Commons Sitting of 9 March 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
St. James's Vestry Hall (Westminster) Bill (by Order),
Barry Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Kingswood Water Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Midland Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Glasgow Gas Consolidation Bill,—"to consolidate with amendments the Glasgow Gas Acts, 1869 to 1909; and for other purposes."
Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
Wishaw Burgh Extension, etc., Bill,—"to extend the boundaries of the burgh of Wishaw; to authorise the Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of the said burgh to construct and maintain sewers and sewage purification works; to acquire lands for sewage purification; and for other purposes."
Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
Ordered, "That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law:
"That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173a apply to all such Bills:
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
"That Four be the quorum of the Committee:
"That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other then Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee:
"That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees."—[Mr. Masterman.]

ENFRANCHISEMENT OF WOMEN.
Sir THOMAS ROEpresented a Petition, signed by 3,641 electors of Derby, in favour of a measure for the enfranchisement of women.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Anglo-German Relation (Imperial Chancellor's Statement).
  Mr. BYLESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the statement of the Imperial Chancellor in the German Reichstag, on Saturday, regarding Anglo-German relations, would influence, in the direction of retrenchment, the Naval Estimates shortly to be presented to Parliament?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The friendly tone of the German Chancellor's speech is cordially reciprocated, but I must point out that our Navy Estimates are not based upon the assumption that other nations mean to be unfriendly to us or that we mean to be unfriendly to them. They are framed to preserve our standard of naval power and depend upon the actual naval expenditure of other countries. I do not understand that any public utterances of German Ministers have indicated any intention to modify the expenditure on the German naval programme as fixed by law.
  Mr. BYLES: May I take that to mean that the magnitude of our Naval programme is entirely unaffected by the friendly assurances of a neighbouring nation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think I have stated the terms fully in reply to my hon. Friend.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to anticipate that there will be a reduction of the German Naval Estimates in consequence of the statement of the Imperial Chancellor?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the supplementary question is fully answered in the original reply I have given to my hon. Friend.

  Dirigible Balloons (Housing).
  Mr. FELLasked if the Admiralty had up to the present time erected any garage or shed for the housing of the dirigible balloon now being constructed for it at Barrow?
  Mr. McKENNA: The reply is in the negative.
  Mr. FELL: What is proposed to be done with this dirigible balloon when it is constructed if the Admiralty have no shed to put it in?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think I gave the hon. Member a very full answer to the very same question last week. The garage at Barrow does not belong to the Admiralty but to Vickers, Maxim and Company. When the experiments are made with the new balloon it will enable us to see the precise size of the shed required. Then the Admiralty will be prepared to take all necessary steps.
  Mr. FELL: May I ask if it is not a fact that this balloon will have to be kept at Barrow for, at any rate, a year or two while the shed is being constructed?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I hope the shed would not take so long as a year to build.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: Has the Admiralty a right to use the garage already existing at Barrow?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. Messrs. Vickers, Maxim would not turn us out of the shed that was built for our purposes.

  Dockyards (Hired Men).
  Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would consider the giving all men employed in His Majesty's dockyards an equal chance of being placed on the establishment, that was to say, would he favourably consider the case of the class known as hired men?
  Mr. McKENNA: The cases of men who have become over age whilst the establishment has been suspended will receive special consideration. In other respects the matter will be dealt with in accordance with the regulations.
  Mr. FALLE: Will there be any change made?
  Mr. McKENNA: The regulations will be followed. There will be no change in the ordinary regulations governing the establishment except that the men who become over age in the service of the establishment will have their case specially considered.

  Imported Granite (Contraband of War).
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of war in which this country was engaged, granite imported from abroad for purposes of Admiralty dock construction would be contraband of war?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, there is at present no universally accepted international list of contraband; but if he will refer to the Declaration of London, Article 28 (7), he will observe that stone is included in the list of articles which under that instrument may not be declared contraband.

  Japan's Interests in Manchuria (Chinchow-Aigun Railway).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked whether, in view of certain clauses in the Anglo-Japanese treaty of alliance, His Majesty's Government would ask Japan to define the limits of her interests in Manchuria, and

  1451
  more especially to explain on what ground she based her demand for so large a measure of participation in the Chinchow-Aigun Railway, which was, in Chinese opinion, so far removed from the South Manchurian Railway as to prohibit any objections on the plea of competition?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not see that there is anything in the question to modify the answer given to the hon. Member on the 28th of February, and I can only refer him to that answer and especially to the first two paragraphs of it, in view of which there is no object in pursuing the course advocated in the question, even if it were on other grounds reasonable.

  Rex v. Crosland (Witness Names).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the proceedings in the recent trial of Rex v. Crosland a witness was allowed to write a certain name upon a piece of paper and that such name was then handed to the judge, but was withheld from the jury; and whether he will consider the advisableness of introducing legislation making it obligatory that the jury shall be acquainted with the contents of all documents used in the course of a trial?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): It is not improper for the Court to allow the name of a person who is not a party to the case to be written down, instead of being mentioned in open court, until it can be seen whether or not the name or identity of that person is material or not to any issue in the case. That was what was done in the case of Rex v. Crosland. Later on in the case the matter in connection with which the name was written was gone into, and the name was then given in open court. Such a matter is best left to the discretion of the presiding judge, and I see no occasion for legislation in the matter.

  Census of Horses.
  Captain FABERasked the Home Secretary if he will state whether, seeing that at a meeting held at the Home Office during the summer of 1909 to consider the census of horses to be obtained by the police, and that the police were given clearly to understand that the information obtained by them should not be used for the purpose of requisitioning horses, he adhered to this resolution, considering that a circular
  1452
  memorandum had recently been issued by the War Office proposing to use the information for compulsory requisition, and in no other way?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): It is not the fact that at the meeting referred to the police were led to suppose that the information they were asked to collect would not be used for the purpose of requisitioning horses if any national emergency should arise which should make it necessary to put in force the law on the subject. On the contrary, the Secretary of State is unable to understand how anyone who was present at that meeting could have failed to grasp the object for which the return was required. It was agreed at the meeting that notice should be given that the return was required for military purposes, and not for purposes of taxation; and a note to this effect in prominent type was printed on all the forms for the Return.
  Captain FABER: Was the information to be given voluntarily about the horses or was it to be given necessarily?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand
  voluntarily.
  Captain FABER: Then how could the War Office use the word "necessarily" if it was voluntarily?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.

  Dinorwic Slate Quarries (Accidents).
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked how many men were employed in the Dinorwic slate quarries, Carnarvonshire, in 1909; how many men, giving separately those employed inside and outside the quarry, were injured during the year; and how the ratio of accidents compared with that of other slate quarries?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: There were 2,802 persons employed in 1909 at the Dinorwic slate quarries, 1,017 inside and 1,785 outside. Four of the persons employed inside were killed, and 332 and 170 of those working inside and outside respectively were injured by accidents disabling the injured persons for more than seven days. All the returns of non-fatal accidents have not yet been received, so that the Secretary of State cannot say how the proportion of accidents compares with that of other slate quarries.

  Commission on Mines.
  Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to say when the Commission on Mines will make the promised inquiry into the working of quarries?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Royal Commission on Mines have not yet completed that part of their inquiry which relates to coal mines, but the Secretary of State understands that only one or two important questions are still outstanding. The Commission was constituted primarily to inquire into questions affecting coal mines, and it was anticipated that some change in its constitution would be necessary to enable it to deal with metalliferous mines and quarries. To expedite the latter part of the inquiry the Secretary of State proposes to recommend the appointment of a separate Commission, consisting of a nucleus of the members of the Coal Mines Commission with the addition of representatives having a special knowledge of metalliferous mining and quarrying.

  Cardiff Explosions (Dowlais Works).
  Mr. JAMES THOMASasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the recent explosions at the Cardiff Dowlais Works; and whether he would institute a special inquiry into the causes of such explosions?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Secretary of State has received reports on the two recent occurrences at the Dowlais Works and is directing an inquiry to be made with regard to them.
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: Have special instructions been given to inquire into the foundations of those furnaces?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I cannot say without further inquiry.

  Taximeters (Motor Cabs).
  Captain COOPERasked the Home Secretary how often the taximeters on motor cabs were officially tested for accuracy; and whether he was considering the advisability of making taximeters compulsory for horse-drawn vehicles?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The regulations require that every taximeter shall toe tested by the National Physical Laboratory at least once a year, and a road test is also made by the Police. Taximeters are further tested if, upon complaint, there
  1454
  is reasonable doubt as to their accuracy, and if from any cause the official scale are broken; and it may be taken that each instrument is tested three or four times a year. Both the owners and drivers of horse-drawn cabs are divided in opinion as to the advantage of taximeters, and in these circumstances the Secretary of State feels unable at present to require their use on horse-drawn cabs.

  Infections Disease (Transvaal).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, whether he could supply information regarding an outbreak of infectious disease in the Germiston municipality of the Colony of the Transvaal from June to August, 1909; whether the endemic originated in the native compound and then spread to the white population; whether the report of the medical officer of health was to that effect; whether he was aware that over 1,000 cases of the same disease occurred in the adjoining municipality of Johannesburg; and whether the medical officer of health there was held responsible, and what action, if any, was taken against him?
  The HON. MEMBERalso asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention had been called to the complaints made by doctors holding the position of medical officer of health under the Germiston town council in that they were dismissed summarily by the council, and that the effect of such dismissal had been damage to professional reputation; whether the dismissal of one of these Germiston medical officers of health in September, 1909, arose out of a report presented to the council that an infectious disease had broken out among the natives in the compounds; and, if so, what steps would be taken to protect medical officers of health having to perform duties in the compounds from the risk of summary dismissal and loss of reputation as the result of presenting a report which, though a statement of fact, may conflict with the economic interests of the mine-owners?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank): I have no information on the subject of either of the questions addressed to me by my hon. Friend. Local matters of this kind are not reported to the Secretary of State, as they are matters for the Transvaal Government to decide upon their own responsibility.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Are these cases not reported to the Secretary of State?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: The Transvaal having a responsible Government, the Secretary of State is not made aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is not the medical officer of health appointed directly under the supervision of the Secretary of State?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: No; I think he is appointed by the Transvaal Government.

  Ceylon Legislative Council.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether reforms had recently been sanctioned in the constitution of the Legislative Council of Ceylon recognising for the first time the principle of an elective franchise; and whether the Government would lay Papers on the subject on the Table?
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSalso asked what changes had recently been made in the constitution of the Legislative Council of Ceylon; whether it was proposed to introduce an elected element into the Council in respect of the Tamil, Singhalese, and Mahomedan populations, respectively; and whether he would lay Papers on the subject?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: I will answer together this question and question No. 17, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras. It is proposed to introduce an elected element into the Legislative Council of Ceylon. In future there will be two members elected by the European community, one by the burghers, and one by native Ceylonese who have attained a certain standard of education. It is not considered possible at present to introduce the principle of election for the members who represent the Singhalese, Tamils and Mahomedens, and these members will continue to be nominated by the Governor. Papers will be laid shortly.

  Indian Coolies (Natal).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked what number of indentured Indian coolies were employed in Natal under agreement between that Colony and the Government of India; whether the suicide rate among these coolies was equal to 501 per million; if so, whether directions would be given that an immediate investigation be made
  1456
  into its causes; and whether His Majesty's Government would consider the desirability of stopping the exportation of coolies to South Africa, especially in view of the treatment they receive there and of the conduct of the Governments of Natal and the Transvaal towards their free kindred?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: On 31st December, 1908, the last year for which figures are available, the number of indentured and reindentured Indians in Natal was 43,427, and the number of deaths in that year from suicide eighteen, which is at the rate of 414 per million. It appears from the reports of the Protector of Immigrants that the treatment of indentured immigrants is good and the Secretary of State sees no sufficient reason to request the Government of Natal to investigate the matter. As regards prohibition of immigration, I would refer to the replies given on 3rd March by the Under-Secretary of State for India to the Noble Lord the Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley.

  Cornwall (Unemployment Grant).
  Mr. GOLDMANasked the President of the Local Government Board what were the amounts of the grants made in each of the last three years out of the sums voted by Parliament for the relief of distress due to unemployment; and what proportion of this total had been granted to authorities in Cornwall?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The expenditure in England and Wales out of the Parliamentary Grant for the three years ending 31st March, 1907, 1908, and 1909, was £105,420, £124,195, and £232,738 respectively. The money is voted by Parliament for the purposes of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, and consequently it is only available for distribution amongst the Central (Unemployed) Body for London and the distress committees set up under the Act. There are no such committees in Cornwall.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: In view of the fact that distress does exist in Cornwall, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the necessary authority is created to deal with it?
  Mr. BURNS: I have received no applications from Cornwall during the past twelve months.
  Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman now announce to the House anything with regard to his intentions for the current year in reference to unemployment?
  Mr. BURNS: At this moment, no.

  Medical Inspectors (Elementary Schools)
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Education if sixty-three public vaccinators had been appointed as medical inspectors for elementary schools under the Education (Administrative Provisions) Act by local education authorities; whether the Board of Trade agreed that these two offices should be held by the same person; and whether any communication to that effect had been made to local education authorities?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The answer to the first part of the question is, so far as the information of the Board goes, in the affirmative. I think that in the second part of the question my hon. Friend intended to refer, not to the Board of Trade, but to the Local Government Board, who prescribe the qualifications of public vaccinators, and this part of the question should be addressed to the President of that Board. With reference to the third part of the question, it is the practice of the Board, when they find a reference to vaccination in the schedule of medical inspection adopted by a local education authority, to remind the authority that care must be exercised on this point, and that the information obtained by medical inspection should, in no case, be used as the basis for action under the Vaccination Acts. I may add that the Board of Education are not in a position to require of local education authorities that members of their medical staffs should refrain from holding other public appointments.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is there any saving in salaries effected by the combination of the two offices of medical inspector and public vaccinator?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no official information, but I should think it is quite possible.

  Disinfection of Schools.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Education whether the practice adopted in Scotland, and set out in the Memorandum entitled
  1458
  the Cleansing and Disinfecting of Schools, was enforced in England; and, if not, if he would explain why such precautions should not be observed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools requires that the school premises must be healthy and must be adequately lighted, warmed, ventilated, cleaned and drained. The Board of Education have not, up till now put forward any specific recommendations as to methods of cleansing or disinfection. They are confident, however, that adequate precautions will be observed in this respect if the local education authorities act in co-operation with the local sanitary authorities.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a special Memorandum applying to Scotch schools in reference to cleaning after infectious disease, and that that Memorandum does not apply to English schools? I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability of applying such Memorandum to English schools?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the Memorandum issued by the Scottish Office is issued in the form of a recommendation to the local authorities, and it is not one of their ordinary regulations. In so far as it may be wise to issue such a recommendation to the local authorities in England, I will consult the President of the Local Government Board to see if we can act together in this matter.

  Defective Teeth (Children).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he had received any official information showing, as the result of the medical inspection of children in the elementary schools, that an average of over 35 per cent. of such children were suffering from more or less defective teeth, and that the medical officers were almost unanimous in attributing such condition to the consumption of white bread made of flour from which the germ had been mechanically extracted; and, if so, whether steps would be taken through the medium of the local authorities to bring the cause of this condition to the notice of the parents, with a view to its amelioration?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A summary of the information at the disposal of the Board on the subject of the condition of the teeth of those children in public elementary

  1459
  schools who were medically examined in the year 1908 will be found in the recently issued Report of the Board's chief medical officer, pages 53–57. The Report shows that the number of children with defective teeth is considerable, but the information at present at the disposal of the Board is not sufficient to enable them to form a precise estimate of the percentage of children in public elementary schools who are suffering from defective teeth. I am not aware that any medical officers have been so rash as to attribute the defects in children's teeth solely to the consumption of any one particular article of food.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of this admitted physical defect, it is not advisable to institute an inquiry as to what is the underlying cause of such defect?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid this defect is not peculiar to children in elementary schools alone. We cannot start an inquiry until the whole of our information on medical inspection has covered the ground.
  Mr. BATHURST: Does not the right hon. Gentleman find it a little difficult to justify the expenditure upon the medical inspection of school children unless some steps are taken to remedy the more serious defects disclosed by such inspection?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That would be carrying medical inspection much further than is contemplated by the Act, but it is not outside the bounds of possibility.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the German black bread, so-called, contains the germ referred to, and whether he can inform the House that the condition of the children's teeth in Germany is more satisfactory than the condition of children's teeth in this country?

  Medical Inspection of School Children.
  Mr. FRANCEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he had received recent reports from education authorities relating to medical inspection; and whether he could make any statement as to the general results of the work done under this head?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reports received from local education authorities relating to the work of medical inspection during the year 1908 were reviewed in the Annual
  1460
  Report of the chief medical officer of the Board for that year, which was issued last January. A few reports have been received in respect of the year 1909, and these will in due course be reviewed in the next annual report of the chief medical officer. The Board have reason to believe that satisfactory progress is being made, but I am not in a position to make any statement as to the results of medical inspection beyond that which is contained in the Report I have referred to.
  Mr. FRANCE: Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether the reports indicate that all the local education authorities are carrying out the scheme to the satisfaction of the Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; our information is that all the local education authorities are already fulfilling their duties under the Act or taking such preliminary steps as will enable them to fulfil them at the earliest possible moment?

  Labour Exchanges.
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under the special rules with regard to registration of juvenile applicants in England and Wales, made in pursuance of Regulation IX. of the General Regulations for Labour Exchanges, managed by the Board of Trade, it was proposed to supply every day and evening school with copies of the form of registration, and to recognise the principal teacher of each school as an agent acting officially for a Labour Exchange in behalf of any pupils desirous of registering; whether there was any provision in the special rules or form of registration for consulting the wishes of the parents of juvenile applicants; and whether the Labour Exchanges would, as the General Regulations now stand, register the personal application of a boy or girl of 14 years of age, and advance travelling expenses under Regulation V. (1) and (2)?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The recognition of a school for the purposes of registration under Rule 1 of the Special Rules with regard to the Registration of Juvenile Applicants in England and Wales will be a matter of special arrangement in each case between the Board of Trade and the local education authority. As regards the second part of the question, the Special Advisory Committee for juvenile

  1461
  employment will no doubt suggest to the Board of Trade such arrangements, if any, as appear to them desirable for ascertaining the wishes of parents with respect to the choice of employment by their children. Juvenile applicants may register in person at any Labour Exchange, and the regulations authorising advances of travelling expenses does not exclude juveniles. Officers in charge of Labour Exchanges will, however, be instructed not to make advances in the case of juvenile applicants without the assent of the parent.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked when it was proposed to open the Labour Exchange in Merthyr Tydfil?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Labour Exchange at Merthyr Tydfil will be opened in the course of the next few days.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to open a central office specially for the mining district?
  Mr. BUXTON: That is a point I have under consideration. It is not a very easy matter to decide offhand; but I have it under consideration, and I hope to be able to arrive at some conclusion.
  Mr. WATTasked what was the number of appointments that had been made by the Board of Trade under the Labour Exchanges Act; and how many of these had been conferred on men who have given military service to the State?
  Mr. BUXTON: The total number of appointments including all grades which have been made under the Labour Exchanges Act up to the present is between 500 and 600. I am unable to say how many of those appointed have given military service to the State.

  "Freeman's Journal" Company, Limited.
  Mr. CREANasked whether the "Freeman's Journal" Company, Limited, had complied with The Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, as to the lodgment of balance sheets with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies; and when was the copy of its last balance sheet lodged?
  Mr. BUXTON: The "Freeman's Journal," Limited, have complied with the requirements of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, as to the lodgment of a balance-sheet with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. The last balance-sheet was lodged on 18th March, 1909.

  Sugar Manufactured from Beet (France and Germany).
  Mr. FELLasked what quantity of sugar was manufactured from beet in France and in Germany in each of the last three years, and the value of the sugar produced?
  Mr. BUXTON: The following statement gives the information as to quantities desired by the hon. Member. The official figures of production in Germany relate to the production of raw sugar, whilst those for France are expressed in their equivalent in refined sugar, and would have therefore to be increased by about one-ninth to render them comparable with those for Germany. The figures are for years ending 31st August.

  France.

  Germany.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  1907

  …

  …

  672,000

  2,090,000

  1908

  …

  …

  646,000

  1,985,000

  1909

  …

  …

  711,000

  1,949,000

  No official statistics as to values are available.

  Cotton-growing Industry (Government Assistance).
  Mr. ARBUTHNOTasked whether, in view of the danger to the Lancashire cotton industry arising from the increasing absorption by America of her cotton crop, the Government would grant a charter to, and guarantee the stock of a company of which the British Cotton Growing Association should form the nucleus, so as to develop the cotton-growing areas within the Empire?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have already stated in reply to the hon. Member the nature of the financial assistance which His Majesty's Government propose to render to the British Cotton Growing Association in the prosecution of its experiments in certain portions of the British Empire.
  Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepts the statement in the question to the effect that the shortage in cotton is due to an increased absorption in America?
  Mr. BUXTON: No; I could not accept that. I thought the hon. Member was really asking for information as to the amount of financial assistance the Government propose to give, and I gave the information a few days ago.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will have the reply given to my hon. Friend printed with the Papers?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will see if I can do that.
  Mr. ARBUTHNOT: I should like to ask whether, in view of the very large national interests involved, the right hon. Gentleman will not consider whether, over and above the question of experimental purposes, this is not a matter for State action.
  Mr. BUXTON: No very definite proposals have been put before me. If any definite proposals are put before the Board of Trade, we shall carefully consider them, but so far the question has been what amount we should give to assist this association, and the Government have assisted the association in carrying out experiments.
  Mr. SHACKLETON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received any representations from the British Cotton Growing Association or any other authority in Lancashire for assistance on the lines suggested in the Question?
  Mr. BUXTON: No, we have not. We have been asked to render financial assistance in the matter. I think the Treasury have given very liberal provision in order to carry out these experiments.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Have any representations been made by any bodies in Lancashire to the Government to grant facilities for the carriage of raw cotton free on the railways of Nigeria?
  Mr. BUXTON: I must ask for notice of that.

  Government Officials (Return).
  Mr. LYTTELTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would grant the Return standing in the name of the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr Hobhouse): If the right hon. Gentleman will alter the form of the proposed Return, and substitute the following, I shall be happy to grant it. The form I suggest is:—"Government Officials—Return giving the number and the total immediate cost per annum of the new officials, permanent and temporary, respectively,
  1464
  who have been appointed up to the close of the year 1909 in consequence of the legislation passed by the present Government."

  Postal Facilities (Bigwood and District, South Kilkenny).
  Mr. KEATINGasked the Postmaster-General if he was aware that the inhabitants of Bigwood and district, in South Kilkenny, were inconvenienced by the absence of a pillar-box or post office, as the nearest place for posting letters is three miles distant; and, if so, what action he proposed to take in the matter?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am having inquiry made on the subject.

  Male Telegraph Learners (Leeds).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether male telegraph learners at Leeds were being offered vacancies at Liverpool, on the grounds that there was a paucity of vacancies at Leeds, and with the understanding that if they refused, the Post Office would be relieved of all further liability to provide them with established appointments; whether a number of vacancies were in existence at the Leeds office; and, if so, whether he could state why these vacancies could not be filled by the learners already employed in that office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Offers of appointment at Liverpool were made recently to the senior male learners at Leeds because there appeared to be little prospect of providing them with appointments at Leeds before they would complete two years' service as learners. It may not be possible to make them other offers before the expiration of their two years' learning. The vacancies at Leeds to which the hon. Member refers are being kept open because it appears probable that, in connection with a proposed revision, an alteration in the staff will be necessary.

  Senior Telegraph Messengers (Leeds).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that a number of senior messengers at the Leeds post office were not receiving the due number of appointments for postmen; whether some twelve of the messengers, of the age of nineteen and twenty years, had been waiting for assistant appointments as postmen for three years, and at present only received an average wage of 9s. per

  1465
  week; and, if so, would their cases be considered with a view to improving the official status of these young men?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The boy messengers at Leeds are receiving their due number of appointments as postmen; their promotion is slow, owing to the fact that the services of too many boys have been retained in the past. Every effort has been and will be made to provide the youths with substitute duties, carrying suitable wages, pending their appointment as assistant postmen.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these boys, who are practically young men, and have been three years in the service, are only getting 9s. per week?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I know that statement is made in the question. I regret that promotion is slow owing to the fact that too many boys have been engaged in the past, in consideration of the number of appointments open to them later.

  Mounted Rural Postmen (Bank Holiday Duties).
  Mr. BARNESasked the Postmaster-General whether he was aware that in many cases the mounted rural postmen employed by contractors were not allowed to finish their duties at an early hour on Bank Holidays, as was the case with the mounted rural postmen employed direct by his Department; and whether he would make representations to the contractors concerned, with a view to extending to their employés the same privileges as were enjoyed under the Post Office?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The men referred to by the hon. Member as mounted rural postmen employed by contractors are the drivers of mail carts, run under contract, for the conveyance of mail bags. I fear it would not be practicable to arrange generally for mail carts to return on Bank Holidays at an early hour without causing considerable public inconvenience. As a rule, they serve offices of greater importance than those included in rounds of the mounted rural postmen of the Department, and the hours of the post at those places are generally the same on Bank Holidays as on ordinary week days, whereas in smaller places served by postmen, mounted or otherwise, the, night mail collection is often made on Bank Holidays shortly after the morning delivery has been completed. If, however, the hon.
  1466
  Member will furnish particulars of any cases in which he thinks there will be no public objection to the alteration, I shall be happy to consider them.

  Rural Polling Stations (Scotland).
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGERasked the Lord Advocate if, in view of the difficulties which electors in many country districts experienced in exercising the franchise owing to the long distances they had to go to the nearest polling station, he would introduce a measure for providing a polling station in every rural school so as to enable these electors to have reasonable and proper facilities for recording their votes, and that the cost thereby entailed be defrayed out of public funds instead of being thrown on the respective candidates for Parliament?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): On the information which I at present possess I am not satisfied that the facilities provided by the County Elections (Scotland) Act, 1853, have proved insufficient for the needs of electors in the county districts in Scotland. I am not, therefore, prepared to undertake so important a change in the law as is suggested in my hon. Friend's question.

  Australian Savings Banks.
  Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state what the amounts of the deposits were in the Australian Savings Banks between the years 1891 and 1901, and between the years 1901 and 1909?
  MASTER of ELIBANK: The average of the total deposits in the Australian Savings Banks for the ten years 1891 to 1901 inclusive was about £22,250,000, and for the years 1901–2 to 1907–8 about £37,500,000. The figures for 1908–9 are not available.
  Captain FABER: In what year did Protection begin in Australia?

  Budget, 1909–10.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked what the estimate of the Treasury now was of the additional taxation imposed upon Ireland for the current financial year, under the various heads, by the 1909–10 Budget?
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked a similar question, and further inquired what was the estimated amount of the advantages likely to accrue to Ireland from the purposes to which the yield of these taxes will be devoted?
  Sir WALTER MENZIESalso had a similar question on the Paper.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): The amount which will be received from Irish sources in respect of the new and additional taxes included in the Finance Bill before 31st March will be approximately £265,000. If the Bill ultimately becomes law in its present form there will have to be added to this about £173,000, which ought to have been collected this year, but will not be received until next year, owing to the delay in passing the Bill. This will make the total Irish contribution to the Revenue proper to 1909–10 £438,000. Of the increased expenditure for which the Budget proposals are intended to provide, Ireland receives the advantage of £2,460,000 under the head of Old Age Pensions alone. There are also considerable additional charges upon the Exchequer in respect of the legislation of the last two Sessions affecting Land Purchase and University Education, as well as increased grants for elementary education and other Irish services. The total advantage to Ireland on the expenditure side of the account is thus not less than £2,800,000.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is it not a fact that Treasury estimates about Ireland have differed no less than £80,000,000 between the Purchase Act of 1903 and the Land Act of last year, and, under those circumstances, does he expect Ireland to be very much impressed by Treasury figures about Irish affairs?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not know what the hon. Member thinks, but I know that what he stated, both about land purchase and the Budget, was rather wild. But if he will be good enough to point out to me in what respect these figures are wrong I shall be very glad to receive any representations from him on that point.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that I am rather wild, may I ask him if he denies that the Treasury estimate of the cost of land purchase in Ireland at the time of the Act of 1903 was £100,000,000, and that the Treasury estimate last year was £180,000,000?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As a matter of fact—I am only speaking from the information I got from the Treasury—last year it
  1468
  was not a Treasury estimate at all. The Treasury was not in the slightest degree responsible for the land purchase finance of 1903, and I am very glad to be able to say that in their defence.
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: Who was?
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he denies it is a fact that the taxpayers of Ireland, including the poorest part of the population, do in fact regard the Budget proposals as very oppressive?
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Am I correct in saying that the figures stated by the right hon. Gentleman do not include the increase in the Stamp Duty?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, they include the Stamp Duties for this year. The second figure—£173,000–includes the Stamp Duty as from the date it was imposed.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: I understand the second figure was the figure giving the increased amount which will now have to be paid in case the Budget is passed. The Stamp Duties, therefore, are not included.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Am I to understand from the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman that under no circumstances will the Budget, even if passed into law, impose for the financial year a burden on Ireland of half a million pounds?
  Mr. GILHOOLY: No, because it will not be passed.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The extra taxes will amount to £438,000.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask whether if the Budget is introduced the right hon. Gentleman will have any objection to adding a proviso to the Budget that under no circumstances will the burden on Ireland exceed the figures now given by the Treasury?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I do not know whether the hon. Member is authorised to make a proposal on behalf of the Irish Members. If he is, I should be very glad—I think I am authorised to speak on behalf of the British taxpayers—to cry quits on the whole transaction. In that event British taxpayers would be about £1,600,000 to the good.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government still adhere to their pledge that the first act of

  1469
  the present House of Commons must be to deal with all the exigencies of the financial situation which have been created by the rejection of the Budget and by what has followed since; and whether the collection of the Income Tax will be treated as one of the financial exigencies of the situation?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I stated in the speech to which the hon. Member refers that the House would not be asked to part with control of the Budget until after the Resolutions relating to the House of Lords have been submitted to it. For reasons which have been frequently explained, we cannot treat the Income Tax as a separable thing, and as standing in a different category from the rest of the Budget. It is the intention of the Government, as I have said more than once, to ask the assent of the House to the taxations imposed by the Budget, including the Income Tax, before the House rises for the Spring Recess.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Am I to understand that the Budget will so far as this House is concerned be finally disposed of before the Spring Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, I did not say that.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say one way or the other? Is it intended to get the Budget through all its stages in this House before the Spring Recess, or not?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not going to give any undertaking on that point. I am going to repeat what I said several times, that we are going to ask the House to assent to the various taxes proposed by the Budget before the House rises for the Spring Recess.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "Order, order."]
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether correspondence has passed between the Treasury and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to the course to be adopted by the latter in reference to the collection of Income Tax; whether such correspondence may be laid upon the Table; whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue received assurance that the first act of the Government on return to power after the recent General Election would be to reimpose as from the date of the dissolution of the last Parliament all
  1470
  taxes and duties embodied in the Finance Bill, 1909–10, and to validate all past collections and deductions; and whether, in referring to collections and deductions in his announcement of 2nd December, 1909, he included the collection and deduction of Income Tax?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second and third in the negative; and to the fourth in the affirmative.

