Commons Sitting of 19 April 1911

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sligo Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.
City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Ely Rural District Water Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 11) Bill (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Land Drainage Act, 1861, in the matter of a proposed drainage district in the parishes of Minsterworth and Highnam Over and Linton, in the county of Gloucester," presented by Sir EDWARD STRACHEY; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  "To regulate the expenditure of money by the London County Council on capital account during the current financial period and the raising of money to meet such expenditure; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Admiralty Clerks.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a proposal was recently made to the Treasury to transfer the Class 1 clerks in a certain department of the Admiralty from a salary scale of £150 rising to £500, to one of £200 rising to
  854
  £600; if so, from what source he proposes to obtain the £700 necessary to give effect to this proposal, seeing that Parliament has been asked to sanction only the amount based on the lower scale of salaries; what additional duties these clerks have been called upon to do since the Navy Estimates were prepared to justify the additional salary; what is the average period of the service of each of the clerks referred to; how many of them are at present in receipt of special allowances, and of what value are those allowances; whether, prior to sanction being given to the increase of the salaries of these clerks, an application was received from the Class 1 clerks of the other departments of the Admiralty to be granted the same increase as their colleagues; whether such application was laid before him; and, if not, by whose authority was any distinction made between the Class 1 clerks in the various departments of the Admiralty?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My hon. Friend is not correct in his statement of the facts in this matter, which are as follows: On the application to the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board of the initial scale of £200—£500 for junior Class I. clerks, the Admiralty immediately applied for the restoration in their secretariat of this scale which had existed prior to 1896. The sanction of the Treasury to this request was not obtained in time for its effect to be shown in the printed Estimates for 1911–12, but the financial result as regards the current year will be insignificant in comparison with the figure suggested in the question, and the covering approval of this House will, in the usual way, be sought in the Appropriation Bill. As the decision is a general one, covering the future as well as the present, there is no question of special treatment for the particular gentlemen referred to by ray hon. Friend. The allowances remain as stated in the Navy Estimates. The reply to the fifth part of the question is in the affirmative. The application was laid before the Treasury.

  Workmen's Petitions (Admiralty).
  Mr. WILKIEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can expedite the procedure as to dealing with the various classes of workmen's petitions; and if he can now state when he will be able to give the Admiralty's reply to the petitions presented last year?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The last annual petitions are being dealt with as quickly as possible; it cannot yet be stated when the replies will be issued, but there will be no unnecessary delay, the present practice being to issue all the replies together.

  Admiralty Contracts (Rate of Wages).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the following firms who are executing contracts for the Admiralty at their works in Sheffield do not pay the standard rate of wage to the joiners and other workmen employed by them, viz.: John Brown and Company, Cammell, Laird, and Company, and Vickers, Sons, and Maxim; whether, with the object of enforcing the conditions contained in the Fair Wages Clause, he will make inquiry into the matter; and whether, when doing so, he will consult the representatives of the men as well as the representatives of the firms?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative; to the second part in the affirmative if particulars of any alleged infringement are lodged with the Department in the usual manner; to the third part, the reply is in the affirmative dependent on any particulars that may be lodged showing that there appears to be a reasonable case for inquiry.
  Mr. TUDOR WALTERS: May I ask whether he has received any representations from local trade unions upon these rates of wages; and, secondly, if facts are put before him showing that the standard rate of wages is not paid on Government contracts will he order an inquiry to be made?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say with regard to the first part of the question, but with regard to the second, if the hon. Member will give me detailed particulars certainly I will inquire.

  "Dreadnought" Construction.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been directed to the statement made in debate in the Turkish Parliament on Saturday, 8th April, that the Turkish Government is obtaining from Messrs. Armstrong two "Dreadnoughts" without armament for £51 per ton, as against £63 per ton paid by the British Government for precisely the same type of ship; and if he will explain why this country should pay more than Turkey for such ships?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I must refer my hon. Friend to a reply I gave on 12th April to a starred question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, and to a reply I gave to an unstarred question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith on 18th April.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Did the hon. Gentleman inquire from Messrs. Armstrong's, as they are specifically mentioned?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will he do so?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I cannot do so on the facts stated.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what was the displacement of the first battleships of the "Dreadnought" type to be built within a contract period of two years; and what is the tonnage, actual or estimated, of the latest ships which are to be built within this period?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The first contract-built battleship of the "Dreadnought" type to be built under a contract period of two years was the "Superb," delivered on 24th May, 1909, with a displacement tonnage of 18,600 tons. The next contract-built ship coming within this category was the "Vanguard," delivered on 28th February, 1910, with a displacement tonnage of 19,250 tons. The displacement tonnage for the latest "Dreadnought" ships now building has not yet been published.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked (1) the cost per ton of hull, armour for hull, and machinery, of the latest Admiralty "Dreadnought" delivered from contractors? And (2) if he will state, as nearly as his information allows, what is the cost per ton of the hull and machinery of "Dreadnoughts" built in Government yards and of "Dreadnoughts" built in private yards in this country?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I can only repeat the general answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 12th April respecting the average cost per ton of "Dreadnoughts," adding that, after full consideration, I am of opinion that it would not be desirable to furnish the detailed information asked for in the present question, as such information would tend to disclose the actual weights of armour and hull respectively in our latest ships.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is not the information practically public as to how much is paid for ships' tonnage and armour?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. We do give in the Estimates the aggregate cost of the armour and the hull and the aggregate weight of the armour and the hull, but if we gave the cost per ton of the armour and hull separately it would be possible by a simple mathmatical calculation to arrive at particulars with regard to the weight of the armour of the ships, which is not given.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, as nearly as he is able, the cost per ton of the total displacement of Government dockyard-built "Dreadnoughts" on the one hand, and contractor-built "Dreadnoughts" on the other?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: For the "Dreadnoughts" already completed the following are the particulars asked:—

  Tonnage.

  Average cost per ton of total displacement.

  Dockyard-built:—

  £

  "Dreadnought"

  17,900

  99.8

  "Bellerophon"

  18,600

  94.8

  "Temeraire"

  18,600

  93.7

  "St. Vincent"

  19,250

  89.4

  "Collingwood"

  19,250

  87.1

  Contract-built:—

  "Superb"

  18,600

  89.2

  "Vanguard"

  19,250

  83.4

  I have already advised my hon. Friend that any comparison instituted between the cost of dockyard-built ships on the one hand, and contract-built ships on the other, is subject to the reservation that the bases of cost are not precisely identical. This comment particularly applies to the items included under the heading of indirect charges.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those figures for the contract-built ships work out at about £7 per ton more than Turkey is paying, according to the figures given in the Turkish Parliament?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I rather fancy my hon. Friend is referring to a statement as to the hull and machinery. I am referring to the total displacement.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the hon. Gentleman refer again to the report of the proceedings in the Turkish Parliament? He will there find figures for the total displacement, and those figures are considerably lower than we are paying in this country.

  German Armoured Cruiser "Goeben."
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can communicate to the House any information concerning the armament and equipment of the German armoured cruiser "Goeben"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer is in the negative.

  Census Enumerators.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked if the officials of the Labour Exchanges took any steps to induce the registrars to employ as Census enumerators suitable unemployed men who were registered on the books of the exchanges; and if any such persons were actually found employment in connection with Census work?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The services of the Labour Exchanges were offered at an early stage in connection with the engagement of Census enumerators, and I understand that some unemployed persons were engaged as enumerators through the medium of the exchanges.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman unable to give any figures as to the number of persons engaged through the medium of the exchanges?
  Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he issued any instructions to the local officials who had the appointment of the Census enumerators that they should, as far as possible, use the Labour Exchanges for that purpose; and will he give the reason why schoolmasters, clerks, shopkeepers, and others in full employment were given this work, while qualified men out of work, registered at the Labour Exchanges, were ignored?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I may refer the hon. Member generally to the reply I gave on 13th February last to the hon. Member for West Leeds. I may add that one difficulty in the way of engaging unemployed men from the Labour Exchanges, as suggested in the question, lay in the fact that the enumerators had to be engaged some weeks before the Census Day. A man looking for work in February might not always be in a position to pledge himself to accept a job of only two or three days' duration at a particular

  859
  date in April, and it was essential that there should be no risk of the selected men not being available when the Census had to be taken.

  North Sea Convention, 1882.
  Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, considering the necessity of protecting the breeding ground of fish in our inshore waters in order that our food supplies be maintained and employment provided for our fishing population, he would propose a revision of the North Sea Convention of 1882, so that the bays and firths round our coast be closed to trawlers and an extension be made of our territorial waters?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Montrose Burghs on 13th February last.

  Anglo-Japanese Treaty.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Clause 8 of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, providing that certain articles, the produce or manufacture of Japan, shall be free of duty on importation into the United Kingdom, would prevent the United Kingdom from imposing such duties for revenue purposes within eighteen months from the date of the treaty and thereafter, until the required six months' notice of the abrogation of the clause had expired; whether there was any recent precedent for such a restriction of the fiscal freedom of the United Kingdom; whether he consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the desirability of including this clause in the Treaty; and at whose instance this stipulation was adopted?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, the United Kingdom would be unable, under Article 8 of the Treaty, to impose duties on the articles mentioned in Part II. of the Schedule until at least twelve months after 17th July, 1911, the date on which the Treaty comes into force. After that date it becomes a question of negotiation with the Japanese Government. If they gave their assent duties might be imposed forthwith, but in the event of their refusal at least another twelve months would have
  860
  to expire before duties could be imposed on the articles above mentioned. There is no recent precedent for such an arrangement, but great care has been taken to preserve fiscal freedom. As regards the rest of the question, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch on 11th April last.
  Mr. AITKENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a Dominion, Colony, or Possession of the United Kingdom adhering to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, under Article 27 of that Treaty, must adhere to the tariff schedules in that Treaty; whether they must admit the goods enumerated in Part II. free of duty into such Dominion, Colony, or Possession; and whether there was reason to believe that any Dominion, Colony, or Possession desired to adhere to the Treaty on those terms?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Any Dominion, Colony, or Possession adhering to the Treaty under Article 27 would be entitled to the advantages of Part I of the Tariff Schedule thereto by virtue of the most-favoured-nation Article of the Treaty, but would not be under the necessity of admitting the articles specified in Part II. of that Schedule free of duty, since Article 8 is specifically confined to the United Kingdom. No notification has as yet been received of the intention of any Dominion, Colony, or Possession to adhere to the Treaty.
  Mr. GOULDINGasked whether the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions were informed of the negotiations which were taking place for the conclusion of the Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and Japan; whether the responsible Government of any such Dominion was consulted as to the provisions of the Treaty or the schedules to that Treaty; and, if so, what was the character of such representations, and what suggestions were made by such Dominion?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The communications which passed between His Majesty's Government and the Dominion Governments during the course of the negotiations were necessarily confidential, and I can make no statement with regard to them.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the articles enumerated in Part II. of the

  861
  Schedule to the Anglo-Japanese Treaty are correctly described in the prefatory note as either materials for industry or specialities of Japanese manufacture; and whether these articles are in fact competitive goods which are used in substitution for other goods of British or foreign origin?
  Mr. BUXTON: No doubt some of these articles may be used in substitution for other articles, but this does not affect the substantial accuracy of the published description.
  Mr. AITKENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at whose instance was Article 27 introduced into the Anglo-Japanese Treaty; and whether any precedent existed for an Article in this form, especially in respect of the permission for a colony, having once adhered, to withdraw without the denunciation of the Treaty?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The provisions of Article 27 are in a form which has been adopted in recent cases of commercial treaties. Precedents will be found in the Anglo-Roumanian Treaty of 1905, and the Anglo-Servian Treaty of 1907.

  Canada and United States (Reciprocity Agreement).
  Mr. REMNANTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been drawn to the official statement of the United States Treasury as to the value of the goods on which duties are to be remitted, and the amount of duties to be remitted, on imports into the United States and Canada under the Reciprocity Agreement; whether, in fact, the statement showed that the value of the goods and the imports remitted were considerably greater on the part of the United States than of Canada; whether this success indicated that concessions were being made without equivalent reciprocal concessions; and whether, even on the United States interpretation, concessions corresponding to those free concessions should be extended to most-favoured-nation countries?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I would rather not discuss at present the argument contained in the last two parts of the question, which appear to me to deal with matters of opinion rather than of fact.

