there are difficulties in connection with questions of this description. These are difficulties which present themselves to men who are not conversant with the ordinary work of the trade unions of this country. They probably think that those who raise these questions are trying to "get at" the Minister who for the time being is on the Treasury Bench. That is not so at all. In connection with all industries in all parts of the country there are negotiations taking place every week, and it is wrong to assume that those who raise these questions wish to find fault with the particular Minister in charge of a particular Department. It seems to me that there should be some basis as to a rate of wages for unskilled labour in Government Departments which might be regarded as reasonable. As one having some experience, I would suggest that there should be a rate fixed per hour for these men. The rate differs in different parts of the country, I admit, but I contend that if the dockers of London could fight their battle and win on the question that they are entitled to at least
  1252
  6d. per hour, it seems to me that 6d. per hour should be the least amount paid in Government Departments for unskilled labour. I know that some of the men employed in these factories say that 30s. a week is a low enough minimum to fix. There is a great deal to be said for that, but I am not suggesting that that minimum could be brought into existence in a moment. They say that it is an ideal ultimately to attain. I do not care which party is in office, but I say that the Government from whatever party it is drawn ought to entertain the view that these men should be enabled to realise some better and higher ideal, and that they should not be obliged to grind out a miserable existence on 23s. or 24s. per week. There are a considerable number of public authorities in the London area which pay 30s. per week to their unskilled labourers, even to the men who are sweeping the streets. According to "Punch" there are degrees of skill in that class of labour. The public authorities of Battersea, Bermondsey, Camberwell, East Ham, Edmonton, Hackney, Southwark, Tottenham and Woolwich pay 30s. per week minimum to their unskilled workers. The men sitting upon these public authorities have to face the electors, and if they can do so and justify the payment of 30s. per week minimum, it appears to me that that justifies my contention that 30s. is a fair, reasonable, and proper standard rate of wages for unskilled workers. But that does not cover the whole of the story. Besides paying the 30s. minimum these different public bodies give to their employés twelve days holiday each year with pay, and also half-pay when sick.
  In dealing with this question we all desire that the Government should be a model employer and should set a good example to the other employers of the country. What is the use of passing a Fair Wages Resolution if we find that the wages paid are exceedingly low? It seems to me that we should first place the conditions of the people in our own Government employment on a proper standard, and then we should go with clean hands to other employers of labour and insist on them paying at least equal to what the Government itself sees fit to pay. I would like to learn from the War Office whether they make any inquiries at all with regard to the rates of wages, conditions of overtime, and the hours of labour observed by any of the firms whose names stand on their list who are invited to tender for the work

  1253
  before tenders are given out? I know it is not a very difficult matter for the War Office if they desire to get a statement of the wages, the rates of overtime, and all the conditions existing among practically the whole of the skilled workers in this country before ever the tender is considered. If this were done the War Office would be able to know, when considering the tenders, whether the firms who sent them in were entitled to be on the list of those considered fit to have their tenders accepted. I would very much like to know whether it is the business of anybody at the War Department to ascertain what are the wages, hours of labour and rates of overtime paid by the various firms before ever the tender is considered, because, if not, it does seem to me that it is unwise altogether to wait until the tender is given out and until a complaint is made. It would be very much better to prevent the disease by forestalling the possibilities of its arising, by giving tenders only to firms who are recognised by the various organised bodies of workmen to be fair and proper employers in this country. In the discussion on the Fair Wages Clause in this House in 1908 the then Postmaster-General (Mr. Buxton) said, "In order to obtain uniformity of administration and co-operation between the contracting Departments on matters affecting inspection, the investigation of complaints, and generally the interpretation of the Fair Wages Clause, we shall set up a interdepartmental advisory committee, which will include a representative of the Board of Trade." I see that the right hon. Gentleman is in his place now, and I would like to know if this was done? I would also like to ask the hon. Member in charge of the War Office, Is the War Office now represented on that particular committee?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. C. E. Mallet): Yes.
  Mr. DUNCAN: I think we have shown that there is a great deal to be done by the War Department among those it employs. I would like to know, Is there any officer employed by the War Office to see that the spirit of the clause is effectively carried out during the period of the contract? And I trust that we may have an answer which will be satisfactory to those who are concerned in the matter.