  Political Pensions.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether he is responsible not only for the political pensions granted during his term of office, but also for those pensions granted prior to his taking office; and whether he will have revision made of the political pensions now being paid if cause be shown?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot accept any responsibility for the acts of my predecessors; nor am I entitled to review the present circumstances of those who are receiving pensions.

  Local Authorities (Grants in Aid).
  Mr. JOHN GORDON (on behalf of Mr. Kerr-Smiley)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the increased charges upon the agricultural ratepayers in Ireland, he can see his way to increase the grants in aid to the local authorities?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware what are the increased charges to which the hon. Member refers?

  Excise Duty on Sugar.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked under what article of the Sugar Convention Act, 1903, it is held that a charge is necessitated of Excise duty on sugar manufactured from sugar-beet grown in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Under the last paragraph of Section 2 of the Act.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked what was the Customs Duty imposed on 88 per cent. sugar imported into the German Customs Union and France, respectively; and whether an Excise Duty on sugar was imposed in those countries equivalent to the respective duties of Customs?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: In Germany the duty levied on raw sugar of all descriptions

  1471
  imported is 18 marks 40 pfennigs per 100 kilogs., or about 9s. 3d. per cwt. The Excise Duty on sugar is 14 marks per 100 kilogs., or about 7s. per cwt. In France raw sugar of less than 98 per cent. yield, whether manufactured in the country or imported, is subjected to consumption duty at the rate of 25 francs per 100 kilogs. of its equivalent in refined sugar, sugar yielding 88 per cent. of refined sugar being thus dutiable at the rate of 22 francs per 100 kilogs., or about 8s. 9d. per cwt. Imported raw sugar of all descriptions is subjected in addition to an import duty of 5 francs 50 centimes per 100 kilogs., or about 2s. 3d. per cwt.
  Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the same obligation under the Convention attach to France and Germany as to this country in regard to the difference between the Customs and Excise Duty on sugar?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I should not like to answer a question of that character without notice.

  Beet Sugar Manufacture (England).
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had noticed that a beet sugar company had advertised for capital for the erection of a factory at Sleaford, and that the appeal was based on the calculation that it had become possible to make beet sugar in England at a profit owing to the Brussels Sugar Convention; whether he was aware that the standard price of beet sugar was now 14s. per cwt., or more than twice as much as when this Convention was entered into; whether the promoters of this company had received any pledge that the Convention would be permanently maintained; whether he had promised any allowance from the Excise Duty that would be levied to balance the Customs Duty on sugar; and, if so, whether he would lay Papers upon the Table of the House to show the obligations the Government had incurred in support of this undertaking?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that it has been proposed to form a company for the purpose of erecting a factory at Sleaford for the extraction of sugar from sugar beet. I understand that my right hon. Friend's information as to the relative price of sugar now and when the Sugar Convention was entered into is correct. The promoters of this company have not, so far as I know, received any pledge that the Convention will be permanently maintained,
  1472
  nor do I see who could possibly be in a position to give such a pledge. A deputation of the promoters waited upon my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in October last, who undertook that any Excise Duty which might be imposed should be fixed so as to make full allowance for the extra cost of manufacture taking place under Excise restrictions. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. LOUGH: Will my right hon. Friend say what is the meaning of these words "full allowance"? They do not exist in any other case with regard to the difference between Customs and Excise.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly; they have existed for some time in regard to Irish tobacco.

  Collection of Death Duties.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that, owing to the uncertainty which exists as to the rates of Estate Duty, Settlement Estate Duty, Succession Duty, and Legacy Duty, in respect of the estates of persons dying on or after the 30th April, 1909, grave inconvenience was being experienced by the executors of the persons so dying and their legal advisers, and the winding-up of such estates was being seriously delayed, and the interests of the beneficiaries were being injured; whether, to prevent the continuance of this un desirable state of things, he would at the earliest opportunity introduce the Finance Bill of 1909 into this House, or such part of it as related to the duties mentioned above; and whether if he should decline to take this course, he would undertake either that the increased rates of the above-mentioned duties should not apply to persons dying before the 30th April, 1910, or that no interest on the amount by which such duties were increased should be demanded or become payable?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not aware that there is any such inconvenience as the hon. and learned Member alleges. As regards the second part of the question, I have already informed the House when the Finance Bill will be reintroduced and the objection to introducing a part of it separately from the rest. The answer to the third part is in the negative.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: What is the objection to introducing some of the Resolutions earlier than others?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: As I have already announced, some of the Resolutions must be introduced earlier than others.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will he lose no time in introducing those Resolutions which are most necessary in the public service?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Noble Lord has already asked the Prime Minister that question, and he has got his answer on that point.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: No; I understood I have not.

  Press Telegrams.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Post Office Department suffered a loss of £220,000 per annum by forwarding Press telegrams at a reduced rate; whether he was aware that this money passes into the pockets of newspaper proprietors; and whether he would, in his forthcoming Budget, remove this preference to the Press?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Although, as my predecessor stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member two years ago, the loss on Press telegrams had been estimated for the year 1905–6 to be £220,000, similar calculations based on figures for the year 1908–9 showed the loss to be £205,000. The rates for Press telegrams were determined by the Telegraph Act, 1868, and any alteration would require an Amendment of that Act. As was stated by my predecessor in the answer to which I have referred, the Government do not intend to propose legislation for that purpose.

  Deductions for Income Tax.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked what is the total amount deducted from dividends on Government stocks by the Directors of the Bank of England; to whose credit the amounts so deducted now stand; and what arrangements have been made to secure to the Exchequer the benefit of the interest earned, or capable of being earned, on the amount so deducted.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I presume the hon. Member refers to the deductions made since the prorogation of Parliament last Session, which amount to about
  1474
  £197,000. The amount has been placed to the credit of a suspense account, and the amount so held in suspense is earning no interest.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the amounts deducted by public companies for Income Tax have been so deducted with the concurrence of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury; whether the amounts so deducted have been received by the Exchequer; and, if not, what arrangements have been made to secure to the Exchequer the benefit of the interest earned or capable of being earned on the amounts so deducted?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The deduction of Income Tax from the dividends of public companies is a matter of arrangement between the companies and their shareholders, and the concurrence of the Treasury is not required. It cannot be stated to what extent the amounts so deducted have been included in the duty received by the Inland Revenue and paid over to the Exchequer.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Is that consistent with the assertion of the Prime Minister just now that Income Tax is not separable?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have said these funds are not collected at all. That is the exact point of the answer. It simply means that the companies who deduct the amount are retaining it. In some cases I have no doubt they are paying it over, but they do that voluntarily.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: Is the Inland Revenue receiving some of these sums with the authority of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have already stated that. I should not like to say that some of these companies have not paid over some of the sums which they have deducted. It is purely a voluntary offering.

  Indian Tobacco Duties.
  Mr. M'ARTHURasked the Under-Secretary for India if he can say as from what date the new Indian duties on tobacco and cigarettes are enforceable; whether this operation will be suspended until the question of a countervailing excise has been decided; and how soon a decision on the latter point may be expected?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The duties took effect from the 25th February, in accordance with the Act that has been passed by the Imperial Legislative Council of India. The Secretary of State does not propose to interfere with the operation of that Act. The Government of India have been directed to give the question of countervailing duties early consideration, but it is impossible to say within what time a decision will be arrived at.

  Indian Duty on Silver.
  Mr. STEWARTasked whether the lower price of silver brought about by the new duty, entails increased precaution against the illicit coinage of rupees?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It is not anticipated that the duty will lower the price of silver outside India to such an extent as to stimulate in any material degree the illicit coinage of rupees for importation into India. The duty cannot, therefore, operate as an incentive to illicit coinage in India.
  Mr. STEWARTasked what revenue has the Indian Government derived from opium exported to China during the last 10 years; and what annual revenue is estimated from the new duty on silver?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The average net revenue from opium exported from India beyond seas for the ten years ending 1909, when the arrangement with China began to operate, was £3,274,634 a year. Approximately two-thirds of this was derived from the trade with China. The net additional revenue from the new duty on silver is estimated at £366,000 in 1910–11.
  Mr. STEWART: In view of the present unsatisfactory condition of British trade in China, may I ask if the Indian Government in future will extend some consideration to the currency of a country out of which they have derived such enormous revenues in the past?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Government of India does not expect that this duty will affect the export trade.

  Evicted Tenants (Waterford and Roscommon).
  Mr. POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have provided, and, if so, where, a farm for Mr. Carrigan, an evicted tenant on Lord Ashtown's county Waterford
  1476
  estate, whose old farm has been planted with trees by the landlord?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Carrigan's name has been noted for consideration in the allotment of such untenanted land as the Estates Commissioners may acquire. They are not at present in a position to provide him with another holding, but the matter is receiving attention.
  Mr. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary if he could state upon what grounds the Estates Commissioners have refrained from restoring Bernard Martin to his former farm on the Countess of Kingston estate, in the parish of Ardcarne, county Roscommon; whether he is aware that Martin was evicted from this holding eighteen years ago for non-payment of rent; whether it is now held by the present heir to the estate, the Earl of Kingston; and whether he can give any approximate date at which Martin may expect to be restored to the farm in question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have decided to take no action in reference to the application of Bernard Martin. The farm in question was put up for sale at the suit of a creditor who had obtained judgment against Martin, and the landlord exercised his right of pre-emption and paid the value of the tenant's interest as fixed by the court.

  Imported Argentine Cattle (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the English Board of Agriculture are considering the question of removing the embargo upon the importation of live cattle from the Argentine; and whether, having regard to the injury which would result to the Irish cattle industry from such a step, the Irish Department of Agriculture are taking any measures to safeguard Irish interests in this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the Argentine Government have made representations to the English Department of Agriculture and Fisheries that, owing to the absence of foot-and-mouth disease for a year, animals should again be admitted into Great Britain for slaughter at the port of landing only. These representations are under consideration, and the Irish Department of Agriculture is in communication with the English Board on the subject. No question arises as to the importation of store cattle.

  National University, Ireland (Affiliation of Colleges).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that St. Patrick's College, generally known as Maynooth, has been affiliated as a college of the National University in Ireland; if so, what members of the senate were present when it was decided to affiliate this college; and whether it is intended that Maynooth shall remain, as at present, a training college for the Roman Catholic priesthood; whether, under the terms of affiliation of Maynooth with the National University it will be possible for a Maynooth student to become a graduate of the National University without attending lectures at that university or ever leaving the precincts of Maynooth; and whether it is proposed that the degrees awarded to Maynooth students shall be distinguished in any way from the degrees granted to ordinary graduates of the National University?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will answer these three questions together. I understand that St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, has been admitted to be a recognised college of the National University in the subjects included in the faculties of Arts, Philosophy and Celtic Studies. This matter was before the Senate at three of its meetings. All the members of the Senate were present at one or other of those meetings, and thirty-one of the thirty-nine members attended the last of the three meetings. Under the Act of Parliament, Charter, and Statutes, it is possible for a student of a constituent or recognised college to obtain degrees of the University without attending lectures elsewhere than in the constituent or recognised college of which he is a member. It is not intended to make any distinction between the degrees obtained by students of the constituent or recognised college otherwise than by giving in the published University Lists the names of the colleges at which these students attended their courses of studies.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: May I ask whether the granting of degrees to persons who have not been in residence at the University is not entirely contrary to the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's own argument when the University Bill was before the Committee last year, and also whether it is not directly contrary to his refusal to allow extern students, that is to say, students who were not in residence at the
  1478
  University to have the benefit of this new University, as they had the benefit of the old Royal University?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No one knows better than the hon. Member, who took an active part in the discussion of this measure, that the whole of the question as to the students was left to the Senate of the new University.
  Captain CRAIG: Has he now dropped the old statement that the University would be undenominational?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think the House would desire to revive the discussion of the year before last.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: Was it not definitely re fused when the Bill was before Parliament to allow extern students to get the benefits of the degree of the new University—the very point?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argumentative question on the action of the House.
  Mr. C. CRAIG: No, on the action of the right hon. Gentleman, not of the House.

  Langley Estate, Longford Pass, Tipperary
  Mr. HACKETTasked if the Estates Commissioners have received a memorial from the landholders and labourers Of the locality asking them to distribute the turbary on the Langley estate, at Longford Pass, county Tipperary, amongst themselves and others in the district who have no turbary right; and what steps the Estates Commissioners propose to take with a view to distribute these turbary rights?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As I have already informed the hon. Member, in reply to the question on the same subject asked by him on the 7th instant, the offer of the Estates Commissioners for these lands has been accepted, but no scheme for their distribution can be made until they have been vested in the Commissioners.

  Horse Breeding (Ireland).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG (for Mr. Lonsdale)asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Armagh County Council Committee of Agriculture have requested permission for a committee of their number to inspect the four Normandy sires now on the Department's farms, and their request has been refused; whether a further application from the same committee to the Department to receive a deputation with reference to

  1479
  horse-breeding schemes for the county of Armagh has also been declined; whether he is aware that the Armagh County Committee have made many applications for stallions suitable to the requirements of horse breeders in the county without any satisfactory result; and whether he will state the reasons which have induced the Department to adopt this attitude towards the county committee?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Armagh Committee of Agriculture applied on 5th February for permission to inspect these sires with a view to one or more of them standing in county Armagh. The Department replied that it was not proposed to send these sires into the country for service. The suggested visit of inspection was therefore unnecessary. The Department have since arranged that a deputation from the committee shall wait upon the Vice-President in regard to their horse-breeding scheme. The Department have not refused any application for permission to see the Normandy sires.
  Captain FABER: Who recommended the importation of these Normandy sires?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG (for Mr. Lonsdale)asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the committee of agriculture of the Armagh County Council have passed a resolution, which has been endorsed by other county committees in Ulster, declaring that the scheme for encouraging improvement in the breeds of horses which has been worked in Ulster since the formation of the Department of Agriculture has proved itself totally valueless for the purpose, and that the Department be requested to hold such an inquiry into the subject as will give representative breeders from each of the Ulster counties an opportunity of expressing their views; and whether it is intended to hold such an inquiry?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that some Ulster county committees have adopted the resolution referred to, and that others have not. The Department make a practice of having an annual inquiry as to the views of all the county committees on their horse-breeding schemes, and they will do so this year as usual. The views that have hitherto been expressed by the Ulster county committees do not correspond with the statement in the resolution.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG (for Mr. Lonsdale)asked the Chief Secretary whether the Department of Agriculture, Ireland, imported other Normandy sires previously to the four now on the Department's own farm; whether he will state how many of these animals were purchased and give the dates when they were imported, state the price paid for each of them, the proportion of thoroughbred blood claimed for them, and where they are now standing?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The only Normandy sires imported by the Department are the four recently purchased.

  Consultative Fisheries Committee (Ireland).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG (for Mr. Lonsdale)asked the Chief Secretary if he will state whether the consultative committee for purposes of fisheries contemplated by Section 48 of the Irish Land Act, 1909, has yet been constituted; and, if so, whether he will give the names of the members of the committee?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The consultative committee for Fishery purposes under the 48th Section of the Irish Land Act of 1909 was nominated on 25th January. The representatives of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are the Right Hon. T. W. Russell, Mr. T. P. Gill, and the Rev. W. S. Green, C.B.; and the representatives of the Congested Districts Board are the Most Reverend Doctor O'Donnell the Right Hon. Sir David Harrel, and Mr. W. L. Micks. The committee met on 27th January.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Are we to assume from that answer that Mr. T. W. Russell is going to remain President of the Department?
  Mr. BIRRELL: For the time being.

  Heard Estate (County Cork).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG (for Mr. Lonsdale)asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the judgment given on the 1st instant by the Master of the Rolls in the matter of the sale of the Heard estate, county Cork, in which, referring to the provisional regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant on 15th February, he alluded to the emission from the regulations of any provision for the allocation of stock in cases of pending purchase agreements proposed to be financed wholly by means of stock; and whether he will explain the reason-for this omission?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It was unnecessary to provide by the regulations for the allocation of 2¾ per cent. Stock to vendors who are prepared to take the whole of their advances in stock. The amount of stock which may be issued in any year for that purpose will be limited only by the amount of such cases which the Land Commission can administratively dispose of in addition to those pending cases in which advances are made in cash or partly in stock and partly in cash.

  Irish Land Act, 1909.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent judgment of Assistant Commissioner Kelly, in the case of M'Carthy v. Lord Ventry, holding that the future Tenant Clause of the Land Act of 1909 excludes the assignee of a future tenant from having a fair rent fixed; whether he is aware that when the Section in question was being considered in Committee in this House, the then Attorney-General for Ireland stated that such a narrow view of its effect could not be reasonably argued before any court; and whether he will introduce legislation to remedy this defect in the Section?
  Mr. BIRRELL: My attention has been called to the decision referred to. I must not be taken as agreeing that the facts in the case of M'Carthy v. Ventry correspond with those assumed by the late Attorney-General in the course of the discussion indicated by the hon. Member. As, however, the decision in question may be made the subject of an appeal it would not be right to enter into a further discussion of the case without being sure that an appeal will not be taken.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALY: Is there any doubt that the learned Commissioner acted as stated in my question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I believe the present Attorney-General entertains some doubt on the subject, but until we know whether an appeal will be lodged or not it will be undesirable to say whether legislation will be necessary.

  Small Holding (Macroom).
  Mr. SHEEHANasked whether Thomas Mullane, tenant of a labourer's cottage at Coolavokig, Lissacreasig, Macroom, applied some years ago to the Macroom Rural District Council for an additional half-acre; has the applicant made numerous representations to the council on the
  1482
  matter; has it been sought to induce him to accept a half-acre of rock surface instead of arable land; and what action does the Local Government Board intend to take to secure that Mullane shall get a suitable and workable plot of land?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is not mandatory on a rural district council to give the maximum quantity of land allowed for a garden allotment by the Labourers Acts, and the Local Government Board do not therefore intend to take any action with respect to Mullane's application for an additional half-acre.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906.
  Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that his predecessor in office, when moving the Second Reading of the Labourers (Ireland) Bill in 1906, estimated that the £4,250,000 provided under it would build from 25,000 to 30,000 cottages; can he say how many cottages have been actually built or are in course of erection for the money already expended; was it the estimate of Mr. Bryce that £23,000 a year would fall upon the rates in respect of improvement schemes under his Bill; how much has really fallen upon the rates on this account; did cottages under the old system cost the ratepayers £5 12s. 6d. each annually, and what do they cost under the later Act; was much emphasis then laid by the Government upon the necessity for providing sanitary dwellings for the Irish workers, in order to prevent the spread of disease, and a guarantee given that when the £4,250,000 was exhausted further cheap money would be provided for housing the rural labourers; and will he state what steps will be taken to continue the beneficent influences of the Labourers Act of 1906, by providing such further moneys at the 2¾ per cent. interest as may be necessary?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The figures quoted by the hon. Member were given by my predecessor when introducing the Labourers (Ireland) Bill in 1906, and he also made the statement as to the prevention of disease which is referred to in the question. The number of cottages actually built or in course of construction and the present charge upon the rates could only be obtained by calling for a return from all the local authorities, but it is expected that not less than 24,000 cottages with garden allotments, and 4,300 additional half-acre plots in connection with cottages previously

  1483
  erected, will be provided out of the four and a quarter millions. As regards the cost of cottages under the Act of 1906, the repayment of a loan of £170 for a cottage and plot would involve a charge upon the rates of £3 10s. 9d., less some £2 12s. for rent received. I have no knowledge of any guarantee to provide further cheap money as mentioned in the question, but, as I have already stated in reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Tipperary, the Government are considering the question of re-enacting Section 18 of the Labourers Act of 1883.
  Mr. SHEEHAN: Does that mean that money will be provided at the rate of interest which prevailed under the Act of 1906?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Under the Act of 1883 money for labourers' cottages was provided out of the Local Loans Fund, and the interest was adjusted to make it as low as possible consistent with its being a self-supporting scheme. It will be at a low rate of interest.
  MEMBER SWORN.—Colonel Seely (Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies), for the county of Derbyshire (Ilkeston Division) in the place of Sir Walter Foster, resigned.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
Mr. HUDSON—Railways (Eight Hours)—Bill to provide for the establishment of a working day of eight hours for certain grades employed on Railways. (To be read a second time upon 30th April.)
Mr. PERCY HARRIS—Music and Dancing Licences (London)—Bill to amend the Law as regards music and dancing licences in London. (To be read a second time upon 20th March.)

SCOTTISH LAND SETTLEMENT.
Mr. CATHCART WASONasked leave to introduce a Bill to establish a Scottish land authority to extend and amend the Acts relating to Crofters' Holdings in Scotland, 1886 to 1891, and The Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897; and for other purposes?
In the few minutes at my disposal, I desire to point out the principal features
1484
of the Bill which I ask leave to introduce. We establish a Central Scottish Land Authority or Agricultural Department with full powers to set in active operation the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1892. These Acts are practically forgotten, and have hardly ever been taken advantage of, partly because of the apathy and partly because of the hostility of the county councils, and partly on account of the ludicrous provision in the Allotments Act preventing a person having more than a toolshed on his allotment. Our fishing and cottar population suffer extremely from want of land for homes. Near Lerwick, when a fisherman wants to get a piece of land to provide a home, he has to pay 1s. 6d. per foot for it, and that runs up the rent to £2 or £3 a year. He is compelled to have his hut without sanitary arrangements. He cannot make adequate provision for water supply and drainage. That is one of the reasons why people are crying out for land reform. The cottages provided throughout the whole of Scotland for farm servants are, I have no hesitation in saying, an entire disgrace to the country. It has often been said that farm servants will not stay long in one place; but, looking to the kind of housing which is available for them, I think they have very little reason to do so. Generally there will be found a small hut on the side of the road, a few yards off there is a kailyard, and nothing else for children to play about in. That open space is destroyed by motor cars and motor dust. The position of farm servants might be greatly remedied with advantage to everyone in the community.
It will be elementary knowledge to land reformers that if we are to have land reform of any sort it must start from the population in our villages. There are dwellings in our villages in Scotland which, instead of being fit to live in, are really slums. The slums in our villages are often quite as great as in our towns, and they are attended by the same deep-seated evils. If hon. Members knew the conditions under which the people live in villages they would be a little more sympathetic in the attitude taken towards these questions. If villagers could get land on which they could have proper homes, you would in a very short time see a great reform over the whole of Scotland. The machinery by which we propose to set these Acts in force would be by a central authority for the whole of Scotland. We have

1485
endeavoured to meet the sentiment universal in Scotland, but at the same time the crofting districts have demanded, and do demand, that they must have special consideration at the hands of any Government.
We cannot alter the facts of nature. We had legislation many years ago for the crofting districts, and during the last fifteen years we have constantly had crafting Bills brought in here for the improvement and amendment of these Acts. Crofters' Members and candidates, to whatever side of the House they belong, are practically unanimous now on this question. There is no difference between Liberal and Conservative as to the improvements we desire to see in these matters. What we know is that in many districts the landlords have done their utmost since the Act was passed in order to drive crofters out of the Act and compel them to take leaseholds again, and thus become landlords' men. We had the Prime Minister at Inverness in 1903 when he gave distinct pledges in regard to crofting and general land legislation, which, if carried out, would have amply and fully met all our wants; but to-day, after all these years, we are not a step nearer our goal. By the aid of the law courts the landlords have succeeded in preventing a person on a small croft carrying on any trade or business other than that of agriculture. A landlord whose right to the land is only limited can do as he pleases, but a crofter is threatened with courts of law at every step. If his house is in a tumbledown state and if he wishes to rebuild it, he is compelled to do so on the same old lines, notwithstanding any improvements he might desire to have. If his house is in disrepair, he cannot take stones from what is practically his own land to repair it. Worst of all, perhaps, a man or woman when too old or feeble to work the croft is debarred the privilege of assigning the croft to anyone else, subject, of course, to the Crofting Commission. It is felt that that is a grievous hardship to the whole of the crofting population, and in view of the attitude of certain landlords it becomes more and more pressing that the Government should deal with the question. As regards the question of leaseholds and assignments, every crofters' Member is pledged up to the hilt to deal with this.
As to the necessity for the measure, I have heard the Secretary for Scotland and the hon. Member for Inverness often
1486
say how desirable it was that the people should work hand in hand with the landlords in this matter. I have all honour for those who speak in this way. We need not argue with the Leader of the Opposition whether those who hold that land is different from every other class of property are "muddle-headed Socialists" or not, but here are one or two cases which must give the landlord advocates "reason to think," Rackwick is a beautiful little village on the Pentland Firth, and has for road to church, burial ground and market, a track which is always impassable for vehicles and often for foot passengers. Over this road for five miles produce has to be exchanged, the dead have to be carried, and the doctor and minister have to travel. The landlord appeared to encourage the natural wish of the residents for a road, and the Congested Districts Board came to the rescue of the people with a handsome grant. We hoped that with the assistance of the landlord we would receive the road. But no; the landlord refused the road altogether, although it would have been a great comfort to the people of the neighbourhood. He was away somewhere else, possibly enjoying himself in the South of Europe. I will mention one more case with respect to an island in the Orkneys. This is a striking case which I commend to the attention of the landlord party, for it shows the length to which some people will go. On Papawestray there are about 300 inhabitants, and one little ambition which they have had has been to get a doctor's house on the Island. They have been unable to get medical assistance of any sort owing to there being no house. For years the landlord refused even the smallest site for any house whatever. A year or so ago a change came over him, as we thought, and he not only subscribed liberally to the fund raised for the erection of a house, but we understood that he was going to help us in regard to land. We thought everything was settled, having got all the money necessary for building a house. But the only terms on which we could get a small piece of land was that we should have a lease of ten years and that we should remove the building at the end of that time. That was not the worst, for he afterwards refused to give us any site whatever for a doctor's house, although it would have been an advantage to him and his estate. It is because of these little petty cases of tyranny from which we are