  Board of Education (Holmes' Circular).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if he could ex plain how it was that if the Holmes' circular was written for his guidance, it was not submitted to him; and whether the said circular was submitted to the Permanent Secretary of the Board before circulation?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The regular practice is that copies of all such memoranda are filed amongst my papers at the time when they are distributed amongst the Board's officers. This is done in order that they may be available for my use when occasion arises. In ordinary circumstances they are brought definitely to my notice at the time of distribution. The date of the distribution of the memorandum in question happened to be during the Spring Recess, when I was absent from London, and on the following day a great national bereavement occurred which absorbed much of the attention of Ministers, and as no question arose at the time for decision by me in connection with the subject to which the memorandum referred, it was filed amongst my papers instead of being forwarded to me, so that I did not see it until February of this year, as already stated. With regard to the last part of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the numerous answers I have already given on the subject, and in particular to my reply to the hon. Member for Taunton on the 27th of last month.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Is it not a fact that this practice of issuing secret and confidential circulars dates entirely since the appointment of the present Permanent Secretary to the Board of Education?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should like full notice of a question of that character. My present information is that the fact is not as stated by my hon. Friend. Communications of a confidential character have always passed between the Board and its servants. That must of necessity be the case in all Government Departments.
  Lord ALEXANDER THYNNE: Do I understand correctly that the circular was submitted to the right hon. Gentleman personally before issue, and that the fact that the right hon. Gentleman did not peruse it before issue is not due to any fault on the part of the Permanent Secretary?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It was not submitted to me for perusal; I have not stated that at all.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Was it submitted to the Permanent Secretary before issue?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I gave very full answers on this matter. I have stated over and over again that the circular was printed and distributed under sanction given by the Permanent Secretary and with the concurrence of the author of the Memorandum.

  Swansea School Case.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked what were the taxed costs payable to the successful litigants in the Swansea school case; what additional costs beyond the taxed costs would be thrown upon the successful parties, and by whom they would be defrayed; what had been the total expense of the whole proceedings; and what proportion of the total expense was incurred after the legal adviser whom the Board sent down to inquire had reported that it was not advisable to take such action?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I assume that the hon. Member intends to refer in the last part of his question to Mr. Hamilton's Report. With reference to the first, third, and last parts of the question I am informed by the Treasury Solicitor's Department that the precise figures have not yet been arrived at and, with reference to the second part, that there is no information available. I can only refer the hon. Member to the answers on this subject given by me on the 5th, 11th, and 12th of this month.
  Mr. BRIDGEIMAN: When will the right hon. Gentleman know how much the Board of Education has to pay?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say when the Treasury Department will have made up their figures. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question a little later on, I will try to supply him with the information.

  Board of Education (Junior Examiners).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Education whether appointments to junior examinerships which had fallen vacant during his administration had been bestowed by him almost entirely on graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, to the exclusion of those officers of the Board who entered by means of open competition?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On the general question of the qualifications required for members of the higher staff of the Board of Education, I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 6th April to the hon. Member for Taunton. Within the limits set by the minutes referred to in the answer to that question I have selected, to the best of my ability the most suitable men at my disposal. These appointments have been made without reference to the question whether the individual candidates had, in fact, been educated at one or other of the two universities named, and had or had not entered by open competition. In fact, out of thirteen examiners appointed by me eleven had Oxford or Cambridge degrees, one had a Dublin degree, and one had no university degree. During the same period there have been three appointments from the second division to staff clerkships with supervisory and other important duties?

  Postal Service (Athlone and Cnrraghboy).
  Mr. HAYDENasked the Postmaster-General whether he had received a request from the Athlone (No. 2) Rural District Council that a mail car service should be established between Athlone and Curraghboy to replace the present foot service, which is regarded as very unsatisfactory, as the distance is nine miles; and whether he would have the matter inquired into, with a view to meeting the wishes of the people of the whole district, as expressed by the district council's resolution?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have received the application, but I regret that I am unable to comply with it, as the alteration would necessitate considerable additional expense on a service which is already carried on at a loss. I cannot agree that the existing arrangements are unsatisfactory. The post arrives at Curraghboy at about 9.0 a.m., and leaves at about 5.0 p.m.

  Post Office (Women Clerkships).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Postmaster-General if he could state the reason why at the last three examinations for women clerkships in the Post Office the total number of vacancies announced was forty, whereas in 1908 at two examinations there-were 320 vacancies; would he state if the decrease was due, or in part due, to the action of the Post Office in reducing the staff of women clerks; and, if this were so, on what grounds was that being done?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In 1908 many additional duties in the Savings Bank were entrusted to women, and accordingly an exceptionally large number of women clerks had to be recruited. The number of appointments filled last year may now be regarded as normal, though fluctuations must constantly occur in the rate of vacancies in every class.

  Stamps and Postal Cards.
  Sir JOHN BRIGGasked the Postmaster-General if he has considered the possibility of improving the perforation of stamps and postal cards?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, and I have arranged for certain alterations which will, I think, be found to improve the perforation both of stamps and of letter cards.

  Coronation.
  Mr. MILDMAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he would consider the desirability of providing that upon Coronation Day working hours in post offices and rural sub-offices throughout the kingdom should be assimilated to those prevalent on Sundays, in order that many employés may not be debarred from taking part in the national rejoicings?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have decided that on Coronation Day the postal and telegraphic arrangements throughout the United Kingdom shall be, generally speaking, as on Christmas Day and Good Friday in England. Post offices will be kept open to the public during the same hours as on Sundays, except that at offices not ordinarily open at all on Sundays attendance will be given from 8.30 a.m. to 10 a.m. on Coronation Day for the sale of stamps and registration of letters only. There will be one delivery both of letters and parcels, and one collection.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: How does that affect Scotland?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The same arrangements will prevail in Scotland as on Christmas Day and Good Friday in England. They are similar to Sunday arrangements, with some slight difference.

  Sorting Clerks (Edinburgh).
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Postmaster-General if he can state the number of sorting clerks in the Edinburgh sorting office who have, during the last twenty years, been appointed to the position of postmaster; and if there is any rule regulating such promotions?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: During the last twenty years one sorting clerk and telegraphist employed in the sorting office at Edinburgh has been appointed to the position of postmaster. There is no rule regulating appointments to postmaster-ships. Such appointments are open to all classes of Post Office servants, and it is the practice to select from the candidates on each occasion the most suitable officer for the vacant appointment.

  Flour and Food Values.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the valuable food reports numbers 12 and 13, just issued, deal with the bleaching of flour and with the use of calcium sulphate, and do not deal with the question of the food value of various flours as distinguished from the qualities chiefly regarded by millers and bakers; and if he will cause to be prepared, as early as possible, an authoritative report on the subject of flour manufacture solely from the point of view of the production of flour of the highest possible food value?
  Mr. BURNS: A report on the nutritive values of flour is in preparation and will shortly be issued.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that information will be issued?
  Mr. BURNS: Not before the report is ready.
  Mr. HUNTasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether, in view of Dr. J. M. Hamill's report on the effects to health of the bleaching of flour, and of the fact that after bleaching the same amount of flour will make more loaves of bread without increasing the nourishment, he can see his way, in the interests of consumers, and especially of the working classes, to prohibit the practice of bleaching flour? and (2), whether, in view of the fact that calcium sulphate used in the manufacture of bread is the same as plaster of paris, he can see his way to prohibit this article from being used to make bread in the future?
  Mr. BURNS: In reply to these questions, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to several questions on the same subject on the 10th instant. As I then stated, I am of opinion that some little time must be allowed for the consideration of the questions arising out of the recently issued reports.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that plaster of paris is used to poison rats, and should not, therefore, be allowed as food for His Majesty's subjects?
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell me when that further report to the public is likely to be issued?
  Mr. BURNS: I am hopeful that the report may be ready in a fortnight's time.

  Closing and Demolition Orders (Appeals).
  Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that the reports of the inspectors appointed by the Board to hold local inquiries in regard to appeals against closing and demolition orders are treated by the Board as confidential and not open to the inspection of the appellant, and in view of the fact that at present there is no appeal from the decisions of the Board to any court of law, he will be prepared to support or initiate legislation allowing an appeal to the High Court of Justice?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not prepared to support or initiate legislation of the character referred to. So far as any question of law may arise in the course of an appeal to the Board under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, provision is made by the Act under which the question may be required to be stated for the opinion of the High Court.
  Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board, before revising or setting aside the report of an inspector appointed to hold a local inquiry in regard to appeals against closing or demolition orders, makes any independent inspection of the premises?
  Mr. BURNS: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 27th March, the appeal is made to the Board, and the Board decide it after carefully considering the whole of the facts before them, and the hon. Member may assume with perfect safety that the Board will take any necessary steps to secure a knowledge of the facts.
  Mr. CASSELasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state under what statutory or other authority the inspectors who hold local inquiries in regard to appeals against closing and demolition orders are appointed; whether
  868
  their appointments are permanent or temporary; whether such appointments-cover other duties; whether they are paid by salary or by fees; whether any list is published giving the names of such inspectors; and, if not, what, if any, means exist of ascertaining their names and qualifications?
  Mr. BURNS: The inspectors were appointed under the Local Government Board Act, 1871, which governs generally the appointments to the staff of the Board; their appointments are permanent; they were appointed by way of addition to the staff of inspectors, and their employment in that capacity is not limited to cases of appeals under the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909; they are paid by salary; the names of the inspectors added to the staff in consequence of the passing of that Act were given by me in reply to a question put by the hon. Member for East Marylebone on 19th April, 1910.

  Crown Lands in England (Agricultural Tenancies).
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the acreage of the Crown lands in England let to agricultural tenants in holdings of fifty acres or less in the years 1904, 1907, and 1910, respectively; and what percentage such acreage bore to the 73,000 acres of English agricultural land belonging to the Crown?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The acreage of Crown lands in England let to agricultural tenants in the years 1904, 1907, and 1910, respectively, and the acreage of the land let for holdings of fifty acres or less in those years, with the percentages which the latter bore to the former, is as follows:—

  Year.

  Total acreage

  Acreage let in holdings of 50 acres or less.

  Percentage.

  1904

  …

  71,474

  2,320

  3·24

  1907

  …

  71,652

  2,375

  3·31

  1910

  …

  72,926

  8,395

  11·51

  Mr. MORRELL: Do the Commissioners communicate with the Small Holdings Commissioners in this matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I really cannot answer that without notice. It quite depends upon the circumstances of the case.

  British Museum (Huth Bequest).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the complaints in the Press that the authorities of the British Museum refused to allow information concerning the Huth bequest to be made public except in one particular newspaper; if this partiality was shown with his knowledge and sanction; and, if not, whether he will issue to the responsible officials of the British Museum and of all other institutions supported out of public money directions similar to those recently issued to the director of the National Gallery?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have had my attention called to the complaints referred to by the hon. Member, but I think that they are due to a misapprehension. The general policy pursued by the British Museum authorities is to send out official notification of any facts requiring to be made public to the Press through the recognised agencies, but to leave newspapers to make their own arrangements for special articles on subjects connected with the Museum. This is what was done in connection with the Huth Bequest. The original notification of the terms of Mr. Huth's will appeared in the Press generally. Detailed information with regard to the volumes acquired by the Museum was necessarily refused to all newspapers until certain doubtful points had been decided by the Court. After the decision on these points had been given, information was given to such newspapers as applied for it, and articles appeared simultaneously in "The Times," the "Daily News," and the "Glasgow Herald."
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question; whether he will issue similar instructions to those issued to the director of the National Gallery?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; they do not appear to be necessary in this case.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is necessary to distinguish between newspapers in the way that was done in the case of the National Gallery and in this instance?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir; I have pointed out that there was no distinction made in this instance. All the papers were treated similarly.