  Mr. MALLET: In trying to deal with some of the points raised by my hon. Friends below the Gangway in the interesting speeches which they have made,
  1254
  I have to ask in a rather special measure the indulgence of the House, because, as hon. Members will know, it is only two or three days since I took over the work of a Minister whose intimate knowledge of War Office business has won the admiration of us all, and whose temporary absence from among us is a matter of regret to all parties in this House. This Motion is not, of course, altogether a new one. It is one which is perfectly fair to us, and one which it is for the public advantage that we should to-night discuss. It falls into two parts. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald) lays down two main propositions. First of all that Government wages and the conditions of Government labour ought to be equal to those of the best employers, and, secondly, that the Fair Wages Clause in Government contracts ought to be perfectly understood and loyally carried out. I want to take, if I may, each of those two points, and to endeavour to answer, so far as my imperfect official knowledge enables me, some of the difficult questions which they raise. Take the first point: how the Government treats its own workers; how far the Government Departments, how far the War Office in its own workshops at Woolwich, Enfield, Waltham and elsewhere, keeps up the standard of wages. At the start we have to face this initial difficulty, that we at the War Office are a great spending Department. Some of our Friends state, as the Amendments on the Paper will show, that we often spend a great deal more than we ought. We have at the same time to maintain a great expensive instrument of war, and if we did not do so we would fail in our duty. We have also, those of us who care for public economy, to try to keep expenses down. We have concurrently to act a part of a great employer, and to treat our workpeople as well and liberally as a model employer should, and, of course, we are bound to remember that Government contracts are sometimes looked upon as an occasion when the private citizen may secure some legitimate advantage and set his services at a fairly high price.
  As one of the trades union officials said in a recent inquiry, "Everyone does the best he can to mulct the Government, and always will do so while human nature lasts." Take the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow with regard to public authorities. I am bound to admit that our wages in Government workshops do not compete with the wages paid by some

  1255
  public authorities. I do not say we can compete altogether with them, for there are some public authorities—I mention no names—which do pay very liberal wages—more, I think, than the ordinary current rate, owing perhaps to the liberalising effect of popular election. Still, even among those public authorities there are great differences, and I find from the Return published from year to year that of the public authorities in England and Wales only forty-eight paid trade union rates, while 138 paid the current rate of the district—that is what we are trying to do—and fifty-seven paid the rates agreed on by their employes and employers. In the same way what the War Office, while not affecting to pay the trade union rate as such, aim at and, I think, generally achieve, is to pay the current rate which obtains among employers of the district. Let me say on general grounds that we have some claims to be regarded as good employers. For instance, our sanitary conditions are good; there is no complaint against them, or, if there are any complaints, no one will be so ready to put them right as the permanent officials at the War Office. Then, again, our hours of labour are low; we reduced them a few years ago from 54 hours to 48 hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow was wrong on one point, for I think there are many men in London who carry on a fairly happy existence on loss than 40s. a week. We are now maintaining permanently a minimum establishment in our factories in order to avoid the necessity for discharges. With reference to the discharges at Woolwich, of course I entirely agree with the principles which the hon. Member has laid down. Nothing is more unfortunate in our social life, nothing is harder, than to set young boys to work for a few years and then turn them upon the world without a permanent appointment. But the only mitigation of our action I can put forward is that there have been times at Woolwich when we have been forced to discharge hands on grounds of economy, and we had to choose between the discharge of boys and the discharge of men. We discharged boys rather than men, as the lesser of two evils.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that the points he has raised will not escape our attention, and we will do our best to avoid the discharge of any boys. With regard to the wages of skilled labour, that is the main point of the discussion which has
  1256
  been raised. I should like the House to remember what our principle is and what is the basis on which in this matter we try to work. Some six years ago—1904–the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Shackleton), who is one of the best defenders of the legitimate interests of labour and one of the fairest and wisest of them—I am sure Members of the Labour party will be among the first to join in that view of the Member for Clitheroe—carried a Resolution, which the late Government accepted, that the wages of unskilled workers in factories should be no less than the wages paid for similar work by other employers in the respective districts. I want to call attention to the phrasing of that Resolution, because it is a very moderate one and the wording of it is very important. We have really made it the basis of our action up to this time. In the following year, 1905, a Committee wag appointed, over which Mr. Gerald Balfour presided, to consider the working of that Resolution. They examined very carefully into the wages paid at Woolwich, Enfield, Waltham