1487
suffering, not only in the north of Scotland, but over the whole of Scotland, that I ask leave to present this Bill to the House.
Leave given; Bill brought in and read the first time.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
4.0 P.M.
Moved: That Mr. Arbuthnot, Mr. Ashton, Mr. Robert Balfour, Mr. Rowland Barran, Sir John Brigg, Mr. Carlile, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Hazleton, Sir Clement Hill, and Mr. Hobhouse be Members of the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Master of Elibank.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Earl of Kerry be a Member of the Committee of Public Accounts."
Mr. BOTTOMLEYmoved that the name of the Earl of Kerry be omitted.
With the indulgence of the House I desire to move the omission of the name of the Earl of Kerry. In doing so it is quite unnecessary to say that the Motion has no personal aspect of any kind, and that no Member of the House is more appreciative than I am of the high qualities of that distinguished nobleman. But whilst the Noble Lord has earned great distinction and has many letters after his name, there are lacking qualifications which, to my mind, represent the only qualification for Membership of this Committee, and which have to do with what in sporting phraseology I may describe as £ s. d. The object of my moving is to endeavour at the proper time to substitute the name of Mr. Gibson Bowles as a Member of the Committee, because I am convinced that it is very necessary if this House is to maintain its claim to be paramount in matters of finance, that we should strengthen as far as possible one of the very few checks which we have on the public expenditure of the country. During my experience of the last Parliament I observed that every year in round figures we voted something like £50,000,000 of public money without any discussion whatever. We had no day ever given us for the discussion of the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee. I have glanced at some of those Reports. In some of them I find allegations of wholesale theft in some of the public Departments, defalcations, breaches of
1488
contract, and expenditure exceeding the authorised expenditure to the extent of some £40,000 in one case, and all sorts of irregularities; and on no occasion have we had the opportunity of considering those facts. Therefore, my object is to place upon the Committee a gentleman of special qualifications for this work.
May I be permitted for the benefit of those whom one is proud to refer to as newer Members of this House to say what the functions of this Committee are. They are to examine the accounts, showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet public expenditure. That being so, it is essential that every Member of that Committee should be a gentleman to whom finance is not anathema, and to whom commerce is something to be viewed with respect, and who will not suffer any derogation of his personal position by examining the modest details of the public expenditure of the country. I was referring this morning to a semi-official publication called the Liberal Year Book for 1910, and I find that that book tells us that in practice it has been found that those responsible for the Estimates have not been loth to allow the House to fritter away most of the allotted time in discussing trivialities while many millions are voted in as many minutes towards the end of the Session without the slightest pretence of examination or Debate. That being so, I think I have established my case to justify my suggestion that every Member of this Committee should be a Member with special expert qualifications for the work, and I suggest the name of Mr. Gibson Bowles because he was a distinguished Member of the Committee in a previous Parliament, because his financial qualifications are unique, and because his son was an indefatigable Member of the Committee in the last Parliament. And I therefore respectfully move that the name of the Earl of Kerry be omitted. I was reluctant to make any invidious selection of names, but I had the satisfaction of knowing that this House was of opinion that Peers of the Realm should have no hand whatever in the financial relations of the country, and I selected the Noble Lord as being the victim of a certain hereditary taint for which he is not responsible, and because constitutional reasons disentitle him to interfere in the financial arrangements of the country.
MASTER of ELIBANK: May I explain to the House that this Committee has been set up in accordance with the usual custom of the House? I consulted the Leaders of the parties in the House, who themselves presented the names of those they thought suitable to represent their particular party. It remains for me to suggest five names in addition to the Financial Secretary, and looking to the long and distinguished services of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), it seemed to me that there was only one position to which his well-known capacity entitled him; but I was in a difficulty in regard to that particular position, because there again there is the custom of the House that it is always the privilege of the Opposition to nominate the Chairman. So I trust that my hon. Friend will accept this explanation, and not press the Motion, but leave it according to the custom of the House to the Leaders of the parties to nominate their own Members to serve on the Committee to represent all parties.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I desire—
Mr. SPEAKER: There can be no discussion on this Motion. It is brought on under Standing Order No. 11, and no speeches are allowed on either side.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: For the convenience of the House may I ask whether, supposing the Motion is dropped and a discussion is taken on the next name, can my hon. Friend not make his explanation then? Will it be possible that this matter, which is one of some importance to the constitution of the Committee, apart from any individual, can be discussed then?
Mr. SPEAKER: You can move the omission of the next name or of any other name.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Might I ask permission to make a personal explanation?
Mr. SPEAKER: No; you cannot be permitted. The rule is very strict. It permits only certain things to be done.
Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Under Standing Order 11, should I be in order in moving that the discussion on this point be adjourned?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has made a speech, and cannot speak again.
Mr. MORTON: May I ask whether, although my hon. Friend would be out of Order, would it be in order for me to move the adjournment?
Mr. SPEAKER: We have had two speeches, and only two speeches are permitted.
Question, "That the, Earl of Kerry be a Member of the Public Accounts Committee," put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. T. M. Kettle be a Member of the Public Accounts Committee."
Sir CHARLES DILKE: I should ask to be allowed to say a word on the successive names in order to ask whether this matter cannot be adjourned with a view to an accommodation. As I understand, the hon. Member for King's Lynn, whose great services on this Committee are, I am sure, recognised by every other Member of this House, was asked to be a Member of the Committee, a fact which has not been stated in this discussion, but which is, I think, material, and he, for natural reasons, declined to allow himself to be nominated. I am quite sure there are many Members of this House who would like to see the Committee strengthened by the addition of my hon. Friend. The Committee has lost a number of very valuable Members. It so happens that Mr. Leif Jones, who was a very active Member of the Committee, lost his seat, and the active services that were performed by Mr. Stewart Bowles, who also lost his seat, were such as to weaken the Committee by their absence from the Committee. Another distinguished and very active Member on this side who has long served on the Committee has now been withdrawn from service, and the Committee will be much weaker in its present form. It is most necessary that the Committee should not be weakened. It is the only body that supports and can support the control of the Auditor-General in his reports on the Estimates of this House, and the Committee has done great service, and no doubt will achieve great service again, with its new membership; but there is an intermediate period in which it will not be able to carry out the policy which the recent Committee carried out so successfully.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I think I owe the House a few words of explanation. As the hon. Baronet has said, I was

1491
approached with a view to giving my services on the Committee, but there are two reasons which disable me from serving. I attach the highest importance to the Public Accounts Committee, and I regard it with respect and affection. I hope that the House will believe me when I say that there is nothing of which I was prouder than the opportunity of serving on that Committee in the Parliament before the last, and when I was driven from my seat one of the keenest griefs it cost me was that I was deprived of the opportunity of resuming those services. My only consolation was that I was succeeded by a son whom I had brought up to the honourable pursuits of public life, especially of finance. But he, too, has lost his seat. Then I had to consider the situation this year. I could not but remember that I myself had served on the Committee for ten years, and my son had served upon it for four years, and it did seem to me that the usefulness of me and of mine had thereby been exhausted, and that our names should give place to another. I had a second reason for not serving on the Committee. It was the doubt whether the day for considering the Report of the Committee would still be given. I consider that day essential. In the last speech which I made in the Parliament before the last I asked the House to sanction that day, and the sanction was given, with results which, I believe, will prove to be of far greater constitutional importance than many hon. Members of this House may suppose. Last year, to my sorrow, a day was not afforded. But I fear that the deprivation if continued will again deprive the Committee's Reports of much of their value, and that they will go back to be pigeonholed and disregarded. A third reason why I felt myself disabled was this: It is painful for me to be put into competition with the Noble Lord. I have long had the honour of an acquaintance, and, I hope, of some friendship, with his family and his distinguished father, for whom I have an unfeigned regard and the highest respect, and I should be sorry indeed to be put in competition with his father's son, or to be the innocent cause of the exclusion from the Committee of a useful Member. Apart from that, I can only say that I hold myself entirely at the disposal of this House for any services which it may place upon me. I desire to give this explanation in order to clear up the matter, and, as the House will understand, that I have not in the least
1492
lost my sense of the great importance of this Committee, or my interest in and admiration for its work. But I do feel myself disabled from taking part in it, and that others should take up the work which I endeavoured to do.
Question put, and agreed to.
Question,"That Mr. Sidney Robinson, Mr. Walsh, and Colonel Williams be Members of the Committee of Public Accounts," put, and agreed to.
Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and that five be the quorum."

SUPPLY [1st Allotted Day].
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

SUPPLY [1st Allotted Day].

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.—VOTE A.
  Motion made and Question proposed: "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 184,200, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has good reason to be satisfied with the course which these Army Debates have taken, and with the general reception of his Estimates by the new House of Commons. When I look back to the course which Army Debates usually took, not, indeed, in the last Parliament, but in Parliaments before that, I think I discern a very marked and very satisfactory contrast between the two situations. In those days Army matters were the centre of fiercest contention in the House of Commons. Very sharp divisions of opinion, and even divisions of personal rivalry, existed between the great officers of the Army, and upon occasion there were, or there were reputed to be, sharp divisions of opinion between the chiefs of the Army and their political superiors. Now we find that although there is a great deal of interest taken by the House in Army matters, as indeed there should be, although our Debates are full of interesting

  1493
  and valuable discussions on points of important detail, nevertheless there is a very general measure of agreement upon all sides, in all quarters of the House, upon the broad essentials of Army administration. A deep peace has brooded, not wholly undisturbed by some subterranean rumblings, over the course of our discussions. I listened with great pleasure to a statement in the speech of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. A. Lee), in which, with great frankness and generosity he paid a high tribute to my right hon. Friend (Mr. Haldane), and declared that he was one of the most popular Ministers of War who had ever occupied that responsible and difficult position. My right hon. Friend has been fortunate in having had an uninterrupted tenure at the War Office, which now reaches very nearly four and a half years, and during the whole of that period, except with the few changes that time has made, he has worked with the same set of military men. There has been a consistency and persistency of aim and view, and a continuity of policy throughout the whole of that period. And now, at the beginning of the new Parliament, and on a Vote which, like this, raises the whole policy of the Army. I think I am entitled to the indulgence of the Committee to address them for a very few moments of their time, and to take one general survey of the position as it is to-day and of the position as it was five or six years ago. Let us look first at the sphere of organisation. Mr. Brodrick, the present Lord Midleton, made, in the year 1903, the first real attempt to establish a peace organisation based on war requirements. He aimed for the first time at producing in time of peace divisions and brigades, with their staffs, and ancillary services which would actually be employed in the field in time of war. That was unquestionably a valuable and important departure. I was at that time among the critics of the Noble Lord and his schemes. Certainly I have nothing to withdraw or modify from the arguments which I then advanced. But I do desire to make it quite clear that I am not attempting to indulge in any party score, but recognise clearly and frankly that his scheme, faulty though it was in grave respects, was nevertheless the first real attempt to establish in time of peace arrangements for units and cadres suited to the operations of war.
  We have gone a long way since that. Mr. Brodrick's scheme consisted in the establishment and creation of six Army
  1494
  corps. In those days the Noble Lord, who sometimes sat in the corner seat opposite, used to dwell lovingly on the details of our Army administration, and many Members of both parties joined together to advance the cause of efficiency and economy. If there were one point in which almost all the higher critics of the then Government were agreed it was that the Army corps organisation was not the organisation best suited to the peculiar and special needs of this country either for peace or war. If we have to contemplate the course of operations overseas—and we cannot possibly exclude that from any scheme of military organisation to which we may adhere—it is quite certain that the divisional organisation which has now been established is far more flexible, far more convenient, and far more practical than the Army corps organisation which it has superseded. When troops have to be shipped, when they have to be embarked and disembarked, they are not embarked and disembarked by Army corps. It is quite true that the embarking and disembarking is not in divisions, but the arrival of troops at any theatre of war by sea would much more nearly correspond to their despatch by divisions than despatch by Army corps. We have seen in the American war in Cuba that the divisional organisation imposed itself as the method by which the troops were despatched. In the last war in South Africa, although nominally we proceeded by Army corps, we, by mere pressure of events, were forced very rapidly in practice to adopt the dispatch of the troops division by division, and in the Japanese War, again, it was a divisional dispatch, and not an Army corps dispatch, which necessarily prevailed. That is one of the great changes which has been established by general consent. We now have the six divisions of the Regular Army, fourteen divisions of the Territorial Army, and we have in addition to that the organisation of the Indian Army upon exactly the same principle of six large divisions, containing each three brigades of infantry, which prevail in the organisation of the British Army. So that you may say that throughout the British Array there is a uniform, symmetrical system of large divisions prevailing, whether for peace or for war. That I think a decided advance towards simplicity and towards good organisation. Mr. Brodrick in his Army system attempted to combine the Regulars, the Militia, the Yeomanry, and Volunteers.

  1495
  into one organisation, without, it seemed to me at the time, and it seems to me now, any very clear idea of what he intended to use that organisation for. It is quite obvious to anyone who studies the scheme which he put forward that he was primarily thinking of Home defence. But he also attached great importance to the expeditionary force which was to be comprised within this organisation which he was establishing for Home defence. The fact that he included in that force of troops all these different branches of the service—Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteers—showed clearly that if it were necessary to employ that force in a foreign expedition a complete alteration would have to take place in all units, and there would have had to be a tremendous period of change before any large and homogeneous units could have been formed for service over seas. In other words, with regard to the process of forming a foreign expedition, an operation which, if any operation ought to be carried through rapidly, is one in which speed is essential and vital—in regard to that process a change from the whole system of Home defence would have to be necessary with all the corresponding disadvantages of delay.
  Now our forces are different in character, different in origin, different in value, but still all necessary. Our different forces are separated into two simple categories—first, they are separated into troops who would be liable to serve overseas; secondly, into troops who would not be so liable. These are very simple distinctions, but the Committee will readily see that they go to the roots of any good organisation. The Regular Army and Reserves are organised for overseas service, and the Territorial Army and the Reserves which are being developed, are organisations for Home defence. A similar organisation prevails through both branches of the land forces, and both act together with perfect similarity for the defence of the United Kingdom. Then we have had the development of the General Staff, a development which is of the greatest possible value so far as the officers to command the Army are concerned. But it has another use, a very special and particular one in the military problem. We have to recognise the co-existence of many different forces, different classes of soldiers, under different conditions of service. The General Staff forms a perfectly convenient link of union between these different forces. We have
  1496
  also to contemplate the organisation of our forces scattered all over the globe, under very varying conditions in the dominions and in the dependencies of the Crown. The General Staff forms again a convenient link with the division, assuring homogeneity and cohesion throughout the whole of that large and heterogeneous assembly of military forces. Under the scheme of Mr. Brodrick, unfolded to the House in 1903, and which his successor, the late Mr. Arnold Forster, developed and elaborated and, to some extent, altered in the year 1905, there was practically no provision for feeding the Army at the front once war had broken out and for making up the terrible wastage, which, even apart from the calculation of the wastage of great battles, is known to be a necessary feature of all warlike operations. Mr. Brodrick, so far from making any provision for replacing the wastage of war, actually abolished the Militia Reserve, which Mr. Cardwell had always intended, to some extent, to discharge the duty of feeding the troops which were actually at the front. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Haldane) has addressed himself, and is addressing himself, to this problem. The machinery for the maintenance of the Army in the field is being most carefully elaborated, and it would at once come into being on mobilisation being ordered. For the Cavalry a system is being organised of six depots and fourteen reserve regiments, which would provide for the training and supply of troops to maintain the regiments at the front. The feeding of the Artillery is being organised through a system of six depots and twelve reserve brigades, embracing thirty-six batteries, and the Infantry under a system of sixty-four depots and through seventy-four third reserve battalions, of which my right hon. Friend spoke in his statement a few days ago. The great fact is that we have now in our military system the means and the machinery whereby a steady flow of trained men can be ordered to the units serving at the front, to maintain them at their fighting strength during all the wastage of the first year or two years of war.
  We have also made great advances in the direction of simplicity. There were formerly three distinct forces which had to be legislated for. The Regulars and their Reserve, the Militia, and the Volunteers. Each of those forces served under its own Act of Parliament, each having its own regulations and special position and conditions. Now we have only two.

  1497
  We have the Regular Army and its Reserve, all liable to serve beyond the seas. We have the Territorial Force and its Reserve, which will soon be called into being, and which will be a capable and very considerable development. Those are the only two forces for which we are called upon to legislate or make special regulations. I think I am justified in repeating to the House that those various points to which I have drawn attention constitute a very considerable advance in the organisation of our land forces.
  Let me say a word on administration. Is was the essence of Mr. Brodrick's plan to adopt as the method of service three years' service with the colours and nine years' service in the Reserve. That is a system which proved in practice fatal to the supply of our foreign garrison. It is quite true it produced, and would have produced, a very large Reserve, but that Reserve in its later term would have been of very untrained men who had only been three years with the colours and who had been six, seven, eight, or nine years away, and those could not be very satisfactory soldiers on whom to rely at a moment of need. We have abandoned that system of three years' Army service and nine in the Reserve, and we have reverted to the old system of seven years' Army service and five years' Reserve service. I do not know the battleground on which this controversy has been carried on. There is my right hon. Friend below the Gangway who has always converted me to the view that we should do much better in principle both for the Indian service and for Home defence if we had two separate armies. But when I have been converted to that view I have always been driven out of it by the fact that it is obviously and demonstrably plain that you can get much greater development of military power for your money by combining the two systems, by dovetailing the home and foreign armies one into the other, by making the home Army train the recruits who are to serve in the Indian battalions and by allowing the Indian battalions to secrete the reserves which on mobilisation are to joint the home battalions. By dovetailing those two systems you can get a far better development of your war power for the money Parliament devotes than you could if you were to take the admittedly more satisfactory plan, from other points of view, of having two perfectly separate armies. We have reverted to the principle that is compendiously expressed in the
  1498
  regulation "7 A, 5 R," The late Mr. Arnold Forster, who was a very great advocate of the two-army plan, went as near towards the adoption of that plan as any Minister of War had ever dared to do before, and perhaps will ever dare do in future.
  We have another advantage in administration. All the different forces of the Crown are now paid at the same Army rates of pay when they are training in the field or serving at war. There used to be a great difference. I remember myself to have seen in South Africa Natal Carabineers serving at 7s. 6d. per day, South African Light Horseman serving at 5s. per day, a Regular Cavalry soldier serving at, I think, 1s. 6d. or 1s. 4d. per day, and the Infantry soldier at 1s. per day, and all taking cover behind the same rook against the same fusillade. That raises certain feelings in the breasts of the soldiers who are encountering equal peril and facing equal hardships, and, although they are not the most important feelings, they ought, at any rate, to be considered.
  All the forces which we have now train in the same service uniform. There, again, there is tremendous economy. The Territorial Army, the Regular Army, the different arms of the Service—Infantry, Cavalary, Artillery—all wear a service dress which is in every sense of the word uniform. My right hon. Friend has made exertions, exertions not wholly successful, and which perhaps will not be wholly successful, but which are still very valuable and useful exertions, to try and meet the deficiency in the supply of officers available on mobilisation. A sum of £64,000 is now contributed by these Votes to the Officers' Training Corps, and I am informed that the Unattached List for the Special Reserve affords a means of associating a class which would be likely to form good officers for the military forces, and which was never provided by the old Militia system. There is another administrative reform which I should like to refer to. A purely military administration would never have been suited to the great developments of the Territorial Army, which have marked the course of the last few years. A purely military administration from the War Office was not suited to the conditions. By the establishment of county associations we have undoubtedly got an organisation which has reconciled professional soldiers to the interests of the Territorial Forces, and which has been found capable of fostering the growth of those forces in a very remarkable manner.

  1499
  Lastly, under the heading of administration, let me say a word about the cost. The cost of Mr. Brodriek's Army scheme must have far exceeded that of the present Army organisation. We used to calculate in those days that if that scheme had ever been fully carried out it would have amounted to, if it did not exceed, £32,000,000 or £33,000,000 per year, instead of the £27,000,000 or £28,000,000 per year, which are the Estimates which my right hon. Friend presents to-day. My right hon. Friend, after making many reforms, after improving the pay of Commanding Officers, after increasing the number and enlarging the scope of the Staff College work, and after setting aside funds for manœuvres and training on a far larger scale than were ever before available, has, during his administration of the War Office, effectively reduced the cost of the land forces of the Crown. Those are the administrative reforms, not by any means complete, and the reforms in organisation, which, I venture to say, justify the Committee in receiving the Estimates of the present year with that goodwill which they have shown. Let me come to the third point. I mean the social position of the soldier. It is quite true that the soldier now gets better paid. It was not very easy to see at the beginning what direct advantages would flow from the increase of the pay of the private soldier, but I think it quite certain that there has been an advantage gained by the State in the better class of man, in the better standard of conduct and behaviour, which certainly we have seen year by year since the more generous treatment meted cut by Parliament to the private soldier. Punishment and crime have, hand in hand, undergone a salutary diminution. In 1905 there were 5,714 courts-martial at home and 4,256 abroad, making a total of 9,970. In 1909 there were 4,026 courts-martial at home and 3,310 abroad, a total of 7,336, showing in a single quinquennial period a reduction of about 25 per cent. in the number of courts-martial held. That is a very satisfactory fact in which all who take an interest in the Army may fairly rejoice.
  Not only has there been a reduction in the number of courts-martial, which means a reduction in the number of military offences, but there has been an enormous reform, to which I personally attach the greatest importance, in the establishment of detention barracks in the place of the old prison system. It was entirely contrary
  1500
  to the interests of the Army to subject brave, good-hearted soldiers to the insult and degradation of a period of imprisonment, with all its disagreeable features, for offences which, although reprehensible from the point of view of military discipline, nevertheless could not be said to involve moral turpitude, and for which a man could not have been punished had he not happened also to be a soldier. The introduction of the detention barrack system has been of the greatest advantage to the Army, a great mitigation of all the punishments inflicted, and a great benefit to all soldiers who have got into trouble, not only while they were in the Army, but on their return to civil life. It is indeed satisfactory that that system should have been introduced at a time when the number of courts-martial had progressively diminished. I was looking yesterday through some of the general criminal statistics of the country, and possibly the Committee will be surprised to learn that 1908 was the worst year in criminal statistics that our records can show. Since the year 1857, which is the first year for which these statistics have been preserved, there has never been such a high rate of persons convicted of indictable offences as in 1908. Is it not a satisfactory thing for all who care about the Army to reflect that at a time when the percentage of indictable offences was unquestionably increasing in the general population, the number of courts-martial in the Army has fallen steadily year by year? Then, further, temperance is greatly on the increase in the Army. If any Member of this Committee will question military officers with whom he is acquainted, he will hear that the change which has come over the habits of our soldiers in this respect is so palpable and obvious that it cannot escape even the most casual eye. The increase in the Royal Army Temperance membership is valuable evidence from this point of view. In the year 1907 there were 26,739 members on the Indian establishment; in 1908, 28,600; and in 1909, 30,261. On the Home establishment, in 1907 there were 18,442; in 1908, 19,411; and in 1909, 23,642; or a total rise in the three years from 45,000 to 53,900.
  Let me now refer to the question of disease. No doubt most members of the Committee are acquainted with these different facts by themselves. I am only bringing them together in their proper combination in order to establish the general proposition that there has been a great improvement in the social

  1501
  and moral welfare of the soldier. In connection with the question of disease, within a decade the effective strength of the Army has been raised, through the diminution in the sick rates, by 5,700, and the waste through death and invalidity has decreased by 2,900 men per annum, or at the rate of a division of troops for the decennial period. Within four years these changes have allowed of the reduction of hospital beds at home stations by over 2,200, with a similar or perhaps a greater reduction in the hospital accommodation required in India. During the ten years 1889–98 the average number of deaths per 1,000 in the Army in the United Kingdom was 4.32; in 1908, the last year for which we have figures, the average number of deaths per 1,000 was only 2.50, a reduction of nearly one-half on the average of the ten years. The constantly sick and men continually in hospital—and this is a form of expenditure for which the country gets no return in military strength—averaged for the ten years 1889–98 41.14, while in 1908 the rate was 23.94. The decrease has been even more remarkable, because the figures are more serious, in regard to India. In India, during the ten years 1889–98, the rate of deaths per 1,000 was 16.43; in 1908 it was 9.27, while the constantly sick during the ten years' period were 89.61 per 1,000, and, in 1908, 45.81. These are very remarkable figures indeed. There has also been a large diminution in the number of desertions. During the year ending 30th September, 1909, the proportion of men struck off as deserters was lower than in any year during the period, and the net loss by desertions was smaller than in any year since 1905. There has been a rapid fall during the last few years in the proportion of men who have deserted in their first service.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out in his statement two days ago that last year—a very bad year from the point of view of employment—over 20,000 ex-soldiers were found situations in civil life after their military period was completed. The development of these employment agencies for ex-soldiers is constantly tending to give the men who enter the Army a greater assurance of a permanent career contingent on good conduct and continual effort. I bring these facts to the notice of the Committee because I think that everyone who has watched the course of Army administration must have been struck with the very great responsibility which every Government and every House of Commons has
  1502
  towards the nation if its military system is conducted in a manner which leads to undue waste and loss of human material. Let us remember that the Service asks a great deal of every man who enters the Army. The enormous burden of keeping this great mass of soldiery constantly in garrison in Asiatic and African climates is a strain on the manhood and the strength of the nation which must exercise the constant apprehension and anxiety of all concerned in any way with our military methods. We have always been shocked at the high proportion of soldiers who are discovered in the casual wards, men who have perhaps been injured in the course of service abroad, who have lost those precious years of life when they might have learnt a trade and made a footing for themselves, but who have come home after having borne their share of the weight and burden of the Empire, only to find themselves without any means of maintaining themselves with decency and comfort in civil life, and who in consequence are driven to the workhouse and to the relief works or forced into the ranks of inefficient labour with all the depressing effects which that creates upon the standard rates of wages. I think, therefore, we ought all to rejoice in the progress of the Army in the various directions to which I have referred. The improvement has been constant, general, and unceasing, and it is now a diminution which no one can doubt or deny, and remarkable in every respect. All this has brought about a great change, not by any means during the last five years, but during the last fifteen years, in the view taken of the soldier by the civil population at home. The soldier is coming to be looked upon, not as a bad character who has thrown away his chances in life, but as a valued and honoured citizen. We have seen in South Africa how our friends the Boers raise the most vehement protestations whenever there is a proposal to withdraw a regiment of our troops from any garrison in the lately conquered territory. We know perfectly well that the character and conduct of the general run of men who form the private soldiers of our Army is such that soldiers are increasingly becoming valued and honoured citizens, and are not looked upon with any of that old scorn which marked the bad old days now long since gone by.
  5.0 P.M.
  Before I leave this part of the subject, may I say one word in justice to the officers? Ten years ago, when I was a subaltern in the Army, while it would not

  1503
  have been true to say that the discussion of professional matters in the regiment was not considered good form, still there was enough truth in the charge to justify a great deal of the hostile comment which has often been made. But now—and this is a matter which any Member of the Committee can test for himself—I have no hesitation in saying that an officer is despised by his comrades if he is thought to be improperly acquainted with the details of his profession, and that no personal qualities, proficiency in games, or other engaging qualities would be considered in any good regiment as a substitute for an earnest desire to make himself thoroughly acquainted with the professional details of military service. I hope I am not trespassing too long, but I have one point more to make. I have ventured to bring these three sets of arguments before the Committee: Improvements in organisation, improvements in administration, and improvements in the social position of the soldier, with a view to showing that we are making a much better use of our resources.
  I come to a larger and graver question on which I wish to say a word. Are these resources, however they may be utilised, adequate to our needs? We believe they are adequate for our immediate and primary needs. Of course, in a great struggle like the Napoleonic wars no doubt the pressure of events would arise which would produce military establishments of a different order to those which we now support. But I think it is true to say that any doubt or question that the resources which we have, properly used, are adequate and sufficient to enable us to meet our primary needs. By this I mean they are sufficient to enable us to gain time, if necessary, to develop and bring into the field the whole unmeasured strength of the British nation and the British Empire. Let us look at them for a moment. First of all there is the Expeditionary Force of six field divisions. That is a force which, with great respect to my right hon. Friend and if I may be permitted to criticise it at all, can be criticised on the ground, not of being too small, but rather of being too ambitious. Its defence, which the House has heard before, is that the units that compose it are needed for other purposes, and as we have to pay for them for other purposes it would be wasteful and foolish not to give them that extra organisation which will give them
  1504
  the greater range and scope. The second need is the defence of India. I do not attempt to speak to the House as a military expert, but we are assured that, with the arangements which have now been made for the feeding supply of drafts to make good the wastage of war, it will be possible—in the opinion of the high military authorities on whom we rely—to maintain a war on our Indian frontier—having regard to the existing conditions of that wild region—the existing conditions of transport, food supply, etc.—to maintain such a war with superior forces, at any rate, for the first two years. And in these two years Parliament, the country, and the Empire would have to make up their mind—and would have ample time to do so—as to what the course of events in the third year should be. In the third place I come to the question of Home defence. I put it last, but it really stands first, because, if that fails, everything else fails. There is not much use in our maintaining ourselves efficiently in some foreign theatre of war if at the same time we were struck down by what the late Lord Salisbury called "a blow at the heart." May I submit to the Committee in very simple words two or three main propositions upon which we rely to justify the assertion that our existing resources are adequate for the purpose of home defence. The first proposition is this: It is not possible to invade this country with a large army by surprise or in secret, and it is becoming less possible to do it every day. Every country in Europe is in touch with every other country by every conceivable method of telegraphic and telephonic communication, wireless and otherwise, and almost all of these countries are in communication at all times with London. It might conceivably be possible to make a descent with a small force, although, as the House well knows, there is a very powerful school, including a great proportion of the naval authorities, who dispute even that. But a small force, even if they could come, would not be enough to achieve any effective objective. They might cause a great deal of irritation and excitement, and do a great deal of damage, but they would not alter the course or the result of a war. As long as the military force which we maintain in Great Britain is strong enough to make it not worth while for an invader to come unless he comes with an army of a certain size, there is no danger of a sudden, or secret, or surprise