  Development Commission.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can give particulars of each of the schemes sanctioned by the Development Commissioners up to date?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The advance of £25,000 recommended by the Development Commissioners for purposes of forestry in Ireland is to be spent on purchasing several areas of vacant land in various parts of the country, on each of which a scheme of afforestation is to be carried out. The horse-breeding grant for Great Britain, amounting to about £45,000, provides, among other things, for the expenditure of £13,000 for the granting of premiums to stallions, of £10,000 for the encouragement of the keeping of brood mares, of £3,000 for free nominations for the service of mares by premium stallions, of £5,000 for the purchase of stallions, and of £5,000 for the registration of stallions. These figures are not absolutely fixed, because it was thought that experience might point to the desirability of some transfers between the different heads of expenditure. Of the grant of £10,000 sanctioned for horse-breeding in Ireland, two-fifths are for the registration and purchase of stallions, two-fifths for service nominations to mares, and one-fifth for the encouragement of the keeping and breeding of better mares of the Irish draught type. The grants for horse-breeding are designed to cover one year's operations, and are open to renewal year by year. The advance of £13,500 to the Stonehaven Harbour Trustees is to provide for the deepening of the harbour, by the removal of rocks, which seriously impair its value. A grant of some £9,000 has just been sanctioned by the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Commissioners, for agricultural research and investigation in England and Wales. This grant is an interim one for the present financial year, pending the settlement of a comprehensive scheme which, I understand, is now being discussed.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether an application from the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee was forwarded to the Board by the Treasury in July, 1910, under the provisions of the Development Act, for consideration and report; whether the Board have yet made their report; and, if so, what was the date on which it was forwarded by the Board to the Development Commission?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The recommendation to be made by the Board with regard to it depends upon the arrangements made for the development and improvement of our fisheries generally, a question which is still under the Board's consideration.
  Mr. MORRELL: Am I to understand that the Board have had this application before them for nine months, and have not yet made a report upon it?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, we cannot make piecemeal reports; we must deal with the whole fisheries question.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Development Commissioners are arranging to distribute this money without waiting for the Board of Agriculture?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not think (hat is at all likely.

  Board of Agriculture (Departmental Reports).
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture when it is proposed to issue the reports of the Departmental Committees upon swine fever and upon international trade in pedigree live stock; and whether such issue will be made before the Vote for the Board of Agriculture is discussed in this House?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir E. Strachey): The reports will be presented to Parliament. I am unable to say whether they will be issued before the Vote for the Board is taken, as I do not know when that Vole will be taken.

  Voluntary Schools (Scotland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether, with a view to meeting the claims of male assistant teachers in Scottish voluntary schools, steps wilt be taken to make the State's contribution to the pension fund uniform or to grade it according to service and status of such teachers; to make the minimum retiring or disablement allowance £2 per annum for each recorded year of service; to arrange that school boards pay the teachers' contribution to the pension fund for all teachers within their areas, where any contribution is made; and that such
  872
  contributions as have been paid to the 1898 pension scheme be returned to the contributors without delay?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): The answer with regard to all the suggestions contained in the hon. Member's question is in the negative.
  Mr. BOLAND: Can the Lord Advocate say whether he has given any attention to the statement yesterday put forward on behalf of the assistants?
  Mr. URE: I have.

  Limitation of Armaments.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been directed to a statement by Herr Eickoff, the German delegate to the Inter-Parliamentary Union at Brussels, that any earnest proposition for the limitation of armaments would be gladly considered in German official quarters, and that this statement was made with authority; and if he has any reason to believe that the German Government now takes a different view on the subject from that explained by him in the Naval Debate of 16th March. 1909, when he said that the German Government, replying in the most formal manner to British official representations as to a mutual reduction of naval expenditure, had more than once stated that German naval expenditure was governed solely by reference to German needs?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have not seen the statement in question, but, of course, nothing said at the Inter-Parliamentary Union can supersede in authority statements made recently by the German Chancellor himself.

  British Ambassador at Washington (Order of Ancient Hibernians).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Prime Minister whether ho has any official information to the effect that the British Ambassador at Washington, United States, America, has joined the Society or Order of Ancient Hibernians; and, if so, whether he will state what action, if any, he proposes to take?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information at all from the Ambassador on the subject, and I do not consider it is worth inquiry.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the British Ambassador at Washington with a view to

  873
  his contradicting officially the statement that appeared in the American Press that the British Ambassador was present at a largely attended banquet of the Ancient Order of Hibernians; that the British Ambassador's speech referring to Home Rule was rapturously applauded, and that he was elected a member of this Order?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have already stated I do not think the matter is worth inquiry.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman circularise our Ambassadors abroad warning them against having anything to do with such disloyal societies?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, sir.
  Mr. CROFT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider it inadvisable for his Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to take cue side or the other?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have the utmost confidence in our Ambassador at Washington, who is one of the most distinguished public servants in the State.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the Ancient Order of Hibernians is the extermination of the loyalist minority in Ireland?

  Royal Park of Holyrood.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has received a memorial from the Cockburn Association of Edinburgh regarding the insufficiency of the grant allowed for the upkeep of the Royal Park of Holyrood; and if he can state the terms of the reply sent to the association?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. No reply has as yet been sent beyond an acknowledgment; but on 30th March instructions were issued to suspend the work upon the roads pending the visit of the Secretary of the Department to Edinburgh at the end of this week.

  Budget Statement (1911–12).
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give any indication as to the date on which the Budget statement would be made, in view of the effects which the prevailing uncertainty has on the business
  874
  of those whose commodities and raw materials are subject to taxation annually imposed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not yet possible to name a date for the Budget statement.

  Finance Act, 1909–10 (Super-tax).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his inability to state the number of persons who have returned schedules giving the amounts of their incomes liable for Super-tax, and the number of persons who are liable for payments of Super-tax for the financial year 1909–10, and the amount of Super-tax collectable for that period, is due to want of sufficient clerical assistance in the Treasury, or, if not due to this cause, to what cause it is due?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Owing to the delay in the passing of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, no final figures for the year 1909–10 are available as regards the Super-tax. Later on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in a position to consider to what extent information obtained in connection with that tax should be made public.

  Local Taxation Committee.
  Mr. CARR-GOMMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to appoint a gentleman acquainted with London local government upon the Local Taxation Committee in view of the answer sent to him by the London County Council on this subject?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Will it be Mr. Harper?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think the time has yet come to mention a particular name.
  Mr. HARRIS: On what ground of public policy have the Government declined to appoint a gentleman best qualified by knowledge and experience to represent London interests in this matter?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think it is for the Government to consider what person is best qualified to represent London.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what progress has been

  875
  made in the negotiations for the purchase of the Jermyn estate, Castle Cove, county Kerry?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board have recently made an offer for the estate referred to, which is at present under consideration by the owner.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether the agent of the Fuller estate, Cappagh, near Cahirciveen, interviewed some of the tenants on 23rd March and undertook to communicate with the landlord with a view to the sale of the property; and can he state what action has been taken by the Congested Districts Board to complete negotiations with the landlord of this estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have no knowledge of the interview referred to. Communications have been addressed to the owner by the Board, but no definite reply has yet been received as to whether he will negotiate with them for the sale of his estate.

  York and Durham Infantry Brigade.
  Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the annual training of the York and Durham Infantry Brigade has been fixed to take place at Haltwhistle, Northumberland, from 18th June to 2nd July; and whether, as such an arrangement will deprive many of the men of the full enjoyment of the national holiday on the occasion of the King's Coronation, and a" the absence of the troops from local centres on that day will cause disappointment, he will consider the desirability of an alteration of the date?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The training of this brigade has been fixed as stated. The place and dates are those recommended by the general officer commanding-in-chief, Northern Command, after full consideration of all the circumstances, and it is not therefore considered desirable to make any alteration.

  Army Meat Supply (Home-killed and Imported Chilled).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked by what authority the view is entertained at the War Office that there is no difference in the nutritive value of home-killed and imported chilled meat as supplied under contract for the troops; and whether, in
  876
  view of the allegation that the Swift Meat Company and other American firms previously extract by machinery the juice of the meat for conversion into bovril and other soups, he would cause analyses to be made from time to time of such imported meat, in order to ascertain the actual and relative amount of nitrogenous and other nutritive matter contained in it?
  Colonel SEELY: The view entertained at the War Office is based on a report of a scientific investigation by Samuel Rideal, Doctor of Science, London, published in 1907. The extraction of juices from the meat previous to refrigeration is a process of which there is no knowledge in the War Office, and I am informed that if such process did take place the carcase would bear such signs of it as to render detection certain on ordinary inspection.
  Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire from our Ambassador at Washington if there is any additional information to that already possessed at the War Office?
  Colonel SEELY: I think we have all the information. I do not think the practice referred to exists.
  Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think it is necessary to inquire from our Ambassador at Washington on a technical point on which the experts probably are better informed. If the hon. Member wants to raise the whole question of the meat contract, I may say we are making inquiries in many directions, and have taken action in the last twenty-four hours. On the specific point the answer is in the negative.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a vast difference between chilled and home-killed meat, and that there is no nutriment in chilled meat?

  Royal Garrison Artillery.
  Mr. HUNTasked why the Infantry of the Special Reserve have had their annual training extended to twenty-seven days, whilst the Royal Garrison Artillery, the scientific and highly technical branch of the Service, have only fifteen days' annual training?
  Colonel SEELY: The question of the period of annual training for the Garrison Artillery is now under consideration.
  Mr. HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that fifteen days' training is inconsiderable and insufficient?
  Colonel SEELY: I say the question is under consideration.
  Mr. HUNT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question why the Infantry of the Special Reserve have had their training extended whilst the Artillery have only fifteen days?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think I could go into the whole question of the training of the different branches of the Territorial Force at Question time without greatly inconveniencing other hon. Members who have questions on the Paper. It is a very technical matter.

  Convict David Davies.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any representation was made to him, before the visit paid by him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Dartmoor, that the case of David Davies required revision?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): Yes, Sir, I had received a petition from the convict himself. I had had before me the facts of his history and of his latest offence, and I had already decided on his early release. I will send the hon. Member a copy of a memorandum I prepared some time ago in this case, which will give him the fullest information.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Was the right hon. Gentleman accompanied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 24th October at the time when he made the inquiry on the spot at Dartmoor?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I decided to review the sentence I think more than four months before I visited Dartmoor with the Chancellor.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he went into the case on the 24th October, when he was at Dartmoor, and, if so, will he ask the Chancellor to correct the misrepresentations he made as a result of that visit?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will send the hon. Gentleman the Memorandum, which deals very fully with the whole of the proceedings for which I am responsible. With regard to what the hon. Member says about
  878
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am not aware that any such misrepresentation exists.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the whole record of David Davies was before the Home Office authorities when he was sentenced to a term of preventive detention; if he examined that record before deciding to release him; and if he is now able to give to the House the promised information as to the movements of Davies since his release?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The Home Office is not concerned with a prisoner's record be fore he is sentenced. I examined Davies's record very carefully before deciding to release him. I am glad to say that nothing has come to my knowledge which confirms the opinion held in certain quarters that he was enticed away for a political purpose. I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman for his question; but the case is now sub judice, and, in the interests of justice, I am sure the House will not wish further reference to be made to it at present.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what quarter was the opinion held that Davies had been enticed away for political purposes?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I do not propose to. It should be enough for the hon. Member that I have had evidence before me to the effect that the opinion was held in quarters competent to judge. I am bound to say that nothing has occurred to confirm that suspicion, at least, nothing has come to my notice. I take this opportunity of making a disclaimer which I am sure will put the hon. Gentleman and others who may have qualms of conscience at ease.
  Mr. LEE: Was that opinion held by any responsible person except the right hon. Gentleman himself?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, it was.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot now see his way to entirely withdraw the charge? I asked him a few days ago on behalf of my constituency to do so, and he then stated that the matter was sub judice. I ask him to entirely withdraw the charge if it has no foundation.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I can add nothing to what I have said in my answer, which, I think, should have the effect of setting hon. Members' minds at rest.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Whom does the right hon. Gentleman suspect of enticing this man away for political purposes?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is always a very bad thing to harbour suspicions, and nothing could be more foolish than to state your suspicions after the original ground for them has been considerably modified.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not withdrawn.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman in future refrain from making such allegations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall make no promise about the future.

  Pit Ponies.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether it is permissible, under the existing regulations of the Home Department for pit ponies to foe worked for two shifts of eight or nine hours out of the twenty-four; and, if not, what steps are taken to prevent this being done?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no provision in the existing law as to the length of the shift for which animals may be worked; but it is the duty of the inspectors of mines to examine into the care and treatment of the animals used in a mine, and to report any cases of cruelty or neglect. The Royal Commission on Mines, in their third Report, recommend that it should be enacted that pit ponies shall not be overworked and shall have adequate periods of rest, but do not think it practicable to lay down any general rule prescribing the length of the shift.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is there any present provision for these pit ponies obtaining water between their shifts?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that question without notice. The matter has been investigated by the Royal Commission, and action will be taken which has never been taken before to secure the proper treatment of these ponies.