and elsewhere. They examined also, with the help of the Board of Trade—I should like to say that we do not overlook the value of the help received from the Board of Trade—into the conditions of living, the cost of living, and the cost of rent in the places where the Government workers live. They found, I am bound to admit, that the wages paid were often too low. They found that the minimum wage paid was only 21s. per week, and recommended that the wage should be raised to 23s. at Woolwich and Deptford, in London, but they did not go so far as to recommend the raising of the wage at Enfield and Waltham, outside the area, whore the rates were naturally lower. That report the War Office got. We raised the minimum wage a few years ago from 21s. to 23s., and there was this much grace about that action that we raised the minimum not only at Woolwich and at Deptford, but at Enfield and Waltham, and without calculating the privileges accorded to Government workers—I do not wish to set any special store on these privileges—and which bring the wages to something like 24s. a week for the lowest class of unskilled labour. As to that minimum wage, two points arise—one about these privileges to which the hon. Member for Leicester referred, in, if I may say so, very fairly critical terms. Those privileges do not amount, I admit, to a great deal. They consist of a gratuity paid when a man is discharged after a few years'

  1257
  service, of pay for medical attendance, of pay for holidays, and not only Bank Holidays, but beanfeasts and one or two other special cases. I remember that in the Irish establishments the Irish have a special holiday on St. Patrick's Day, for which they get no pay, by some peculiarity. Those privileges we calculated at 1s. per week, though probably they may rot amount to very much more than 9d. or 10d. I do not, as I said, want to set too much store by these privileges. I think we might very fairly reconsider them, and if a pensions scheme—one has been put forward lately, and is under discussion—is put forward before long, I should like to consider—if any spell of official life be granted to me—whether we could not modify these privileges in regard to the payment of such an amount as would be fair for a Government Department to pay to Government workers and which would correspond to the current rate paid in various districts by the rest of the employers. I am sure that the House was impressed by the particular instances quoted by my two hon. Friends.
  There is no doubt that when you look at them alone certain rates of wages paid to certain Government workers appear to be and are low wages. For instance, take the Weedon rates, they are very low. They are rates paid to unskilled labour, as I really do not think there is much skill about the men handling stores. Their wages amount now to only 19s. per week, but there is this to be remembered, that it would not be altogether fair to compare the rate of wages at Weedon with those at Northampton. The rate at Northampton is 5½d., and the rate at Weedon is 4¾d. That is one of the difficulties of the whole question, for district rates do and will vary. The local rate at Weedon is decidedly lower than the rate at Northampton. Acting on the principle that we have always laid down it is not unfair that we should be having at Weedon a lower rate than that which we have at Northampton. There is this also to be said—that low as it is at Weedon it has been actually lower, and within the last few years we have raised it twice. We raised it in 1893 from 16s. to 17s., we raised it in 1907 from 17s. to 19s., and I would venture to hope that this rise of recent years may perhaps be an augury of some further rise in the future, because I am sure we shall all admit that 19s. is a low wage for a man to live on. If ever we come to recognise any kind of common rate for the whole country, this is the kind of wage, of course, that
  1258
  would have to be levelled up. The hon. Member for Leicester took the case of Pimlico, and quoted certain figures to us, which, undoubtedly, gave a bad impression. He said that at Pimlico, if I understood him rightly, we had 480 storehouse men, of whom 440 got 23s. per week and the rest got 25s. He said the women also were a good deal underpaid at Pimlico. The facts, as I am informed, are these: The numbers employed in the store, the men who are called storehouse men, or warehousemen, total 390, and not 480; but that is, of course, a detail. Of those 390 men 344 receive 23s. per week, and 41 receive 25s., while 100 of those who receive the 23s. are able to make extra pay varying from 1s. to 5s. 4d. for specified duties, or as pieceworkers or case-packers. That puts a very different complexion on the question.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is this a recent change or has it been the practice?
  Mr. MALLET: That is a point I rather hesitate to answer positively without some further inquiry.
  Mr. BARNES: Does the increased pay include overtime?
  Mr. MALLET: Yes, I think so. With regard to the women, I do not think it is the fact that the women at Pimlico are underpaid. The figures given as to women are certainly not low figures. The wages of women of a certain class who do a particular class of work amount to 20s. 11d. per week, while the outside wages to women for the same work amount to only 11s. 11d. Women's work at Pimlico is, I am informed, well paid work. The figures for women factory pieceworkers for last year at Pimlico average as follows:—969 sewers, whose wages averaged 17s. 1d.; 111 garment machinists, whose wages averaged 24s. 6d.; and 22 of the highest class machinists, whose wages averaged 26s. 8d. If those figures are not correct I shall be glad to go into the whole subject again with the hon. Member, but if they are correct, and I took some pains to obtain them, I think they do afford the presumption that the wages paid by us to women at Pimlico are surely not illiberal or unfair. I do not say they are ideal, not perhaps what women's wages ought to be, but I do say they are good wages and liberal wages as women's wages go.