  1505
  attack. After a certain point the chance of detection and consequent interception is seriously increased for very thousand men added to the invading army, until long before—I have purposely avoided taking figures, because I am only anxious to state broad principles—until long before 100,000 men were reached the chances of their being accumulated and transported across the sea in secret would have faded out altogether, and would have been replaced by the certainty that they would be detected and attacked on the voyage. I have no intention of going into the details of embarkation, disembarkation, mobilisation, detrainment, and convoys. All these matters have been the subject of prolonged, profound, and elaborate study by the Committee of Imperial Defence. But I think I am justified in saying that there is a consensus of opinion both amongst the great officers of the Army and Navy—a consensus of opinion in which I think the responsible leaders of both of the great parties are included—that no army large enough to effect decisive, or even to achieve important, results could be embarked or put to sea without being discovered, intercepted, and destroyed before it reached our shores.
  I am speaking at this moment upon the assumption that the Regular Army is kept at home, and that we have, in addition to the Territorial Force, 140,000 or 150,000 of first-rate Regular troops, organised in a manner which certainly makes them equal, unit for unit, to the troops of any country, and equipped with what I may say is the best gun in Europe. I am assuming that that force would be in this country as well as the Territorial Army. Such a position of military strength would render the descent of a small force useless, and would compel the invader to attempt to come in numbers sufficient to make his secret transportation, utterly impossible. On this two questions may be asked. The first question is what is to happen when the Regular Army is out of the country; when the Expeditionary Force has been despatched, or perhaps the Regular troops are engaged in a distant part of the world in some prolonged Colonial or Indian war. The second question—and I believe both were put by the Noble Marquis who addressed us the other day, and who dealt with the subject with knowledge and with sobriety. He said:—
  "You take six months to train your Territorial Force; how do you know that you will possibly secure that breathing space of six months?"
  1506
  I do not think that anyone has said on behalf of the Government that the Territorial Force can never, under any circumstances, be expected to be called upon to fight with less than six months' training. What we have said, and do say, is this: that they never will have to be called on to fight alone, unsupported by any Regular troops, without a period of training much more extended than any which they have up to the present enjoyed. Before the whole of our Regular Army could be sent out of the country two things would have to be established. First of all, it would have to be clear that the command of the sea, the alert, vigilant, effective, command of the sea, was beyond dispute, and that it had been established either by the shock of a great naval decision in a battle or by the maintenance of an effective blockade. And, secondly, when that decision had been established, there is a second point. The mere process of despatching the Expeditionary Force would in itself be an operation involving a measure of delay which would be of the utmost value to the Territorial Army in realising its full possibilities of strength. Those who feel uncomfortable at the measure of security which it at present accorded to "An Englishman's Home" base their fear, I think, on two unreasonable assumptions. First of all, they assume that we can at one and the same moment be so overwhelmingly strong at sea as to be able to afford to send the whole of our Regular Army out of the country, and not merely to send it out of the country, but what is much harder to guarantee, convey it to its distant destination, and at the same moment that we shall be so hopelessly weak that we cannot maintain our own shores against foreign invasion by a sea Power. It is a contradiction in terms. The second assumption is even more unreasonable. It is this: that the Government of this country, the people of this country, would become so absorbed in the foreign expedition, that while they were engaged in despatching month by month, division after division, the whole of our Regular forces to the uttermost ends of the earth, they would forget to embody the Territorials, or to mobilise the Fleet. These two assumptions, I venture to say, have only to be stated clearly to be dismissed from the calculations of reasonable men and from the apprehensions of nervous people. I venture to say, in conclusion, that all parties are, I believe, agreed on the main point in the arguments that I have submitted to the Committee. Lord

  1507
  Lansdowne, in another place, has certainly used arguments which I can most fully subscribe to this subject, and the Leader of the Opposition, who is, unfortunately for us, but fortunately for himself, enjoying a serener atmosphere and a more genial sun, has also on many occasions aided all parties in the House to come to these broad realisations and affirmations of principle upon which the justification of our existing military establishments depend.
  Let me repeat the three main propositions upon which we rely to prove that our military forces are not inadequate for the primary and immediate needs of the country and the Empire. First that no sudden descent could be made in any force with which our Regular and Territorial troops would not easily be able to deal; secondly, that no descent that was not sudden, and consequently, that no descent that was not in small numbers could be made at all, provided we maintained the unquestioned supremacy of the seas, and, thirdly, that the whole Regular Army would not, and even could not, be sent out of the country unless that supremacy had been effectively established, and need not in any case be sent out of the country until the strength and training of the Territorial Army had reached the point that they could take the place of and discharge the function of the Regular troops whom we have now to keep in the United Kingdom. I say that with this reservation it would be open to any Government in a moment of great crisis to run a greater risk if they thought the circumstances justified it, but on the general principles I believe that all parties in the House are agreed, and it is upon these general principles that I would venture, thanking the House for the patience with which they have listened to me, to ask them to afford a full measure of confidence and support to the Estimates laid before them by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: It is the custom of this House that when a right hon. Gentleman intervenes in Debate from the Government Bench his speech should be met by an immediate reply from the Front Opposition Bench. I do not know why that has become the custom unless it is supposed that the statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman from the Government Bench must be so damaging to his political opponents that they cannot allow it to rest for a moment.
  1508
  Some of us may have wondered what manner of intervention the Home Secretary was about to make when he rose. If he will allow me to say so, he certainly has failed to deliver a damaging attack upon his political opponents, and if I rise to reply to him it is only out of courtesy to him and in order not to depart from one of our old traditions. I was speculating why it was that the right hon. Gentleman intervened in this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman is nothing if not audacious. He anticipated remarks which might have occurred to anyone following in an Army Debate by saying at the beginning of his speech that in looking back at the Debates in days gone by he remembered the turbulent scenes for which now no parallel could be found. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of what occurred to everyone now in the House the moment he stood up. His comment was that now peace was only disturbed by some subterranean rumblings, but, looking back upon the past, he thought that those that played the part of cavemen now differed from those who took such part in the past.
  The right hon. Gentleman in his salad clays formed a cave upon the Army Estimates. Now he intervenes in Debate we expect him to tune up or tone down the impression which he thinks some of his colleagues have made upon public opinion. I do not, of course, suggest for a moment any disloyalty or discrepancy, but a desire sometimes to tone down the high lights or to put a little more fervour into the passages which are meant to appeal to hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Labour Benches below the Gangway. Until the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I thought I was mistaken, and that he had no such intention in mind. During all the first part of his speech he appeared in a character which is quite new even to his versatility. The Minister for War on Monday delivered something like a valedictory address, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for the first time in his life, got up to pronounce a panegyric upon one of his colleagues. He passed from that to another character. He could not, I suppose, if it were only for old associations sake, keep Lord Midleton out of his speech, and so, when he came to sound the triumph for the Minister for War, he appeared as devil's advocate—advocatus diaboli—to see that by no manner of means could Mr. Brodrick be beatified now that both sides are agreed upon the Army policy, and that

  1509
  the Minister for War has been so imprudent as to say, upon some occasions, that he found the Army in so good a state that he could not have made the progress he did except upon the sound work effected by his predecessors. I do not think I am going to be drawn, and certainly I will not say more than a few sentences, into this old battle. The right hon. Gentleman opposite must fight his old battles all over again, if only to make it quite clear upon which side he was fighting, but we who have had a little chequered and less glorious career may be allowed to pass a word of comment upon some of his recollections. He paid a perfunctory tribute to Lord Midleton as having been the first Minister who established units and cadres in peace suitable for war. What was his comment when that was done? That it was only to provide jobs for officers out of employment now that the war in South Africa was at an end.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I submit that that is a very imperfect summary of what I said.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: The reply the right hon. Gentleman made was an answer to a speech of mine made at the time, just as has speech was made to-day. I had nothing to do with the War Office at the time. I was Chief Secretary for Ireland. I got up as he did and explained exactly the merits which he has attributed to this scheme. I explained the point was not in calling these things army corps, but in having units and general officers and a general staff which would lead them in war, and the right hon. Gentleman got up—I am sure my memory is not at fault—and said in reply, "Now we see the real reason is that you have a lot of officers upon your hands, and you must have six Army corps in order to find them billets." The right hon. Gentleman, going into these same ancient matters, gave the stock arguments, which was very generally accepted—that organisation by divisions is probably more suited to our needs than organisation by army corps, but you never would have had these divisions, or the possibility of organising them, unless you had first army corps, because it is a matter of history, not to be forgotten, that it was not Mr. Brodrick, but earlier predecessors of his who first spoke of army corps upon the advice of the military advisers in order to teach the people that in any unit of the Army you must have a proper complement of all arms and of auxiliary troops. That is the very reason. Apart from that, as far as numbers are
  1510
  concerned, it was only two ways of naming the same thing. The six big divisions are made up of almost precisely the same troops, and the development in the amount of Artillery to be added would be the same amount of troops as these army corps.
  I do not go into that except for this purpose, that I should like the House and the people of this country to know that there is a real accord, as I think, upon the main principles of our Army policy between both the Government and the Opposition, and the Minister for War has recognised in so full a manner the work of his predecessors that really we are not called upon after seven years to defend them against the militant reminiscences of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Perhaps I may say this because it is germane to the present situation. I am not overstating the case when I say that the Minister for War has admitted that he is not satisfied with the Artillery of the Territorial Forces. If that is the case, I think it is inopportune on the part of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to deride the system of army corps on the ground that they contain Regulars as well as Auxiliaries. Will any man who watches the progress of things be bold enough to declare that in future the stiffening of the Regular Artillery may be important, but nothing of a stiffening element in the constitution of our Territorial Forces is needed? We have an argument against that that you will not get the Territorial Army to consider itself seriously as an army unless it embraces what are called the three arms—Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry—against that which is a sentimental argument I would advance another sentimental argument, and it is this: that if the Army knows one of its arms is quite illusory, it will fail in its faith. Both these are sentimental arguments, by which I mean we are dealing with men of emotional feelings. I believe a stiffening by Regular Artillery would go a great way to improve the morale and raise the hearts of the Territorial Force and give them confidence in the important mission they have to carry out. The Minister for War, speaking of the Territorial Artillery on Monday, spoke of it as stock that he hoped would blossom some day. Those who watched that Artillery and acted with it last year, as I did, would have to admit that it was often rooted in the soil, because the horse teams were unable to move the guns from the positions which they at first took up. I only touch upon this because it is relevant to the present situation. The Home

  1511
  Secretary, in criticising the past, said that there was no provision for making good the wastage in war. I will not go into that argument. It might have been true for a few months; it was not true while the Militia had connection with the Army, which it had for many years. It was the work of the Militia to make good the wastage in war: it was done so in the Napoleonic wars, in the Crimean War, and in the South African War, but in a period of transition there might have been a time when there was no provision for making good the wastage in war. Why I dwell upon that is this, that, turning from the Home Secretary to the Minister for War, anyone who heard that right hon. Gentleman's speech could not doubt but that he knows the Special Reserve have not fulfilled that function, and that it is not adequate. He is going to have a Departmental Committee to enquire whether or not it can be made better. The conclusion I wish to arrive at is this, that if we take the account of the present Army scheme with the tone that the Minister of War gives to it, then I do not think we have clearly a scheme in every part of which is to be reality. In respect to that important part of the scheme which is the device for making good the wastage for war let us know clearly how it stands. The Minister for War must acknowledge that a great deal more is to be done before the seventy-four battalions of the Special Reserve are in a position to make good the wastage of war directly war breaks out. I do not think I will touch upon the claim, at any rate I will not dilate upon the claim put forward by the Home Secretary that all this has been effected at the same time that a reduction has been effected in the Army. I do not think that is so. I could have said that on Monday, but I did not do so because I did not want to intrude any polemical matter into a Debate which had been conducted without anything controversial at all. I say it now because we must all disabuse our minds from the idea that when the prices of everything are rising you can make reductions and get the same value for a lower sum which you did for the higher sum. It cannot be done. It is not financially true that the Army at the present moment is costing £2,000,000 less than it cost when the right
  1512
  hon. Gentleman took office. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was only able to present the present total to the Committee because in the course of this year he will not have to continue paying the annuity on a loan amounting to some £300,000 a year.
  Mr. HALDANE: That is next year.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: That is one thing that gives you an apparent reduction when you are not effecting a real reduction, and you cannot do it if you are to have the same number of good men as before. There are other financial elements to be considered. When the right hon. Gentleman took over the Army Estimates we were paying nearly £1,500,000 for the rearmament of the Artillery. Now that has been completed, the money can be utilised for another purpose. If that operation had not been completed, you would have required the £1,500,000, and here again it is not a real reduction. Another financial element is that India is now paying a larger subvention to the cost of our Army. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman because he has been able to do more for less money, but we must realise that nobody will ever be able to do more for less money, and when the time comes not to enlarge the framework of our land forces, but to make every part of them a reality, I have no doubt that if we are to get better value we shall have to pay more. If it ever happens to be the duty of the Secretary of War to come here and say that the Special Reserve is not fit for its functions, and that to make it fit you must pay more money, I trust we shall not have the kind of experience we had when the Home Secretary achieved his fame by directing his attacks against the Minister for War in the party to which the right hon. Gentleman was supposed to belong.
  I think I have now said quite enough on that part of the Home Secretary's speech, which I have already described as being a panegyric on the War Minister, or a caveat against the beatification of Mr. Brodrick. At the end of his speech the right hon. Gentleman reverted to his familiar rôle of trying to alter the impression made by the speech of one of his colleagues. The Home Secretary evidently thought that the speech made by the Minister for War placed our military needs too high, and suggested that the preparation we have made to meet those needs need not be so great as it is, and certainly ought not to be greater. He prefaced those remarks by

  1513
  asking, "Are these resources adequate to our needs?" which is a familiar rhetorical device. I am afraid that some hon. Members behind him trembled, because they thought he was going to say it would be necessary to ask for more men and more money; but having roused the expectations of his hon. Friends and secured their attention, he went on to say that the Expeditionary Force, if criticised at all, must be criticised on the ground that it is too ambitious. He was not content to leave matters where they were, that is to say, that we should agree upon having an expeditionary force of six divisions, and that we should only differ, if at all, as to whether we have really got the article which we all agree we ought to have. Then he touched upon the defence of India, and I trust the Committee will mark this: He seemed to me to narrow that phase of the question down to the garrison of India, leaving the garrison in South Africa and our garrisons in other parts out of account. I think that was a curious omission, considering that the subterranean rumblings which he referred to related not to the garrison of India, but to the garrison in South Africa. The Home Secretary rather confirmed the suggestion that it might, under certain circumstances, be wise to diminish the number of troops maintained oversea.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My point was whether our resources were adequate for our immediate and primary needs.
  Mr. WYNDHAM: Then the right hon. Gentleman left this point open. The point I wish to raise is whether it is wise that we should agree on some standard, if we can, as to what our oversea Army should be. Last night South Africa was selected; but why not India? India was selected two or three years ago, and we were then told it might be possible to reduce the number of troops there, but we are not told that now, because no man in his senses would suggest it. We are now referred to South Africa, and we are told that you can safely diminish the garrison there. I hope what has happened in the case of India will be a warning to us in this respect. No one will anticipate that trouble in South Africa will necessitate the ordering of more troops there, but everyone who realises the vast character of our Empire must feel that a force in which there are only seventy-four battalions of Infantry is not a large force, and that its distribution over such an enormous area must depend upon tem-
  1514
  porary circumstances, and nothing which happens in one place at one time ought to suggest the idea that you can reduce our strength below seventy-four battalions. Our army has only been cut down to that number by the great efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman, by Mr. Arnold-Forster, and by Mr. Brodrick. Garrisons have been withdrawn which may have to be restored. Even the Minister for War may now be considering whether he will not have to send a battalion to some foreign station. If he does this then you must have more and not less than seventy-four battalions abroad.
  The reason why hon. Members are so fond of urging that under certain circumstances you can reduce a garrison is because they know that if this is done you can make a proportionate reduction in your home Army. I wish we could agree once and for all to have a standard in these matters, and have an expeditionary force of six divisions of all arms and an oversea Army comprising seventy-four battalions of infantry at least. I believe it would make for the peace of the world that all countries should know that Great Britain has a standard in these matters. Such a policy would prevent any sudden increases of a costly and uneconomical character, and it would give confidence to those who wish us well. If you allow the great Powers of Europe to believe that the relative proportions in what, after all, is a small Army are subject to drastic change owing to political changes in this country, you are not helping to keep the peace of the world, but you are introducing into the minds of statesmen in other countries an element of disturbance which may ultimately break up the peace of the world. I have spoken to-night at greater length than I intended, and as a matter of fact I did not intend to speak at all until the Home Secretary rose. The conclusion to which I invite the Committee to arrive is that we should agree upon a standard for our Expeditionary Force—and I take the right hon. Gentleman's standard. Let us agree upon the standard for our oversea Army, and I take his standard; upon a standard for our Territorial Force, and again I take his standard. Let us for the future see that every one of these three component parts, well balanced as they are, is made a reality and not a sham, and let us see that there are enough men to give you really fourteen divisions of the Territorial Army, and the other six divisions which have been referred to.

  1515
  Let us also see that there are enough men to make good the wastage of war, enough men passing into the Reserve to fall back upon if war be prolonged. Let that be the work of the future, and if the right hon. Gentleman pursues that work he will do so enjoying our confidence, and in the belief that he is doing his best to make our Army adequate to our needs.
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I belong to the same school of thought as the hon. Member for Hexham, who moved the reduction. But it seems to me that, however much we may desire economy, there are certain cardinal truths which must be recognised. One is that however much we desire a reduction of armaments it is a mistake to believe that we are nearer to it than we really are. Then, since organisation is necessary for war, all loyal support and assistance should be universally and impartially given to those who are lending their minds and their labours to making that organisation as economical and efficient as possible. That this latter truth has been realised is shown by the almost unbroken chorus of praise which has been bestowed upon the Secretary for War during this Debate, and to which I am very glad indeed to add my small tribute. I should not have intervened in this Debate but for a remark made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and some remarks made afterwards by other hon. Members with reference to the Territorial Artillery. I do not pretend to have the knowledge of the art and science of war possessed by the right hon. Baronet, but perhaps the House will pardon a few words from one who has had some little experience of the Artillery, first in the Regulars, then in the Lancashire Field Artillery, and finally in the Territorial Horse Artillery. These remarks are offered only as by one who has had some little practical experience in this way. Some of the remarks made on this subject of the Territorial Horse Artillery, including the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), seem to express doubt that there is any prospect of creating a competent Territorial Field Artillery. That is in effect what the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. G. Wyndham) has also said. I must say that the tone adopted on the subject of the Territorial Artillery is one which is frankly to be deplored. In the first place, I do
  1516
  not believe that the charges will prove ultimately to be true, and, in the second place, if anything would make them true, it is the tone adopted. It is very hard to have to strive against accusations of in-competency and against prophecies of failure. If the Territorial Horse Artillery and Field Artillery were given more encouragement, a great deal more might be expected of them in the future. Remember the success of this experiment hangs in the balance. We have not had much time to find out what we are worth. Some of us have only had one training, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War has said, this training of Artillery is undoubtedly a slow process. Many may think it is an impossible process for the Territorial arm; but, at any rate, it is a slow process, and surely ample time ought to be given before condemning the experiment.
  What is the alternative to this Territorial Artillery. Of course we might have no home artillery, no artillery except the batteries which would leave the country in case of war, but that, I think, is an untenable proposition from the start. Another proposition is that we might have Regular Artillery for home defence, but I think that, too, must be dismissed, because almost every authority has plainly said that to provide home artillery on a regular basis would be too expensive and impracticable in other ways. I remember reading in "The Times" an article by the Military Correspondent, in which he said:—
  "It is not practical politics to expect that this Government, or any Government, will give us 196 batteries on a regular footing for the Territorial Force. The cost would he prohibitive, even if we could find the necessary recruits, which is exceedingly doubtful."
  That is absolutely true, and I think the alternative of Regular Artillery is bound to be dismissed. The third alternative is the one proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, that we should have throughout the kingdom a number of batteries formed on the same basis as the Lancashire Field Artillery—that is to say, formed with a nucleus of about 25 per cent. of Regular soldiers. I think the Secretary of State for War will agree that that is a very costly alternative. I know that the three batteries of the Lancashire Brigade, to which I had the honour to belong, cost something like £21,000 per year, and the infusion of 25 per cent. of Regulars into the Home Artillery would make a very considerable difference in the cost of our Home Artillery defence. That is not to say that some infusion of Regulars

  1517
  might not be desirable. Personally, I think we might have more Regular non-commissioned officers. I am perfectly sure that if the Secretary of State for War had been in the position I was in during the last training, when we had practically only three non-commissioned officers who had ever been in the Regular Army, and when it was absolutely necessary to put some Regular soldier at the head of each team—because these raw teams need a Regular non-commissioned officer to look after them at first—then I am sure he would sympathise with me in my desire to have more Regular non-commissioned officers per battery. That might be a more feasible proposition than that of reconstituting the batteries on the Lancashire basis. This does not mean that a new system should be produced, or that the present system is a failure; it merely means a slight modification of the present system. Even without such modification, however, I do not think the charge is justified that the Territorial Artillery is bound to be a failure.
  I think various points are forgotten. They are generally compared to Regular batteries. In the first place, I do not think that comparison is fair, because our material in men is really a far better material than in the Regular batteries. Our gunners and drivers are men of exceptional intelligence. I should say that, on the whole, the gunners and drivers in my battery are absolutely up to the average of non-commissioned officers in the Regular Army; they are embryonic non-commissioned officers, and I think in a short time you may expect a great deal more of these men than you will get from the gunners and drivers in a Regular battery. That is one thing which ought to be considered. Another thing, as the Home Secretary has said, is that in the case of a raid you would undoubtedly have ample time to get your batteries in a better state of training than you could under ordinary circumstances. We have heard a great deal about raids, as if a raid is a thing you could send like a telegram. That is not the case. We should have ample time after war was declared before the Regular batteries were out of the country to train our Artillery batteries. That, too, has to be taken into account in considering this problem of the Territorial Artillery. If I wanted to adduce another instance in support of the contention that this Artillery will be effective, I have only to go to Canada. When I was there I saw something of the Canadian system. It is in every respect almost identical with the
  1518
  Territorial Artillery, and they pronounced that to be an undoubted success. If I had to draw upon personal experience, the training of last year would provide another instance of how promising things look. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover said these batteries will remain rooted to the soil. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to come down to our training. He would then see that our battery is not rooted to the soil; it is perfectly mobile. We are not up to the standard of Horse Artillery—and it is not to be expected—but we get our guns about; we can move at a trot, and even at a gallop, though perhaps it is not always a premeditated gallop, and we do manage to go through what at all events is Field Artillery work. If we can do Field Artillery work in fifteen days, I do not see why we should not do Horse Artillery work in six months.
  Mr. ARTHUR LEE: What does the hon. Member mean by doing Field Artillery work in fifteen days?
  Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: Our battery is sufficiently mobile to accompany Infantry. We could not accompany Cavalry, because we are not sufficiently mobile; but I think we should be able eventually, providing we have the Ehrhardt guns which the Secretary of State for War says we are to have, to accompany Cavalry on their manœuvres and on service. In any case, I do think it is a pity to condemn or cast reflections upon this experiment before it has been thoroughly and practically tried. There are some difficulties, no doubt, and some points needing attention. I see the Secretary of State for War says it is still difficult to get the driving up to the standard. That is undoubtedly so. It is the most difficult part of all the work in a battery. It is very much more difficult than gunnery. There ought, I think, to be more attempt made to get old drivers—men who would know their work and whom you could put in responsible positions. Another most important thing is that we should have the same horses year after year. We have undoubtedly more or less untrained men, and it is not fair to put them on untrained horses. If we train our horses one year and then get other horses another year a great deal of work is thrown away. It has been complained in some quarters that the officers are not sufficiently trained. That is met by the fact that to a certain extent they are drawn from the ranks of retired Regular officers, and also by the fact that the

  1519
  officers are undoubtedly inspired with the very greatest keenness. I have noticed that myself, and I think they are getting on very much more rapidly than might be expected of them or than would be the case in the ordinary course in the Regular Army.
  We find the question of the horses the most important point, and perhaps the Committee will excuse me if I make a few remarks, mainly, I am afraid, of a negative character and not very helpful. A very excellent scheme has been put forward and adopted by the Wiltshire batteries, by which a certain number of horses are purchased and are handed over and boarded out with tradesmen and farmers, who keep them free on condition of their being allowed to use them. They come back to the batteries on occasions of training, and, of course, they would come back to the batteries on occasions of war. The difficulty in the way of that is the provision of the capital sum necessary at the outset. It has been met in the Wiltshire case by the generosity, I believe, of certain officers, but that undoubtedly is not possible in every ease, and I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he could give us any hope of the Government or the county associations coming to our assistance in this matter. It would, I think, make a great difference to the success of the scheme if the same horses were obtainable year after year. Secondly, I think it is of the greatest importance that there should be no overlapping in the horse scheme of the Territorial Army. There is in some cases a suspicion of overlapping in the case of officers—there was at all events in the Militia—and in the event of mobilisation an officer would find himself under the necessity of trying to be in two places at once. It is not, however, so serious in the case of officers as in the case of horses. A regiment can get on with a shortage of officers, but it is very difficult to get on with a shortage of horses. A soldier without his horse is rather inadequate for the work he has to perform. We do not want a stage army of horses, and we do not want when we get to war to have to put two men on one horse or do without them altogether. I do think it is necessary, in the first place, to have the same horses year after year, to have the horses which are trained and continue to be trained always available, and, in the second place, to have enough horses to prevent overlapping.
  1520
  6.0 P.M.
  There were two things which the Secretary of State for War said the other day which I very much welcomed. First, we are to have the Ehrhardt gun. The gun we have at present is not fit for the work. It is very difficult to meet the criticisms of bystanders who say that elephants would be far more adequate to move the present guns than horses. I am very glad to hear that we are to have a lighter gun, and I think it will do much to promote our success. The second point is with regard to new ranges. That is a necessary matter. Perhaps I may have one final grumble. We have lately been provided with dial sights. Some hon. Members may not know what a dial sight is, but I think the Secretary of State for War does, because an officer of a battery was so pleased with them that I believe he sent one as a Christmas present to the right hon. Gentleman. These sights should be made of steel, and should be accurately graded, but they are made of wood, and are not accurately graded. I do earnestly ask that we should be given adequate equipment with which we can practice properly, and I do think it would do much to contribute to our success. While I fear I have detained the House too long, I hope I may have done something to set forth the views of those who not only thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done in the last few years, but who absolutely refuse to believe that there is not a really promising future before the Territorial Artillery.
  Colonel HICKMAN: As a new Member of this House, I rise with great diffidence, but as an old soldier of some experience I hope I may receive the indulgence of hon. Members in making my first speech. Any little criticisms I may utter on the Army Estimates are, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe, made in no party sense, but are offered with an idea to the best interests of the country in general and of the Army in particular. In the first place, I noticed in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to which I listened with great interest, that he told us he was providing for the six divisions of the Expeditionary Force, when mobilised—for each one of them—a company of signallers and telegraphists. I was under the impression, from the words of the right hon. Gentleman, that to each division there was to be given a complete company of signallers, but on reference to the Estimates I find that the total number of men

  1521
  allowed for is only six sergeants and seventy-two men—that is, only one company for the whole six divisions. I speak under correction, but it has been my personal experience, whenever troops are actually engaged in war and divisions have been formed by battalions and brigades, and there being no provision made beforehand for brigade and divisional signallers, that the custom has obtained among generals of brigades and of divisions of requisitioning the battalion commanders and taking not only their signallers, but their signalling officers. I am quite sure that any officer who has been in command of a battalion in war time, or in command of a brigade, will bear me out when I say that this custom has proved greatly detrimental to the efficiency of the unit itself. If I may be allowed to offer a suggestion, it is that there ought to be a regular corps of signallers for the whole Army, so that when your divisions are mobilised you will be able to have sufficient signallers for each brigade and each division, without diminishing the signallers trained in peace for work in war with each regiment. It appears to me that, in order to get this, a very simple plan would be to pass the signallers as they come from the regiment into a reserve and to use them in the telegraph service, where they would, from the similarity of the work of telegraphists to the Morse signalling, to which they are accustomed, keep themselves ready for resuming their duties when called out as Reservists to join the regiments on mobilisation. If all signallers passed to the Reserve were treated in this way, you would find in a few years you would be able to have, at the time of mobilisation, sufficient signallers for all the necessary divisions and brigades.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the suggestion that the driving of the Territorial Artillery left something to be desired. I would venture to suggest that the only way to make the Field Artillery efficient in driving is to give them horses. It is not sufficient, however, to give them horses when they are actually called out for training, but it is absolutely necessary for the efficiency of any battery of Territorial Artillery that it should be provided at all times with at least one team, so that the different units of the battery may in their turn, throughout the year, practice driving and thus become efficient when the time arrives for them to drive as a battery altogether. They would then be one and all efficient in that line.
  1522
  The Secretary for War was very optimistic in his statement as to the supply of recruits for the Army; indeed, he said that the units were chock-full. But it is rather hard to understand this, seeing that he afterwards added that by slightly lowering the standard he was able to keep the units full. Those two statements appear to be not quite consistent one with the other. If you are driven to lowering any particular standard it rather looks as if the supply was not quite equal to the demand. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the system at present in vogue of having Regular officers in the higher commands of the Territorial Army has been such a great success that he was contemplating extending it to the lower grades. I venture to ask him, will he give us any further information on that point, because it is one in which the whole Territorial Army is extremely interested. Is it his intention to put Regular officers in command of Territorial battalions? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an answer to that question. He told us that when he had mobilised the six divisions five of them were nearly complete, in all the essentials and ready for war, but that there was one thing lacking, and that was the Army Service Corps was not quite complete in transport. I submit, as an old soldier of some experience in war, that no unit can possibly be efficient where the transport supply is deficient.
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I said five divisions were complete even to the Army Service Corps, but to make up the sixth division, more Army Service Corps was required.
  Colonel HICKMAN: I stand corrected. May I ask how long the right hon. Gentleman expects it will be before the Army Service Corps question is settled and the sixth division made as complete as the others?
  Mr. HALDANE: As soon as the Reserve grows. We have taken the Army Service Corps under a two years' engagement. The Reserve is growing and will grow very quickly, and there will be no difficulty in dealing with this matter.
  Colonel HICKMAN: The right hon. Gentleman also told us he was starting six new Cavalry depots in order to do away with the Reserve Squadrons under the present system, so that the mobilisation equipment can be stored ready for mobilisation instead of being carried about on

  1523
  the backs of the units themselves. I should like to know whether, at these depots, there are going to be stables and horses as well as mobilisation stores. Next I come to the census of horses, and I wish to say that, within my experience in the country, this census is by no means complete. I cannot understand how it is carried on. It is supposed to be done by the police, but as an owner of horses myself, and as a member of the hunt committee of my county, and knowing a number of people who keep a great many horses for business and other purposes, I must say I am not aware of anybody who has ever been approached by any policeman to ask him anything about his horses. Therefore I can only imagine that any census the right hon. Gentleman may have received as to the number of horses in England must be extremely incomplete. It would be no very great hardship if all owners of horses in this country were asked to fill in a form similar to that which the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries sends round every year as to the number of sheep, cattle, poultry, etc., which owners have, and the increase in the number of these particular animals and birds. I do not think it would be any very great hardship to ask owners of horses to fill in a form, giving the age of the horse, its height, and the probable use to which it might hereafter be put. I think that would help things a great deal. It is rather hard to ask the county associations not only to classify the horses required for the mobilisation of the Territorial Force, but to do it also for the Regular Forces. It would be much more practicable and much more commendable to the Regular Forces, and also to the Territorial associations, if the Remount Establishment were asked to do its own work. If the right hon. Gentleman would ask that Department how much it would cost to make a classification of all the horses in the country which would be required on mobilisation he would, I think, find that the sum would not much exceed £5,000.
  Then we come to the supply of officers. The right hon. Gentleman has taken great trouble to have a committee of distinguished officers to find out how the supply of officers is going on, and he told us he is satisfied that we are getting plenty of officers. I find that statement, however, rather inconsistent with his other statement that he was establishing a system
  1524
  of nomination, which appears to me to nullify the idea that we are getting the same class of officer that we used to get, that we are able to obtain by competitive examination the same number that we had available ten or fifteen years ago, if it is necessary to go to schoolmasters and ask them to nominate those whom they think fit to be officers in the Army. It follows logically that the supply of officers is not sufficient to meet the demand. There has been a great deal talked in this Debate as to the reasons why there is a scarcity of officers coming up, and there has been a good deal said about the pay of officers. The right hon. Gentleman himself has told us that the junior grades of the Army are quite as well paid as similar gentlemen in civil life or in the Civil offices of the Government, but I should wish most emphatically on behalf of the officers of the Army to say that the civilian gentlemen to whom the Secretary of State alludes are by no means in the same position, and are not expected to do the same things as the officers in His Majesty's Army, and, therefore, whatever money they may get in pay is not an analagous case at all. As for the allowances that the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, I think you will find, if you ask any regimental officer, that there are very few subaltern officers indeed who receive any allowance at all, and they have always been living in barracks on their £95 a year.
  I think the question of shortage of officers in the Army has something to do with the change of system at the head of the Army. I am not alluding to the right hon. Gentleman or to any Secretary of State for War, but I am drawing comparisons between the old system of Commander-in-Chief and Military Secretary and the present Army Council and a Selection Board. When any officer before, in the time of a Commander-in-Chief, thought himself aggrieved in any way he could always go and see the Military Secretary, and he could always get an answer to any question he wished to put. Moreover, if he requested he might be brought up before the Commander-in-Chief to obtain the redress of any grievance he wished to bring forward; but I am informed by officers that at the present time they cannot get to see anybody, because nobody is responsible, and where you have a body of men like the Army Council one shifts the matter off on to other shoulders, and no one will give an answer fair and square on any question. The right hon.