  Mormon Missionaries.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the Home Secretary whether he has any official information showing that the German Government has expelled Mormon missionaries from any portion of German territory; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to expel and exclude Mormon missionaries from this country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no official information on the point, but inquiries are being made through the Foreign Office. I am unable at present to make any statement as regards the second part of the question.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is public knowledge that the German Government did, six years ago, peremptorily expel Mormon missionaries from Germany on the grounds of their faith being against the interests of public morality; and is he aware that as late as last year the twelve apostles of Mormonism who went to Germany for purposes of propaganda were peremptorily expelled?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not yet made the inquiries which are necessary. I do not think there is any difference of opinion between us as to the character of this propaganda.

  Chinese Seamen (Desertions).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that of the official estimate of 755 Chinese seamen who deserted or were paid off from vessels in the port of Liverpool during the year ending 31st March, 1911, many of these alleged seamen were really passengers and were entered on the ships' articles as members of the crew for purposes of expediency in evading the Aliens Act or economy in avoiding payment of the Suez Canal passenger dues by the owners or agents of these vessels; and will he say in how many instances the passage money from China has been prepaid by or on behalf of Chinese employers or agents located in Liverpool, and how many of these 755 Chinamen entered this country under in denture obligations similar in terms and conditions to those applying to Chinese labourers introduced into South Africa prior to 1906?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Inquiries are being made of the police, but I am not at present in possession of any facts supporting the suggestion that many of these seamen were really passengers. I have no information in regard to the latter part of the question. If the hon. Member has any definite information of specific evasions of the Aliens Act by the bringing in of alien immigrants as seamen, no doubt he will communicate it to me.
  Mr. HOUSTON: In view of the remarkable want of information in his department with regard to the Chinese, will the

  881
  right hon. Gentleman take stops to see that the information at his disposal is kept up to date, as in the case of the Board of Trade; and if he thinks this is a desirable thing, will he consider the advisability of devoting more time to the affairs of the Home Department and less to the Parliament Bill?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope the hon. Member will not assume that there is any difference of opinion between us on the subject, either in regard to Mormons or Chinese.

  COUNTY COUNCILS (CONFERENCES EXPENSES) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Tuesday next read, and discharged:—Bill withdrawn.
  BILL PRESENTED.
    COUNTY COUNCILS (CONFERENCES) BILL.
    "To remove doubts as to the legality of certain payments by county councils in respect of the attendance of members and officials of such councils at conferences, and in respect of other expenses in connection with conferences," presented by Mr. LANE-FOX; supported by Mr. Charles Nicholson, Mr. Mount, Sir John Brigg, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Higham, and Mr. Edward Wood; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.
  SHOPS [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any remuneration and expenses incurred under any Act of the present Session to consolidate, amend, and extend the Shops Regulation Acts, 1892 to 1904 (King's Recommendation signified). To-morrow.—[Mr. Churchill.]

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. JOWETT: I ask leave to introduce a Bill "To amend the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906."
This Bill is a very simple and a very short one. Its object is to remedy what is commonly regarded as a defect in the Provision of Meals Act, 1906. It is well known that under that Act of Parliament the children in attendance at the elementary schools of the country who are fed on school days have to go hungry when the holidays occur and the school is not
882
actually being conducted. I believe the reason why my hon. Friends have asked me to introduce this measure is because the constituency which I represent is situated in a town which has carried out the Provision of Meals Act in its entirety and in the spirit of the Act itself. It has been found by the Education Authority at Bradford that whilst the Provision of Meals Act is of great benefit to the children concerned during the school period, there is a remarkable deterioration during school holidays. In every industrial community—and Bradford is no exception to the rule—a large section of the population sinks into poverty, and owing to that poverty in the City of Bradford no less than 2,746 children were, on an average, on the free food list of the Bradford Education Authority during the year ending March, 1909. The condition of the families from which those children come leaves no doubt whatever as to the need for the provision of meals not only during the school period but during the holidays as well. The families represented by the 2,746 children I have mentioned were so poor that they failed to pass the test applied by the Committee in order to find out whether the children should be fed or not. That test was that in the case of all families in receipt of more than three shillings per head, exclusive of rent, the children were not given free meals. There are certain very exceptional circumstances which the Committee on occasions take into consideration. For instance, when a family is labouring under the disadvantage of some death or sickness in the home. Speaking generally, however, in the case of all the families dealt with the income was not more than three shillings per head, exclusive of rent. For a family of five persons that means 15s. per week income after the rent has been paid. Putting the rent at 4s., it means that the families dealt with are only in possession of 19s. per week. A further circumstance which, I think, ought to impress the House is that in the case of no loss than 30 per cent. of the families dealt with the father was cither dead or missing. It is clear, therefore, those families are in a particularly helpless condition, and, holidays or no holidays, those children ought to have food. I have not even said the worst. The figures I have given apply to the whole of the families dealt with under the Provision of Meals Act, but no less than 966 families are so excessively poor that, after the rent has been paid, there only remains 1s. 9¾d.

883
per head per week. Seven days in the week, three meals per day, all the household requirements to be met, and all to be done out of 1s. 9¾d. per head per week! I hope, in face of facts such as I have mentioned, there will be a general agreement in this House to remedy this defect in the Provision of Meals Act. If anything more were needed I hold in my hand a chart which will show to the House very clearly what happens during school holidays. This black line shows the effect of school meals. After the meals have been given for a short period the weight increases rapidly, and is shown by this almost vertical line. When the Whitsuntide holidays begin the line goes down, showing the weight decreases continuously right through the holidays. When the school meals start to be given again the weight goes up, and then it goes down again in the midsummer holidays. I shall be very glad to show this chart and explain it in detail to any Member of the House who cares to see it, and, in face of so powerful a representation of the facts as that, I do not see how this Rill can be resisted. The circumstances of the people throughout the country are at least equally as bad as those obtaining in my own town, and, if that be so, it means there are no less than 250,000 children of our urban population in similar conditions. If it be good, as it is shown by experience to be, to give free meals to those children during the school period, then it must be continued during the school holidays, and that is the reason I ask leave to introduce this Bill.
Bill to amend the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jowett, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. Parker. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next.

NEW WRIT FOR THE BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM.
Ordered, That Mr. SPEAKER do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Cheltenham in the room of Richard Mathias, Esquire, whose election has been declared to be void.—[Master of Elibank.]

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 (Short Title) agreed to.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.

  Clause 2 (Army Act to be in force fur specified times).
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Major Archer-Shee) to remove the time limit of the Bill, and to make it perpetual is not in order, being outside the scope of the Bill.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Prices in Respect of Billeting.)
  There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pursuance of the Army Act the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move to leave out the words, "the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "reasonable prices."
  The Amendment seeks to alter the maximum prices in the Schedule and to increase the allowances to reasonable amounts. These amounts—6d. per night for lodging and attendance; 4d. for breakfast; 11½d. for dinner, and 2½d. for supper—are inadequate in view of the great increase in the cost of living, and are very much objected to by the people on whom the soldiers are billeted. If the words, "reasonable prices," in the Amendment are considered vague, at any rate, some concession might be made by increasing the maximum price allowed in each case. This has been done before, and in view of the fact that the prices are very little more than they were a hundred years ago, I think the time has come, at any rate, for a slight increase in the amount.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I do not think we can accept this Amendment, if only for a technical reason, which I think will be apparent to the hon. Member on consideration. If he will look at Section 106, Sub-section (3), of the Act itself, he will see the prices for the time being authorised by Parliament must be paid. Parliament can only authorise prices by setting out in the Schedule, or in some other manner, the precise prices to obtain. It would, therefore, be impossible to adopt the words the hon. Member

  885
  proposes. With regard to the actual prices paid, I should suppose the Committee would think it more desirable, and no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman would find it more convenient, to deal with particular points when we come to the Schedule. If that be not so, and if it is desired to pass the Schedule without discussion I can, of course, say a word upon the point now, but assuming that not to be the case it is not possible to accept the Amendment for the reason I have given. We must act on the price list authorised by Parliament.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The point raised by my hon. Friend is certainly not met by the Amendment; I should like to point out that the authorised prices are exceedingly small and under no circumstances can they be deemed to be remunerative to those to whom they are paid. The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me that, during the last twenty years, the cost; of articles has gone up. These prices have been fixed for a very long time and consequently they do require revision. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some indication that this question is being considered at the War Office with a view to increasing the prices.
  Mr. HUNT: I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that 4d. is certainly not enough for a soldier's breakfast consisting of 4 ozs. of bacon, 6 ozs. bread, and a pint of tea, with milk and sugar. Why should the War Office punish publicans more than the Government have done? The Schedule may have done very well in the year 1846 when things were very much cheaper than they now are under Free Trade, but at the present time I can only say that the man who has to provide these things is out of pocket. That cannot be the wish of the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly the prices ought to be revised. I think we should have some statement that these items will be reconsidered, and that something will be done so that those who are compelled to supply the soldiers shall not actually lose thereby.
  Mr. ASHLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should discuss these prices when we reach the Schedule. I think it would be better to do so now, for we may never reach that Schedule. One of the most important points in the Army (Annual) Bill certainly ought not
  886
  thus to escape discussion. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will seriously contend that these prices are fair and just, not merely to the provider of the meals and accommodation, but also to the soldiers themselves. We may be told that there is no more money available for the purpose and that they have to do the best they can with what they have got. Probably the right hon. Gentleman cannot alter the prices, but he might at any rate give an undertaking to communicate with the Secretary for War with a view to these things being revised. Could not the list be made a little more elastic, so as to remove any injustice which may be proved to exist, and so also as to secure a little better accommodation for the soldiers themselves? Either the man who provides lodgings and food for the soldiers under this Schedule is bound to be out of pocket or else the soldiers will be given accommodation which we would not give to those confined in our public institutions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that there shall be further consideration on this matter before the Bill of next year is introduced.
  Colonel SEELY: I recognise the discretion with which hon. Gentlemen have approached this question. I may point out that this matter was fully considered at the time Mr. Buchanan was in office. He went into it very carefully four or five years ago, and some Amendments were then made. It is possible that, since then, there has been a rise in price of certain articles, but I cannot agree that that rise is due to the reasons suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt). I will represent what has been said to the Secretary of State, and I can undertake that we will keep a watchful eye on the Schedule, so as to give fair remuneration to the persons who are liable to billeting. When a great many soldiers are billeted in a town or village there is really very much less cost than in the case of an isolated traveller, and, of course, that fact is taken into account in the Schedule. I can only repeat that I will represent to the Secretary of State the wishes expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that if there has been a rise in price since Mr. Buchanan revised the Schedule, any items thus affected shall be reconsidered.
  Mr. YOUNGER: This is a very old grievance, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has promised to give it

  887
  consideration. He must be aware that the difficulty has been accentuated by the action of the licensing magistrates who, for many years, have not permitted the publican to increase his accommodation, and have thereby put him to the expense of providing elsewhere in the town the accommodation which is required. Where there are places through which troops are constantly passing from camp the people, knowing the publicans to be at a great disadvantage, have charged them extremely high prices for the accommodation required.
  4.0 P.M.
  It is years since this matter was brought before Lord Lansdowne, and it has been brought before successive Ministers of War every year since. There has been constant complaint about these prices, and it is high time something was done, and I am very glad indeed to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter consideration.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the question of introducing a fuller maximum price because it is provided that the maximum is to be not more than the price laid down in this Schedule, and even if he thought the people were not being paid sufficient he could not under this Schedule pay them any more. Ho would not have the power to do so, and I would ask him whether he would consider the question of either bringing in new prices ill the next Army (Annual) Act or amending in this one the maximum prices that are laid down for the various provisions
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I certainly want to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his Amendment, because I think the prices are too low. I think if the Under-Secretary will look at the prices which are put down here and then for a change go to a Rowton Home he will find that the prices at the latter are considerably higher than he wants to pay for billeting soldiers. It is quite possible that in very big centres he may be able to get the accommodation provided for these prices, but when you consider the case of billeting in out-of-way places, it will be found that it is impossible to get decent food at the prices which the Bill suggests. It means that the soldier gets an inferior quality of rations, as of course we may take it that the licensed victualler does
  888
  not have the same advantage as the hon. Gentleman in supplying the Army, and he probably cannot get home meat, so that he would get very inferior foreign meat. The time when soldiers are on the march is a time when they ought to be well fed. You have in your Army a large number of boys in time of peace, and when a boy has a very heavy day behind him, and a very heavy day in front of him, he should be well nourished. If he is not the consequence is he starts marching and being unfit, falls out. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I do not think he has marched as far as I have, and I say that the result is that you have these boys falling out, and very likely they are laid up. I do not for one moment think that sentiment will move the official representatives of the War Office. They cannot afford to be sentimental, but have to be businesslike, or try to be so. If they are businesslike they will find out that it is greatly more expensive to have a soldier falling out, and having to be attended in a nursing home owing to insufficient food, than feeding him properly on a march.
  If the right hon. Gentleman went to a Rowton Home, and he can go there if he doubts my statements for a moment, they will certainly charge more for the same food, or probably for inferior food, than the prices for which he expects the soldiers to get it in the army, and I would suggest that the ordinary licensed victualler, whose difficulty of living hon. Members opposite have made considerably greater during the last few years than it used to be, could not make anything out of these prices. The War Office suggests that he could give the soldiers breakfast for 4d. That breakfast consists of 6 ozs. of bread, a pint of tea and milk and sugar, and 4 ozs. of bacon, and I do not see how the publican is to make anything out of the 4d. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would like to take the contract himself, and even in a Rowton Home the charge is bacon 3d., tea 1d., bread and butter 1½d., so that the total is 5½d. I do not think any Rowton Home is supposed to be really extravagant, and at all events I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to cater for soldiers as well as an institution of that kind. The contrast is more striking when you consider that Rowton Homes are generally situated in great centres of population, where everything can be done cheaply, and these prices are to be charged on the march at the wayside inn. Under