  There is another point raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, a small point, but still it is rather important, and that is the question of piecework in dangerous trades. The view we take about them is this, we

  1259
  have a system of piecework, sometimes fellowship piecework where the men work together in the lyddite and cordite shops. Some time there was trouble in one of the lyddite shops and the piecework system was abolished. We agreed entirely that where the occupation was really dangerous the piecework system was wrong, because it does lead to hurried work, or it may, and that might produce great danger. Our argument is that in the cordite factory the danger is not real. Cordite is not nearly as dangerous a material as lyddite. I think, if I am rightly informed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had for long a walking stick made of cordite, which was much admired in the House, and which was a familiar object in the City. I am told it lasted admirably until one day he poked a bonfire with it, when it disappeared, with results happily not injurious to himself. I am trying as far as I can to deal with the rather difficult question raised by hon. Members, and in so far as I am not able to deal with them just now I know they will accept our assurance that the War Office will most readily consider any particular case that is brought before them, and the House may rely on the officials of the War Office to find a remedy for anything that is wrong.
  I should like to say a word on the other branch of the subject, the Fair Wages Clause in Government contracts. That matter is an important and interesting question, and it has been carried three stages in the last few years. In the year 1891 my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who, if I may say so has been a very consistent helper of the Government worker, carried in this House a Resolution, the first Fair Wages Resolution, and that laid it down as the Government's duty to make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are current in each trade for competent workmen. It laid down the necessity for current wages and the necessity for competent workmen. The Department set to work to carry out that Resolution, and they drafted a Fair Wages Clause which has ever since been a regular part of Government contracts. Difficulties, however, arose. It is easy enough to draft your Resolution, but it is not so easy to get a real definition of what fair wages are. You want something which is comprehensive, elastic, and difficult or impossible to evade, and that is not so easy to get. Accordingly a Committee
  1260
  was appointed in 1907, under Sir George Murray, of the Treasury, which reconsidered the whole question, with the result that last year there was another discussion in this House, when the Member for Gorton (Mr. J. Hodge) moved a fresh Fair Wages Clause, and when the House accepted unanimously an Amendment proposed by the present President of the Board of Trade they really substituted a new Fair Wages Clause in the contracts of the future. That new Clause dropped the phrase about current wages, and also, curiously enough, the stipulation about competent workmen. The essence of the new Clause is that a contractor shall under penalty pay rates of wages and observe hours of labour not less favourable than those recognised by employers and trade societies, or those which in practice prevail among good employers; and, secondly, that where there are no such wages and hours recognised or prevailing in the district, then those recognised or prevailing in the nearest industrial district in which the general industrial circumstances are similar shall be adopted. The point was to level up wages to what is paid by good employers, or where there is no recognised wage, to take as nearly as you can the wages paid for the same work under the same conditions. On that Resolution the Advisory Committee set to work. That Advisory Committee is a strong Departmental Committee, presided over by Mr. Askwith, of the Board of Trade, and having on it the Director of Army Contracts and representatives of the different Departments. It is a really representative body, able to speak in the name of the different working Departments. That Committee set to work to draft a Fair Wages Clause. They did not find it easy to base a clause on the Resolution passed by the House, so they embodied that Resolution wholesale, with the result that the Resolution passed by the House last March is now the Fair Wages Clause in most Government contracts.
  That is not all. Besides that Fair Wages Clause, contractors are now invited on their tenders to sign an undertaking to observe strictly the two Resolutions of the House. They are obliged to give notice of the Clause to all their work people, and to put up a notice in a public place in the shops. In all contracts with unorganised trades there are additional clauses inserted to prevent work being done at home, to compel the payment of wages direct to the workmen themselves,

  1261
  and not through any middleman, and to secure a minimum wage, especially in the case of women. I submit that these requirements carry out very fairly the intentions of the House, and that, so far as regulations go, we have really done all that can be done to carry out what was really the wish of the House of Commons. It is one thing to make regulations; it is another thing to overcome the difficulties which crop up on contracts, and of course we have not got over all the difficulties yet. One of the most common difficulties is the one to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester referred. This is to define a district. In Leicester, of course, it is easy to say what are the recognised wages that have to be paid, but round about Leicester there are a number of country districts to which employers are sometimes moving in order to secure a lower rate. These districts vary enormously, and it is not such an easy thing to say in these cases what the wages ought to be. For instance, my hon. Friend referred to one particular firm, and to action I had taken in respect of this firm, which had a warehouse near Leicester. The firm has its factory at Foldshill, thirty miles away. We made inquiries as to what was going on, because it was suggested that the firm paid wages that were too low, and that this is a Government contract. The answer we got was this: The firm alleged that the circumstances of the industry at Foldshill were not the same as at Leicester. The current wages at Foldshill were much lower, and they alleged that the men at Foldshill were content to take the lower wages, because they knew that if they pressed for the higher wages the work would go to Leicester. There is something in that—
  Mr RAMSAY MACDONALD: Do the War Office agree that this was not a breach of the Fair Wages Clause?
