§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not think the House would wish me to detain them for more than a moment, but I think they might need some explanation of the first Amendment in Clause 4, a note as to which appears on the Bill. The object of this Amendment of the Army Act is to allow the county association, where they are willing to do so, to take over the preparation of the register of carriages and animals which by Section (114) of the Army Act is a task allotted to the police authority. This will be a great advantage in regard to centres from which horses are taken. We know that there are no less than 1,600,000 horses, and if it is possible to allocate these properly and see them properly distributed it will be very much easier to mobilise our Forces, not only with due regard to efficiency from the military point of view, but also from the point of view of fairness as between counties. The whole matter has been investigated by a very strong committee, and I would also like to say that many hon. Members in all parts of the House have co-operated in discussing this matter both on that side of the House and upon this, and I think that the scheme which we hope to put forward will be a good one.
2352 We mean under the Clause which we propose to insert to enable us to go forward with this scheme, but the House would wish to know how we propose to take rather strong powers in this respect. I think that it is necessary on mobilisation it should be possible to take much stronger powers, not only to enter buildings, but to take all animals and vehicles which it is desirable to take. For the purpose of enabling the register to be compiled, therefore, powers of entry and inspection are conferred on officers and other persons authorised on behalf of the county associations, but if their entry is against the wishes of the occupier they must be accompanied by a constable, armed with a search warrant from a justice. If we pass this Amendment, as I think we shall, I think we can promise the House in a very short time that we shall have a centre of horses in each county and be able to allocate them between county and county, and the greater part of the associations will be able to see that a fair distribution is made. As to the method I will not say more than that it is intended that the county associations shall authorise the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief to undertake the work. We are confident that the Adjutants of the Territorial Force, and notably the Yeomanry, with the assistance of certain remount officers who will be specially detailed for the purpose, will be able to make a very complete census of the horses of the country. I do not think I can add anything more on the general aspect because it is more in detail that the scheme should be considered. The only other point is the Amendment to Clause 5, which refers to a very sad class of case, I am glad to think now becoming rarer. It will remove a very real grievance. It is the result of consultations which Lord Haldane has had with charitable persons who take a great interest in these sad eases, and though it does not go the whole way, it removes a very real grievance. These are the only changes in the Bill as we have known it.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
I should like to say a few words with regard to Clause 4, which introduces an entirely new element into the Army (Annual) Act. We must all agree that the intention of the police authorities to take in hand the registration of horses could not be attended with the success which is expected for undertakings carried on by the War Office. Naturally the right hon. 2353 Gentleman had to look elsewhere. The steps he has taken have been taken in a very grudging spirit. He has appealed to the county associations to assist him, and we must recognise that the War Office, whenever they have had a difficult scheme in hand, have always appealed to the county associations, notwithstanding the fact that a great many members of the Government have never lost an opportunity of abusing those members of the county associations in the other capacities which they undertake. The War Office can certainly look with gratitude to members of the county associations for having made the scheme of the Territorial Army the success which for the moment it may claim to be.
The right hon. Gentleman has grudgingly appealed to the county associations, and if they do not propose to help him he is going to fall back on the police. To put the scheme for the registration of the horses of the country into the hands of the police is a most hopeless step. It is impossible for the arm of the law to undertake this measure. They cannot discover the horses which are available, and they are not in a position to say what horses are necessary and what are not. There are individuals in the county associations who can undertake these duties, and there is no doubt that when the War Office come forward and call upon the county associations to help them they will come forward to a man and do whatever they can to assist a patriotic scheme in this way. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to restrain his colleagues from going about the country and doing whatever they can to abuse individuals or the county associations, and to minimise their power in that direction. Another way of dealing with the registration of horses and vehicles would be to call in the Yeomanry to assist. A more qualified person than the Adjutant of Yeomanry to assist the Government in selecting the horses and carriages I cannot imagine. If the police might be eliminated from this section, and the task given over to the county associations and these adjutants, a very satisfactory solution might be arrived at.
§ EARL WINTERTON
I desire to say a few words about the Territorial Force. I have taken considerable interest in that Force, and what I have to say will not be altogether hostile to the right hon. Gentleman, but rather hostile to the views expressed by some of his colleagues. When the proposal for the formation of 2354 the Territorial Associations was originally put forth it was clearly laid down by the Secretary of State for War that they were to be responsible for the raising and organisation of the Territorial Force only. For a short time after the formation of the Force that was the only question with which they were asked to deal. I can speak only as knowing their opinion, and not as representing the associations. What was the surprise of the members of the association to which I belong when they suddenly received from the War Office the famous Memorandum containing the proposal which by a Clause in this Bill it is proposed to make the law of the land. The proposal, as I understand, is that the police authorities of the counties, through the county associations, shall make up lists of persons who are liable to furnish carriages and animals for the use of the Army. I have not the least objection, nor has any member of the association to which I belong, to co-operate with the War Office for the general organisation of the Territorial Force. There may be some hon. Members who do not agree with me in this respect, and if so, they will support the Government, but what we do object to is to be made to perform work which should be performed by the War Office organisation. When we are asked to perform that work we should have less objection to do it, though it is not properly ours, if we were not on the one hand attacked by a great many of the supporters of the Government, and on the other by one or two Members of the Government.