  889
  those circumstances it is perfectly absurd to suggest that any licensed victualler can do it at the price. I do not want to go on thrashing the subject out, but I may point out that the dinner allowed to the soldiers, including cooking, is to cost 11½d. That does work out absolutely correct as to price without the cost of cooking, and taking the worst part of the meat in comparison with the Rowton Home. At a Rowton Home steak would cost 7d., but I do not think that you would get a pound of high-class beef for 7d., and the Rowton Home only gives a cut from the joint, which is only a slice, and their charge, of course, includes cooking, but does not include beer or mineral water, and so on. That is the very keenest price that can possibly be charged in a big centre of population, and it comes to exactly the same thing. In regard to supper, the price allowed is 2½d. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever tried a supper at that price. I have not, and I do not mean to, and I do not think if the right hon. Gentleman tries it he will get very much supper, especially if ho has got a night march afterwards. The supper includes six ounces of bread, a pint of tea, milk and sugar, and two ounces of cheese, and I think he would find it very difficult to get a really complete supper for 2½d. After all, publicans are not charity organisers, and you cannot expect them to do it for nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that in a Rowton Home a slice of bread and butter and jam and a cup of tea would cost more than he suggests. Then I come back to the question of lodging; he suggests that the licensed victualler is to put a man up for 6d. a night, including attendance. Again I take as a suitable comparison that of the Rowton Home, and he will find that it will cost 7d. there. Therefore he is asking licensed victuallers to supply British soldiers with bed and bedding at 6d., and at a Rowton Home, which is run on the very narrowest margin of profit, they can only do it at 7d. In regard to the Amendment, I think that the words "reasonable prices" may be rather a wide term, and I certainly think that the prices should be left either to the discretion of the general officer commanding or should be altered to suit certain districts, because prices are high in some districts and low in others, but I certainly do not think it is fair to any publican to call upon him to supply food and lodgings at prices which he would have to do at a loss or else supply an inferior article.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I think perhaps I ought to have an understanding about this matter. If we are going to discuss it in such detail as the Noble Lord has discussed it, then we ought not to have another discussion on the Schedule. On the other hand, if we are to have a discussion on the Schedule, we ought to postpone this Debate until we arrive at that stage. If it is understood that we do not discuss the questions over again, I am content that the discussion should go on.
  Major STANLEY: On the point of Order, Sir. There is an Amendment on the Paper in my name to the Schedule to leave out "Lodging," and insert "Orderly Room," and I would ask whether it would be in order to discuss that on the Schedule if the general discussion is taken now?
  The CHAIRMAN: I cannot refuse an Amendment to the Schedule, but this particular Amendment we are discussing is to leave out "the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act," and insert "reasonable prices." Anything that we do now, unless we specifically decide to leave out the Schedule, will not interfere with the consideration of an Amendment to alter the language of the Schedule, but what I desire is that we should not be discussing the same matter twice. I am quite willing to meet the convenience of the Committee about it.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: If matters are not discussed now I suppose they can be raised on the Schedule if we have not discussed them before.
  Colonel SEELY: On the point of Order, Sir, may I explain that before the Noble Lord and one or two other Gentlemen came into this House, it will be recollected that I suggested that we should take the general discussion on the Schedule, but I understood from hon. Members and the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that it would be more convenient to take the discussion now. I only rise to explain that to the hon. Gentlemen who were not in the House at the time.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I put down a very short Amendment on the question of oats, which I am interested in, and which I should like discussed on the Schedule.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord's Amendment would not be excluded by anything which takes place now.
  Captain FABER: It appears to some of ray hon. Friends and myself that we may never get to the Schedule, and as we may never come to that point, perhaps we had better discuss the question now. If you would allow us to do so, Sir, we should like to proceed in that manner.
  Mr. GRETTON: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to reconsider the Schedule, and he left over these matters for reconsideration. Of course, if that promise is carried out now for the purpose of this present Bill it might alter the views of the Committee whether it is more convenient to take the discussion now or on the report of the Schedule, when he has had time to look into the matter; if, however, his promise is only to affect some future Army Act it will probably be more convenient to take the discussion now.
  The CHAIRMAN: I really want an understanding whether we are to discuss it further now in detail. I simply want that understanding so that we do not discuss it over again in detail when we arrive at the Schedule.
  Captain FABER: My hon. Friends around me and myself would like to give you an assurance that we would not discuss it on the Schedule when the time comes. I think it is fair for me to say that from what I hear from my hon. Friends. I should like to add my voice to the proposals that the maximum should be raised, and to the contention that the amount of money which is given for the food of these troops when on the march is not sufficient. It is evident that neither the soldier nor the licensed victualler is pleased at the amount of money which is paid for food. There are two reasons why it is unsatisfactory: first, that the licensed victualler cannot possibly do it at the price in a way to give himself satisfaction; and, secondly, the soldier cannot be pleased with the accommodation and food which the licensed victualler gives him for the price named. So neither of them is satisfied. That seems to me to be rather an incongruous and unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am in the position of being able to speak for both of them, because I am in the unhappy position of belonging to the licensed victuallers' trade, and in the more unhappy position of having been in the past a soldier and not being one now. I wish I could reverse the position, and he a soldier now instead of a licensed victualler, but unfortunately that is to be im-
  892
  possible. I know we have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman, and that it is simply a question of business with him, and that he has to do the best he can. But I hope he will see his way to raise this maximum, which is satisfactory neither to the licensed victualler nor to the soldier, who ought to be fed well, especially when he is young and is on the march with a hard day's work in front of him.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I am sure everyone on this side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, will be only too anxious to do all he can for the soldier and to raise this maximum if possible. I think he will give consideration to the arguments which have been used from this side, and which, I am sure, would be supported by hon. Members opposite if they could make the same use of the Debate that we can. A certain amount has been said about this being unfair on the licensed victualler. We do not want to do anything which is unfair to him. But the point which appeals to me is that under these conditions it is the soldier who will suffer, and if the soldier suffers you are making the Service more unpopular, making the conditions more uncomfortable and doing a very bad thing for recruiting. I know there are a great many publicans who have done their utmost in the past, and will no doubt in the future, in spite of these very low prices, do their utmost, even at a loss to themselves, to see that our soldiers are comfortable, and get all that they ought to have. I do not think it is fair that the State should put this burden on them. Every one knows that the right hon. Gentleman would be most anxious to meet this, and I am sure he will do his utmost, but I hope he will give us some assurance that this scale is not finally settled, but is liable to reconsideration, if not now, at any rate another year, so that we may feel that some result has been attained by raising this question.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how often these prices are revised—whether they are looked into every year or copied from year to year? I do not quite agree with some of my hon. Friends who ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait until next year to revise these Schedules. I should like them to go into it directly and revise it before it comes to Report. It has been shown that these prices are very inadequate. The calculations of the War Office place the board and lodging of a horse per night exactly at 2d. less than the board and

  893
  lodging of a man. I do not know on what basis that can be calculated, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a great deal has been said for the revision of the prices, and I hope he will assure us that he will go into the matter as soon as he has time, and bring up some revised prices before we come to the Report stage.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Acland): I quite agree that a good deal has been said which would lead us to be willing to go into the question of revising these prices, in particular the point raised by the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine) as to the prices paid in Rowton Houses. It is four years since this matter was revised, and I think it is about time it was revised again. It will not be desirable, from our point of view, to revise it before the Report stage, but I give the assurance that we will go into the matter and see whether it would not be reasonable to bring up alterations in the Schedule on the next occasion when the Act is revised. Personally I do not think there is much in the idea that the soldier suffers. I believe the licensed victuallers do the soldiers uncommonly well. It may be more than we are entitled to expect from them, but that is a matter which I pledge myself we will consider. I can assure the House from what I have learned about the matter that the soldiers are welcomed and are done well, and whether the remuneration to the victualler ought not to be slightly increased is a matter which we will consider, as we have been asked to.
  Captain FABER: I should like to ask whether there is really any probability of the prices being raised. Are we being put off with a mere excuse, or do we really understand that they are to be taken into consideration with any chance of their being raised. If not, my Friends and myself will go to a Division.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: It is perfectly true, and we do not deny that the soldiers are done very well by the licensed victuallers and are taken good care of, but it is very hard on the licensed victuallers that a higher price is not paid for what they give to the soldiers. In the Army Act it is provided that the prices paid to an occupier other than a keeper of a licensed house shall be such as may be fixed by regulations made by the Army Council with the consent of the Treasury. It appears that these prices can be altered
  894
  at any time. I should like to ask whether the prices paid for the licensed victuallers do not come under the same regulations, and cannot be altered by the Army-Council. There are a great many matters of expenditure of public money which do not come under the supervision of the House, and no doubt this is one of them. We should all be agreeable to leave this to the Army Council and the Treasury.
  Mr. YOUNGER: It appears to mo that the suggestion of the hon. Baronet (Sir Samuel Scott) is one which the War Office could not accede to, because I think it would be impossible to impose an extra charge on the Treasury on the Report stage of any Bill of this kind. Under these circumstances, we are once again left after all these years in the same position that we found ourselves in on a previous occasion. We are always told it will be another year, and again the right hon. Gentleman tells us the same story we were told before. It is very hard lines on these people that nothing has been done all these years.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: We all very much appreciate the conciliatory tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time, as the matter is one which has been going on from year to year and has been raised even by Ministers themselves when in Opposition—I think this very Amendment was moved six years ago—we ought to have some more definite pronouncement. The only one which I think is really satisfactory would be to accept the Amendment, which does away with the Schedule, and leaves it to the War Office to pay reasonable prices. There are any amount of payments made by the War Office which do not have to be put before the House. This Schedule, of course, is part of an old system under which particular amounts paid for billeting were always laid before the House of Commons. It is not necessary that they should be. The Amendment is a reasonable one, and I must ask the Committee to divide.
  Colonel SEELY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has perhaps omitted to bear in mind the point which I put before the Committee at the commencement, that the particular Amendment, though we might divide on it as a matter of principle, is one that we cannot accept, and that view was accepted by the Noble Lord (Marquis of Tullibardine) because, under Section 106, Sub-section (3), we are