  Mr. MALLET: I will deal with that. The firm also said that the rate at Foldshill was, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the rate actually prevailing there, because they were the only firm that had a factory, and, therefore they made the rate themselves. That obviously is liable to abuse. We looked into these facts, and the weakness in their case, it seemed to us, was that they refused to show us their books. I may say frankly that if we desire it, and firms should refuse to show us their books, that they would, I think, not be allowed to renew their contracts, or run the chance of losing them very promptly.
  1262
  There is another case, a case also in the Leicester district. This firm makes garments for the Army. At Leicester the price is 1s. 8d. At the other place, eight miles away, a much lower rate is paid, something like 1s. 2½d. There, again, it is all a question of district, and obviously the Leicester rate is high and the district rate is low. You will only settle this difficult question by recognising the need to pay a similar rate over the whole country; and then, and not till then, will you settle the question on satisfactory grounds. There is one other point I shall mention-that is the question of trade union rates. We do not use the phrase, "Trade union rates." The War Office does not insist on trade union wages. It does insist, though, on a standard rate of wages which men and masters recognise and which good employers pay; and it does its best to keep that standard up. With regard to trade unions, the position of the Department, if I am right, is this. We say we cannot compel Government contractors to employ only union men. We cannot compel Government contractors to pay Government rates of wages for their private contracts. We think that is asking too much under the present conditions of industry; but we can take steps to see that union men are not unfairly prejudiced, and if any complaint reaches us to the effect that union men are being turned out of employment simply because they are union men, then we should certainly think it right to reconsider the admission of such firm involved to the Government list. There is one other point with regard to instruction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester suggested that we should issue instructions to Government officers responsible for contracts to see that the Fair Wages Clauses are properly understood. I admit that the wording is rather difficult and may sometimes be rather obscure, but I do not think that any instructions of that sort are needed, and for this reason: the Director of Contracts at the War Office is as anxious as any Member of this House can be to interpret exactly the Fair Wages Clauses. All large contracts are settled not locally but at headquarters, at the War Office, and only small contracts are settled locally. All complaints arising on contracts settled locally have to be referred to the War Office, and have to be settled there, and therefore there is very little fear of abuse on the part of local contractors, and I do not think that under these conditions instructions to Government officials are very

  1263
  much needed. I should like to say we have no objection to definite instructions being issued to Government officers responsible for contracts that regard should be had to the character of the firm as employers, both when tenders are under consideration and also when employers are being put upon the list. If that will help we will do it. Difficulties, of course, upon all these questions have always arisen. There must be local difficulties, and there must be special difficulties where there is this enormous amount of local variety and practice, but I can assure the House that the spirit behind this Motion is the spirit of the War Office administration of it. We wish, and we have in the Department, so far as is cosistent with the claims of business and economy, to treat Government workpeople as the best employers would treat their employés. We have been careful to prevent evasion and to remedy complaint. If we are ready to make improvements without waiting for them to be forced upon us then I hope we shall continue to deserve some measure of confidence from the House.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I thank the Financial Secretary for bringing his remarks to a close before he otherwise might have, because, although I am not anxious to detain the House at any length myself, I know there are several Members whose constituencies form an important part of the districts affected by this matter, and who are therefore anxious to follow in the Debate. I am, of course, glad to welcome the Financial Secretary to his place on the Treasury Bench and to wish him, as he wished himself, a prolonged span of official life, provided there is a decent interval between his periods of office. The question we are debating is as to whether the Government should be a model employer of labour or not. Fifteen or sixteen years ago I should have hesitated before I could have said I was in agreement with the speeches of the hon. Members for Leicester and Barrow-in-Furness. A good deal of water has flowed under the bridges since then, and now I find myself able to agree with the Resolution brought forward by both hon. Members. I think there are many Members upon this side of the House who are in entire sympathy with the Motion moved by the hon. Members opposite. I confess I could not agree with everything they said, though they were studiously moderate in their utterances. The only fault perhaps I could find with the interesting