The whole basis of the Territorial Associations, as their very name implies, was that they should consist of persons having authority and standing in their counties—owners of property, and particularly owners of land—and that we should return to what was the case in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when the owners of land were responsible for raising the forces of the Crown. It was intended that the owners of property and land should be responsible for the organisation of the Territorial Associations in their counties. I always said at the time that, judged by the standard of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, it was an extremely undemocratic proposal. As it is now in operation as the law of the land, and considering that we have put on our shoulders a heavier burden than was originally intended, we should be free from the gibes and sneers which are directed 2355 against us by Members of the Government and by their supporters below the Gangway. On account of these gibes and sneers I should certainly be inclined to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill unless we have a further explanation from the Government. Another very strong reason against the Clause is that the funds to be given for this purpose are entirely inadequate. Although in the Estimates of this year increased grants are to be given, they will not go nearly far enough towards covering the necessary expenditure of many associations.
I am not necessarily hostile to this Clause. I shall be glad to hear a further explanation, either from the Government or some of the supporters of their military policy; but I protest most emphatically against further burdens being put on the shoulders of the Territorial Associations at a time when the class from whom members of these associations are drawn are being vilified on every Radical platform in the country, and I object strongly to work being put on the shoulders of the associations which ought properly to be performed by the War Office, and which it is an open secret are put upon the shoulders of those associations because the Treasury are either unable or unwilling to find the money required for the military forces of the Crown. If sufficient grants were given for the year it would not be necessary to put this duty upon the shoulders of local authorities. What hon. Gentlemen opposite want to do is to continue to get out of the landlords the relief of voluntary service for the State, while at the same time on every platform the landowner is to be held up as the plutocrat, when we know perfectly well that on that side of the House are the richest, and the most idle rich in the country.
The root of the trouble with this question is the amount of money. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put a little more money into this particular question of registering horses. You are seeking now to get the work done voluntarily. You are putting another burden on to the county associations, and not giving them enough money to get the work properly done. I happen to know how this registration has been carried out in a certain part of the country, and why, though the results were satisfactory to a certain extent, they were 2356 not more satisfactory. In my own district I know that gentlemen were asked as a favour by the Government to get the work carried out. I came across a farmer who was driving round one day, through an enormous district, registering horses. I asked, "Who is paying you for this work, and for your horse and cart, and where are you going to get your food to-day?" He said, "So-and-so will arrange that," mentioning another gentleman. This was a good stout Tory farmer, and I took the opportunity of driving round with him and seeing how he was carrying out the Government work. I must say that he had a very hard day, and that he did his work well. The same gentleman who paid for the cart also paid the farmer for his work. It is a good thing to ask gentlemen of the county to undertake this work, and they do it very willingly, but they do not get very much encouragement from some of the right hon. Gentleman's friends on the benches opposite in the performance of a public duty which they discharge voluntarily, and with regard to which they furnish the money. Instead of encouragement they get a good deal of abuse in one way and another. If you continue to rely on these county gentlemen for this work, they ought not to be subjected to abuse at the same time that they are expected to perform voluntarily this service which you ask of them. There is a well of voluntary service and patriotism upon which you draw, but if you allow that source to be abused you cannot be surprised if it should very soon dry up. I repeat that the root-trouble of this matter is the need of more money, and if that be provided, the results in the long run would amply justify the expenditure.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKER
I only rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to give us the clear details of this scheme, which were promised by the Secretary for War? I hope the Under-Secretary will clearly explain to us how it is going to be worked out. I was at a meeting of a Territorial Association where I heard that something like half the riding horses were to be taken for the Expeditionary Force. The Territorial Associations are expected to collect horses, half of which are to go to the Aldershot Expeditionary Force on mobilisation. What on earth is the use of having mounted horse in your counties; what on earth is the use of the Territorial Associations procuring horses for your 2357 Yeomanry and for your Artillery, if half of them are to go to the Regular Army? Surely the Regular Army ought to look after their own horses by means of their own organisation, and provide themselves with the number they want, while the Territorial Associations should be left to provide for the county troops. Of course, if sufficient money is provided, if these officers are paid on a sufficiently large scale by the Government to enable them to do this additional work of providing for the Regular Army, it may be well and good; but we do want to have the additional details which the Secretary for War promised last year.
§ Mr. COURTHOPE
I desire to refer to the Clause which has been discussed, but rather from a different point of view. Clause 4 is an Amendment of Section 114 of the Army (Annual) Act, which, as amended last year, provided that the police authorities should furnish a list of the carriages and animals suitable for military purposes if required. The subsequent clauses gave certain power for taking those carriages and animals by an Order in Council if the emergency arises. Now for the first time that is to be changed, and in addition to the police the county associations are to come in. I quite agree, and do not criticise that, but what I do criticise are the powers which are taken under this Clause. I do not wish for a moment to suggest that all the powers which are found really necessary should not be taken, but I very much doubt the wisdom of the War Office, desirous as they undoubtedly are of obtaining a complete list with the least friction, of taking those very extreme powers of, domiciliary visits, and so on.