  895
  bound to lay down the prices to be charged, and we could not, therefore, leave it vague under the Act. It is now four years since a revision was made, and I think the time has come when we must revise it again, and when I say that I am sure no one will believe for a moment that I only say it to get out of a difficulty. I mean what I say, and I will carry it out.
  Colonel YATE: I should like to ask if a change cannot be made now, and whether we must wait until the Army (Annual) Bill of next year?
  Colonel SEELY: No; it will be possible now.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his Amendment to a division. Under Section 106 it is absolutely essential that some prices should be put down in the Bill, and if the Amendment is carried it will be necessary to considerably amend Section 106.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out this feasible point, I will, of course, withdraw the Amendment. But I hope some Amendment to the Army Act may be made by which it will not be necessary to bring before Parliament every year this Schedule, which is not at all necessary.
  Mr. CARLILE: I should like to ask what is included under the expression "accommodation" in Section 1061 The only thing which is to be specified by Parliament is the accommodation. We ordinarily associate with the expression "accommodation" the room or space which is available for the person to be accommodated. It does not usually apply to all sorts of food and things of that sort which are contained in this Schedule. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in referring to (hat Sub-section, he is correct in supposing that it covers all these details mentioned in the Schedule?
  Colonel SEELY: I think if the hon. Member looks at Sub-section (1) he will find that that point is fully met. My legal advisers advise me that the legal view I put before the Committee is the correct one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 114 of the Army Act with respect to Lists of Carriages and Animals.)
  (1) The power conferred on police authorities by Section 114 of the Army Act of causing lists to be made out of persons liable to furnish carriages and animals and of the number and description of the carriages and animals of such persons may in England and Scotland be exercised either by the police authority or by the county association established under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and accordingly in that Section the words "the authority hereinafter mentioned" shall be substituted for the words "the police authority," wherever those words occur, and at the end of the Section the following Sub-section shall be added:—
  "(4) The authority for the purposes of this Section shall in England and Scotland be either the police authority or the county association established under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and in Ireland the police authority."
  (2) After Sub-section (1) of the same Section the following Sub-section shall be inserted:—
  "(1A) For the purpose of assisting the authority hereinafter mentioned in the preparation of such list as aforesaid, any proper officer authorised in that behalf by the authority shall be entitled at all reasonable times to enter any premises in which he has reason to believe that any carriages or animals are kept, and to inspect any carriages or animals which may be found therein.
  "If any such officer so authorised is obstructed in the exercise of his powers under this provision, a justice of the peace may, if satisfied by information on oath that the officer has been so obstructed, issue a search warrant authorising the constable named therein, accompanied by the officer, to enter the premises in respect of which the obstruction took place at any time between six o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock in the evening, and to inspect any carriages or animals that may be found therein.
  "In this provision the expression 'proper officer' means any officer or person of such rank, class or description as may be specified in an order of

  897
  the Army Council made for the purpose."
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to move in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "may" ["may in England and Scotland"] and instead thereof to insert the word "shall."
  This Amendment should be read with a consequential Amendment to omit the words "either by the police authority or," and their object is to remove the authority to the police from the purview of this Act. It is admitted on all sides that this was not essentially the duty of the police, but at the moment Lord Haldane did not know in whose hands he could place this authority, and consequently it devolves upon the police. I think the Committee will agree with me when I say that the police authority is under no circumstances the best authority for obtaining the information which it is desirable to obtain under this Bill in regard to persons liable to furnish carriages and animals, and the number and description of the carriages and animals. This duty is a very important duty indeed considering that at the present moment there is a shortage of horses required for Army purposes. It is a duty of paramount importance, and without saying one word against the police in any shape or form I think the Committee will agree with me that the average policeman is not qualified to give correct or useful information as to what particular horse is necessary or adapted for the peculiar purpose for which he is required. I bring forward this Amendment for the purpose of eliminating the police authority from this Bill altogether. The explanation at the beginning of the Bill says:—
  "This Clause proposes to allow a 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."
  That is to my mind rather a grudging appreciation of the work which the county associations have done. Lord Haldane has never hesitated to call upon the county association to assist him in the matter of making the Territorial Force the somewhat quaified success which it is at the present moment. I think it will be acknowledged on all sides that all the members of the Territorial Associations have come forward in a patriotic spirit
  898
  and have given their services gratuitously so as to enable this scheme to be a success. I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will say that this is the worst form of sweated labour, but it is perfectly true that they have received no remuneration for their services. I do not think they ask any remuneration, but I think they do deserve a certain amount of recognition for what they have done in the past. I think our thanks are due to them for the work they have done. In view of the manner in which they have discharged their duties and of the wholehearted service they have given to the State, I would now suggest that this work of obtaining information as to the number of horses in the various districts should be handed over entirely to the county associations and not to the police authority. Division of authority would not, I think, tend to efficiency in this respect. It would also tend to prevent uniformity in all parts of the United Kingdom. There should be one particular authority for the purpose of getting this information, because it would be necessary, where associations overlap in various parts of the country, that there should be a certain amount of co-operation between the various county associations in the carrying out of this scheme.
  There are various manners in which the county associations could carry out the duties which would devolve upon them under this Bill. I have no doubt there are a great many Yeomanry officers who would only be too anxious to assist the Army Council in discovering this information. There is an officer in the shape of the adjutant attached to a Yeomanry regiment who, I think, would be very qualified to give the assistance which would be demanded by the county association. I have no doubt that the officers connected with the Yeomanry in this House will plead the fact that at the present moment the duties which devolve upon the adjutant of Yeomanry are such as would not allow him conscientiously or efficiently to discharge the extra duties which might be placed upon him. I do not wish to assert that a Yeomanry adjutant has so little to do that he would be able to carry out the duties entirely on his own responsibility, but the office of adjutant is coveted in the Army. It is an office for which there are numerous applicants. I have never heard as yet of any difficulty in finding an adjutant to carry out the duties in connection with a Yeomanry regiment. I think that, in a great many cases, I do not say all, this

  899
  work of obtaining the information which is required could be placed profitably and advantageously to all concerned on the shoulders of the adjutant of a Yeomanry regiment. An adjutant of Yeomanry, as is well known, is an officer in a Cavalry regiment, and his knowledge in respect of horses, and particularly the actual horses which are suitable to meet the requirements ought to be second to none. I think that in most cases the judgment of the adjutant of Yeomanry on these subjects could be trusted.
  It has been argued by those connected with the Yeomanry establishment that adjutants of Yeomanry would require a certain amount of assistance in carrying out these duties. There is a permanent staff of Yeomanry, and from previous experience we know that there are gentlemen connected with the county associations who would come forward and give their services in a patriotic spirit as they have done in the past. The suggestion I make to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should accept this Amendment and eliminate the police authority, because I must say I feel that the police authority in this connection will not make for the efficiency of what is required under this Bill. These duties, which I know are arduous, should be handed over to the county associations, because they are best qualified to deal with them, and in most cases the duties would devolve on the adjutant of Yeomanry. In the few cases—I think they would be very few—where it would be found that the duties which at the present moment the adjutant of Yeomanry is expected to carry out are of so onerous a character that he could not discharge the extra duties imposed on him under the Bill, I would suggest that assistance might be furnished by augmenting the permanent staff in connection with the Yeomanry. It is for that purpose that I move the Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Before the Under-Secretary gives his decision in this matter I wish to call attention to one important point which I think the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) has not taken sufficiently into account. I believe myself that it would be a mistake to strike out the police with reference to this kind of work. I go by the experience we have gained in trying to get somewhat similar information in London for the county association of which I am a member. There is another phase in this matter, namely, the
  900
  power of inspection for the purpose of finding out the information which we have to discover. That is one of the most important powers which we should possess if we are going to do anything at all. On the other hand, it is extremely doubtful whether a county association has always officers who are in a position to make these inquiries, and who have sufficient knowledge of this work to enable them to do it, and so secure the information that is really required. Sometimes the county associations do this work, and do it effectively, but what I think the Noble Lord is aiming at is the abolition of the dual authority. What I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War is that the county associations should be responsible for seeing that this work is done, and that they should have the power to do it if they find it necessary, and if they have the machinery to do it. But I think they ought to have the power of the police behind them in any thing they do in relation to this matter. It is one of the most important branches of our work at the present time. Certainly it is so in London, but I do not know how it is in the rest of the country. Our experience in London has shown that with the dual authority, each being given certain powers and neither being in exactly a supreme position, you should make it the duty of the County Associations to get the information, and that you should keep the police to assist them.
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I rise now to explain very briefly the scheme which we had in view, and in so doing to elucidate the points raised by the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) and also the point raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. J. Ward), who has personal acquaintance with this matter as a member of the County Association for London. I can assure the Noble Lord first and foremost that there is no chance of divided authority under the Bill as it stands. It is intended to ask the County Associations of England and Scotland—I will deal with the case of Ireland at a later stage—to undertake the duty of being the authorising authority. I do not suppose myself that there is any chance that County Associations would refuse, because no expense whatever will be put upon them, and though, of course, there will be responsibility, and perhaps anxiety, they have shown themselves in the past fully ready to undertake the duties placed upon them.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Do you mean the police or the County Associations?
  Colonel SEELY: We propose, if the Bill remains as it is, to ask every County Association in England, Scotland, and Wales to undertake this duty.
  Sir S. SCOTT: You are going to ask the County Associations to undertake this duty, and you say that none are likely to refuse. Does not this Bill impose the duty upon them?
  Colonel SEELY: If the Noble Lord's Amendment were accepted there would be the imposition of the duty, but as the Clause stands I think I will be able to show that it meets the points raised by each of the interruptions. We propose that the Bill should remain as it is, and we ask the county associations to become the authorising authority. I believe every county association will accept that responsibility, but supposing that a county association says "Under this Act we are not bound to accept this responsibility, even although you tell us it will cost us no money. Notwithstanding the assurance you now give, still we do not think we can do it." It would be unfortunate, for the reasons which I will give in a moment, that we should not be able to complete our Census in the one or two counties where the county associations did not wish to become the authorising authority. In that case we could fall back upon the police authority. This police authority would be given what I may call the authorising authority. There is an Amendment later on in the name of the Noble Lord which raises the question why we do not ask the general officer commanding-in-chief, and the yeomanry officers under him, possibly selected by him, to take on this business direct by authorisation from the War Office. The reason is that it is unusual in an Act of Parliament in time, of peace to authorise an officer to look after work of this kind without giving some local authorising body power to authorise it. In the case of England, Scotland, and Wales, I presume that in every case, certainly in every case except one or two, the authorising authority would be the County Association. If they can secure the cooperation of the police, as my hon. Friend below the Gangway suggests, so much the better. But with regard to the vital point authority in the last resort, it will be the county association. Suppose all this were taking place, the question arises, who will really do the work?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: From the wording of the Bill it looks almost as though the police were the first authority, and the county association the second, because it says "shall be exercised either by the police authority or by the county association." I think it should have been the other way, county association or the police."
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, but of course it makes no difference, in what order these words come, because this machinery has got to be put in motion by an executive act, and I now inform the House that the first executive act will be to invite every county association in England, Scotland and Wales, to undertake this duty. If they accept it they will be the paramount authorising authority, and it is only in the event of their failing to act that the police will come in as an authority at all. It is always difficult to draw an Act of Parliament, which refers, as this Army (Annual) Bill does, to other Acts of Parliament, so as to be quite plain on the face of it. But the explanation I have given is the explanation of what will take place, and I think, therefore, the Committee may rest assured that there is no chance of division of authority. If the Committee desire I will explain now what it is proposed to do in the event of this Amendment not being accepted, and the Clause going through as it stands. The county association is asked to take on the duty of the authorising body, and I hope that in all or nearly all cases they will accept that duty. It will then be approached by the general officer commanding for authority to take the census of horses. The county association will give that authority. The general officer commanding will propose certain officers to fill up the census. Those officers will be as suggested by the Noble Lord, the Yeomanry adjutants among others. They will not be enough. There are only fifty-four altogether in this country at present available for this duty. To them will be added Remount officers, some on full pay and others retired Remount officers. To them we hope will be added Territorial officers in some cases with a special knowledge of this work; and one way and another we shall get a sufficient body at present of persons nominated by the general officer commanding in chief and authorised by the county association to conduct a full census of the horses required for the purposes of mobilisation.