  1264
  speech of the Financial Secretary was that he seemed to have prepared a defence of the War Office before he came down to the House. But the Financial Secretary hardly entered into the points put forward by the two hon. Members below the Gangway. We are always being told that any complaints brought to the notice of any Government Department will be speedily removed. I acknowledge that the officials at the War Office and the officials of other Departments always do their best to give reasons for their action. On the other hand, the private employer throughout the country has proved to his own satisfaction that no underpaid labour is really of any use to him. To do good work the workpeople must be well fed, well clothed, and well housed, and within the last twenty years the private employer has made a great advance in this direction, for he discovers every day, as I have discovered, that cheap labour is the worst you can possibly employ. I would like to ask if it is true that the Government has kept pace with the private employer in this matter? I contend they have not. Is the Government the model employer which they profess to be? It is true they have recommended the Territorials to employ only those firms that work under the Fair Wages Clause, but my own belief is that the Government go as near sweating at Pimlico as they possibly can do without infringing the law. The Financial Secretary to the War Office has told us that there is no fault to be found with the sanitary arrangements at Pimlico. All I can say is that only a short time ago those arrangements left a great deal to be desired. I maintain that one of the worst systems is that of piecework in the clanger zone in the factories. A large number of my Constituents are employed in the danger zones. There is a considerable difference between lyddite and cordite. The hon. Member said that cordite could not be dangerous because the Secretary for War used a walking stick made of cordite and it never exploded. I admit that cordite is safer than lyddite, but I do not think anyone who has visited the cordite factory at Waltham Abbey will deny that there is some danger connected with the manufacture of cordite, and the danger in regard to the right hon. Gentleman's stick depended upon the conditions under which it was carried. My own experience is that a cordite factory is an extremely dangerous place. Personally, I do not think the

  1265
  Government have any right to employ a man in the danger zone of factories like those at Waltham Abbey and Woolwich at a less wage than 30s. per week. In the danger zone at Waltham Abbey the wages are 23s. 6d., as against 28s. at Woolwich. Why should there be that lack of uniformity between two factories? The risk is always the same. The risk for the poorly-paid man is just as great as for the highly-paid man; and the labourer in the danger zone at 23s. per week receives infinitely less wage than the policeman employed in the same zone exactly at 28s. As the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. C. Duncan) says, they receive infinitely less wages than the scavenger or road scraper working in safety in Waltham Abbey, Edmonton, or any of those various municipalities quoted by the hon. Member. Many of these men who are now receiving wages of 23s. per week were at one time receiving a far better wage. They have had the opportunity, I confess, of receiving the lower wage or of going. Many who have married on the strength of receiving higher wages are naturally averse to moving with their family. They have grown up with the factory; they know the ways of the factory; they know the country; and they have therefore accepted a lower wage than the one at which they had started, but their expenses remain exactly the same. The contention of the workers at Waltham Abbey is that there should be more uniformity between them and Woolwich. If one receives 28s., the other should receive 28s. for doing precisely the same work. I fail to see why that uniformity which exists in many other Departments should not exist in the Government factories such as at Woolwich and Waltham Abbey.
  One of the hon. Members alluded to the widow or nearest of kin of a man who dies in the Government's employment not receiving the gratuity. That is a most extraordinary attitude for the Government to assume. It seems as if they wished to defraud the widow or the nearest relative of the man who dies from disease, very often contracted in their service, of the money justly due to them. The moment you concede the fact that the Government should be a model employer, you will have to set to remodel the various rules that govern the factories at the present time. I listened to the Financial Secretary, and I heard him promise nothing, but say a great deal. How did he receive the remarks of the hon. Members below the
  1266
  Gangway? He said he had sympathy with them, and believed that in many things they were absolutely true, and that he could defend nothing on the Government side.