I know farmers in some places who are willing to supply every information in their power as to their animals, and would do so voluntarily to some one who comes and asks for it. They are sometimes very ill-disposed to give any information if a man comes along and says, "Here I have statutory powers to go into your stables and count your horses and examine them." I really think it is 2358 foolish, in the interests of the War Office, to arm officials who carry out this work with such very drastic powers. They are to have the right to enter the premises at all reasonable times, where they have reason to believe carriages and animals are kept, and inspect such carriages and animals as may be found therein. If any difficulties are placed in their way a search warrant is to be obtained from a local justice of the peace I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to reconsider this question, and not to decide it offhand, and to keep an open mind about it, at all events till the Committee stage of the Bill, and to consider whether he would not serve his purpose better and obtain more accurate information if he did not take these drastic powers of domiciliary visits and so on.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The price of dinner and the price of supper are laid down, but I think that would be stretching the matter too far.
§ Mr. G. J. SANDYS
In reference to this Amendment of Section 114 of the Army (Annual) Act I am bound to say that I think this readjustment of the arrangements of the registration of carriages and animals to be taken if it is desired by the county associations will produce a very much more satisfactory result than previous arrangements. In the Amendment to Section 114 the allusion is only to carriages and animals, whereas in Section 115 the reference is to carriages, animals, motor-cars, and other locomotives. Would it not be equally desirable that a registration should be carried out of locomotives and motor vehicles, which in the cases of emergency laid down in Section 115 might be equally useful to the troops? The powers which we possess in this country for commandeering means of transport in cases of emergency are much wider than those possessed by Continental Governments. During the past year a change has been made in France, and possibly there might be something to be learnt from the new French regulations.
2359 With regard to billeting, would it not be desirable that the existing powers should be extended? At present, beyond victuallers as defined by the Act, billeting can take place only in the case of emergency when the Territorial Army is embodied, and then more extended rules apply. In foreign countries the powers of billeting are much wider. In Germany, for instance, when troops are marching through a town, and a halt is made for the night, the inhabitants, as a matter of course, expect to have to entertain one or two soldiers according to the size of the house. So far from looking upon it as a hardship, the inhabitants welcome the troops, and I think the system promotes a good understanding between the civilian population and the soldiers.
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland)
It is being done.
§ 12.0 M.
§ Mr. SANDYS
I was unaware that that extension had been made, except when the Territorial Army was embodied. I understand that in 1904 a complete billeting return was prepared for the whole of the United Kingdom. It would have to be treated, I am well aware, as confidential. But I would like some assurance that that return has been brought up to date, so that it would be of use in case of emergency.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARINE
I have no desire to go into details on this question, nor do I wish to foreshadow any particular scheme. Being the chairman of a county association, and connected actively with the Yeomanry, I approach the matter with some diffidence, for I know the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman has to contend against. But I would like the right hon. Gentleman to give us, before the time for the Committee stage of this Bill, some more details as to what exactly the scheme is, who are working it, who are to be its officers, commissioned and non-commissioned? For at present the county associations have got just about as much as they can do. They are anxious to do the work, but a great deal has been put upon them. It is not with them a question of pay. They simply, at the present time, cannot undertake more than simple control. Therefore they must be given an adequate staff to do any more. The right hon. Gentleman 2360 stated that he wished the adjutants of the Yeomanry to take up the registering of the horses.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE
I would only point out that the right hon. Gentleman—or the War Minister—reduced the pay of the adjutants 2s. or 2s. 6d., and now he is proposing to put more work upon them. Speaking from my own personal experience I think, honestly, that every colonel of a Yeomanry regiment knows very well that the adjutant of his regiment will have very little time usually to go about registering horses. Take my own district. I have two adjutants and a wide district. To expect the adjutant to do the duties of superintendence and to register horses is too much. And for an officer to be accompanied by a police constable in this duty is not the way to help your scheme of recruiting. I quite understand that you must have police powers to carry out the allotted work. As to the adjutant doing other of the work, take an adjutant who has probably been lately in executive charge—run the show, as we say. Such a man is indispensable to his regiment on mobilisation. I could not give up any adjutant on mobilisation to look after the horses of the Regular Cavalry! We want to know if the county associations are to be asked to collect the horses for the Regular Army as well? It is really quite out of their province, and if they are not supposed to do it you will probably have two authorities in the same place clashing.