  1525
  Gentleman quoted to us a most touching and interesting quotation from the celebrated German writer, Von der Goltz, and if you will allow me I will read it again to refresh our memory:—
  "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."
  The right hon. Gentleman deduces from those words of this celebrated German writer his conclusion that voluntary service produces and conduces to the conditions desired by Von der Goltz. That was the inference that we naturally got, but I leave it to the student of military history to consider whether the real intention of Von der Goltz was not to show that compulsory service in Germany, where every young man is forced to think something of the welfare of his country, and to do something for the honour and glory of his country and its defence, where there is a bringing up of the young men of the country in patriotism and the improvement of their physique and the training of their minds under discipline, did something to draw the civilian and the soldier together and improve the civilian, when he had left the Army, in whatever grade of life it may please God to call him.
  Captain GUEST: I think the few words that one wishes to address to the House on this subject would be better chosen upon a branch of the service to which one belongs, and it will be upon that branch that I will draw the attention of the Committee to an item in the new organisation which I very much welcome. It is the abolition of the depot squadrons in Cavalry regiments. I know that commanding officers have tried in vain to bring about a state of affairs which might in the end result in their having squadrons with strength somewhere up to the number of ninety-six or even 100 men in the ranks to lead into the field, but the depot squadron, hanging as an appendage and an encumbrance to the regiment has always stood in the way of this advantage. I think the abolition of the depot will result in giving a regiment not only greater strength in officers and men, but will relieve the commanding officer himself of a great deal of trouble and worry in looking after his regiment. If the abolition of this depot squadron will bring about the result of having a greater number of troopers on parade, then
  1526
  I think a great step will have been taken to improve the effectiveness and the mobility of the Cavalry regiments. There is one branch connected with the Cavalry service in which I regret the action taken, i.e., the abolition of the Yeomanry school, which, I think, played a very important part in the training of officers and which is now non-existent, the new system being that officers should be attached to a Cavalry regiment for five or six weeks. It may, of course, be a very pleasant sojourn for them and for the regiment, but I doubt very much whether the real practical details of a soldier's career are learnt by that attachment for five or six weeks to a Cavalry regiment. I do not believe that military knowledge is to be obtained in the ante-room, and I do not believe that such operations of a field engineer as are necessary for the Cavalry officer to know can necessarily be learnt in that way.
  In fact I feel that the practical consideration of detail and technique are overcoming the qualities of dash and enter-price which used to be the qualifications of a Cavalry leader. I feel that these cannot be obtained except in the school and in a class instructed by skilled officers and skilled tutors. That is the only form and the only way in which these can be obtained, and for that reason I regret that the Yeomanry school has been abolished, and I fear that the Yeomanry, as a branch, and the Army and the Service may suffer very considerably in consequence of that step having been taken. There is one point in connection with the Army in the field I should like to dwell upon for a moment, and it was brought to my notice by a topic referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Wolverhampton (Colonel Hickman). He dwelt upon the necessity for brigades and divisions having special signalling corps attached to them for work in the field. I would like to dilate upon this question of signalling, if I may, for a minute, and to say that it must be apparent that no matter how good your troops or officers are, unless you have a complete system of intercommunication between units in the field you cannot possibly expect to get the best results out of the force under your command.
  A few months ago I had the privilege of watching the German manœuvres, and I noticed that they had spent a very great deal of time in studying this question of intercommunication of units even to the limits of the firing line. The operations

  1527
  of the field telephones, the field telegraphs, cycles, motor cycles, and even the air balloon signals were carried on with a degree of activity which was most remarkable. I appreciate that in this country we are doing very much the same thing, but if I might make a humble suggestion, it would be that under the present system the organisation of our units appears to have for its object men adapted and suitable for this purpose. I would suggest that these men, instead of being attached to any particular regiment, should belong to a company specially formed and trained for that purpose, and that they might be disseminated over the field on the day of battle, whether it is a case of manœuvres or a case of war, and the advantage is that they would understand each other's signals and each other's tricks, which are only picked up where men have worked side by side in the same school and under the same tuition.
  There is one more point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee, and one in which I hope both sides of the House will join me in approving of. It is that we are getting to that democratic and healthy condition of affairs where promotion is for merit, and merit alone. The existence of a Selection Committee is, I think, responsible for this great improvement. I think it must be much more encouragement to a recruit to feel that, should he do his duty well and show ability and keenness, there is more than a reasonable probability that he may in due course obtain a commission in some other branch of the Service, and I think, as regards officers, it is frequently an inducement to them to stay on where they would otherwise be tempted to leave. I know from my experience there are a good number of most experienced and capable officers who feel that there is a deadlock, so that, except for accident or the chance of distinction in the field, they may never be able to obtain the command of a regiment, or any other high command. I think if such a man realises that if he stops on there is a Selection Committee who watches over his efforts, and who are capable of offering him promotion in other branches of the Service, it will be an inducement to stay, and I think that many of these men would remain much longer with their regiments, to the benefit of the taxpayers. It is certainly much fairer that it should be so.
  1528
  In the course of the speeches of the last two days I have noticed that the attitude adopted by most speakers has been one of criticism of details, and I humbly submit that that is a most excellent sign. The fact that details have come under such close consideration from so many speakers in so many parts of this House shows clearly, as the Home Secretary explained with such ability, that there is absolute agreement upon the fundamental principles of our present Army scheme. But I think there is perhaps another inference to be drawn from these critical discussions, and that is we have been discussing machinery, especially that which is necessary for the maintenance of the Army in the field, which it would have been impossible to discuss five or six years ago, for the best of all reasons, that the machinery did not exist at all. I feel that no one can take any part, however small, in this Debate without congratulating the Secretary of State for War on his great achievements, his great performances and the great debt that this country owes to him for his services in the last five years. He has, in the face of great opposition—perhaps, however, I had better not use the word opposition, as it might be misunderstood—but he has, in the face of great obstacles, achieved what he set out to do, and that was to bring the Army a little more into touch with the nation at large. He has levelled up all branches of the Regular and Territorial forces by the new system of a General Staff, and the effect has been to give them a language in which they can all understand each other and think alike. But I am glad that his efforts have not been confined to the United Kingdom. By increasing the strength of the Home divisions he has enabled the Indian Army and ourselves to be on exactly the same footing, which everyone will agree is a great advantage for troops or officers coming from one country to another. If it stopped there one might feel that he had not quite succeeded; but now that the Colonies have accepted our Imperial Staff idea, and have said that they are prepared to organise in the future upon the model of which we have set them the pattern, it seems to me that thereby he has been instrumental in laying a foundation upon which we shall be able to build in the near future an Imperial Army for the defence of this great Empire, and there is reason to suppose that it will improve as the years go by. He has almost overcome a greater difficulty still—he has persuaded this nation to adopt voluntarily a system of

  1529
  defence suitable and adequate for its purposes, such as other countries have only been able to obtain on a conscriptive basis.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: This afternoon's proceedings were opened by two very interesting speeches, one from the Home Secretary and the other from my right hon. Friend Mr. Wyndham. It is very gratifying to us to notice that in both those speeches, and also in the eulogies which have been showered upon the head of the right hon. Gentleman, there is apparently a foundation for continuity in our military policy. It is a thing in which we have been very deficient, and I believe we have been the losers by it; but we are now agreed on the standard of our requirements. It is impossible that we can have an efficient Army or an Army which can, under any circumstances, satisfy our requirements unless we agree on both sides as regards that standard of requirements. The Home Secretary naturally eulogised the right hon. Gentleman and supported the scheme which he had put forward, but that eulogy was tainted to a certain extent, because we know that he was one of the strongest critics of the previous scheme of Lord Midleton. I think he should bear in mind that, whatever the merits of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, it is based on the scheme of Lord Midleton.
  It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there has been a reduction of crime in the Army; but, from his experience of the Army, he knows perfectly well that the number of courts-martial held is no criterion whatever as regards crime, and that a small number of courts-martial in a regiment is usually the result of what is known as screening crime. I do not believe for a moment that the crime which exists in the Army is gauged by the number of courts-martial scheduled at the end of the year. The right hon. Gentleman to a very large extent dispelled the idea which we have of invasion of this country. I am prepared to go with him to a certain extent, and I believe that the sudden invasion—the waking up in the morning and finding ourselves invaded by a foreign foe—is out of the question. I do not believe that state of affairs will ever come about. The right hon. Gentleman also says that for the purpose of our Expeditionary Force being in a different part of the world it is necessary that our Navy must be established in an overwhelmingly powerful position.
  1530
  His premises may be right. We may have established an overwhelmingly powerful naval position, and our Expeditionary Force may be abroad. At present events move quickly, and it is quite possible that at one moment, although we may hold this overwhelmingly strong naval position, yet at another, and in a very short time, we might not hold that position. It is during this temporary diminution in the strength of our naval position that it is absolutely necessary that the forces which we look to to repel invasion must be able to defend this country without the assistance of the Regular Forces.
  As to the question of the officers in the Army, I do not think their position is adequately considered by hon. Members or by the right hon. Gentleman himself. There is now a tendency for those young men who used to enter the Army, who were put into it by their families or their advisers, to go into other walks of life. These young men should be attracted from those professions to join in the service of their country and do what they can to protect it in case of need. But there is the question of pay, and it is perfectly idle to say that the question of pay does not come into the matter at all. It is a matter of great importance, and when we think that the pay of the junior officer is equal to the pay of officers at the time of the Waterloo campaign, when we consider that the cost of everything has gone up and that wages in other walks of life have increased, the remuneration paid to officers in the Army is indeed a scandal. The right hon. Gentleman passes it off with regard to allowances, and to the superficial critic that may be an answer. But it is not an actual answer. These allowances mean something. They certainly amount to a small sum, but they do not correspond to the increased expenditure which falls upon officers. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman to consider that question of the pay of the junior officers in the Army, because it is a question for their parents and guardians, and they have to see what they can do to supplement the income which they will receive in the Army so as to decide whether they shall put them in the Army or adopt some other profession. I should have liked a little more information with regard to the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman has in view in selecting candidates from schools. I do not know under what circumstances he proposes to select them, or whether he is going to allow those who are unfortunate in the examinations to be

  1531
  able by some back-door or other to enter the Army. It is a matter which ought to be cleared up.
  With regard to the practical education of the officer on joining the Army, I am not certain that we are in a position to be quite satisfied about it. The education at Sandhurst is certainly very efficient, and is a very good education to a certain extent. The cadet is taught fortification, topography, and various other subjects in a practical way, but the Cavalry cadet is not taught his profession in the practical way in which he might be. He ought to join his regiment with a practical knowledge of stable management, which he does not understand, and with a practical knowledge of veterinary science, which he does not do at present. These are points well worthy of the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. The junior officer is supposed to have passed through all the practical education which he can receive in the lower grades in the Army, and when he arrives at the rank of captain and major he enters the staff college. I would urge the necessity of still further extending that staff college education. It is invaluable for an Army, and all those officers who have passed the staff college are far in advance of all the other officers that have not passed it. It is contemplated to enlarge it, but I should like to recommend for future years that he might lay the foundation of a further extension of that education.
  It is a question of paramount importance that the supply of horses should be most carefully husbanded by the Secretary of State. There is at present, I understand, a census going on with regard to horses. I have heard nothing whatever about it, and beyond hearing that it has gone on from the right hon. Gentleman himself I have had no occasion of coming into contact with it. But I believe it is progressing, and I believe some numbers of some sort have been made out. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing whatsoever with regard to the wastage of war in the matter of horses, and the number which he has spoken of will under no circumstances meet the requirements which it will be necessary for him to lay his hands upon before a great war has been in progress for very long. Then there is the question of the training of the horses. A horse which is suddenly taken from the plough and put into the ranks is no more use for a cavalry soldier than a donkey.
  1532
  I would urge the necessity of considering the training of these horses. With regard to the supply itself it is notorious that foreign buyers come over to this country in vast numbers prepared to put down a very large price for the purpose of exporting our valuable half-bred mares. That is exporting capital. I believe it would be worth the while of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to take some steps for the purpose of keeping the mares in this country. It would certainly be worth their while to subsidise the tenant farmers to keep these mares and to have some call upon them.
  With regard to the Territorial Army, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the offspring which he has taken a certain amount of trouble to bring forth. He has displayed a great deal of optimism with regard to recruiting, or rather he told us he was an optimist, but that the results of the recruiting far exceeded his expectations. How long does he believe those good results will be maintained? He has to realise that the Territorial Army is somewhat of a novelty, and that there is a certain amount of attraction in it. Until he can assure me that that will be maintained I do not believe we can look upon the Territorial Army with quite the optimistic view that he does at present.
  With regard to the efficiency of the Territorial Army, I should like to ask a question. I am very credibly informed that there are certain battalions of the Territorial Force who have not been upon an open range this year, yet all of them are returned as efficient. I am open to correction, and I sincerely hope that that is not a correct statement. I am also credibly informed that the actual shooting alone qualifies for efficiency, whether they hit the target or not. I ask whether it is a fact that in the Territorial Force, having regard to the fact that it is an auxiliary force, actual firing of the rounds qualifies for efficiency. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) would have been in his place, because he addressed the House as an aggrieved Artillery officer, and he appeared to think it a grievance that certain harsh things had been said about the Artillery. We are a practical and a business nation, and we know perfectly well that if this Artillery is to be called into action it will be called upon to face the picked Artillery men of the invader. Anyone with the smallest knowledge of

  1533
  Service knows perfectly well that the amateur Artillery man cannot for a moment stand in the face of the professional Artillery man. The hon. Member spoke with a certain amount of pride, I thought, that his battery could keep Artillery for a day. He may be right as regards one day, but we know perfectly well that one of the arts of the Artillery man is driving, and that, with an unskilled driver, the horses are used to such an extent that it would be absolutely impossible to keep them until they were absolutely safe for a very long period of time. Although I have the greatest pleasure in joining the eulogies that have been heaped upon the Secretary of State for War, I should like if he would answer the questions which I have ventured to put to him.
  Mr. W. P. BYLES: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has listened to criticisms from military men and amateurs on both sides of the House for some time. It is greatly to his credit that everybody accords to him so much praise for the efficiency in organisation which he has brought about in the Army. I am unable to follow the arguments of the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) who has just addressed us in a very interesting and valuable speech, because I am ignorant of the details of Army management, with which he is obviously familiar; but I want to utter a few heresies about the Army—or what will no doubt be regarded as heresies by most Members of the Committee. I do it with the greatest reluctance, because it is natural that one should be reluctant to put before the Committee views which he knows will not meet with general acceptance. But, on the other hand, I remember that there are in the country thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of people who share the views very much that I hold on this question—views which I think before the Debate closes should find some expression. I am very glad to believe that the Army is reduced to a state of efficiency. Heaven knows it was inefficient enough before. So bad indeed were the revelations after the Boer War that the country became so angry that it hurled from power the Tory party. Anyone who has succeeded in making the Army a real Army service is entitled to the gratitude of the House and the nation. It is not the efficiency I complain of. It is the size. I want to know why the Army need be so big. Almost every Minister who has a right to sit
  1534
  on the Treasury Bench was pledged to the lips, when he had a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, to a policy of retrenchment. How often were we told on platforms between 1900 and 1906 of the extravagance of the then Government and of the swollen expenditure, especially in connection with the great spending services of the State, and how hopeful were those who hold the views that I do, when we came to have a really Liberal Government, such as was created in 1900, that we should see these opinions translated into action! I am still free and not yet responsible, and I therefore lift my voice, however feeble, in favour of a policy of retrenchment.
  We are at peace with all the world, and yet we require £28,000,000 for the Army! This year there is only a matter of £350,000 increase in the Estimates, and that in these spacious days of spending is no doubt a bagatelle. But we have, I suppose, a bigger Army and bigger Estimates than ever. There appears to be no attempt whatever at reduction. I want to ask for what purpose is the Territorial Army which has been created with so much trouble and over which we have spent so much time? Why this glorification and militarising of the old Volunteer corps? The estimate that seems to be most generally accepted is that the maximum possible number of an invading force would be 10,000 men. [HON. MEMBERS: "Seventy thousand."] I do not suppose that anybody believes that 70,000 would raid this country. Let us take it at 10,000. They have to be smuggled over here in the dark, or, as one of the Members for Islington suggested yesterday, that might come over in a cloud of aeroplanes and be dropped from the sky. Whichever way they came the Territorial Army have to be strong enough to meet and deal with them. If so, a possible invasion of this country is arranged for, and the Fleet, I presume, could do the rest—the policing of the seas and the protection of our food supplies. A friend of mine who saw the late Napoleon III. immediately after Sedan, in the fortress of Wilhelmshohe, received this remark, "You English are a happy people. You have no frontier," by which, I suppose, he meant no land or river frontier. He meant, therefore, that we need no Army. If the raids are arranged for, and the Fleet is equal to its duties, why do we need this great Regular Army in addition? We are told that it is an "Expeditionary Force," and that it is

  1535
  a "striking force." I do not want any more expeditions for my part, and I do not want to strike anybody; but what I do think of is the cost of maintaining this enormous and, to a great extent, useless Army. Think of the wage-earners of the country and of the labour they have to give to produce this mountain of money—£28,000;000! Do hon. Members ever think of these things? Do they remember, when talking of these expenditures, the poverty of millions, their toil, their wretched homes, and their struggle for a livelihood? I feel inclined to compare the Government to the Scribes and Pharisees:
  "For they bind heavy burdens, and grevious to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders."
  A month or two ago we heard some very vigorous outcries against the oppression of the taxes proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I daresay we all feel a little aggravation at having to pay taxes. If you do not like taxes this is the time to cry out, and not when the Budget is before you. If we spend, we must pay. £28,000,000 for the Army! Such Estimates as these would have made the late Mr. Gladstone or Sir William Harcourt shudder. I remember well both of these illustrious financiers standing at that very Table, and in tones of the utmost solemnity warning the House against the growth of expenditure in Navy and Army services at a time when it was far less than now. I maintain that there is less, and not more, reason now for a great striking Army. Why? First of all, the conditions of modern warfare are so fearful that there is increasing reluctance among all nations to put them to use. Weapons have become so deadly, and their range is so enormous. Smokeless powder is adding horror because it is uninforming. Now we are threatened, I observe, with automatic rifles, dirigibles, and aeroplanes, so that soon, I suppose, we shall be able to kill and be killed without leaving our own doorsteps.
  7.0 P.M.
  I say again the memory of the Boer war and all its horrors will act for a long time in this country, and perhaps in other countries, as a deterrent to war. But the greatest of all preservatives of the peace in my judgment is the maintenance of friendly relations with our potential enemy. For this we have to thank the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) and the Diplomatic Staff connected with our
  1536
  Foreign Office. They have maintained peace all through this time. Look round the world to-day, and where are we likely to quarrel? Our friendly relations with everyone are closer, perhaps, than they have ever been, and the closer our friendly relations and the more international our trade—and it is becoming more international every day, and will become so until the Tariff Reformers spoil it—and the more interwoven our finance, the less risk there is of quarrelling. Does anybody doubt that? Take one nation, the United States of America. Suppose these were the only people to consider, there is no one who would think it necessary on either side to maintain large armies one against the other. Equally with France. We are now on such terms with France that nobody thinks of building ships or raising armies against France. Why should we not have exactly the same relations, or at any rate, cultivate relations of a similar kind, moving in the same direction in regard to Germany, and in regard to all other countries?
  Moral defences are in my judgment far stronger, far surer, and give a far greater prospect of security as between the nations of the world than any of these munitions of war. If these sentiments were only generally held instead of being derided as the foolish utterances of a small minority, if they were courageously held and acted upon by this or any other Government, then the Budget demands, which were so resented, and which are still so resented in many quarters, might have been greatly reduced. Enough, perhaps, has been said about the troops in South Africa by some of my colleagues. I still feel it is a monstrous thing that this nation should be expected out of its poverty, out of the poverty I mean of very many of its taxpayers, to maintain that costly garrison in South Africa for no purpose in the world except, so to speak, to amuse the servant girls. Leaving South Africa, what are we doing with 19,000 men in the Mediterranean countries, all maintained at great cost, and all imposing heavy burdens upon the taxpayer. If the nation does intend to keep all these men cooling their heels in barracks there, and spending their time often in idleness and sometimes in worse things, then I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see to it that they are maintained out of the accumulated wealth of British idlers.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is not a question that should be raised in Committee of Supply. That is a question for Ways and Means.
  Mr. BYLES: And that they should not be imposed upon the poverty of those who cannot afford to pay for the food and clothing and shelter of hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
  Major MORRISON-BELL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) has been receiving so many congratulations both to-day and yesterday that really I should almost like to be able to abuse him about something, and I believe he would rather enjoy it himself. The hon. Baronet, who, I believe, sits for a Welsh constituency, referred to a point in connection with the emolument of officers which he tried to impress on this House was sufficient for the officers at the present moment, and I caught a word which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) passed across to the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine), who was speaking at the time, that anyhow they had allowances. I do not think that anybody who has had any experience, or knows about the question, will consider that the allowances to officers are really very helpful in the sense suggested. I believe that in one case there used to be an allowance of about 3½d. per week in lieu of gas, where it was found that it cost 1s. 6d. a week to pay for lamp oil. That is one of the very small ways in which it was found that they were very inadequate, and I doubt whether anybody who knows would agree with the hon. Baronet when he said that the emoluments of officers were sufficient. The hon. Member, I think for Barrow, referred to the fact that he had, not less than the hon. Member, to start life in London on something like, as far as I remember, 40s. a week, and he told of the difficulty he had in starting life in London on that sum. I can assure him that every officer who has to start and keep up a state has to do this on about 37s. 6d. per week, and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman's case was, as he informed us, such a pitiful one, I think that the officer's case should also get some sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman, if the question can ever be brought forward about raising the officers' emoluments.
  The right hon. Gentleman has had so many points brought before him that I do not wish to lay great stress upon this particular one. I wish to refer to another point, and perhaps I may provide him with a small loophole, though he is not in want
  1538
  of it. On page 4 of the Memorandum I notice that there is a little word, "etc.," which I hope will include the point that I wish to bring under his notice, namely, that some consideration will be given, when the right hon. Gentleman has time, to the question of civilian rifle clubs. I believe it is a question which has come greatly to the front of late, and which was very much prejudiced, I think, when it first started by the very extravagant claims made on behalf of these clubs. It was said that rifle clubs were going to save England, when everybody knows that if there is any saving to be done it can only be done by a great sacrifice on the part of the country, by organisation, and by discipline. There is no other way of saving England or any other country, and there never has been any other way, and I do not believe there ever will be any other way. But if the right hon. Gentleman will give some attention to clubs when he has dealt with other questions I am perfectly certain that he would be harnessing, so to speak, an enormous amount of enthusiasm which is already in the country, and which, I believe, will form some kind of nursery to recruit the Territorial Forces, and possibly the Regular Forces, too. I do not press him at all, because I realise that in comparison with the great questions which have been brought before the Committee at the present moment this is a very small point, and it can be left to take care of itself for another year, as it has been caring for itself for two or three years. But when he has dealt with the other important points, such as mobilisation, and horses, I trust that he will give some attention to this question of the clubs, because when you get hold of young men early and imbue them with the idea that they have to do something, little as it may be thought in the minds of some Gentlemen, towards the defence of the country, they will probably get the soldier habit, and join other forces later on. I only mention this point because I have had a great deal of experience during the last three years with these rifle clubs, and I know how very easy it is, if they have any encouragement at all, to bring them on. I do not delay the Committee any longer, because there are other important points to be dealt with, tout in that little word, "etc." I hope this point may be included.
  Mr. SEDDON: I have listened with very great pleasure to the speeches that are being delivered in this Debate, and I

  1539
  listened with extra pleasure to the friendly duel between the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the respective two Front Benches; and after the crescendo of praise from the right hon. Gentlemen, I feel somewhat of a criminal in striking a jarring note. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) will take whatever comment I make in the friendliest possible spirit. I am as anxious as anyone for the defence of this country to be put on the best and fairest and most honourable conditions we can possibly have. You will remember that when we were discussing the Territorial scheme in the last Parliament I on more than one occasion called attention to what, in my opinion, were real dangers to the ultimate success of the scheme. I referred then to the question of promotion by merit. You recognised that the old system in vogue in the Regular Army would be difficult to change all at once, and I may say, in passing, that I have never listened to a Debate in this House that so strongly separates the sheep from the goats and hon. Members on that side from hon. Members who sit on these benches. What I mean is this, I have listened to a good many speeches by officers who have given service to the country, and almost unanimously their cry has been for more pay for those of their rank. Well and good. But then we who represent labour are entitled to make the same claim for men of our class, and if that claim were dealt with for all ranks alike I think we should hear less about class legislation, and see more of a disposition to stand up for one's comrades, to whatever class they belong. When this Territorial scheme was brought into existence I think there was a favourable opportunity to deal with the question of promotion. After all, the private as well as the officer has to give of his leisure time to the service of the country, and when a man is called upon to give up his leisure time he ought to have some inducement or belief that he will rise from the ranks to a higher position and become an officer. I have heard numerous complaints on this matter. We have heard the remark, which is perfectly true, that war is a science to-day, and therefore you want the best and the most skilled men you can get. Engineers are wanted in the Army, and there are numbers of young engineers who are willing to give their services to the country, but are not prepared to be the victims of the snobbery of others who happen to have a little more money than
  1540
  they, and who possibly, not from ability, have been thrown into the position of officers, while they themselves have no chance of attaining that rank. The present system of selecting officers because of their wealth and territorial interest, is inimical to the prosperity of the Territorial Force. Among the democracy the men who have trained their minds, skilled engineers, and men in other walks of life, are not going to give their services under a system which will never afford them the opportunity of rising to higher ranks in the Territorial Force. Another evil that has arisen during the last year or two is the question of military law. I hold that military law should not be in operation in the democratic part of our military forces, namely, the Territorial Army, unless that part is being embodied for actual service. I am not going to say that the evil is apparent at the present time, and I know the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has made the application of the military law to the Territorial Force more elastic than in the case of the Regular Army. It has been stated more than once that the right hon. Gentleman has given his valedictory address. I do not know whether it is intended to transfer him elsewhere, nor do I know whether we are to assume that the ravages of time and other things, which in the ordinary course one cannot prevent, affect him, but I hope he will occupy his position for a long time to come, because we might have some other right hon. Gentleman not so sympathetic put into his place.
  Although even if the right hon. Gentleman remains in his office for many years, yet so far as administration is concerned it comes under different men, and this military law is a dangerous weapon to put at the disposal of those who are responsible for our Territorial Forces. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remove this unlimited power, which is a real danger. We want to recognise the Territorial Force as a free service, and one which is desirable and necessary for the defence of the country. The danger of the military law being put into operation ought to be removed to the utmost distance, and it ought not to be possible until the Territorials are actually embodied for service and engaged in war. Another question which arises has reference to the Regulations. I find, according to the King's Regulations, there is an embargo placed upon soldiers attending meetings, especially political meeting.