  Mr. MALLET: No, I did not say that.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: So far as my colleagues on these benches know, we were promised absolutely nothing. I want to know whether the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution are going to be content with the promises nil made to them by that Front Bench or whether they are going to have the courage of their opinions and go to a Division on the subject. For my part, perhaps with all the zeal of a new-found recruit, I am ready to divide the House on that point. Any Government which made confession of the benefits they wish to accrue to the working classes such as was made by the men on the Front Bench opposite should, I think, have the courage of their convictions and show the country that they are those model employers they wish the rest of the employers of the country to be. I confess I thought the negotiations that might have taken place between my hon. Friend below the Gangway opposite and the Government would have resulted in a slightly better ending than we have had to-night. The Financial Secretary, with a prudence that is admirable in a young man and will be wonderful as he gets older, absolutely told us no more than the Secretary of State for War would have told us. He said the sympathy of the officials went out on every occasion to those who had any complaint to make. I do not know that he went so far as to say he had any sympathy for us himself, but at all events he promised—I have often heard the promise made in this House—that every complaint made would be carefully considered. I want a little more than that. I want a definite statement on the part of the Financial Secretary that the Government will from this time cease to have a different rate of wages in different factories; that they will recognise that piece work in the zone of danger is the most dangerous of any that you can possibly allow a man to work at; and, thirdly, that no man employed in the danger zone of a Government factory shall receive a less wage than 30s. a week. Unless I get that promise I shall do my best to divide the House upon it.
  Mr. GOULDING: I desire to express sympathy with the Resolution of the hon. Members opposite. I cannot think that they are moving it simply as a kite; I hope

  1267
  they mean business. I have before now been in the Lobby with them, and will appear again to-night if they have the courage of their opinions. There are those on these benches who equally have at heart the interests of the working men who are prepared to go into the Division Lobby with them. There is one peculiar fact in reference to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. While they sympathise with the payment of labour, and while they defer to the policy of buying in the cheapest market, they can in no way give themselves the power to secure an adequate and living wage for workmen, because they have consistently supported this Radical Government, which, according to the latest Return I have before me, has given contracts abroad for manufactured goods to the tune of nearly a quarter of a million, and in nearly every case those goods could have been made by our people here at home. They would, in fact, have afforded naturally productive work for the people who have now to be content with the doles the Government has provided for those who are in the unfortunate position of being unemployed. The last Return issued by the Government shows that out of £400,000 expended by this Government on manufactured goods the War Office alone spent £249,995. There is an item of £1,337 for chairs. I should have thought there were many chair makers who might have been employed on this work in this country.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather remote from the subject. The Debate should be limited to the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. GOULDING: May I refer to the fact that the Amendment says that in interpreting the Fair Wages Clause in assigning contracts responsible officers should be instructed to see that the spirit of the Clause is properly carried out? Surely that means that the Government should exercise proper supervision in seeing that these goods thus imported are manufactured at proper rates of wages.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it refers to that at all. It refers to contracts made in this country.
  Mr. GOULDING: Am I precluded from dealing with contracts made by this Government—by the War Office—for goods manufactured whether at home or abroad?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think there is any attempt to deal with the mischief which the hon. Member is raising at all. It is a wholly different case. The hon. Member is taking an opportunity on this Question to raise a wholly different matter.
  Mr. GOULDING: As I cannot raise the question as regards this item I shall have another opportunity, I dare say, of doing it. In the meantime, I would say that I shall be a party to voting for this Resolution to have these inspectors appointed, in order that we may see that a fair wage is given to the employes of the Government, so that the latter shall be not merely in name but in fact ideal employers of labour in this country. Like my right hon. Friend below me, I am not at all satisfied with what the Financial Secretary has stated as regards the payment in Pimlico. I cannot think from what I know that the wages which he calls liberal are of an ideal character. Unfortunately they are mostly women who receive these wages; they are not voters, and, therefore, have not the same attraction for the Government which other employes have. To my mind their wages are not satisfactory, and the Government do not come under the class of ideal employers. I think that to appoint inspectors to look after their wages will be a satisfactory course, and will do something to bring about that which all of us desire—to give a living wage to all employed in this country.