I quite realise the difficulty, and I am giving the right hon. Gentleman all my ammunition for a later Debate, so anxious am I to see the matter settled. You are spending a great deal of money and a good deal of time in gathering statistics which are absolutely necessary. We have got to find these horses for our home defences. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a little example from the Treasury in what they do when they want to raise taxes, and to enforce far more strict regulations than have been suggested to-night. If you put a tax upon motor cars or gun licences or dogs, a man has to go down to the post office and take out his licence. Why should not a man have to register his horse at the nearest post office. When he has a horse of a proper age he should be bound under penalty to register it. It will not cost him any money, and but very little trouble, and when you want to call in these horses 2361 you will know where to go for them, and the man who has a suitable horse not registered will know he is liable to a penalty. I do not think any hon. Members need object to that. I cannot see why a man should not be bound to register his horse as a man is bound to register his dog, or gun, or motor-car. Such a course might put me, for instance, to personal inconvenience, but I should think I was deservedly fined if I did not do what I could to put my horses at the disposal of the Government in time of emergency. For my part I should be only too anxious and willing to help the Government in such circumstances in any way I could.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The Bill, and the Amendments proposed to it raise very important questions. There is no doubt the Army authorities are seeking under it some very stringent new powers. I do not wish to cavil with the granting of these powers under proper conditions, but I think the conditions under which they ask for these powers are much too lax, especially as they are asking for powers which may be a very considerable grievance and burden upon the taxpayers of this country. What is the whole basis of the Army (Annual) Bill? Why does it come up for consideration every year? It is because of the rooted objection which has appeared all through our history to the existence of a Standing Army, and to the conditions which a Standing Army may impose upon the inhabitants and the taxpayers of the country. And the reason why this Bill comes up annually is that is has been considered in the past essential that Parliament should have an opportunity of reviewing the conditions, rules, and regulations which govern the maintenance of such a vast engine of power as a Standing Army. The Government propose in this Bill to enact some new clauses in reference to statistics—such as a census of horses and carriages. I quite recognise that the Army authorities must have, under certain conditions, power to ascertain what horses and carriages are available. The question is under what conditions are these powers to be given? As far as I read the Army (Annual) Act it goes so far that the Army authorities are empowered not only to demand this census, but they can demand the production of horses and carriages on mobilisation, and not alone in times of national emergency. I am not satisfied that that is right.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
This is provided for in Section 114 of the Act, and as far as I understand that Section there is nothing in it about national emergency. Supposing it was decided that the Army should be mobilised for manœuvres it would be within the power of the War Office with this authority which is now asked for to come down upon traders and say, "We want that horse and that carriage, and we are going to take it from you." In cases of invasion, or anything of that kind, that would be quite right when the State is in danger. When there is grave danger to the country by all means let them have the fullest power to take everything they wish for, but this ought not to be done merely upon ordinary mobilisation.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs)
There is nothing in Section 114 which gives that power. Section 115 deals with emergencies.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
If the Attorney-General can assure me that the Army has not the power to requisition these horses and carriages at merely ordinary mobilisation or road marches I shall be pleased.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
I am not at all satisfied that that is the case. Upon a former occasion I believe these Clauses went through without criticism, because they were not observed. If these powers are only being given in case of invasion it is all right, and there is no objection. I think I am entitled to cavil at the assertion which was made just now by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who said, in regard to billeting, that my hon. Friend had made a mistake in alleging that the practice of foreign countries had not been adopted in this country. The Financial Secretary alleged that private billeting did exist on the ordinary inhabitants of the country. What is the fact? Apparently this billeting can only be done under the Act in the case of victualling houses. Before the Financial Secretary chooses to interrupt hon. Members on this side of the House who are urging important points he might first make himself acquainted with the facts. I am at a loss to know on what ground he alleges that my hon. Friend was wrong. I do not profess to say whether such a system of billeting would be desirable or not. If the emergency is 2363 sufficiently great, let everybody contribute in supporting the Army in the field; but, if it is not sufficiently great, and it is merely a question of ordinary mobilisation, then let the victualling houses alone be called upon, as indeed they are at present under the Army Act. I am not at all satisfied with the position taken up by the Financial Secretary. I think the Government bring forward this Bill in a rather casual sort of way. They evidently do not know what the Bill does provide, and they seem to me to launch entirely new proposals before the House in a very haphazard spirit, and without fully explaining them to the House. In these circumstances, and as no adequate explanation has been forthcoming, I beg to move that the Debate be now adjourned.
§ Colonel HICKMAN
I listened with some anxiety to the statement of the Under-Secretary, because I thought he would give us some explanation of these clauses. I cannot understand what the arrangement is. So far as I understand it, Yeomanry Adjutants who are Regular officers are to be asked to make a registration of all the horses and vehicles in the country which will be available in cases of emergency for the service of the State. There are two distinct interests at work in this. One is the interest of the Territorial Force, and the other is the interest of the Regular Army, and I should like to know how these officers will be able to do justice equally to the Territorial Force with which they are at present and to the Regular Forces after whose interests they are also asked to look. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain that to us. If you are going to do the thing properly, you want all the horses and vehicles properly registered, and then you want some one to apportion them out to the different units, whether Territorial or Regular. I agree that all animals and vehicles available for the service of the State should be registered in time of peace, and should be told off to the particular units by which they would be used in time of war, so as to be ready when an emergency arises. We cannot follow exactly what the scheme is. But the point is—are these Yeomanry officers to work for the Regular Forces or for the Territorial Forces as well? How are they going to differentiate between 2364 the two? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make this point clear?