  1541
  know that there is no embargo on officers, and why should there be an embargo upon the privates?
  Mr. WYNDHAMwas understood to dissent.
  Mr. SEDDON: It is so. I have the Regulation, which says that an officer or soldier is not to take part in any meetings or demonstrations, for party or political purposes in barracks, quarters, camp, or their vicinity, and under no circumstances whatever is he to attend such meetings, wherever held, in uniform. But below the sergeant, the private soldier is not permitted to attend a meeting, except he is on furlough and in civilian dress, so that when in a city like London, a private could be prevented from going to any meeting, I think that we have arrived at the period when it would be desirable to allow soldiers to attend such meetings in ordinary civilian dress. I do not think it would be well to see them at meetings in their uniform, but I think it is a reflection on the Army to say that soldiers cannot go to political meetings, and I am sure it is a limitation that is keenly felt in the rank and file. I would point out that if this limitation were removed it might do something to modify the politics of the soldiers, because the Army, it is notorious, are mostly on the Conservative side. There is some reason for that no doubt, and among them is this limitation of the power of the soldier to get information on political subjects. Apart from that, however, I think the Secretary for War would only be doing an act of justice in removing this embargo, and in giving the private soldier, who is anxious for the right, an opportunity to go to political and other meetings so long as he attends them in civilian dress. There is another question which is causing some little annoyance and heartburning, so far as the rank and file are concerned. I am told, though I am open to correction, that there has been a change in the last two years from service pay to proficiency pay. It means that many men under the old system, who by their service, obtained higher rate of pay, are, owing to accidental circumstances, deprived of that benefit. That I understand has caused some resentment, and when the Army Council recognised that there was something wrong they prevented the operation of the change for at least a year. I am told that the new test is the musketry course. I am no great authority on firing, but I know very well that wind and weather have something to do with firing
  1542
  at the range; yet here you have men, who by good conduct and by service were able to get a slight increase in their daily pay, deprived of it owing to such accidental circumstances, which rendered them unable to qualify by musketry practice for higher pay, and therefore they are relegated to the lower scale of pay. I think something ought to be done for the rank and file to meet this complaint, and that we ought to revert to the old system. I am told that in some cases the difference in pay amounts to one or two shillings per week. I have a letter here, which was sent to me by a soldier. I have been making inquiries, and have been trying to take an intelligent interest in Army matters. I have followed the Debates in this House, and I have sought information outside. I wrote to a friend of mine, who is a ranker, asking him what was his idea of the present control at the War Office, and what he thought about all the advantages that had been secured by the right hon. Gentleman. The letter is rather in soldiers' language, but I may take certain passages of it. The writer says:—
  "I do not want anybody to talk about Haldane's reform to me. Some of our chaps he has knocked 2s. a week off proficiency pay, chaps that used to have 12s. a week now only get 10s. per week."
  That reduction is not going to create contentment among the men. There is another complaint which to my mind is even more serious. I am told that in certain branches of the Service there has been a serious inroad made upon the limited amount of pay that the rank and file get at the present time. I find in certain regiments—I will give the name of one, the Royal Horse Artillery—an inspection took place, and the commanding officer, or the person responsible for the inspection of the particular company concerned, said that they would have to renew their kit because they were getting a little bit seedy, and that they would have to begin to purchase some of their own clothing, which is a new departure altogether, I am informed. In one case the man had to buy a khaki hat, 3s.; a canvas suit, 3s.; and khaki trousers, 8s.—14s. in all. The man remarked that this was to come out of his pay, "and it was making him very careful now." The same man added: "But I have been let off lightly in comparison with some of our chaps. It runs to £3 odd in one case, and I think that this is certainly"—he uses a word for which I must substitute another—and "this is certainly bad." The rank and file cannot pay for these things out of their slender

  1543
  pay, and they point out that when they originally enlisted they were under the belief that all their clothing would be found when they became soldiers of the King. Another point to which I wish to make reference, though probably it may be my own density, is this: I have waded through the Army Estimates; I have struggled with them by night and by day, and I have come to the conclusion that they are more like a Chinese puzzle than anything I have come across in my life. I make no charge against the Army Council, which I believe is composed of four, military officers of very high standing, and I think four lawyers. But I think there ought to be some business men on the Committee when it comes to dealing with business matters. So far as I can make out, the Estimates are only a partial statement, though they are contained in some 200 pages, and they are thrown at us before the Debate comes off, and are so manipulated—I use that word in its best sense—the various items are so put that we cannot possibly master them before the discussion takes place in this Committee. I find that it is only a partial statement. There have been complaints on this side about the great cost of the Army. If there are many items like the one I discovered I am afraid it comes to more than we thought it did. Under the heading of Chelsea Hospital I find that there is a Governor who gets a salary of £500. I do not say that the salary is too high. He is also on half-pay, for which he gets £1,300 per annum. The two together make a fairly decent salary, especially after the complaints which we have heard from the other side about the low salaries that are paid to officers. But I find a footnote which says that this excludes premises, fire, and light, which are charged to the Board of Works. So here we have a great Department of State spending a huge amount of money, and when you come to the Estimates you cannot get a correct statement of expenditure. To do so you have got to go to the Estimates, which, I suppose, will eventually be placed upon the Table by the Gentleman in charge of the Board of Works. I think that for the benefit and credit of the Army Council the right hon. Gentleman, with all his ability, would add still more lustre to his name if he gave us Estimates in compartments, and so arranged that they could be read and understood by the humblest Member, and so that we could see what
  1544
  each part of the Army costs, instead having to go to the Board of Works.
  I want also to call attention to South Africa. I do not mean the number troops there; I am more interested it the number of medical men and chaplain who are there. I do not know whethe there is more original sin in South Africa or not, but I find that there are thirteen chaplains there, and there are thirteen in Malta and at Gibraltar. I do not know whether that is because the climate is more salubrious there or because there is greater sin, but I think, as far as South Africa is concerned, that they ought to be able to provide spiritual guides for the soldiers as well as for the civilians I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has ever asked them, and I think he would find that that would be one of the item which could be reduced. With reference to the medical staff in South Africa, there is a surgeon-general who gets £1,095 per annum, there is a colonel who gets £82 per annum, and there are forty lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, lieutenants and five quartermasters. Surely those charges should be in some degree born by the various Colonies and the various dependencies. I am told—I do not know—that India is the only part of the British Empire that contributes its fair share, and above its fair share, among our Colonies Notoriously South Africa practically contributes nothing. I think it will be in the interest of everybody concerned, and for that unity of Imperial feeling, if the Colonies were gently reminded that the had obligations towards paying for the upkeep of the Army as well as the defence of the whole of the Empire.
  I want to deal with a question that will probably arouse both sides of the House although I cannot help it if it does. It is often said outside, and I am only giving this to the right hon. Gentleman to give him an opportunity of refuting the charge that are frequently stated and not infrequently published in certain journals—it is often said that there is undue influence at the War Office. Everybody knows that the cost of the War Office is going up year by year, and the cost is becoming alarming to all those who take an interest in the Estimates. What do I find in a Service journal last Saturday? I find the following:—
  "Once again complaints are rife about feminine influence at the War Office."
  I do not know whether this is any lady who has got designs on the right hon.

  1545
  Gentleman. It is from a Service journal, it is not my own creation, nor my own suggestion, as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. It goes on:—
  "I am able to state as a positive fact that these complaints are, in the main, well founded. There is he society lady who openly boasts of her power to assist such of her friends as are in the Service, and certainly she is as good as her word. Not only does she manage to obtain by some means or other a considerable any in most of the important appointments that are going, but she is able to oblige her military friends in the matter of extensive leave, release from unpleasant ties, and so forth. One of these days, however, a will arise at the War Office who will declare such things shall not continue."
  I thought the right hon. Gentleman had arisen in the present Minister of War. As said, I only read this out to give him an opportunity of refuting it, or of making inquiries so that this lady will not have so many military men crowding her drawing room as she has had in the past. There is another question with reference to the cost. This, too, is from a Service journal, and when we read such statements in Service journals the right hon. Gentleman cannot be surprised that civilians like myself stand aghast.
  "It is quite an open secret that the Army Estimates will show a considerable increase over last year's figures, and this despite the fact that such drastic restrictions have been made in the numbers of our standing army. This increase in cost is not to be attributed entirely either to the Territorial Force, though undoubtedly that is proving much more expensive than cas originally included or imagined. The fact is that he cost of administration is increasing by leaps and bounds, and each year sees the War Office swallowing up more and more money. Never at any previous period as the Headquarter Staff cost the country so much money as is the case to-day, and onlookers must be partioned if they doubt whether the country is getting anything approaching value for its money. Sinecure is piled upon sinecure at the present time in Whitehall, and I now men who do not put in half-a-dozen hours at the War Office in a week who are drawing very handsome comes."
  I want to know, Is that a correct statement? If so, it is clearly a proof that the War Office is becoming an asylum for favourites, that it is becoming a convalescent home for longevity, and a quiet retreat for those gentlemen who are getting large salaries and have very little to do. I have put this to the right hon. Gentleman in no cantankerous spirit. When we who belong to the Labour party read such things on a Service paper, we begin to think there is something wrong in the Army, although we have been told hat there has been a clearing out in the past four years. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, in the exercise of his un doubted ability and capacity for hard work, undertake, if he cannot give a definite promise, to have a searching inquiry into these aspersions on the War Office,
  1546
  and will see that it becomes a more business establishment than apparently it is to-day.
  I want to make a protest against undue expenditure. I know it is not a very thankful task to stand up and defend economy in this House. There are always two schools—the Blue Water School and the Navy School, and both want as much as they can get. There is always a tendency when this party is out of office to criticise the other side for their great expenditure, but when they get in I notice that they have the same besetting sin, and that they go on spending as much, if not more. So far I am able to understand the situation, and I have followed very closely the speeches delivered by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members who spoke as military experts. I understand it to be this—that we are all agreed that the Navy is the first line of defence. I think the right hon. Gentleman admits that we are not going to have 1,000 men landed in this country or in any other country without our knowing something about it. I think he tacitly admitted the untruth of the scare prior to the General Election, which was started by a friend of mine who evidently has become a greater friend of hon. Gentlemen on the other side. I remember when Robert Blatchford was anathema to the Tory party, and now he has become the saviour of his country, because he has raised, or attempted to raise, antagonism in the minds of the workers of this country against the Germans, thinking they have got designs on this country. I am one of those who believe that democracy in every civilised country is going to take a greater part in the government, and in the expenditure of the money, than it has done in the past. We have the satisfaction, those of us who sit on these benches, of knowing that year by year we are creating a bond of sympathy with the Frenchman, the German, the American, and with every country throughout the world, and we look forward to the time, and we believe it is not far distant, when all those differences that used to separate us and make us liable to fly at one another's throats will gradually pass away. We do know, after careful inquiry among our German fellow workers and after inquiry through international conferences, that the German workman is not anxious for war, that the French workman is not anxious for war, and that they are desirous of living together in amity and developing the resources of each

  1547
  country, the only rivalry being so far as industrial production is concerned. We want to warn the right hon. Gentleman that the British democracy, that was silent in the days gone by when great wars were waged, are beginning to recognise that the great power of industrial democracy is not the clash of arms, but their ability to stop production. I believe the sentiment is growing in every country if irresponsible people think, for glory or profit, to engage in wicked wars that the industrial army are prepared to stand together, and by cessation of production let those people know that they are masters of their own destiny. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give consideration to the suggestions I have made.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): I think it will be convenient at this stage to make some sort of answer to the various points, as they are accumulating in such large numbers that I am afraid I should forget some of them. First of all, let me say I have been very much struck with one thing in this Parliament, and that is it seems to me there is more keen and real interest in military matters than in any Parliament I have known. We have got a great many military Members on both sides of the House. We have got a keen outside interest like that of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and, in fact, every shade of opinion is represented; and the discussions on the Army Estimates, if this Parliament continues, promise to be more interesting and more valuable than any that I have known in the past. It is delightful to see the desire for continuity, and for eliminating, as far as possible, the party aspect in the field of discussion: and it does give one hope that there may be progress in the years to come in making things better, and less disposition to pull to pieces for the sake of pulling to pieces.
  I take up as far as I am able some of the points which have been mentioned. My hon. Friend (Mr. Seddon) asked me to deal with one or two matters, and among them the somewhat general topic of feminine influence at the War Office. My hon. Friend quoted curiously enough a passage which I recognised, because it was brought to me by an indignant general in the War Office who was specifically connected, in the passage quoted, with some undue influence. My hon. Friend may have been quoting from some Service magazine, but I recognise the words from their original source, which was not a Service magazine
  1548
  at all, but a penny paper devoted to chronicling the proceedings of the fashionable world. I recognise the sentiments at any rate, and in the original the particular case is given in detail. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that the whole matter is rubbish and moonshine. There is nothing whatever in the particular case reported, and as far as I know feminine influence does not prevail in the War Office. In connection with another point raised by the hon. Member, his correspondent omitted to tell him that within the last fifteen months a new form of pay, called kit pay, has been given to the soldier. What we thought was that if we gave a soldier kit pay, calculated on a scale of sufficiency to supply everything that he wanted, and giving him a little margin out of which with care he could save something, it would have a good effect. That system is extremely popular. As regards efficiency pay, that is the old service pay in different form; it is now given for efficiency. One of the strongest committees that have ever sat at the War Office, after considering the whole subject two or three years ago, substituted efficiency pay for service pay, and there are now people getting efficiency pay who used not to get service pay, while there are others do not get efficiency pay who used to get service pay. The reason for the difference is that the basis on which the extra pay is now given is proficiency in all sorts of things.
  Mr. SEDDON: In musketry?
  Mr. HALDANE: Oh, in a score of things—all sorts of things in which proficiency can be shown. Another matter which has been referred to is the employment of the ex-soldier, and it is brought to my mind by the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Seddon) with regard to chaplains. The services of the chaplain may be made of enormous value in helping men to get employment. In Scotland we have started an experiment which has been in operation for about a year and is succeeding very remarkably. We have there a chaplain-inspector, a man of great experience in these matters, who when a recruit arrives asks him where he comes from, writes to the minister of the parish asking him about the family, and telling him that the recruit is being looked after in the Army. That produces a much better feeling towards the Army than if the recruit practically disappears. The recruit is not interfered with, but he is looked after. When he goes to India notice is

  1549
  sent to the chaplain of the denomination there asking him to look after the soldier. Then when he is brought home, the chaplain-inspector and the chaplain of the home battalion to which the man goes communicate with the minister of the parish asking him to help the soldier to get employment. That system is working extremely well. It is only in its experimental stage, but it has had such a good effect, even in affecting the percentage of desertions, that we hope before long to extend it to England. That is a kind of use of which the chaplain is made. He is not merely a person who sings Psalms, but one who takes an interest in the mental and moral welfare of the troops with whom he comes in contact. He is a most valuable person. I am not particularly addicted to dogmatic or platform theology, but I have become convinced that the chaplain is one of the most useful institutions of the British Army, and I have done what I can to improve his position.
  Mr. SEDDON: I only objected to the number in South Africa.
  Mr. HALDANE: There are 11,000 troops in South Africa, and I think thirteen chaplains. These chaplains are part of the Army; they are not local ministers; their whole time is given to looking after the troops, and I should like to see more of them. I now come to some of the more military questions. With regard to horses, it was said that the new mode of taking the census and the instructions given to county associations are vague and novel. I agree. The matter is purely experimental. I believe in it myself, and I think it will work out. But we shall doubtless gain a good deal of experience and be able to improve the system in many particulars. I have here the results of the census for Scotland and England, minus five counties. Out of about 1,500,000 horses, which exist in these, I think, eighty-eight counties, there are 140,372 riding horses, 703,120 heavy draught-horses, and 428,570 light draught. That gives some indication of the kind of proportion in which the different classes of horses will be found. There will be a more careful classification later on. The work of the associations will not be as heavy as many Members appear to think, because out of an enormous total of about 2,000,000 horses, we do not want more than at the outside about 130,000 or 140,000. That is to say, you have twelve or fifteen times as
  1550
  many horses as you want to draw on. For each county there will be a quota, which should be only a small fraction of the horses in that county, and the thing will be to distribute that quota justly. The working out of the whole matter is tentative, but I see no reason why the foundation should not be laid of a system which will enable us to get our horses at once on mobilisation. As regards drafts, the same machinery which gives you the quota will prepare for the drafts. A further list will be made of the horses available for drafts, and it will be very easy after getting the horses for mobilisation to get the drafts. I was glad to see the interests which this question of horses has awakened. It was a pleasure to hear the speeches on both sides, showing, as they did, that the House is determined to have this question dealt with.
  The Noble Lord the Member for Thirsk (Viscount Helmsley) and others put a question with regard to the scheme of the President of the Board of Agriculture, asking me to communicate with my Noble Friend with a view to his conferring with their associations on certain points in regard to which they think the scheme could be improved. I have seen my Noble Friend, and he will be very glad to enter into conference with them on those points. Another question asked was, why is there not a training manual for the Yeomanry? I think it is very reasonable that there should be a special training manual for the Yeomanry, but the difficulty is that it has never been finally and definitely settled what the function of the Yeomanry is. Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wyndham) the extraordinary difficulty of labelling the Yeomanry. They are not Cavalry; you do not train them for full shock tactics. Nor are they mounted infantry. They do something near shock tactics, but they are betwixt and between. I have tried my best to get a precise definition, not only from hon. and gallant Members who have experience in these matters, but from distinguished officers on the General Staff, but I cannot get near precision. The fact is that the function of the Yeomanry becomes more and more precisely defined as time gets on, but the day has not yet arrived when you can say precisely what it is. Therefore the Yeomanry have to depend on Cavalry training with certain modifications, and to draw up a special manual for them is

  1551
  a thing which the General Staff up to this point have found very difficult. There is, however, a desire that this matter should be attended to, and I will see what can be done. The Noble Marquess who represents Perthshire (Marquess of Tullibardine) referred to the rifle. I think, however, he did not quite do justice to the changes which have been made and to what we are projecting in regard to the new bullet.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I do not think I did quite.
  Mr. HALDANE: I am much obliged to the Noble Marquess. It is not a question of making shift. We cannot get an automatic rifle for some time to come.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Would it be undesirable to enter into the question of what other Powers have got?
  Mr. HALDANE: As far as I know, every nation wants other nations to try first. It is a very costly experiment to arm your force with a new rifle, particularly if it turns out to be a failure. I think we might with advantage have taken a little more time over certain matters connected with our own rifle.
  8.0 P.M.
  The problem has been how to use a smaller charge than now, and to find the bullet which will give a result such as we are aiming at That is the problem which the Small Arms Committee think they have solved, and we are going to experiment with a bullet to put into the present rifle, which already gives a result which approaches remarkably close to those given by the German rifles. It is quite true that in some foreign rifles with a superior breech pressure that a higher velocity ammunition could be used than with our rifle. I do not doubt that when Germany and France have got a new automatic rifle that they will get still better results, but we shall endeavour to get a still better automatic rifle. Meanwhile, what we have done promises to fill up the gap for the time very satisfactorily. Another hon. Member raised the question of service waggons. He was under the impression that there had been some reduction in mobilisation in the number of service waggons. There has not been. Manœuvres are no guide to the use to which service waggons are put. The things put into service waggons are very different on mobilisation. The number six which appears on mobilisation
  1552
  is the result of a calculation of the General Staff, and I am told is the right number. There was a question raised about the Territorial Artillery eye sights. I am glad to say that these will be supplied. I cannot be certain when they will be ready, but for the next training so far as possible. There was a question raised about the decrease in the amount of ammunition. It appears that the charge for ammunition is, I think, £72,000 less in this year's Estimates than in last. There is no reduction in the amount of ammunition, but the price has gone down very much, and less money produces the same amount of ammunition.
  There are various questions which were raised by hon. Members, ranging over a very wide field. There was, for example, the question of civilian rifle clubs raised by my hon. Friend opposite. He asked whether it would not be possible for the War Office, proceeding cautiously, to give some encouragement to these civilian rifle clubs. I am glad he went on to say that there has been a good deal of misapprehension as to what rifle clubs could do in making an efficient army, and I am glad to think that the public ideas on that subject are much more educated than they were three years ago. Rifle clubs are nothing without some organisation. I have always thought that the main and legitimate use of a rifle club is to improve the musketry of some definite unit, such as a Territorial battalion. If so, the proper body to deal with those rifle clubs is the county association. The War Office has gone into the question of how far something may be possible in the way of encouraging those rifle clubs who still devote themselves to affording people in a Territorial battalion an opportunity of improving their musketry. There is a class of rifle club, however, that is an annexe to the public-house. Obviously, that is very undesirable. There is also a class of rifle club which you will find in connection with political clubs. It does not seem to me that this is conducive to improving the musketry of the Territorials. Therefore I agree with with my hon. Friend that it is extremely desirable that we should go very cautiously in giving encouragement in this matter. All I will say is that every possible encouragement to the shooting of definite units is not a matter which is being lost sight of. Recruit musketry training was another subject referred to by, I think, the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh). It is quite true

  1553
  that at the present time we are short of ranges, and I am afraid that it is true there has been this year a very considerable deficiency in musketry training. Certainly it has been difficult for a good many recruits to get their shooting done. All I can say is that we are dealing with that matter as energetically as possible.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: May I say that the question I put was: Is it not true that there were units that were returned as effective when it was not possible for them to shoot their course?
  Mr. HALDANE: I would like to answer that question right off, but perhaps the Noble Lord will put down the question on paper, and I will investigate the matter. If it is so it certainly ought not to be, and there is something wrong. I do not think it is at all the way in which these matters have been dealt with at the present time.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the matter has already been dealt with this afternoon in another place, and that the War Office representative there stated that there were seven units of the Territorial Forces (battalions of infantry) who had not been able to fire a single shot at open ranges, and had been returned as effective; that there were ten other units of whom not more than 50 per cent. have been tested, and the reason is that they have not been able to get a range at all, or only to get there with such difficulty that only a certain number were able co fire. He also stated the words, "returned as efficient," were unfortunate, and that the authorities may have to change them.
  Mr. HALDANE: I suppose they were treated as efficient for the purposes of the grant. It is a very unfortunate state of things, due entirely to what I hope is only a temporary shortage of ranges The Noble Marquess knows how increasingly difficult it is to get a range. I think I have about covered the ground of the various criticisms. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea said the cost of the Army was increasing very largely, and no doubt it has increased, but not proportionately to the cost of the Civil Services or to the wealth of the country. Our national interests are so vast and so far-reaching that it is not safe to exercise economy in directions which might expose those interests, if not to peril, at least to unrest. There is no unrest so great in
  1554
  my experience as the unrest which comes to a people who think that their provision of defence is dubious, and I am inclined to think that the greatest economy you can achieve is to have your house in order.
  Captain O'NEILL: I should not venture to intrude my remarks so early in the life of this Parliament were it not for the kind and courteous consideration that new Members have received at the hands of the House in their maiden effort, and, secondly, as I happen to hold a commission in a Cavalry regiment, I naturally take an extreme interest in this Debate which concerns the Army, and specially that branch of the service to which I belong. Let me refer briefly to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman yesterday with regard to these slight changes and proposed slight reorganisation of some of the details in the Cavalry. First of all there was a question of six new depots in Cavalry regiments. I think it was the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone who referred to the question of new depots. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question, so as to be quite clear upon it: With regard to these new depots, is it proposed to do away entirely with the old fourth or reserve squadron which exists in the Cavalry regiments, and transfer the whole of the duties which appertains to that fourth or the reserve squadron to the depot? In other words, is the right hon. Gentleman leaving the Cavalry regiments complete with three fighting squadrons unemcumbered with young horses or recruits?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. and gallant Member is quite right. There are three fighting squadrons, and horses and men are trained up to such a state as will enable them to mobilise unencumbered by recruits. The recruits will go to the depot and receive their preliminary training there.
  Captain O'NEILL: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. It is a matter which will interest the Cavalry regiments very greatly, and I am inclined to think the great majority of them will be very pleased and satisfied with the fact. The particular branch of the Cavalry in which I myself am interested is the Household Cavalry. I suppose that the answer does not apply to them. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will put a question some time to him, but I take it from that which I know of the conditions of the Household Cavalry it would be hardly

  1555
  possible for the changes to be applied. Another question that interested me very greatly was that of the increase of men and horses in our Cavalry. Small though that be, I think it is one that we are very satisfied and pleased to hear about. There is another question which I would like to ask, and that is whether the slight increase in horses was in proportion to the increase in the number of men? This question of slight increase of our Cavalry is one that is very closely allied to the supplies of horses, and I should like briefly to deal with that matter. But may I, first of all, draw attention to the interesting state of things which I think was instrumental in bringing about this slight increase in the Cavalry. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's recent visit to the manœuvres on Salisbury Plain. I do not know how many Secretaries of State for Wax previously visited manœuvres, but I was particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman paid such a compliment to the Army as to honour us with his presence this year. Unfortunately for my part, I was not lucky enough to set eyes upon him, but the Noble Lord the Member for Sussex told us, in a very amusing way, how he encountered the right hon. Gentleman in his black coat and silk hat. But, may I say that, although I was not fortunate enough to meet the right hon. Gentleman, I was more fortunate in beholding the mounted figure of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who descended from his very exalted position and came down amongst us clad in rich, plum-coloured pantaloons. I assure him that these formed a very bright setting among the dark khaki breeches and conventional blue serge still worn by some of our Cavalry. I do not know whether I might be allowed to suggest that on future occasions, when the Secretary of State for War visits the manœuvres he could not make himself Colonel-in-Chief of the Territorials and wear some suitable uniform, possibly modelled upon the same tint and hue as the plum-coloured pantaloons to which I have already referred.
  With regard to the horse question, we were all very much pleased and carried away with the great optimism shown by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing these Estimates, but at the same time, when he came to the question of the horses, he must have been very much struck by the large deficit in the number of horses required on mobilisation, both for the Territorials and the Regular Army. That deficiency amounted to a
  1556
  very large figure. We have been told it amounts to 120,000 horses. I have not heard that figure very much emphasised, but I think hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House must realise it is a very heavy deficit, and one that it is not so easy to remedy as the right hon. Gentleman seems to hope. What is the proposal to remedy this? First of all, we are to have that census of the horses, which I think, as far as it goes, will be welcomed. But remember what other Members of the House have stated. A Noble Lord who spoke from this side and also other Members drew attention to some very important matters. These hon. Members have been connected with hunting, and one is a Master of Hounds, and he informed the House that no census had been taken of his horses, or, if it had been done, he was ignorant of the fact. I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to this fact, and I would ask him for the satisfaction of everybody interested in our horse supplies to see that the census is thoroughly and efficiently carried out as we are led to believe it has been. We may improve upon this census by seeing that it is more efficient and that more attention should be given to the character and class of the horses, their ages, and various other considerations, so that the census may be far more useful to the military authorities than it is.
  Then comes the question of what is to happen after that. It is proposed that the Territorial associations are to make a classification in their own area or in the neighbourhood of their own areas. I would respectfully suggest that a professional element would be a much more useful and effective one. As an hon. Member suggested—and it has my cordial sympathy—the existing Remount Department of the Regular Army should be allowed to take up this question and to deal with it in a manner in which they are capable of dealing with it. I suggest that five men, consisting of two remount officers from the Remount Department, a veterinary officer, though he should not be a local man, and two men from each particular district who know the horses in their locality, and by his natural inclination or profession knows something about the horses in that particular part of the country. I think it should be the aim and object of the Government, and I hope and believe it is with regard to the Yeomanry, that the system should be one man one horse so far as Mounted Yeomanry are concerned.