  903
  The Noble Lord, in his speech, referred to the shortage of horses. I wish to make plain at once to him that the idea that there will be a shortage of horses in this country is a complete illusion. I remember seeing it stated by some person that in this country there was only one horse for every three men. That is a most fantastic illusion. The figures which I will give show that there are at least three suitable horses for one man in the event of mobilisation. The police, as is known, took a census. Of course, that census was not entirely accurate. They could not classify in detail, but they give a rough estimate of the total number of horses. The total number of horses, excluding stallions and mares in breeding, was a little over 1,600,000. Nobody has been able to find out from the figures what is the precise limit of age that was imposed, but they did not include any horse so old as to be incapable of moving. The police, after all, are a body of men who are gifted with common sense. They have that reputation all over the world. They were told only to include suitable horses, and I think we may assume that probably they were not far wrong in their estimate of suitable horses, and that they did not include any which were absurdly too old or absurdly too young. Of the 1,600,000 horses a considerable number would not be suitable for military purposes. There are all the very heavy horses which would not be required for Army purposes as a rule, or would be required only in very small numbers. But from a careful conservative estimate drawn up for me for the purposes of this Debate, I think we are justified in saying that there are at least 450,000 suitable horses for military purposes in the United Kingdom. The numbers required to mobilise both the Territorial force and the Expeditionary force are, of course, far less than that. For the Territorial force the numbers required are 86,000, and for the Expeditionary force the numbers required are 40,000. That is allowing for mobilisation when the whole force stands to arms, with no reserve, of course. I think we may say that in order to complete our establishment up to strength in horses we require 126,000 horses. We know that we have available, if we could only classify and allocate them, 450,000. What we are going to try to do, and I hope we may be successful, is to see that we have at least one suitable horse for every man and a proper reserve. I do not think the task insuperable, although it is difficult,
  904
  because we know now that we have an adequate number and that there is no real shortage and that in other countries where I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with officers on the spot, notably in Switzerland and Germany, which I visited for this purpose some years ago, they have a very complete system by which on mobilisation every man knows where his horse is.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What is the number of Cavalry in Switzerland?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot tell you the exact number. They are a very numerous body and are a very efficient force, and the horses are all owned by the men themselves. As this has been done in other countries I think it should be done here. Certain things are necessary to enable us to do it, and some of these things are embodied in the legislation by this Bill. I will not deal now with the powers of inspection referred to by my hon. Friend, because it would be more in order on the subsequent Amendment; but broadly the legislation comprised in this amended Clause will enable us if we set to work in the right direction to do what we set out to do, to make ourselves as ready for mobilisation as any other country is. Knowing now that we have the full number of horses required, we can set to work to classify them, with the knowledge that it is possible for us with care and skill and good service on the part of the officers nominated to arrange for us to be ready when an emergency conies, if ever it shall come. For the reasons which I gave in the first part of my statement, I cannot accept the Amendment of the Noble Lord because it would place a mandatory authority upon the county association, which we expressly do not desire to do, though we anticipate that every county association will accept the request which the executive will make. But I do not think the Noble Lord will press the Amendment on the assurance which I gave him that there will be no question of divided authority, and that the scheme which he has in his mind that the county association should be the authority is the scheme which we have in mind and will carry out.
  Mr. LANE-FOX: I am very glad that the Noble Lord has moved this Amendment, as it has elicited the very interesting statement which we have just heard. I think that every county association would take the same view that it is very useful to have the police to fall back upon, and

  905
  that the work which has already been carried out by the police will be a very considerable help to the county association, and one which they will be very sorry to dispense with. I do not think anybody will think that the employment of a police authority involves the want of recognition of the Territorial Association. I am quite sure that no county association will think so. Certainly not the one of which I am a member. The duties of classification are important, and in that respect I might suggest that the new horse-breeding committees which are being formed all over the country might easily be made use of, and would readily give assistance in making this classification and helping county associations. But I am perfectly certain that county associations by themselves have not the machinery to carry this into effect unless much larger grants are made to them and a much larger staff is allotted to them. What county associations want is to be left alone, to be given the money which the Government grant, and to be allowed to spend it in their own way. I am perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman will take the line of allowing county associations to work out their own salvation in their own way with, of course, reasonable control, and not adopt a cast-iron system, they would very much prefer it, and it would lead to much better results.
  5.0 P.M.
  There is another point I would like to raise: If we have this new authority for inspection and inquiry as to what animals, means of transport, and so on, will be available in case of need, is it possible to do away with the very expensive system of registration which we have at the present moment? A very short time ago I was approached by an Army officer whose duty it was to do so, and he suggested to me that I should register a certain number of horses for a payment of 10s. a year. That is being done all over the country, but I have always refused to do it, because, apart from my having numerous horses over which I have control in connection with a pack of hounds maintained by subscription very largely, I have always felt that there is no need to pay the fee for registration, because nobody in time of real emergency would refuse to give up their horses, and it is really not a necessary transaction to pay 10s. a year for the power of obtaining a horse. But a great many people are being paid this tee, and they rely on the hope that they will not be called upon to do anything for it. The
  906
  War Office, I believe, have to spend in this way £30,000 a year, the sum to which those fees amount. I submit that the money could be very much better employed by the War Office, who have not the slightest idea at present what they are paying it for, The War Office, under this system of registration, cannot go and say, "We pay this fee in respect of a particular horse, and, if we come upon you, it must be exactly that horse which upon application you will send on." The person concerned might go to any cab rank and send on a horse which would answer what the right hon. Gentleman called "reasonable limits of age," though the horse produced might be the veriest antiquated hair trunk. I earnestly hope that, under this new system, and in view of the fact that everybody in this country is, I hope, sufficiently patriotic in time of real emergency to give up their horses, the War Office will see their way to avoid the waste of so large a sum of money.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend has said with respect to the amount of money which is now raised upon the so-called registration of horses. But I give another reason why money should not be spent in registering horses—and it is that you have already the power, if necessary to take horses. My hon. Friend observed that no doubt every patriotic man in this country would willingly give up his horses. That, no doubt, is the fact, but whether he likes it or not he would have to give them up. Therefore this £30,000 is so much money thrown into the sea, especially as you do not know what quality of horse you are going to obtain. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this money should be utilised not for its present purposes but for the purpose of helping the scheme which he has brought before the Committee to-day. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me that we welcome very much this attempt, which I hope will be successful, on the part of the Government to systematise the registration of horses, and systematise the powers they already have for taking horses. It would be quite impossible at the time of mobilisation, under our existing system, for the horses to be collected at the various stations, unless some means have been organised in time of peace to complete the arrangements necessary for the collection of horses in time of war. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the county association is to be the authorising authority, and that the general

  907
  officer commanding-in-chief, if I understood him aright, was also going to apply that authority.
  Colonel SEELY: We are asking the county associations to become the authorising body. I presume they will do so, and the general officer commanding-in-chief will receive his authority from them.
  Captain FABER: If a county association refused to become the authorising body what would occur?
  Colonel SEELY: If such a case did arise, though we do not think that it will, then the police would be the authorising authority.
  Captain FABER: Then there would be a division between the two.
  Colonel SEELY: No. There could not be, because the police would only act if the county association washed its hands of the whole business.
  Sir S. SCOTT: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, the police will only be called in to give authority if the county association refuses to act as the authorising body. I personally very much regret that the regular forces of the Crown have not been included in this Act. I have an Amendment on the Paper in reference to that point, though I should not be in order in discussing that matter at the present moment. I only say in passing, however, that I very much regret that we have not heard a little more about the functions which ought to be imposed upon or carried out by the general officer commanding-in-chief, beyond the fact that he is to apply to the county association, and is to act as they authorise him to act. The right hon. Gentleman said that under his proposal there would be no divided authority. You have the authorising authority, and you will have, according to him, a general officer, or whoever it may be, applying for authority, so that there may be a dual authority.
  Colonel SEELY: No, no.
  Sir S. SCOTT: Who will have the control?
  Colonel SEELY: The county association.
  Sir S. SCOTT: The county association will control the general officer commanding-in-chief—that officer will be subject to their control?
  Colonel SEELY: It is necessary that there should be a body to authorise the
  908
  acts done under this Act, and that authority will be the county association. The persons to whom they will delegate authority will be the officers recommended by the general officer commanding-in-chief.
  Sir S. SCOTT: I will go further into that matter later on, when I move my Amendment. I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox) that it is perhaps going a little bit too far to entirely eliminate the police authority. I was very glad indeed to hear the Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward), with whom I am afraid I have not often the pleasure of being in agreement, speak of his experience upon the London association, and giving such high praise to the police for the work they have done. There is no doubt—and I may say that I have recently somewhat changed my opinion—(hat it will be of the greatest value to the county associations to co-operate with the police, and to have the use of their services in many ways. But I do say that it is absolute madness to ask the police to go round and inspect horses. How can a village constable know what is a suitable horse for the Army? It is not very long ago that an hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, speaking on the subject of the horse census which was taken by the police, said that the horses included as suitable remounts for light Cavalry often comprised donkeys and mules. I do not know for what purpose the right hon. Gentleman thinks a donkey or a male is suitable. The mule might be suitable for some military purposes, such as transport, but I do not see how a donkey could be considered suitable for light Cavalry. I am sure that we all have the greatest admiration for the police as guardians of the peace, but let them stick to what we may consider to be their legitimate duties. I will not detain the House any further, but I do hope that my Noble Friend will not press his Amendment to a Division. He has raised a very important point, and the Under-Secretary for War has given his explanation. I agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Lane-Fox) that it is most desirable to include the police in this Bill, at all events, if only to cooperate with the county associations, or whoever else may be pleased to carry out this Act.
  Mr. GRETTON: This Amendment raises a very important question, and we have the assurance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the War Office that it is intended to make use of the

  909
  county associations, and that the police authorities are only to be brought in should the county association refuse to take up the duties which it is proposed to impose upon it. I think that is a most important statement. The action of the War Office calls upon the practical cooperation of the people of this country to assist in time of peace in making the preparations necessary for time of emergency. To the people of this country to bring in the police has the appearance of coercion, especially in matters which are not strictly within the scope of police duties. To bring the police unnecessarily into these matters is, I think, a very great mistake. A very great deal of time and labour might be saved to the associations if information were given by the police as to horses available for army purposes, and the association officers can then determine as to what army purposes they may be suitable, but as far as possible it is desirable to dispense with police assistance. In the country districts I think it most desirable that we should bring in the skill and criticism and knowledge of those whose business it is to deal with horses for army purposes. We have all had experience of the Census which it was endeavoured to take. I made some inquiry as to the instructions given to the police in several country districts, and they appear to be of the very vaguest description. Certainly you cannot expect a police officer to have any knowledge of the veterinary surgeon business. He cannot pronounce as to whether a horse is sound or not, or as to a number of particulars which are essential if the register is to be of any value.
  My Noble Friend has raised a most useful discussion which should give some information to the War Office upon this subject. I am sure the horse owners are quite willing to do what they can to make our Territorial and Regular Army efficient. I really cannot think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State can expect us to take seriously the statistics which he in a very laughing mood put before the House as the result of the horse census already made, and the very slapdash deductions which he made from those figures, at which he himself laughed. There is very great urgency for going carefully into this matter. The right hon. Gentleman's estimate was that for war purposes we require 120,000 horses on mobilisation. His estimate of the census is that there are 450,000 horses suitable for military purposes. What sort
  910
  of a reserve is that for a wastage in war. We had the experience in South Africa of horses taken from other classes of work and put straight into army use. That would entail a very great waste, and the experience in South Africa disclosed that three horses behind each one on service are not likely to carry an army in the field very long in a strenuous campaign. Another point, which does not seem to have received sufficient consideration, is as to the expense of the register. The register is to be made either by the police authorities or by officials working voluntarily or as part of their salaries which they receive for other business under the associations. You will have the mere clerical labour, which will be very considerable, and the materials required will be of some account, and there will be a great deal of visiting and moving about the country, especially in country districts.
  I have had some experience of the working of Territorial Associations, and the funds are none too great even with the most economical and careful administration, to perform the duties which are already imposed on those Associations. Those funds are still further handicapped for any outside purpose by the way in which they are ear-marked by the War Office for certain specific purposes, so that a surplus in one part cannot be readily transferred to another, or used to meet the general requirements of the Association. I think if this duty is to be imposed on the Association, that the War Office should carefully consider what the actual expenditure would be on the Association in compiling the register, and making the very numerous and careful visits which would have to be made to the various districts. I strongly support the policy which the right hon. Gentleman announced, and I hope it will not be necessary in any case to call in the police. I think it is wise that the police should co-operate with the Association to gain a great deal of preliminary knowledge, and afterwards be made use of when the proper officers classify and examine the horses and visit the neighbourhood. I hope that the police will not be called in to make forced domiciliary visits in order that inspections and classifications may be carried out. I am sure, speaking for a large number of horse owners, we are perfectly willing that anything we have should be placed at the service of our country when the need arises. We only want to know what our country