§ EARL WINTERTON
I rise to support the Motion for the Adjournment. Since this Debate commenced the situation has materially altered. When the right hon. Gentleman got up to make his speech it was not within the knowledge of many of us how important were the provisions of this Bill. I think the Under-Secretary should have given us a longer explanation of the Bill. It must be clear from the Debate which has taken place that very important questions affecting the organisation of the Army are involved. The right hon. Gentleman, in his anxiety to avoid the trap which his predecessor fell into of making rather too lengthy speeches has substituted for the Scylla of loquacity the Charybdis of paucity. There is an equally grave reason why we should not proceed with the discussion of this Bill. We have been engaged in' putting through a very heavy programme, and now an obviously wearied House is being asked to discuss a fundamental change in our Constitution. I hope the Government will agree to take this Debate at some more reasonable hour.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
In reference to the point which has been raised by the Noble Lord, I should like to clear up any difficulty which exists, although I do not like speaking in the House on these points without consideration. The position is that there is no such change as suggested by the Noble Lord.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I wanted to point out that there was no difficulty, because this question can come up in Committee, and I was going to suggest that it is unusual to raise such points on the Second Reading Debate of the Army (Annual) Bill. It is only usual to take up merely a little time. The criticism has not been unfriendly, and I think it can be dealt with, and a fuller opportunity of debate given in Committee, if the House will now allow the Second Reading to take place.
§ Mr. ASHLEY
I wish to press upon the right hon. Gentleman that this is really a very important modification of the Army Act which has been brought forward tonight, and it is really very difficult after three days' hard work on the Parliament Bill to discuss this very important point 2365 on the Army (Annual) Bill after midnight. This is undoubtedly a very great change in the law, because at the present moment the War Office and the county associations have no power to go into his house against a man's will and see what horses and carriages he has got. The Government, however, propose to give power to the officer to go into houses.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is precluded from discussing that because a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate has been moved.
§ Mr. ASHLEY
I only wished, Sir, to allude to the very important change in the law which is proposed, and to suggest that the Government should give us another opportunity of debating it.
§ Mr. G. J. SANDYS
I desire to support this Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, because the allegations which has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Bench that these are Committee points is not strictly accurate. The point which we are raising is a very important point of principle in connection with the Army (Annual) Act and the Army Act with which it is concerned, and as the right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seem to have made themselves thoroughly acquainted with the Act, I think it would be highly desirable that the House should adjourn on this occasion so that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are in charge of the Bill will have an opportunity of refreshing their memories on some of these important questions.
§ Mr. COURTHOPE
I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. The Attorney-General said just now that the reason why we should not press this Motion which has been made was because there would be a fuller opportunity for the discussion of these points in Committee. Will an opportunity be given? I do not think the House will consider that a full opportunity will be given if the Committee stage is again taken after eleven o'clock.
§ Sir SAMUEL SCOTT
I hope the Government will consent to give ample time for discussion on the Committee stage. Very important matters are raised, and it is impossible after a long day to discuss important matters from eleven o'clock till two in the morning. I ask the Government to give a full Parliamentary day.
§ Captain CHALONER
I should like to join in the appeal to the Government to accept the Motion. We have had a very hard day's work—only one of many in the week—and the least they can do is to adjourn the Debate or give an assurance that we shall have a Government day allotted for Committee. To ask us to enter on the Second Reading now, and not give us a day later, is not to treat us with the courtesy we are entitled to.
§ Sir RANDOLF BAKER
Will not the Patronage Secretary give an answer to our appeals? The Motion will be withdrawn if we are promised a full Parliamentary day. The Secretary for War promised that we should have a full opportunity for discussing these questions, but if the Bill is to be put through in an hour or two we shall not get a full discussion.
Sir HENRY DALZIEL
I hope the Patronage Secretary will not allow himself to be taken advantage of after a hard and trying day. My experience of Committee on the Army Bill is not such as to encourage me to hope that the present Government will be more generous than the previous Conservative Government was. All the important Debates which ever took place, and they were not many, on the Committee stage always took place after twelve o'clock. I understand there are one or two points of some importance to be brought forward. Perhaps the Government might consider the advisability on Report of giving an hour or two, perhaps three hours. As for the extra Parliamentary day in view of the important business which the Government have in hand I do not think it would be popular on this side of the House.