  1557
  I may be allowed to again remind Members of the Government that one horse, belonging possibly to one local dealer, will go round and round each man on two, three, and sometimes four different Yeomanry trainings. I think the aim and object of the Government ought to be that every man should either have his own horse—and perhaps it is asking too much that every man should have his own horse—or every man should know where his horse is and where he can obtain it. I suppose a system of registration would be necessary for that, but it is very important, and with some sort of system of that kind it would be possible for the Yeomanry to mobilise and turn out in a shorter space of time than it is possible now. Then there is the question of horse breeding. I am very pleased to know that the Government have entered into a scheme with the President of the Board of Agriculture to do something in this direction. I will not enlarge upon this point, except to say that I hope the Government will bear this matter in mind and not let this scheme lapse as so many schemes have lapsed before. On behalf of those who sit on this side of the House I urge upon the Government to do their utmost to promote a scheme to carry out the two-fold object of encouraging farmers to breed suitable horses and satisfy at the same time the needs of the Army and national safety. I thank the House for the consideration it has shown me, and I hope I have not thus early in my Parliamentary life earned the name of a gas bag or a bore.
  Major ADAM: During the last few days I have listened with great interest to the variety of points which have been discussed connected with the Army. I followed with a special interest the statement made by the Secretary of State for War on Monday last, and if I may at this late stage of the Debate make one general criticism which will apply to the majority of speeches as well as to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it is that they arouse an interest which is little more than academic, that is to say, they will not arouse a great interest in the minds of the serving officer and the serving soldier at the present time. They may be interesting from an individual point of view, or from the point of view of the War Office, but they will have little or no interest for the men and the officers who are serving in our regiments at the present time. We have been promised some changes in organisation, some additions here and some subtractions there, but few speakers have referred to what is of
  1558
  vital importance to the officers and soldiers in the ranks. I thoroughly appreciate what the Secretary of State for War has done in the interest of the Service. I fully appreciate what he is doing more especially to revive the appointment of the Inspector-General of Cavalry. That is an appointment which should never have lapsed, and which all Cavalry officers will be very glad to see revived. I sincerely trust that the officer appointed will be a competent man and that we shall not have a repetition of what we have experienced during the last three years.
  The changes that have been promised in administration are, to my mind, trifling. There are changes which are necessary and absolutely needful to the efficiency of the Army which have not been touched upon, and which I do not believe are realised by the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary for War touched upon the question of recruiting, and he told us that he had no difficulty in filling up the ranks of the Army at the present time. He told us that his only difficulty was to restrain himself from recruiting too many men to the ranks. I have no doubt that the Service has amply availed itself of the large amount of unemployment which exists in the country at the present time. As one hon. Member stated, when the labour market is bad, it is good for recruiting in the Army. So much for the men. But when the right hon. Gentleman came to speak of the officers who are to command those men, he was in a much more serious difficulty, and he gave us some figures which would lead us to believe that the difficulties of procuring officers for His Majesty's Army at the present time were not so great as popular opinion believed them to be. Although he gave us the figures, he immediately supplemented them by putting forward two methods which he was put ting into practice in order to procure more officers for the Army. One of those methods was that he had reduced the age for boys entering Sandhurst, which is a very considerable change; the other was that he was accepting nominations from the headmasters of public schools, who were asked to nominate boys from the schools direct for commissions in the Army. I think it is only right that the country should know that young men are coming forward and receiving commissions in the Army without any competitive examination whatsoever. If they succeed in passing a merely qualifying examination

  1559
  then they become entitled to a commission. That is a very different state of things from what has existed during the last ten years.
  Not only are officers being given commissions in the Army merely after a qualifying examination, but there is a system at present in vogue both in the Cavalry and in the Guards, where officers are actually appointed on probation to regiments, and do the work of officers, without passing any examination whatsoever. There is no doubt in my mind that under these circumstances the supply of officers is not equal to the demand. One hon. Member said it was a case of pounds, shillings, and pence, and he stated that if you paid the British officer better you get a better supply. I do not think so, because I do not attribute to the ordinary officer any such sordid motives. What I do say is that if the parents of the boys who are now going into the Army as officers, were thoroughly aware of the conditions under which their sons would be asked to serve, then the supply would decrease still more. There would be a deficiency even greater than the present one. There is no Government Department which is so prolific in, I will not call them public scandals, but regrettable incidents, some of which find their way into the newspapers, as the War Office. One or two instances occasionally do find their way into the newspapers, but for every one or two that do there are, I am absolutely sure, and I know from experience, twenty or thirty instances which never find any publicity at all. I believe 80 or 90 per cent. of the officers who leave His Majesty's Service of their own free will leave it as disappointed men. I do not mean the butterfly officer who takes a commission for three or four years just to have a good time, and then passes on to something else, but the man who enters the Service with a view of making it his profession, and giving his whole time to the Army. That man, in the great majority of cases, finds himself, when reaching middle age or just past it, thrown out of the Army after twenty or twenty-five years' good service therein, a disappointed man, a man disgusted with the treatment he has received at the hands of the War Department. That, I take it, is a state of affairs which every man, no matter to what party he belongs, does not wish to see continued.
  1560
  The reasons of this state of affairs, are mainly two. First of all, there exists at the present time absolutely no guarantee of the continuity of the contract which the officer makes with the Government on accepting his commission, and secondly, no matter what decision is given about him, he is unlike the rest of the community, and is absolutely debarred from the right of appeal in the courts of law. I would like to say a few words in regard to the first condition. Every young man, when he accepts a commission in His Majesty's Service, enters into a contract with the Government of the day, which is down in print, and which no one will dispute as regards his pay, his service, and his pension—a contract which should hold good as long as that officer holds his commission. I daresay it will surprise some people to learn this is not so. There is nothing to prevent this contract being altered by a stroke of the pen the very day after the officer joins or the very day he intends to resign his commission. He may work and give good and faithful service for, say, nineteen years under a certain warrant, intending to retire after twenty years' service on a certain pension, and then perhaps in his twentieth year, by some whim of the Government, that contract is entirely altered, and he finds he is compelled, in order to receive the same pension, to continue his service not for twenty years, but for twenty-five years. That is a hypothetical case, but I will give one instance which actually occurred last year, and I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that this breaking of contracts between officers, non-commissioned officers, and men in the ranks with the Government is an everyday occurrence. Last year an alteration was made in the Royal Warrant, which before then provided that an officer of a certain rank, on reaching the age of forty-eight years, should be entitled to retire on a certain pension. It was suddenly altered last year, and officers who had intended to retire at the age of forty-eight found themselves compelled to continue their service till the age of fifty. To my mind that was a breach of the contract between the Government and every officer under the age of forty-eight who was serving in the Army at the time, no matter whether he was a second lieutenant, lieutenant, captain, or a major. These changes in the warrant are made retrospective, and there is a great hardship in the fact that there

  1561
  is no guarantee that the contract which the officer makes on taking his commission will be continued faithfully to the end of his service. That is one way in which the contracts made between the officer and the Government are broken to large masses of men.
  There is, however, another way in which the Government equally breaks its contract. It breaks it not to a class of men, not to a rank, but to the individual. The most open method of exercising this power is by means of the confidential report, to which I wish to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary. The confidential report is to my mind a relic and a method of barbarism. It is found to be quite unnecessary in every service except the Army and the Navy. It is an annual report rendered to a superior authority by the commanding officer on every officer under his command. At first sight it looks harmless enough. It is edged round with various regulations, and if anything goes into this confidential report which is to prejudice the officer's future career in any way, then that report is to be read over to the officer, and he is to be given every opportunity of appealing against it. That looks very well in print, but it is a very different thing in practice. A little time ago a general officer rendered reports on officers under his command of a most prejudicial character, and those reports contained not only statements of opinion but statements also of fact. For some reason or other, either wittingly or unwittingly, the general officer had included in his report facts which had not really occurred, and he had also stated that things had not occurred which had actually occurred. These reports were rendered to the superior authority without being even shown to the officers, who were not warned in any way that the reports were being rendered, and when, after a time, they received word from the higher authority that these prejudicial reports had come in, they naturally asked to see them. This was a request that could not be refused, and, as soon as the reports were seen, some of the officers appealed. But that appeal was suppressed by the very officer who had rendered the reports. This and other questions have been frequently brought to the notice of the Army Council, but the advice of the first military member of the Army Council has always been that it is better an injustice should be done to a few officers than that the Army Council should stultify itself by reconsidering its
  1562
  decision. If the system of confidential reporting has come to this the sooner it is revised or abolished altogether the better it will be for the Army and for the Army Council. There are at the present time prejudicial reports filed at the War Office against officers who are absolutely ignorant of their very existence, and have never known such reports have been made upon them during their long years of service. The weapon of confidential reporting is one that may or may not be used. Two officers may be candidates for a lucrative post or enviable position in the Army. They both have confidential reports. The reports on the one may be ransacked—those of the other need not be read. I would not say so very much against this system if, while inflicting here and there inevitable injustice on the individual, it still contributed mainly to the efficiency of the whole, because that is what we must look to after all. But I do not believe, either by observation or by experience, that that is the effect of this system. We have seen officers unqualified appointed to posts for which they were entirely unfit. It not only produces that result, but it generates a feeling of distrust among the officers themselves, and it tends to raise a barrier of feeling whatever that feeling may be, between the regimental officer and the soldier and those higher officials at the War Office who are responsible for the administration of the Army. I am alluding, of course, only to the military members, because there is nobody who appreciates more than I do the efforts of the present Secretary for War on behalf of the Army. There are four military members of the Council, and I submit that they are entirely out of touch with the needs of the rank and file. Out of those four officers only one has ever commanded troops, either in the field or at home, and that is the adjutant-general. I ask how can men who have gone on from promotion to promotion, from one office stool to another, how can they really appreciate the needs of the Army which they are called upon to administer? The case of appeal is another story, but I think that if the system under which reporting is done in the Army were revised there would be fewer instances in which the absence of appeal, as it exists at present, would be felt to be a hardship.
  I wish to say a few words on behalf of a man for whom I have always had the greatest regard, and that is the private soldier in the Army. Up to the present I have been talking on the subject of the

  1563
  officers, but I am equally acquainted with the needs of the private soldier, and I do not think it is difficult to elicit the symparty of this House, or of any body of right-minded men in this country on behalf of the rank and file. Much has been done to improve the lot of the private soldier, but much remains to be done. It is not only his present condition that we should look to. We should have in mind also his future, and it should be the object of everybody who administers the Army to so concentrate their endeavours that in the end we should reach such a position that every man who enlists in the Army should know that his future is assured, either as an officer promoted from the ranks—and I am altogether in favour of the greater democracisation of the Army—or as an Army pensioner, or as a man who, when leaving the service should have some definite claim upon the Government for such lucrative employment as would enable him to live. If this were assured in every case, the class of recruits secured would be greatly superior to that now attracted to the Army. There is one great hardship under which men suffer at present. Only 10 per cent. of the men who enlist in the Army at the present time are granted permission to re-engage in order to secure their pension. That percentage is, I submit, totally inadequate, and, although its increase might necessitate some addition to the financial burdens of the country, I think we should be well repaid if at least 30 or 40 per cent. of the men were given the privilege, as they would then have the knowledge that if they served well and faithfully for say eight or twelve years, they would be entitled to reengage so as to complete twenty-one years with the colours and so qualify for pension. I believe that this is a grievance also from which the sister Service suffers, that is, the small percentage of men who are allowed to qualify for a pension. A man after twelve years' service in the ranks is not very fit to start in competition with the young men and take up some trade with which he is entirely unacquainted. If he wishes to make the Army a profession, the pension should be given as it is given in most cases to the officers. It should be given also to the men in the ranks. I am fully appreciative of the very strenuous and very successful endeavours that the Secretary of State for War has made on behalf of the Army, and I believe that all the officers and men are exceedingly grateful to him. Although he has just lately
  1564
  answered a few points which have been raised in the Debate, I cannot help submitting these two or three additional matters to him or his representative for future consideration, and I trust that these and other questions—things which are really vital to the existence of the Army and strike at the very basis of the whole foundation on which our Army is built up—these things will be looked into, and if justice is done to the individual, then I believe the efficiency of the Army will be increased as a whole.
  Mr. JOSEPH MARTIN: The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs (Mr. Rees) made allusion in his speech last evening to military matters in Canada, but the statement that he made was wide of the mark, and I cannot help correcting him. He stated that Canada would be able to put 1,000,000 men in the field. The number of men in Canada, according to the last census, was, in round figures, 2,750,000, the number of males between twenty and sixty years of age, which I suppose would cover the military age at that time, was 1,250,000, so that if the hon. Gentleman's statement is correct Canada would be able to put in the field all the men in the country between twenty and sixty years of age except 250,000, and these the hon. Gentleman stated were trained soldiers. As a matter of fact, the number of men who are trained annually in Canada amounts to about 90,000 instead of 1,000,000, so that the hon. Gentleman was considerably out in his statement. Of these about 90,000 men who are trained about half of them are trained for twelve days or less in the year, so that they can scarcely be called trained soldiers.
  9.0 P.M.
  The hon. Gentleman also stated that Australia was able to put in the field 974,000 men. Australia has a population—I am not sure exactly as to the figures, but it is a population very considerably less than Canada. I think not a great deal more than half, and if Canada is only able to train 90,000 men in the year we may assume that Australia will probably not train more than half the amount, so that while the hon. Gentleman's statement was very wide of the mark with regard to Canada in the proportion of 1,000,000 to 90,000 it must be remembered that he was nearly twice as bad with regard to Australia, because he claimed 1,000,000 soldiers there, or nearly so, but in all probability they would amount to about 40,000. With regard to the question that

  1565
  has been debated by the Committee in reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), I am sorry the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. H. Roberts) met with some amount of opposition. The hon. Member for Norwich stated that there were a great many people who did not believe that the amount spent for Army purposes in this country was spent entirely with a view to defence. His remarks were met with a very considerable amount of hostility by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Norwich had previously stated that he and other Labour Members of the House were prepared to vote whatever was required for the purposes of defence, but they stopped at that. I could give an instance to show that the hon. Member for Norwich was quite correct in regard to one part of the Empire at any rate as to there being an idea that the money spent was considerably in excess of what was required for the purposes of defence.
  In Canada, for the first time in her history, they are debating the question of taking part in the defence of the Empire. The Government have proposed to establish a Canadian Navy, and that matter is now before the Parliament of Canada. The Government, of course, there is Liberal, and the Conservatives are opposing that policy and advocating one of assisting in the defence of the Empire by a direct grant to the Admiralty for the purposes of the Navy. There is in Canada a very considerable party outside the Liberal party and the Conservative party, who are opposing very strongly indeed any assistance whatever from Canada with regard to the defence of the Empire. The principal leader of that party is Mr. Monk, a Conservative member in the Dominion House of Commons for a constituency in the province of Quebec. Mr. Monk is a very prominent man in Canadian politics, and has been for many years Conservative leader in the Dominion House of Commons from the province of Quebec, and, if I am not mistaken, he continues at the present time to act in that capacity. Mr. Monk takes the ground, and he is followed by a very considerable number of supporters in Canada in both parties, that Canada should give no assistance whatever for the defence of the Empire, on the ground that Canada would be making a very great mistake indeed in mixing herself up with the militarism of Europe. So it seems to me that the
  1566
  hon. Gentleman was quite justified in making the statement which he did.
  I am in favour of the Amendment, and it seems to me that a strong case has been made out for the advisability of withdrawing the troops from South Africa. The Secretary for War stated that the reason why the troops were not withdrawn was the very strenuous opposition made by the South Africans themselves to that course being taken, and he went on further to state that the Government propose, with regard to South Africa, to proceed, in the same way as they have with regard to Canada, Australia, and other Colonies, to take away the troops when South Africa was in a position to furnish troops of its own. If the Government propose to take the same course in South Africa as they have done in Canada, it will be a very long time indeed before the troops are withdrawn, because Imperial troops were left in Canada for certainly twenty-five years, and probably considerably longer, after Canada was well able to defend herself from the financial standpoint. In fact, in all those years, when the Imperial troops were stationed at Halifax and other places, Canada, financially speaking, was really better able to pay the expenses of those troops than the people of this country were, and yet they remained there for all those years. That is one reason why I am in favour of reducing the number of troops. But there is another reason which seems to me to justify in every respect the proposed reduction, and that is the fact, which has been admitted by the Secretary for War, that at the present time the War Department is paying as low as 23s. per week for labour. I consider that it is a disgrace that in any Department of the public service, at any rate in the City of London, wages as low as that should be paid. It is quite impossible for any man to live upon that amount. It is barely sufficient to keep him from starvation. I was rather surprised at what occurred here yesterday. The hon. Member (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) had moved an Amendment with regard to this question, and to my mind the Government dealt with it most unsatisfactorily. Several Members of the Government stated their position with regard to this question of inadequate pay, and it seemed to me that as each Member of the Government got up, the position got worse and more unsatisfactory from the standpoint of the working men of the

  1567
  country. The remedy which the Secretary of State proposes for this state of affairs, which he does not deny exists at Pimlico and other places, is that if any complaint is made, and a very strong complaint has already been made, he proposes to submit that question, as to whether it is a fair wage, to a Committee of the Board of Trade which has been brought into existence for that purpose.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): I must remind the hon. Member that that matter was debated at some length yesterday, and settled for the time being, at any rate, by a Vote of the House. There may be a subsequent occasion, on particular Army Votes, on which it may be raised again, but I think in this general discussion on Vote A it ought not to be raised.
  Mr. MARTIN: Either the Secretary of State or the President of the Board of Trade made an appeal to the House yesterday to vote the Speaker out of the Chair, and said the Debate would proceed just the same as if it were continued in the House, and on the strength of that appeal, I voted for the Speaker leaving the Chair. I doubt very much under any other circumstances if I should have been able to do so, although I am, I consider, a most loyal supporter of the Government. Now I am told that I am out of order.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not rule the hon. Member out of order, but I think, in the interests of debate, it is as well not to raise a question apparently settled by the House on a subsequent day when there is another Vote on the Army Estimates on which it would be more conveniently raised. I hope the hon. Member will be brief if he continues the discussion.
  Mr. MARTIN: As I understand, the question which the Committee of the Board of Trade is intended to decide is whether the Government are following out the rule that they shall not pay any less than good employers of labour do with regard to Government work. It seems to me that, while that is a very proper rule, that cannot be the limit of the Government's responsibility to the working men of this country. If it happened to be true that all other employers are like the Government, sweaters, paying too little for their work, surely that is no justification for the Government, and I entirely agree with the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) that 23s. per
  1568
  week is entirely inadequate for any person working for the Government, and that it ought not to refer the matter to any Committee of the Board of Trade, or any body whatsoever, but that the right hon. Gentleman himself ought to be able to see, without considering what other people say, that it is entirely improper for the Government to ask men to work for 23s. per week. Under these circumstances it seems to me that that is another strong reason for voting for a reduction in the number of soldiers in the Army. If it is only by failing to pay their working men proper wages that the Government can afford to keep up this large force of soldiers, then I, as a representative of working men in this House, think that until they are in a position to pay their workers proper wages they ought to be willing to cut down their establishment. The right hon. Gentleman who represents St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton) said he had been asked by the workers at Pimlico, which is in his division, to vote for a minimum wage of 30s. for workmen in the employ of the Government. I wish to put on record my opinion—and I believe it is the real opinion of every Member in this House on both sides—that 30s. is quite small enough for the minimum wage of labourers of any kind in the service of the Government.
  Mr. G. L. COURTHOPE: I do not think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken can have helped the Amendment very materially by the three reasons which he gave. Firstly, he said that the number of men Canada can produce for our assistance is less than was stated in the House. The other two reasons were entirely subsidiary reasons. One is that the Government do not pay enough to their workmen—I am not contradicting him at all—and the other was that there was some undesirable arrangement between the Government and the Labour party in relation to the Division which took place yesterday, I do not think these are material reasons for reducing the strength of the Army. My reason for rising now is to refer to two minor subjects which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with in his speech. They are subjects I shall refer to upon Vote 9 when it is reached, but they are questions of policy which are of too great importance to leave to an indefinite date when Vote 9 comes up for discussion. The questions are the automatic rifle and ammunition. The right hon. Gentleman stated some time ago that

  1569
  the Government were considering the automatic rifle, that their investigation had led them to suppose that the proper type of automatic rifle had not yet been reached, and that it would be some time before the automatic rifle became practicable. He almost used the words which I used last year, and to which he objected then. I am not quibbling about that, for I am rather glad that we have now come to an agreement on the point. I wish to ask two questions. What has become of the War Office automatic rifle about which there was so great promise and so much secrecy?
  Mr. HALDANE: The matter is still under consideration.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: I understand that the War Office automatic rifle has failed to reach the standard of military efficiency necessary for adoption. My second question relates to a point which I have raised before on this question of automatic and other rifles. Why is the consideration of these weapons—the automatic rifle built for the War Office and those made by private inventors—not submitted to the War Office Small Arms Committee I What is the use of having a Small Arms Committee containing, among others, some of the greatest experts in the world, if these subjects are not submitted to them? The two greatest experts in this country on automatic rifles are both on the Small Arms Committee. They have both applied for permission to see the War Office automatic rifle, and that has been refused in both cases. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman is aware of that at all. I do hope he will consider whether it is not advisable to take these gentlemen, who really are experts, into his confidence. The public suppose that they are consulted on all these questions, and I really think it would be to his interest and the nation's interest if they really were consulted on points of this kind.
  I come to another point which is even more important. I never thought that an automatic rifle could be made under present circumstances. I am not one of those who think that an automatic rifle can suffice for the general armament of our troops throughout the Army. I do not think it is possible from motives of military expediency. I shall not go into that question now. The question of the bullet and small arms ammunition generally is one of vital importance, whatever
  1570
  rifle we have—whether we stick to the Enfield, or whether we have an automatic rifle or what not. I had not the advantage personally of seeing the bullets which the right hon. Gentleman handed across the House during his speech, but I am very glad that he has adopted, or tentatively adopted, some species of ogival bullet. He will bear witness that I have been for four years agitating this very point in this House. I should like to warn the Committee that a comparison between any bullet adopted by our War Office and the Spitzer bullet is not enough. So far as the ogival bullet is concerned the Spitzer is the most primitive of all. The Spitzer is used in the German Army now, and it is as far behind the latest ammunition as our own service weapon is behind the Spitzer. I hope, therefore, the War Office will make a satisfactory comparison not only with the Spitzer, but with some of the latest, such as the Ross-Eley. I have got some Ross-Eley ammunition here, and it is a fair sample of up-to-date ammunition. Two or three points of policy arise on this question of pointed bullets. It has always been recognised since the ogival bullet cartridge was started that it was an advantage to have that bullet if you could have sufficient propelling power to utilise all its powers. But in order to get full advantage of it you must shorten the period it passes through the barrel and get greater initial velocity. That involves higher ballistical co-efficiency, and consequently greater pressure and greater length of chamber. Why we have not hitherto been able to adopt it was that our breech action was not strong enough, and also because the chambers of our rifles would have to be drilled deeper to take the increased size of cartridge. There are three or four questions which the right hon. Gentleman has been asked, and which I think he will admit really arise on this point. The first is whether this new ammunition which he has tentatively adopted will load in and out of our present magazine rifle with a clip without alteration of any kind—[Mr. Haldane indicated assent]—and whether it will do the same in the machine gun without alteration of the present breech action [Mr. Haldane indicated assent.] I was going to suggest that if any cost was to be incurred in the alteration of the magazine or breech of the rifle or the magazine of the machine gun it would be much better to spend a little more on more powerful ammunition if the rifle breech action would stand the test.
  Mr. HALDANE: The whole alteration is in the sighting.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: In the scale, the graduation. I am very glad to hear that. I would like to compliment the right hon. Gentleman on having achieved that result, and I do hope that in practice the ammunition will come up to his expectation, and that we shall not be behind the civilised nations of the world in this matter, which is of vital importance. From the small knowledge I have of ballistical matters I cannot conceive that so short a load in and out of our magazine with a clip can attain a sufficient charge to propel a bullet with the velocity desired, but the results will show. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this ammunition will be loaded with cordite or axite?
  Mr. HALDANE: I think with cordite specially designed.
  Mr. COURTHOPE: Perhaps we shall have some more information upon which to base further questions before the matter comes up again. There are only one or two minor matters that I wish to refer to. One is about the treatment of subalterns of the Territorial Forces who go into the Army or to enter Sandhurst on their way to the Army. There have been several cases lately within my own knowledge, in fact, in the company of Territorials which I have the honour to command. There a young gentleman takes a commission in the Territorial Forces at the age of seventeen, works very hard, does excellent work and gains his certificate A. During two years he is in camp for the full period of fifteen days, and he does everything that is asked of him. He becomes so bitten with soldiering that he wants to go into the Army before it is too late. He goes into Sandhurst. Meantime, having got certificate A, he has got £20 uniform allowance; but because he wishes to continue his service to the country in a more complete form and go into the Army before he has been three full years in the Territorial Forces, he has to refund the greater part of that £20 uniform allowance. I am firmly convinced that that is wrong, not only from the individual point of view, but that it is also bad policy from the national point of view; and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman—I am not asking him to say anything in this particular case—will consider the question and reconsider the decision which he or the Army Council have
  1572
  come to about it, because it is a great deterrent on young men who have not absolutely decided what their profession will be against coming into the Territorials. If they are living in the country on the spot, they may be of the greatest possible use in the local Territorials, and I think it is a little bit hard that they should be treated in this manner. Those who come into the rank and file of the Territorials are placed under an obligation to serve in that Force and keep themselves efficient for four years. An officer does not enter into any such obligations, but he only receives the uniform grant on the understanding that he shall serve as an officer for three years. In the case of the men there is four years' definite obligation, and he receives his entire discharge from the Territorial Forces, and if he goes into the Regular Army or the Special Reserve after even a month in the Territorial Forces, the county has had the whole cost of finding his uniform and equipments, yet that is all wiped off the slate, and he is given his discharge and allowed to pass into the Army. In the case of the young officer, who compared with his rank in life is, perhaps, less well off than the private, he does not get the whole cost of his uniform equipment; far from it. He gets only £20, which does not anything like cover the cost he has to bear, and he has to refund a great portion of that if he decides to go into the Regular Army to continue his services to his country.
  Another point arises in reference to the pay of subalterns. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has considered this question. The Army is no longer an amusement. It is a real business, and the young officer who goes into the Army has to work. I think in those circumstances he should get a living wage. He should be able to keep himself on his pay. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there are comparatively few sections of the service in which a newly-joined subaltern can begin to live on his pay. He cannot do it. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give further consideration in addition to that which I know he has given already to this question to see whether he cannot make it possible for a subaltern in the Regular Forces to subsist on his pay with ordinary care. There is another point in reference to the musketry regulations which, are imposed on Territorials, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not some

  1573
  change is going to be made. Quite half the ranges which the Territorial forces have at their disposal are unsuitable. Everyone knows how difficult it is to obtain safe rifle ranges in a thickly populated country. As a rule you can only get a range more or less across a field. I do not mean a real field, but a narrow valley. In those circumstances, if you have got a 200 yards firing point it is improbable you can have 100 yards, and so the whole essence of your practice falls to pieces. It cannot be done on half the ranges on which Territorials fire.
  I may also allude to the absurdity, if I may so describe it, of one or two of the conditions which are imposed on these practices. The best shot in the world may make an occasional error. Some of the best shots make them very seldom. They make them far more seldom than the rifle or magazine makes an error. All of us who have done any shooting are familiar with the rifle changing occasionally owing to temperature or other causes, and we are familiar with the occurrence of an occasional bad round of ammunition. All these things may in present circumstances knock a man out of the practice under the present musketry regulations imposed on the Territorials. It really is absurd, I am perfectly certain, that the excellent principle—because it is in a way an excellent principle of grouping, could be kept without these regulations, which are really practically the laughing stock of the Territorial Force, and thereby have made it unpopular and defeated its object. These regulations have knocked out many men who have made admirable scores. I have an instance in my mind. I was with two sergeants of my battalion, both of whom more than once at Bisley were in what is known as the first hundred. I have never myself achieved that distinction, but I have done a great deal of shooting. We were knocked out through no fault of our own. One man had a bad round, another jammed his magazine, and I made the mistake of cleaning and oiling my rifle between ranges, and I put in a high shot, omitting to dry the barrel before the last range. These faults did not materially detract from our shooting, though I admit in my case I made a mistake, which I put right, however, in the next shot. But I do think it shows that there is a flaw in these regulations of musketry practice for the Territorial Force, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to announce something
  1574
  in regard to these points which I have mentioned.
  Mr. HALDANE: I do not rise to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend who has so temperately, and with so much knowledge, put forward his points, but I suggest that the Committee should dispose of the Vote, and let us get on to Vote 1, on which a discussion can be opened on the very topics which have been debated on Vote A. Let us get on a stage.
  Question agreed to.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1910–11.—VOTE A.