  Major ADAM: During the discussion there have been frequent references made to a minimum wage, and I take it from the remarks of former speakers that there is a general demand on the part of Government workers that that minimum wage in Government factories should be 30s. The minimum wage in the Arsenal at Woolwich at the present time is 23s. per week, a wage which is not at all adequate to keep a man and his family in the decencies and necessities of life. This wage of 23s. a week was fixed four years ago, and during those four years the cost of living, not only in Woolwich but in other parts of the metropolitan area, has considerably increased. It is quite impossible for a man on this low wage to live as a Government employé ought to do. A Government employé is a man from whom a high standard of character and ability is demanded. He works under conditions which give him an opportunity of acquiring very often Government secrets. You want a man of high moral character for employ in this work. The case of Wool

  1269
  wich is a particularly hard one in many respects. I think everybody in this country knows how Woolwich has suffered in the matter of discharges. These discharges leave a great many of the houses in Woolwich standing empty, and that means that it is impossible to lower the rates on the houses which are inhabited by the workers who are left behind. In fact, in a great many cases the rates continue to rise. The cost of living and rents rise, everything rises except the emolument which the man receives at the hands of the Government. Living in the Metropolitan area is more expensive than elsewhere. That is another reason why Woolwich deserves special consideration at the hands of the Government. The Government say they are willing to pay the current rate of wages. What is the current rate of wages? It is exactly that price for which a man can sell his labour in the district. Woolwich depends solely and altogether on the Arsenal. There is little or no private work for men who are discharged from the Arsenal in the immediate district. The river front, which is so important for work, to the east is occupied by the Arsenal, and to the west it is occupied by the Government Dockyard, and there is little or no space where any works could be ever erected where men discharged from the Arsenal could find employment from private contractors. The minimum wage paid to the man who sweeps the streets in the borough is 30s. a week, and these men who are receiving from the Government 23s. a week are paying rates, so that men who do certainly an inferior class of work in a great many cases receive a higher weekly wage of 30s. I accept the Financial Secretary's assurance that some of the other grievances from which we suffer will be redressed. He has spoken of the discharge of boys from the Arsenal at the age of twenty-one, and I am glad to hear that this is about to cease. Reference has been made to the fact that when a man, entitled to a bonus from the Government for long and faithful service, instead of being struck off as unfit by the doctor is struck off by the hand of death and dies in his workshop, his widow is not, under the present regulations, entitled to the bonus which the man ought to have received. I do not think this is anything else but a national question. It is absolutely essential for men of all parties to see that the Government of the day pays to its employés a sufficient wage to keep them in the decencies and necessities of life.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Under the conditions under which we are discussing all this financial business before Easter, in my opinion there is not time for the discussion of the question that has been raised—at least I speak for myself. It seems to me that the gravamen of the charge made against the Government is that they have not abided by the spirit of the policy to which both parties in the House are pledged. I do not think the Financial Sectary met that charge at all, and we have had no defence from the Government. There are two other subjects closely connected with this subject of whether the Government is or is not a model employer. One is continuous employment, when that can be given. It has been widely stated that discharges have been made in the course of the last four years which need not have been made if the Government, with a little intelligent anticipation, had foreseen that they would have more work to do in the near future. There is a third subject which is closely allied to the subject immediately before us, and that is whether the Government do or do not purchase articles manufactured chiefly abroad and are thus in the position of having to discharge labour which they might otherwise have employed. I could not really express my own opinion on that subject unless I had more time at my disposal. Under the circumstances I do not know that I should vote against the Government if a Division were taken to-night, but I am perfectly certain that if they get a decision in their favour it is under the knowledge that all parties are agreed that it is impossible to discuss the grave and important question to which I have referred.
  Mr. HALDANE: As to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, I certainly would wish to say something before conclusions are come to on a question so far-reaching and of such great magnitude. It is impossible that we could adequately debate this to-night. If it is really desired to go to & Division on this subject I think it would be better to have a little more discussion. If, on the other hand, it is merely desired to examine the subject, I would point out that this can be done on Vote A and 1, as well as on the present Motion. It is equally open to discuss it then, and therefore, Sir, if you were to leave the Chair to-night the subject could be thrashed out to-morrow. I think there ought to be more discussion. I am in the hands of the House. I shall do whatever

  1271
  is most convenient to get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair. Unless the Opposition are willing that the matter should be discussed with the Speaker out of the Chair I move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: I am not going to vote against the Government. I think we ought to divide now in order to get the Speaker out of the Chair.
  Colonel WARNER: I think that on a question of this importance we should not divide without more debate. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh because they think they are in a majority. This is a very important point, and many of us would not like to vote against the Resolution, while, at the same time, we do not wish to vote against the Government. This is a case for the adjournment of the Debate to-night. I do not think it would be fair that a division should be taken now. In the first place, the Gentlemen who have supported the Resolution from the other side are all Gentlemen who have axes of their own to grind and who represent constituencies—
  Mr. JAMES HOPErose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question. Debate resumed.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
Ordered, that the Committee of Public Accounts do consist of fifteen members.—[Master of Elibank.]
Adjourned it Four minutes after Eleven of the clock.