The hon. Gentleman has given the whole case away. After a hard and trying day is the very time to give way. The hon. Gentleman's intervention in the Debate is well-timed. He appeals to the right hon. Gentleman to give three hours to the Report stage. He has not the slightest hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to that request. What he wants to do is to get the Second Reading, and go to the right hon. Gentleman and say: "Now you can smuggle through the other stages of the Bill in the way I have engineered the Second Reading." The discussion of important matters here is undoubtedly becoming a perfect farce. The Govern- 2367 ment do not give us time for their discussion. I take a deep interest in the matters dealt with in this Bill. When we say that Parliamentary time has been abused by the present Government, they reply that the ordinary working day of this House is up to eleven o'clock. The moment they have a chance of putting business on a sound footing they find it necessary to suspend the eleven o'clock rule, and to smuggle through important measures after the close of the ordinary working day. On this account it is impossible for us to allow a matter of this kind to pass without making a strong protest. Some hon. Members who make protests are strong in words but not in deeds.
It is well-known to the Government that some of the people whom hon. Members below the Gangway from Ireland represent are at the present moment trying their very best to deprive the Army and Navy of recruits. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, nobody can deny it. They are only anxious to see anything connected with the Army and Navy smuggled through at an hour when no reports can get into any newspaper in England, Ireland, or Scotland. Therefore I support the suggestion that we should have three hours to discuss the Second Beading of this Bill. No Member of the Government has accepted the suggestion which was made by their own supporter. It is a perfect shame that we should be treated as we are now being treated. There was a discussion in the other House this week which everybody admits vas a real contribution to the examination of questions affecting the Empire. I think the interruptions of the hon. Members below the Gangway are quite on a par with their loyalty. I trust that the Patronage Secretary will fall in with the suggestion to give us three solid hours for the discussion of this important measure.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Elibank)
The hon. Member will quite appreciate that I am not able to give such an undertaking without consultation with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not well and I asked him to remain away. I may perhaps say I shall do my best to secure two or three hours for discussion on some day before the 26th of April before eleven o'clock. I hope that the House will 2368 accept that and allow us to obtain the Second Beading to-night. I might remind the hon. Members that the practice of the last few years has been to obtain this stage of the Bill in certainly twenty minutes or half-an-hour.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
I do not quite gather what the promise of the right hon. Gentleman is. It is obvious we are labouring under a certain amount of difficulty. The Secretary of State for War has been elevated to a higher sphere, and the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely), who has taken his place, is not familiar with the details of the War Office. It is a most unfortunate thing that this Debate always takes place after eleven o'clock. I may perhaps be allowed to recall that this discussion has been carried on for a very long period, extending throughout the night to the next day. The experience we have had to-night is that there is great divergence of opinion as to the interjection that was put forward by the Prime Minister, which is not in accordance with the facts of the case.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGH
I hope that the Patronage Secretary will certainly give us three hours, as a discussion under that time is not adequate for a Bill of this importance, containing entirely new matter. It is only on the understanding that we receive ample opportunity before eleven o'clock to discuss this Bill that we can assent to the Second Reading.
§ Viscount HELMSLEY
Perhaps I may be allowed by the indulgence of the House to say a word in reply to the Patronage Secretary. I am convinced——
§ Mr. SPEAKER
If the Noble Lord wishes to withdraw his Motion he can do so, but he is not entitled to make another speech.
§ Question put, "That the Debate be now Adjourned."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 113.2349
|Division No. 121.]||AYES.||[11.10 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of|
|Adamson, William||Chancellor, Henry George||Elverston, Harold|
|Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)|
|Alden, Percy||Clancy, John Joseph||Essex, Richard Walter|
|Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire)||Clough, William||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)||Clynes, John R.||Falconer, James|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Fenwick, Charles|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Ferens, Thomas Robinson|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Ffrench, Peter|
|Barnes, George N.||Corbett, A. Cameron||Field, William|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)||Cotton, William Francis||France, Gerald Ashburner|
|Barton, William||Cowan, William Henry||Furness, Stephen|
|Beauchamp, Edward||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Gelder, Sir W. A.|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Gill, A. H.|
|Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Crooks, William||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Bentham, G. J.||Crumley, Patrick||Goldstone, Frank|
|Black, Arthur W.||Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)|
|Boland, John Pius||Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Greig, Colonel James William|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Dawes, J. A.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)|
|Brace, William||Delany, William||Hackett, John|
|Brigg, Sir John||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Hall, Frederick (Normanton)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Devlin, Joseph||Hancock, J. G.|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Dickinson, W. H.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Doris, William||Hardie, J. Kier (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Duffy, William J.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)||Edwards, Allen C. (Glamorgan, E.)||Harwood, George|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)|
|Byles, William Pollard||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Hayward, Evan||Muldoon, John||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Munro, Robert||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Seely, Colonel, Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Higham, John Sharp||Needham, Christopher Thomas||Sheehy, David|
|Hinds, John||Neilson, Francis||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Hodge, John||Nolan, Joseph||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||Norman, Sir Henry||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Norton, Capt. Cecil W.||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Hudson, Walter||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Soares, Ernest|
|Hughes, Spencer Leigh||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Spicer, Sir Albert|
|Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Summers, James Woolley|
|Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)||O'Doherty, Philip||Sutherland, John E.|