    ARMY PAY.—VOTE 1.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,733,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1911."
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I have great hesitation in adding anything to the enormous amount of criticism which my right hon. Friend has had to meet, but the question to which I must call his serious attention is that of granting a few more instructors. There are certain districts, particularly in Scotland, where there is very excellent material for Territorials, and many men are keen and anxious to serve. But they are so placed by their distance from any large centre that they have not been able to get instruction. So much is that the case, that, unless they can get this instruction, it is very likely that a number of capable men will have to disband. The cases I have in mind is that of Strathdon, Corgaff, and Glenbuckatt, which are thirty miles from the nearest centre, Alford. A considerable number of the six battalions of Gordon Highlanders are situated in that district, and anyone who knows that part of the country is aware that there are no more likely men, men of fine physique and accustomed to endurance, to be found. Though it is of my own Constituency I am speaking, I say they are as fine a set of men as you could possibly wish to have. They are all very keen, but being thirty miles from the nearest centre, and there being no railway communication, they find it impossible to get regular instruction, and, unless they obtain it, they will have to disband. A divisional commander, the brigade commander, and the county association have all recommended

    1575
    an additional sergeant-instructor for that district, and if one were appointed, and there were full opportunities for instruction, it would be folly not to include these men in the Territorials. The hon. Member (Mr. Courthope) said that it was difficult in his constituency and in the country to find rifle ranges. The Secretary for War would have no difficulty in finding ranges in that part of Scotland. There are eight or nine of them, and there would be no risk, apart from the targets, of shooting anything except deer or grouse. It would not be a very great expense. There are few such districts in Scotland and the Highlands which are so removed from the centre that they want a special instructor. If they had that instructor the numbers would grow. I cannot imagine anything more desirable, if my right hon. Friend wants to perfect his Territorial Army, than to embody as many of these men as he can get and give them every encouragement to join. I ask him to give his careful consideration to this suggestion, which is strongly recommended in the district, more especially as the cases are entirely exceptional. There cannot be very many of them, probably half a dozen or perhaps a dozen, throughout Scotland; but the fewer there are, the more urgent is their claim and the less reason for withholding this expenditure. It would not be a very great expense, and I am sure the Territorial Army would benefit over and over again.
    Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: The question which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman has reference to service and proficiency pay. In the two years from 1904 to 1906 the service pay was from 4d. to 7d. per day, payable to soldiers of all ranks—Cavalry, Artillery and Infantry of the Regular Army, and also the Departmental Corps. In September, 1906, the service pay was abolished and the proficiency pay was substituted for it, but that proficiency pay, in the first place, instead of being from 4d. to 7d. per day, was only from 3d. to 6d. a day—a loss of 1d. to 3d. per day. Secondly, instead of being paid to all ranks of the service, the proficiency pay is only made payable to Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry. No proficiency pay whatever is received by the Departmental Corps. Of course there is certain reservation of rights to the persons who were before September, 1908, in receipt of service pay. They continue to
    1576
    receive it until either they extend their service or re-engage. When those men in the Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry extend or re-engage they lose from a penny to threepence a day. There is no reason why they should forfeit that amount. The only change in the condition under which they get this pay, as compared with the conditions under which they got service pay, is that it is more difficult to get it. I do put it that it is a grave hardship when those men do, as is most desirable they should do, extend or re-engage, that they should thereby forfeit from a penny to threepence per day. In the case of men who enlisted since September, 1906, they lose from a penny to threepence per day. I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider whether that is a loss of pay which is desirable in the interests of the Army as a whole? As regards men in the Departmental Corps, such as the Army Medical and Service Corps, the case is really very much harder, because there is no proficiency pay for men of those corps. Consequently when men in those corps who enlisted before September, 1906, entend or re-engage they forfeit from four-pence to sevenpence per day pay. Is that not a very serious discouragement to men in those corps to extend or re-engage, and serious discouragement in the interests of the Army as a whole? Why should they be told, if they want to continue the Army as a profesion, that they must lose from fourpence to sevenpence per day? I agree there is no absolute right to re-engage.
    Mr. HALDANE: We do not want old, stiff soldiers.
    Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman says stiff soldiers. A man who joins the Army is, after eight years' service, twenty-six years of age, and surely a man of twenty-six is not to be classified as a stiff soldier. A man of that age is not a stiff Member of this House or of any other place, because he is twenty-six, or even supposing he has completed his twelve years service and is thirty years of age he is not necessarily stiff for the purpose of the performance of his duties, either in the Army or anywhere else. I should be sorry to hear that laid down by the right hon. Gentleman or by this Government, which, of course, we know prides itself on efficiency as being the cardinal justification for its existence. No, I do not think that can be the real reason. I venture to think if you have a good soldier who has been eight years in the Army, or twelve years, and if he

    1577
    desires to re-engage, that it is most desirable in the interests of the country that you should not penalise him from taking that step by cutting off from four-pence to sevenpence of the pay which he previously had. It is quite true that in certain cases in these Departmental Corps there are certain allowances which make the loss of four-pence to sevenpence less than it otherwise would be. But in the case of certain officers in the Departmental Corps they suffer the entire loss of from fourpence to sevenpence per day on extension or re-engagement. Take, for instance, the warrant officers of the Royal Engineers or Army Medical Corps or Army Ordinance Corps, if they extend or re-engage they suffer the entire loss of from four-pence to sevenpence per day. Take men of all ranks in the clerks' section of the Royal Artillery and in the Army Medical Corps and also the Army Pay Corps, they suffer the entire loss of from fourpence to sevenpence per day if they extend or reengage. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that obiter dictum about the stiff soldiers, and see whether it would not be in interests of the Army to continue somewhat the same scale of pay as was formerly given when the service pay was in existence. I think this, as was said by an hon. Member on the opposite side below the Gangway, is felt as a rather serious grievance in the Army, and, of course, neither he nor anyone else who has the interest of the Army at heart likes the existence of a grievance which is by no means, to my mind, an unsubstantial or unreal one.
    As regards the pay of the colour sergeant, a colour sergeant in an Infantry battalion receives 3s. 6d. per day and 6d. additional if he keeps accounts. When a colour sergeant of an Infantry regiment is posted to the Special Reserve or the Territorials, although he may not like it, he at once loses 6d. per day and may lose 1s. per day if he has been in receipt of 6d. for keeping accounts. Why should that be so? It is a curious anomaly that although the colour sergeant posted to the Special Reserve or Territorials is doing exactly the same work as the colour sergeant posted to the depot of his own regiment, he receives either sixpence or one shilling less than the other man. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see if he cannot remedy what is obviously an anomaly, and what, I think, must; have been introduced into the Army Regulations by accident. Then there is the case
    1578
    of the warrant officer of an Infantry regiment. So long as he is with the Regular Army he gets 5s. per day. He is liable to become a warrant officer on the Special Reserve, and in that case he loses 3d. per day pay and 3d. per day pension. Why? He is doing exactly the same work.
    In connection with the Infantry, at present only 10 per cent. are allowed to reengage. I would suggest, if a man is anxious to make soldiering his profession, that, although it is desirable to keep up the Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he could not give the opportunity of re-engagement to a greater number than 10 per cent. If he would allow 15 to 20 per cent. of the Infantry to re-engage, it would be very much better.
    Then with regard to the question of horses. We all congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the efforts he is making to deal with the problem of a sufficient horse supply to the Army. It is a most urgent problem, and one which perhaps has not received sufficient practical attention in the past. I do not think it can be solved from one direction only. We shall have to apply a number of different methods before the question is satisfactorily settled. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the scheme he is working out for the purpose of facilitating the breeding of suitable animals, and the purchase of young horses at the age of three years—a proposal which is entirely beneficial. Might I ask if he would also consider the suggestion of my Noble Friend (Viscount Castlereagh) that, supplementary to that, the War Office should subsidise suitable brood mares in the hands of farmers, and thereby get a call upon their produce at the age of two or three years? I think that would be a cheap way of getting horses, and it would tend to increase the probability of keeping brood mares in the country instead of allowing them to go abroad to serve the purposes of foreign armies. I want also to ask a question about the system of commandeering horses in connection with the county associations. There is to be a police census of horses for the purpose of mobilisation and of supplying drafts, and upon that census a quota for each county is to be worked out. Each county association is to be required to classify all the horses in its area, and to be prepared upon certain occasions to produce its full quota. But upon what is this process of commandeering to be based? In case of an invasion every horse owner would be willing to give his horse, or

    1579
    anything else for the defence of the country. But supposing a war breaks out and we have to send an expeditionary force to the other end of the world—it is not necessary to specify the place—and for the purpose of mobilising a portion of the Regular Army a certain addition to the horse supply is required. In such a case as that would the county associations be empowered to go to a private owner and commandeer his horses? Would they be entitled to go into any stables they liked and to insist upon having any horse they pleased, whether the owner wished it or not, at a price to be fixed, as I understand, by a county court judge? As I read the Army Act, these powers of the county associations are to be put in force in case of emergency.
    Mr. HALDANE: On proclamation of an emergency under Sub-section 7.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: It would appear that in order to justify the commandeering of horses by the county associations a proclamation ordering the Reserve to be called out, or an order for the embodiment of the Militia, which I suppose means the Special Reserve, would be sufficient. I want to know precisely under what circumstances these powers of the county associations would arise. As to the police census, I believe that for the purpose of securing a classification of horses for Army purposes that census is absolutely worthless. No doubt the police census contains the number of animals with four legs answering to the name of a horse; but the police have no power, nor do they take the necessary steps to ascertain the description and capacity of the horse, its age, whether the horse is sound or not, and still less its value. Therefore, when the county associations come to classify the horses for Army purposes they will not get the smallest assistance from the police census. They will have to send round experts to every stable in the county to find out what horses are there, what their capacity is, whether they are riding, heavy draft, or light draft horses. They will have to find out the age and soundness of each horse, and, above all, they will have to ascertain their value. It is quite obvious that when the county associations come to commandeer the horses there must be some limit upon the price which they will be able to pay. It is no use their classifying as fit for the Army a
    1580
    horse which may be worth £100 or £1,000. It is no use their classifying a Derby or Grand National winner, or a hunter worth £100. It is no use their classifying any horse unless that horse can be purchased at a price within the limit which the Army will pay. I suggest, therefore, that it is important that the county associations should connne their classification to horses of a certain value; in other words, that the horses they classify should not be of such a value that it would be impossible to pay for them if they were commandeered for the use of the Army. I do not see in the memorandum issued any directions upon that point, which I think is one requiring some attention.
    Another matter has reference to the cost of making all these exhaustive inquiries which I have indicated would be necessary. The county associations are to get 3d. per horse. That is, if the number were 120,000 for the whole of the country, there would be £1,500 available for all the county associations of the Kingdom for the purpose of making these enormously expensive inquiries. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether there has been any real estimate of the cost which the county associations will be put to in making these inquiries? The last point I would put is: Is this principle of commandeering one which is really suitable for this country—except, I admit, in case of invasion? Up till now we have obtained horses by the ordinary method of purchase, but this is a new principle—although the powers exist in the Statute Book—introduced into our system for making compulsory purchase of horses for the Army. An organ of opinion which my right hon. Friend will certainly attach some weight to has considered this point. I refer to the "Westminster Gazette," which in its issue of Monday last pointed out that there were grave objections to introducing this principle of compulsory purchase of horses in the manner suggested, except in case of a grave emergency such as invasion. They pointed out that this should be the last method to be adopted if there was any other method possible. What they suggest is some adaptation of the Swiss method—a somewhat complicated method—which was described in one of our magazines in December last. This method might be more effective than the method at present suggested. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Swiss method has been

    1581
    considered by his advisers, and if not whether it might not be worth consideration? The substance of it all is that if you want to get an adequate supply of horses you must have several means of getting it. May I suggest that it might be advisable not to drop the methods already in existence, and which have been found to be effective in getting our supply of horses. It might not be a bad thing if a Departmental Committee was appointed on which were some Members of this House, and possibly some outside persons of experience—that is to say, farmers in horse-breeding districts, secretaries of hunts, and members of horse-breeding societies—to consider what other methods, in addition to those already in existence, might be advantageous to us for the purpose of solving this extremely difficult and urgent problem of getting not only horses, but suitable horses, and trained horses, for the purpose of filling up the ranks on mobilisation, and also for supplying the horses for the drafts in war.
    Mr. HALDANE: Several very technical questions have been put to me, and perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I answer them at once, and as shortly as I can. My hon. and learned Friend asks me whether the Swiss system could not be adapted to this country. May I point out the Swiss system is suitable for the Swiss Army, which is a Territorial and home defence Army. I am afraid it would break down if tried here. Nor are the German and French systems suitable for this country. Our method may seem somewhat drastic, but salus populi suprema est lex. If the interests of the nation are at stake, inconvenient as it is, we must have horses, and we must get them—provided, of course, the nation makes proper compensation. As regards commandeering, that only arises in a condition of national emergency, and if the Reserves are called out. The hon. and learned Member said that we might go on according to our usual method. That is all very well for peace, but we are preparing for war. We should in those circumstances need an enormous number of horses, and there is no reserve to which we can turn but to the horses of the nation. My hon. and learned Friend referred to what he termed the uselessness of the police census, but as I have already pointed out, the police returns show from twelve to fifteen times as many horses as we require. It is out of that
    1582
    enormous mass of horses that you pick the horses you want. It is not a very difficult business, nor is the work very great. In Devonshire we found there were 46,000 horses, and there were only 36,000 fit for military use. The cost of making this census by the local association worked out at a penny per horse. I am far from saying that I want to take the Devonshire scale. What was done there was done with all the keenness of a monetary experiment. I am far from saying that 3d. per horse represents what the thing would cost. We put at the end of our circular that we invited the observations of county associations, and I am bound to say that the chief observation we have got is that 3d. is much too little. Matters, however, are in a tentative state at present.
    Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: May I inquire whether 3d. per horse is 3d. on all the horses in the district or only on the quota?
    Mr. HALDANE: Upon all registered horses. That is how it worked out in Devonshire. Then my hon. and learned Friend asked me whether it was not a good thing to encourage soldiers to serve twelve years with the colours? Why, that is the very thing that Lord Cardwell got rid of with so much difficulty. What we want in this country is short service and a large Reserve. The experience shown by statistics obtained by the Army Medical Department, extending over a number of years both in India and this country, shows that the man you want with the colours is a young active fellow who will pass out of the Army into the Reserve after seven years and make way for a younger man. That is the essence of the short service system. I come now to much more technical matters. We found that the origin of service pay was a desire to make the short service system more popular—we thought that giving extra pay would extend the period of service. The service pay was given in the hope that the three years' man would extend his service, and it was given on the footing of paying for the extension of continued service. The main thing was in regard to the extending of the time. The "service pay" cost the country a million a year, and it failed to induce the men to reengage in the numbers that it was anticipated, and consequently the Committee that investigated the matter recommended that that system should be abolished, as it was found to have seriously militated against the efficiency of the Army. That

    1583
    was why the very strong Committee which considered the matter recommended a change, subject to the vested right of the individuals in the Service. Every man who enlisted under the service pay system got it and gets it even now. Men enlisting after the date when the change was made do not get the extra pay for the mere length of colour service, but what they do get extra is for efficiency and skill in musketry and other branches of military proficiency in the Regular Army. Engineer Corps and Army Service Corps do not get service pay, but they get what is called corps pay. Engineers get up to 2s. per day in some instances. Let me take a specific case with which the hon. Member for York dealt. I have given him an answer as regards the general question. Prior to 1906 it is no doubt true that certain Army engineers got both service pay and corps pay. Now they do not draw efficiency pay, but they have special privileges. I will not trouble the Committee with the particulars. Coming to the question of the colour-sergeants, they used to receive 3s. regimental pay and 1s. for keeping accounts. Then a great change took place. The Army Accounts Department was brought into being, and therefore the sergeant's extra duty pay for keeping books was reduced from 1s. to 6d., and now he gets 3s. 6d. The total amount of pay without account-keeping was 3s., as compared with colour-sergeants in the line battalion of 4s. Part of the new arrangements of the Territorial Forces is that they will be relieved of such account-keeping as they do now, because we are making a grant to the Territorial associations for having that work done. This question has not lightly been considered. It was before the Committee presided over by the Adjutant-General, and there are various points which are still under consideration, and which will be dealt with later. The other point which my hon. and learned Friend referred to is the pay of the sergeant-major. He used to have 5s. a day under the old system, and that is the same as a sergeant-major serving in the Line would get. Upon reorganisation the former deputy-sergeant-major of the Infantry ceased to exist, and the sergeant-major of the Militia became the sergeant-major of the Special Reserve, and kept the 4s. 9d. rate of pay. The old post was abolished, and the sergeant-major of the Militia battalion had the new
    1584
    post of sergeant-major in the Special Reserve, and he got his 4s. 9d. His duties were less onerous, and this accounts for the difference between the 4s. 9d. and the 5s. My hon. and learned Friend will see that no change in the pay was made because the 4s. 9d. man was transferred to 4s. 9d. work.
    Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Under all the circumstances, is the sergeant-major liable to be sent to the Special Reserve, and, if so, is his pay reduced from 5s. to 4s. 9d.?
    Mr. HALDANE: The person who went to the Special Reserve was the old sergeant-major. The sergeant-major of the Infantry used to get 5s., and he still gets 5s.
    Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Does he not get reduced to 4s. 9d.?
    Mr. HALDANE: There is no sergeant-major at 4s. 9d. The sergeant-major at the depot has gone altogether. That is the origin of the confusion.
    Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM: I must apologise to the Committee for rising again. I think this question of the pay of the soldiers should be stated in simple terms, so that Members of the Committee can understand it without being experts. The point is whether the soldier is getting less than he expected. We ought to look at this question from the point of view of the soldier. I agree that you may change the conditions for the men, but your real object should be to attract the men, and attract men of the right sort. It is also important that the general public, who may or may not join the Army, should know exactly what the pay is. My chief criticism against the changes which have been made is that the public know no more what the pay of the Army is than this Committee knows after hearing the various speeches which have been made. That is the real gravamen of the charge. You may be fair, and you are fair if you give a new offer to new people; but you are not wise, and you are not likely to attract new men into a volunteer army if you do not let them or the House of Commons have a glimmer of an idea what is the pay of the Army. I think I have explained in a popular form what has happened, and why it has led to such confusion. In the old days we used to say it was a shilling; hence the phrase, "The Queen's Shilling," a clear phrase, and almost a part of British literature; but, when a man took the shilling he found he did not get it. He

    1585
    had to pay for a number of things out of it; so it was not a shilling; it was about 9d. Then, when it was felt you could not feed a British soldier as if he was a lion in the Zoo on one big meal in the middle of the day, he had to pay for something in addition, and the shilling was only 6d.
    Mr. HALDANE: After six months.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: Please do not make it more complicated. I am trying to say, in a popular form, what happened. At first the shilling was not a shilling, but 9d., and then it became 6d., when the standard of living was raised. Then we said it was to be a shilling, but next, rightly or wrongly, we introduced engagements for three years, and people said it might be all very well to pay the soldier who engaged for seven years a shilling, but it would cost a great deal of money if we paid men who only entered for three years a shilling; so then a man was not to get a shilling unless he re-engaged. Now we come to the third change for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible. It came to be called Service pay, on the idea that the man was serving some time. Then it was said: How much better to pay for proficiency. By doing that you alter your contract; not with the individual soldier, but with the public at large who might enter your Army. Instead of giving a shilling, you made an alteration that a man was not to get it for three years' service, and then you said he was not to get it unless he hit the bullseye so many times, and did other things. I think that was a change for the worse. Now I come to the fourth change. Regiments, which hitherto had 200 marksmen a year, suddenly only had forty, and, when that stage was reached, the British soldier thought he had been done in the eye. Whether that was true or not, I do not know, but it is really very odd that regiments which consistently had 100 marksmen, suddenly lost their knack of hitting the bullseye directly their pay depended upon their hitting it. These four changes, coming one after the other, have blurred the conception of the mind of the youth who might enter the Army as to what he is to get on entering it. There is a fifth point I have left out. In the process of those changes—I would not dare to say exactly where—the deferred pay you used to give has suddenly disappeared altogether.
    Mr. HALDANE: There is a sixth. Instead of giving 3d. messing allowance at the end of six months, we give 3d. from enlistment.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: My point is that at the end of the balancing nobody knows what he has got by entering the Army. Deferred pay has gone, the shilling is not a real shilling, you cannot get the new contract terms unless your shooting is of a certain standard, and the examination whether that standard is reached or not has notably increased in recent years. I think if you offered some amount—1s., 1s. 2d., or 1s. 3d.—something hard and fast, which a man would know he would get, recruiting would be improved. It certainly has been improved by giving better pay, better accommodation, and better food, and as we want the soldier let us agree on treating him as well as we can.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: First let me congratulate the Secretary for War on the increased number of officers passing into the Army from the universities. It has been a very gratifying change of policy, and I am glad that so much advantage has been taken of it. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has done anything to improve the possibilities of men passing through the ranks who get a commission. A Return was presented to this House two years ago showing the number of men who passed through the ranks and got a commission. It was a surprise to many hon. Members to find how few such men got commissions. When the Return was followed up it was found that many of the men who got commissions were only occupying such posts as quartermaster-sergeant. I think that is scarcely fair. Men passing through the ranks who get a commission should be put in the line of getting promotion in precisely the same manner as the officer who enters from a military college. No man in this House has a greater regard for brains and ability than the Secretary for War. I am satisfied that the number of rankers who get commissions in no sense indicates the brains and ability of the men who pass through the ranks. If you take the law, medicine, and other professions, you will find that men trained in the humblest position rise to the highest posts. That is not exactly the case in the Army, and I think better provision ought to be made than exists at present for men who enter the ranks of the Army with a view to adopting it as a profession to obtain promotion in precisely the same form as those who come from the military colleges. My second point is that when such a man receives his commission he is obviously in a better position than the new subaltern

    1587
    from the military college, because of his knowledge of drill. But he is at a disadvantage in the matter of tactics, and if something could be done to give him six months' training in a military college it would put him on precisely the same level as the man from Sandhurst. No man on this side of the House could better fill the post of the Secretary for War: he has looked at his office from a non-party point of view and has tried to improve the Army. I was very glad to hear the Home Secretary say that there had been a great improvement in the morale of the Army, which was indicated by the figures he gave to the House. With the short service system that we have and the better provision that has been made for the men while they are in the Service, you will attract a better class of men to the Army than there used to be in days gone by. It is something to have done to have tried to make it possible that any man entering the force has precisely the same chance of rising to any height that the Army can give him, if he likes to exercise his brain and use his energies to improve his position. It is something to have acted with that object in view, and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will receive the thanks of the Army upon that. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how matters stand with regard to the new barracks which it is proposed to build in Edinburgh both for the Cavalry and Infantry regiments. We are more than gratified that that site has been chosen, and we think it will add enormously to the position of the East of Scotland. The position is an admirable one, and if the right hon. Gentleman would communicate to us how matters stand, we should be obliged to him. Are the plans to be proceeded with with all possible speed, or will the proposal have to wait? I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, in endeavouring to enable men to pass from the ranks to other positions in the Army in the same way as they do in other branches of the Service, will receive the thanks of every man who enters the Army.
    Colonel A. B. BATHURST: As to the question whether we are losing efficiency in musketry under the new regulation, for my part I am a very strong supporter of the new system. Although the scores, both in the Territorial Force and in the Regular Army, have not been quite so showy as they have been in the past under the old system, yet we have to recollect
    1588
    that the new system of musketry was framed after a great deal of study of the modern conditions of warfare to train the men for meeting the conditions that they would meet in active service, and, although there have been great complaints of the bull's-eye, yet I would put in my humble word of approval of the new musketry regulation. I am aware that there are certain details which form some difficulty, especially in the Territorial Force and scattered battalions, in reference to practice being carried on under the supervision of officers from other regiments. The difficulty is, in country ranges, in getting these officers to come, and great difficulty has been raised. For my part my own battalion practices have gone on away from the officers, and I put the blame on the officers who are told to come and let the practice proceed. I think that is the best way under the circumstances. An hon. Gentleman sitting behind me mentioned last night the point of cycles and bicycles being used for the purpose of mounting the Yeomen who had not got horses, and the point I wish to press is this, that we should be allowed in the Territorial Force certain allowances for men to bring their own bicycles to the annual training. Under the present system men who have bicycles, and who know the military system of scouting on bicycles have been hindered by the disallowance of travelling expenses for the bicycles and there being no money to pay for the wear and tear of the bicycles in camp. In the glorious annals of sham warfare the most valiant deeds have been done in the past by bicycle battalions. There is no doubt, speaking in all seriousness, that bicycles are most important adjuncts to our Infantry battalions. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to allow each battalion to have a certain amount of money, merely a nominal sum would suffice, for wear and tear and a travelling allowance for the bicycles, I feel certain that the manœuvres would be increased in interest, and the men would be highly delighted. I put forward these points specially, because I have the honour to command one of the Territorial battalions which are going to take part in the manœuvres, I trust, in September, and if the right hon. Gentleman would make some provision for bicycles being taken on these manœuvres, I hope he may have the opportunity of seeing the work well carried out.

    1589
    There can be no better means of instilling patriotism into the youth of this country than by the encouragement of cadet corps. I am not going to ask that everyone who raises a cadet corps should go to the right hon. Gentleman and ask him for a grant, but I think some system might be hammered out—in fact, I think a system is being hammered out—by which cadet corps could be recognised by efficiency under certain tests. If that is well known by those who take an interest in such a thing, I feel sure that the youth of this country will profit, and I believe a great deal of good has been done already in the encouragement of patriotism by such a body as the Boy Scouts. In villages where patrols have been started whereas the standard of greatness of certain boys was calculated on certain things which were most discreditable, such as who could smoke the biggest number of cigarettes and so forth, now that standard is set up according more or less to the principles of the boy scouts. I think there was never a movement on foot which has done so much good, and I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will encourage the formation of cadet corps, and that there will be a standard of efficiency by which they can be judged, and I very much hope that no encouragement will be given unless such satisfactory tests can be imposed.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should like to press the right hon. Gentleman further in regard to the question of service pay. After the interesting explanation of the transition stages by the right hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) we all know exactly how service pay came into existence, but what some of us want to know is why in some cases it has ceased to exist where no other concessions or emoluments have been given in place of it. The Secretary for War gave two reasons for the discontinuance of service pay. The first was that it was not the policy of the War Office to encourage stiff and useless soldiers, and, secondly, that engineer or corps pay has been granted in lieu of service pay. I should like to know whether a soldier at thirty-five—a warrant officer or a staff sergeant—ought to be classified as a stiff and useless soldier. I think there must have been some misunderstanding about the substituted pay, and I will try to clear it up. There is a large class of warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who formerly had service pay, but who now receive no service pay and no equivalent
    1590
    of any sort. If the allegation that warrant officers and staff sergeants are stiff and useless is taken away, then the withdrawal of pay has to be defended on the other ground that has been stated. I can show a great many cases where no proficiency pay has been given to staff officers in lieu of service pay. The first answer the right hon. Gentleman gave on this question was that in the cases to which attention was called some other form of pay was given instead of service pay. I would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the case of the warrant officers, the Military Police, both mounted and foot, and the non-commissioned officers, both mounted and foot, who have hitherto received service pay, and who now do not receive proficiency pay, corps pay, or engineer pay in compensation for the loss of service pay. The same remark applies to warrant officers and staff sergeants in the Royal Medical Corps, and others. If the right hon. Gentleman wants further details I can give him a considerable list of several arms of the Service who are affected by the withholding of service pay. I can give a list of several ranks where no equivalent for service pay has been given. I do not charge the Government with breaking a contract, because service pay is still given to all those who were entitled to it upon original enlistment, but I say that the soldier expected that his position should not be made worse than when he joined, and that if the scale of the pay was changed he would get some other equivalent allowance if he reengaged and continued his service. No legal contract has been broken—unless it is the contract of expectancy. The withdrawal of service pay involves an absurdity and a hardship. The absurdity is this—that a junior quartermaster-sergeant is actually receiving more—a penny a day more—than his senior to whom he is responsible. The hardship is very real. A man has now the alternative that he can either engage, in which case he loses 7d. a day or 4s. 1d. a week for the rest of his extended service, or he has to throw up it may be two-thirds of the service which he has performed to qualify for a pension. No man could be put in the position of having to face that alternative. He should be allowed to continue his full service upon the same conditions as to pay which obtained when he joined. It is not enough to say that he re-engages upon

    1591
    new conditions, and that there is no breach of contract as he knows the conditions when he re-engages. He should be at least allowed to re-engage upon as good terms as when he engaged, or some compensation should be given him for the time he is losing in working for the full pension to which he would be entitled if he continued his service on the old conditions. It is surely desirable to retain the experienced non-commissioned officer and not drive him out of the service. The class affected is not a very large one, but that is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in flouting them. Moreover, no large increase in the Vote is necessary to do what is required. But whether the amount be large or small it is desirable that men engaged upon certain conditions after a certain time shall not be forced to forfeit the service that they have already made towards a pension, or in the alternative a sum per day which represents a large decrease in their rate of pay.
    Mr. BAIRD: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department congratulated himself upon the increased efficiency of the Army, improved health, decreasing drunkenness, and various other things that are very proper matters of congratulation. Then he went on to raise the question of the adequacy of the Territorial Army for the defence of the country. I am bound to say that when the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is read in the country to-morrow it will arouse very mixed feelings. More important still, when read on the Continent, it will equally arouse very mixed feelings. It will arouse among our friends feelings of grave disappointment, and among those nations who are less friendly feelings of another kind. I am bound to say that nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said justifies the contention that our Territorial Force is adequate to the discharge of the duties which will fall upon it. I share that conviction with a great many people who belong to the Territorial Force, not because we believe it to be adequate, but because we think it is the best we have got, and I share the hope expressed by the Secretary for War that, as great progress has been made in the past, so there may be great progress in the future. If we did not think there would be very great progress we
    1592
    should not be going on with this at all. That was left out of the calculation of the Home Secretary, who based his theory on the view that invasion was unlikely, not to say impossible, and he adduced all the various views which we have heard so frequently If there is one way to deal with this matter worse than another it is to point out to our possible foes the direction from which we might expect attack, and to point out the direction in which we should defend ourselves. A great many people in this country do not share the optimistic view of the right hon. Gentleman—a great many people abroad do not share it either, and that is much more important. I have no doubt the occasion will arise for the discussion of this topic when the Navy Estimates are brought forward. I certainly should prefer to raise the point on that occasion because I think matters of national defence ought to be treated as a whole from the point of view of the Army and the Navy. I am perfectly certain that to alter whatever else may prevent our being invaded it is not the Territorial Force, in its present condition, that will prevent it. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite raised the point that we might escape invasion by fraternising with those who share their views abroad. We do not share that opinion for the very good reason that the fraternisation between hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway and their friends at home has not led to a very great increase in the amenities which control their feelings, and you have only got to read "Justice" on the one hand and "The Labour Leader" on the other to see that there are wide differences of opinion. Nor has the fraternisation of the gentlemen of these political views abroad made any reduction in the armaments of their own countries.
    Question agreed to; Resolutions to be reported to the House to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

EAST INDIA (LOANS) [RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION].
Resolution reported, That it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State in Council of India to raise in the United Kingdom on the security of the revenues of India, by the creation and issue of capital stock, bonds, debentures, or bills,

1593
a sum not exceeding £25,000,000 for the following purposes:

(a) the construction, extension, and equipment of railways in India by State agency or through the agency of companies;

(b) the repayment of the principal of any bonds or debentures issued by any such company under the guarantee of the Secretary of State;

(c) the discharge of any obligations incurred by the Secretary of State by reason of the purchase of any railway or the determination of any contract from or with such company;

(d) the construction of irrigation works in India.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to. Bill ordered to be brought in.

EAST INDIA (LOANS) [RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION].
  EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION) BILL.
  Presented and read the first time.—[The Under-Secretary of State for India, Mr. Montague.] (To be read a second time upon Friday.)
ANCIENT MONUMENTS PROTECTION BILL.
Considered in Committee—Reported without amendment.

POLICE (WEEKLY REST DAY) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Master of Elibank.]
Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Eleven o'clock.