|Johnson, W.||O'Donnell, Thomas||Sutton, John E.|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Dowd, John||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Ogden, Fred||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Grady, James||Tennant, Harold John|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)|
|Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Thomas, J. H. (Derby)|
|Jowett, Frederick William||O'Malley, William||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Keating, Matthew||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Toulmin, George|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||O'Shee, James John||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Kilbride, Denis||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Verney, Sir Harry|
|King, Joseph (Somerset, North)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Lamb, Ernest Henry||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Walters, John Tudor|
|Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Lansbury, George||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Wardle, George J.|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Pirie, Duncan Vernon||Waring, Walter|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Pointer, Joseph||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Pollard, Sir George H.||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Logan, John William||Power, Patrick Joseph||Watt, Henry A.|
|Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Webb, H.|
|Lundon, Thomas||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Lyell, Charles Henry||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||White, Sir George (Norfolk)|
|Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Primrose, Hon. Nell James||White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Radford, George Heynes||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Rainy, Adam Rolland||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)||Whyte, A. F.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Reddy, Michael||Wiles, Thomas|
|M'Callum, John M.||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|M'Curdy, Charles Alfred||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc, Spalding)||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Marks, George Croydon||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Marshall, Arthur Harold||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Robinson, Sidney||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Meagher, Michael||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)|
|Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)||Roche, John (Galway, E.)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Menzies, Sir Walter||Roe, Sir Thomas||Yoxall, Sir Jemes Henry|
|Molloy, Michael||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Mooney, John J.||Rowlands, James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Morgan, George Hay||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Morrell, Philip||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.||Bigland, Alfred||Clive, Percy Archer|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Bird, Alfred||Cooper, Richard Ashmole|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)||Courthope, George Loyd|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Boyton, James||Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)|
|Astor, Waldorf||Bridgeman, W. Clive||Craik, Sir Henry|
|Bagot, Lieut-Colonel J.||Bull, Sir William James||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Burgoyne, Alan Hughes||Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Burn, Colonel C. R.||Croft, Henry Page|
|Balcarres, Lord||Butcher, John George||Dalrymple, Viscount|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Campion, W. R.||Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City Lond)||Carlile, Edward Hildred||Dixon, Charles Harvey|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Cassel, Felix||Doughty, Sir George|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Castlereagh, Viscount||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Barnston, H.||Cator, John||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Cautley, Henry Strother||Falle, Bertram Godfray|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Cave, George||Fell, Arthur|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Chalener, Col. R. G. W.||Finlay, Sir Robert|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Chambers, James||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Beresford, Lord Charles||Clay, Captain H. H. Spender||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.|
|Fleming, Valentine||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Royds, Edmund|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Fester, Philip Staveley||Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Gibbs, George Abraham||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Goldsmith, Frank||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Gordon, John||Mackinder, Halford J.||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||M'Mordie, Robert||Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)|
|Grant, J. A.||Magnus, Sir Philip||Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Greene, Walter Raymond||Malcolm, Ian||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Gretton, John||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Spear, John Ward|
|Haddock, George Bahr||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Stanier, Beville|
|Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Morpeth, Viscount||Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)|
|Hamersley, Alfred St. George||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Hardy, Laurence||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Harris, Henry Percy||Mount, William Arthur||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Helmsley, Viscount||Neville, Reginald J. N.||Swift, Rigby|
|Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)||Newdegate, F. A.||Sykes, Alan John|
|Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)|
|Hill, Sir Clement L.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Hills, John Waller||Nield, Herbert||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Hill-Wood, Samuel||Norton-Griffiths, J.||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Paget, Almeric Hugh||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Horner, Andrew Long||Parkes, Ebenezer||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Houston, Robert Paterson||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Hunt, Rowland||Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)||Perkins, Walter Frank||Willoughby, Major Hen. Claude|
|Ingleby, Holcombe||Peto, Basil Edward||Winterton, Earl|
|Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)||Pole-Carew, Sir R.||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Joynson-Hicks, William||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripen)|
|Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Kerry, Earl of||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Quilter, W. E. C.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Lane-Fox, G. R.||Ratcliff, R. F.||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Larmor, Sir J.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Yerburgh, Robert|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Bootle, Lancs.)||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.||Younger, George|
|Lawson, Hen. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)||Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan|
|Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Lewisham, Viscount||Rolleston, Sir John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Valentia and Mr. H. W. Forster.|
|Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Long, Rt. Hon. Walter||Rothschild, Lionel de|
|Division No. 122.]||AYES.||[12.50 a.m.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Gibbs, George Abraham||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Baird, John Laurence||Gordon, John||Pole-Carew, Sir Reginald|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)||Sandys, George John|
|Burn, Colonel Charles Rosdew||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cave, George||Horner, Andrew Long||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Hunt, Rowland||Winterton, Earl|
|Chambers, James||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount Helmsley and Viscount Castlereagh.|
|Dalrymple, Viscount||Morrison-Bell, Major A. (Honiton)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. (Ashburton)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)||Haworth, Arthur A.||Pearce, Robert (Staffordshire, Leek)|
|Anderson, Andrew Macbeth||Hayden, John Patrick||Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Hayward, Evan||Pickersgill, Edward Hare|
|Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)||Higham, John Sharp||Pointer, Joseph|
|Barton, William||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey W. A.||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Beauchamp, Edward||Hudson, Walter||Radford, George Heynes|
|Benn, W. (T. H'mts, St. George)||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Hunter, Wm. (Lanark, Govan)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel||Reddy, Michael|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Keating, Matthew||Robinson, Sidney|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Kilbride, Denis||Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasow)|
|Clough, William||King, Joseph (Somerset, North)||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Soares, Ernest Joseph|
|Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cockerm'th)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, W.)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Levy, Sir Maurice||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lewis, John Herbert||Tennant, Harold John|
|Duffy, William J.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Edwards, A. C. (Glamorgan, E.)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Waring, Walter|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Webb, Henry|
|Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of||Meagher, Michael||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E. R.)|
|Elverston, Harold||Mooney, John J.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Falconer, James||Muldoon, John||Whitehouse, John Howard|
|Ferens, Thomas Robinson||Munro, Robert||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Field, William||Needham, Christopher Thomas||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Neilson, Francis||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|France, Gerald Ashburner||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Gelder, Sir William Alfred||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Hackett, John||Ogden, Fred||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Kelly, E. P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)|
§ Mr. ACLAND
I only rise to explain a point raised by the hon. Member for the Wells Division (Mr. Sandys), that under our law we possessed no rights of billeting except in cases of emergency. I ventured at the time to interpose a remark——
§ Mr. SANDYS
My point was this, that we had no rights for billeting troops except in victualling houses, except in cases of emergency declared by the Secretary of State for War. When the Territorial Force was instituted I said I wished those rights extended to other cases apart from that of emergency.
§ Mr. ACLAND
It was a case of misunderstanding. It was in my recollection that we had taken powers to billet in 2370 private houses as well as victualling houses.
§ Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREW
I do not know whether I am still in order in talking about horses. It has always seemed an extraordinary thing to me that we, who are the greatest horse-breeding nation in the world, or at any rate the oldest, are the people who at the present moment are unable to provide horses for our very small Army and Territorial Force. I would appeal to my hon. Friends below the Gangway on this side whether they have not the best mares in the whole world?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
There cannot be a general discussion on horses and mares. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must con fine himself to Clause 4.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
There is no question of getting horses at all. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at Clause 4, which we are supposed to be discussing, he will see that it is a question of making a list of those that we have.
§ Sir R. POLE-CAREW
I apologise. I thought that in order to collect horses you were obliged to breed them. As I have mistaken the Clause, I will say no more to-night.
§ Sir SAMUEL SCOTT
May I ask what is meant by "proper officer"? A great deal depends on who the proper officer is and by whom he will be paid, as to the cost which will fall on the county associations. Under whose command will this "proper officer" be? Will he be a member of the Regular Army? Is he to be appointed by the Territorial Association? By whom is he to be paid?
§ Colonel SEELY
As I said earlier in the Debate, I cannot give the precise details of the scheme at this moment; it will be preferable to do it at a later stage. But in the Act itself the "proper officer" is defined as the person who may be detailed by the authority. The persons we have in view are adjutants of the Territorial Forces and remount officers specially detailed for the purpose. Beyond that I think it will be better not to go at present.
§ Colonel SEELY
I will not commit myself to that, but I do not think the expense will fall on the associations.
§ Mr. TYSON WILSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ 1.0 A.M.
§ Colonel CHALONER
The right hon. Gentleman has given us to understand that he has the idea of throwing this work on the Yeomanry adjutants. I am perfectly convinced that a Yeomanry adjutant, if he does his work properly, has quite enough to do now without being required to do more. I myself was a Yeomanry adjutant for five years, and know something of the work adjutants have to do. Although I am quite aware that there are some who 2372 do it well, and others who do it badly, I am confident that a Yeomanry adjutant has enough work on his shoulders for the time in which he has to do it. I therefore venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question, for there are very strong objections to the proposal now made. At the very time when the adjutant is most wanted to look after the regiment, and keep it in proper order, namely, the moment of mobilisation, that is the time he will be called upon to do this work of registration.
Secondly, I object to the proposal because the Yeomanry adjutant is already underpaid like all other officers in the British Army. There is no country in the world that is so stingy with their officers' pay as this country. Officers are worse paid than the members of any other profession. The Secretary for War suggested the other night that rising barristers are very much in the same position. That I deny. A rising barrister has a very big living to look forward to in after life, and therefore it is worth his while to learn his work at lower pay. Why a Yeomanry adjutant should be called upon to do extra work without extra pay I fail to see. Finally, if you add these duties to his other work you are bound to take away the time he should devote to that other work. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this question.
§ Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time.
§ Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]
§ And it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at Seven minutes after One a.m., Thursday, 6th April