  911
  wants us to provide in case of war, and where it should be provided, and for what purpose. I am quite certain that horse-owners would do their utmost to co-operate with the War Office and the Territorial Association in making this register as perfect and as efficient as possible.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): The discussion has gone a good deal beyond the actual Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment proposes to leave out the word "may" and to insert the word "shall" and to eliminate the police authority, and to leave the matter solely to the county associations. I think it will be more convenient to confine ourselves to that point. The other matters may possible arise subsequently.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I point out that the Under-Secretary of State raised questions and made a statement, and so we are anxious to reply.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did understand that, and that is the reason I did not intervene earlier. I think it would be better to keep to the Amendment until it is disposed of.
  Mr. ASHLEY: After your ruling I do not wish to say anything except a few words on another point which is raised on this Clause. I referred to the question of carriages, which is really of equal importance in view of modern developments, and which the county associations or the police will have to deal with. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the exact number of horses he is going to have on mobilisation. I think it is a matter of common knowledge when the Divisions were mobilised last year that it was found that practically we would have to give up using horses for transport to a large extent, and have to take to motor traction. Whatever be the authority there would have to be made not only a census of the horses, but a census of all vehicles, motor lorries, and all other means of mechanical traction that exist in this country. I do hope before we pass from this Amendment that we shall hear something from the Under-Secretary on the very important point as to how far the War Office is able to ascertain what motor traction we have available in this country, and what steps he is taking to supplement horse traction by motor traction. Every country except ours has taken very advanced steps in this matter, and we ought to be able to have some knowledge on the subject.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I do not, after your ruling, wish to reply to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but on the horse question I should just like to ask him as to the police census. I understand that that was made of all kinds of horses in the country and did not specify any particular kind.
  Colonel SEELY: That is so.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The result is that 450,000 was a mere shot.
  Colonel SEELY: I said it was a very conservative estimate.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: On what basis?
  Colonel SEELY: It is not a very proper question to ask, but of course it is not impossible to arrive at an approximation of the number of horses which will be of a particular class. Taking a conservative estimate, and after making inquiry, it is estimated that there are 1,600,000, and of those 450,000 would be really suitable.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: We may take it, therefore, for granted that 450,000 would be available. This shows how absolutely impossible it is really for the police to make out a proper census of the horses. I know in my own part of the country they came to me when they could find me to help them. They included brood mares, foals, stallions, cart-horses, ponies intended for carrying deer-panniers, and all sorts of animals absolutely unsuited for military purposes. I think the estimate requires to be rather a conservative one. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman said there were heaps of horses in this country. I think I saw a statement made by the Financial Secretary declaring that when the time came for war it would be very difficult to carry on the business of the country owing to a shortage of horses.
  Mr. ACLAND: I did not make the statement. It was possibly a relative.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Marylebone and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) and we do not always agree, in saying that we do want the police as assistants to Territorial Associations. I think it ought to be compulsory for Territorial Associations to do this business. The Territorial Association is formed to look after the military affairs in a county, and if it is not prepared to

  913
  undertake that work it means that your scheme may be of no use at all when it is most wanted. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if Territorial Associations shirk their obvious duty that it will be necessary in such a case to put the duty on the police authority in the way he suggests. I should far rather, as a chairman of an association, have the police authority to help us. The very wording of the Act would give the police authority an excuse, so to speak, for helping us. In our part we certainly look upon them as of very great assistance, and not unpopular as they might be in other parts. Everybody looks upon the policeman as a licensed person who is entitled to inquire into anybody's business, while they might resent representatives from the Territorial Associations. We understand from the right hon. Gentleman now that the Territorial Association is to be the primary authority.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: That seems to put the onus on the association of finding horses for the Regular Army. That is certainly no part of our business. The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman on this point is not at all clear as to whether the War Office is to find the horses for the Regular Army or whether it is all going to be one matter. He has not given us a clear scheme as to what it is he requires or how he is going to work it out. We are told he is going to use the Territorial adjutants to do the work, but the right hon. Gentlemen must know how extraordinarily difficult that would be. There is an adjutant in one of my regiments who has got five counties and is responsible for five different associations. How on earth is he going to look after horses in Elgin, Aberdeen, Banff and also in Oban and Argyllshire in the other end of Scotland? His area would be a district 300 miles by 100 miles; it is perfectly impossible for him to look after and superintend a district of that kind, and it cannot be expected that he could possibly know a district as an adjutant in a smaller district would. There is then the question of pay. Are those people delegated to be generally used in the Territorial Associations? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me.
  Colonel SEELY: The Noble Lord is asking a good many questions, and I will answer them all at one time.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Will the people delegated be under the authority of the Territorial Associations or under the authority of the general officer commanding? I think I see a good deal of friction possible. It all comes back to the question of expense, as I said the other night. I do not now desire to raise the point again, and have not put an Amendment clown as it would raise too big a question, but I do think that it ought to be made compulsory on people to register their own horses instead of having to pay people to collect the information. I would like to know the basis on which those people are going to be paid. If it is going to be a penny per head of the horses, it must depend on the size of the area, and if you are going to do it in big areas, that naturally takes more expense than the smaller areas. I agree that the question ought to be compulsory, but the whole discussion has so wandered away from the point as to "may" or "shall" that I find it almost impossible to separate one side from the other, and with some questions I agree and with some I do not. As a member of a Territorial Association I shall be very glad indeed to have this help in dealing with this matter.
  Captain GILMOUR: I quite agree with my hon. Friends who desire that the police shall continue to be associated with this matter. At the same time I think it is a little unfortunate that the wording of this Clause places the police authority prior to the county association, because I understand the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that the county association is to be the authority. I think it is pertinent to this question to ask whether it is quite clear that the county association will be permitted to carry out this classification in the manner most suited to the area over which it has control. It appears to me that while it may be quite necessary to supplement the adjutant of the district by a remount officer, or some other officer appointed by the War Office or through the general officer commanding, it would be infinitely better to trust the county associations, or to leave to them the control of those who are to carry out this arrangement. It seems me that under this scheme you will have the appointment of an officer by the general officer commanding, who will be responsible to the general officer commanding, and not to the county associa-

  915
  tion. That is bound to give rise to friction, and it is very desirable that that point should be made clear before further steps are taken.
  Colonel YATE: I thoroughly appreciate the benefit of this work being handed over to the county associations, but I hope it will be made clear how the associations are to work. The right hon. Gentleman reckons that there will be 450,000 horses available, and I Lake it there will be something like 150,000 required on the first mobilisation.
  Colonel SEELY: About 130,000.
  Colonel YATE: I thought the figures given were 85,000 and 59,000. At any rate, I can hardly take so rosy a view of the number of horses available. What we particularly wish to know is the agency by which these horses will be collected. If the Territorial adjutant is to be taken away from his regiment on mobilisation, how is that regiment to be kept up to the mark? If a remount officer is appointed, will he be under the orders of the county association? Someone will have to be definitely appointed to carry out this work; we cannot expect it all to be done by voluntary associations. I would, therefore, ask who is to be in charge of this work, and who will carry it out both in peace time and on mobilisation?
  Captain FABER: I am inclined to agree with those who have said that the registration fee on each horse is a mistake. I would suggest that that fee should be done away with and the money so saved spent on proper officers to look after the registration of horses and vehicles. By that means you would obviate the necessity for any clashing between the police and the county association. That seems to be reasonable in view of an incident which I remember connected with the late war. In the business in which I am engaged we had about one hundred horses, for which we were supposed to receive 10s. each. But we were not called upon for any horses during the war, nor for many years did we receive the registration fee. If the business is carried on in that way I can understand that it does not cost much money. At the same time it is not very satisfactory to find that the registration of horses was accompanied neither by the payment of the fee nor by any of the horses being called upon in time of war when they were
  916
  supposed to be wanted. I agree that each owner should register his own horses and vehicles, if necessary. The right hon. Gentleman is very optimistic about the supply of horses. If he is so satisfied, why is it that the Government are giving a grant of £40,000 for the development of the horse scheme?
  Mr. BUTCHER: I suggest that it would be advisable to make the words rather more definite in order to show who is to be the authority. It must be definitely either one or the other of those mentioned. While I support the Amendment to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may," I would later on move to insert words to make the Clause read as follows:" And the power …. shall in England and Scotland be exercised by the county associations or, if they are unable or unwilling to act, by the police authority." That would make it quite clear that the county associations should be the primary authority, and that, I understand, is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. It would also make definite provision that if they could not, or would not act, the authority should be the police authority. How is the money to be found for carrying out this registration, which will cost a good deal if it is done effectively? Expert assistance will have to be employed, because you are not merely to find the number of the horses, but to classify them, to see which are fit for draught, which for riding purposes, which for heavy draught, which for light draught, and so on. Having done that, you will have to find out what the horses are really suitable for. The fact that a horse has four legs does not tell you much about what he is good for in time of war. You have to find out whether he is sound of wind, and so on. That requires expert assistance. I imagine there will be a limit of price—£40 or £50, whatever it may be—beyond which the authorities will not be able to go in the event of their exercising their compulsory powers to buy. It would therefore be most important in any register to have the horses classified according to their approximate price. For instance, it would be no use having entered in the register as suitable for Army purposes a Grand National horse, worth £500 or £1,000, or a Derby horse worth much more, or a high-priced hunter worth £300. These are points which would have to be taken into consideration, because any registration in which they were not

  917
  observed would be absolutely useless for the purposes for which it is intended.
  Colonel SEELY: Several points have been raised which I will endeavour to make a reply to. Perhaps I may take the last first—the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York, whose knowledge of horses, as we know, is extensive. As to the prices to be paid, they are to be found in the existing Act. We have to pay what is considered to be a fair price.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: Is there a limit to the price?
  Colonel SEELY: There is a limit imposed in this way; that if the person from whom we take the horse considers that the price is not a fair one he can appeal to the county court. Universal experience has shown that in times of emergency and of war horse dealers usually make very good bargains. The War Office will be very careful so that subsequently the House of Commons shall not have something to say on the gross extravagance. The appeal is the automatic cheek against taking expensive horses.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the appeal to the county court is after a horse is taken?
  Colonel SEELY: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will refer to the Section ho will find it all set out. It is Section 115 (a) page 77. He will there see what happens. Broadly speaking, in times of national emergency, the horse owner fares pretty well. I think I can carry the Committee with me there. In regard to the general question of the supply of horses, the hon. Gentleman the Member for York and several other Members questioned me as to the estimate of 1,600,000 given by the police census. I can only repeat that the police are men of common-sense and that they would not classify horses if they were of a class clearly and altogether absurdly unsuitable. We may take it that a census made by these common-sense men is near the mark. Their census shows the gross total of horses, excluding brood mares and stallions, and foals is 1,600,000. I think the fears that we should not be able to mobilise sufficient horses for the Expeditionary Forces and for the Territorial Forces for lack of horses are a complete delusion. There can be no doubt whatever that there are at least three times the number necessary. We have two spare horses for every man after you have mounted him, and two spare horses
  918
  for every man after putting in the limit for each gun. That may not be sufficient for the full purposes of a long war, but when we remember the lamentations on the subject, I know that no well-informed Member of this House, or any person outside, will think that it would be impossible to mobilise our horses. I think we may be satisfied that all these fears are absolutely groundless. We have at least three times as many horses as we require. We have not allocated or classified them to anything like a proper degree that is urgently necessary that we should do, and that is the purpose of this Clause.
  The registration of horses is a question raised by several hon. Members and arises naturally from the last subject. We are asked: "Why pay the sum of 10s. per year to a horse owner?" Other Members said that the horse owners were patriotic enough to give up their horses in time of emergency, and, of course, there is Section 115 that we can rely upon. Under that Section, in every war, if the emergency arises, we can take the horses. But the answer to the questions is that it is rather useful to have this arrangement for small wars and small emergencies. For the purpose of a great emergency, plainly, it will be a foolish thing to pay a man 10s. for doing a thing which he is obliged to do. But in the case of a great emergency an Order by His Majesty would have to be made which most distinctly stated that a state of emergency existed, and that Order would have to be signified by the Secretary of State. You cannot, apart from this Order, take the horses. Therefore, I think we shall always have to keep going a small amount of registration, though not, I think, in the present form. I fully admit the thing is liable to abuse, and I think what we have heard to-day has thrown a very valuable light upon the system.
  Sir S. SCOTT: In what emergency can you take the horses? Can you take them at any time, or only under that Section?
  Colonel SEELY: I am advised we can take the registered horses at any time. You obtain that right by paying the 10s. per year. So I think we must have some scheme of registration, though not the scheme we now perhaps have. At present there are 12,000 horses registered at the cost of £6,000. Whether so many are required I am not prepared to say. I hope to be in a position to give further information on this question when we have got further with the scheme that we are

  919
  discussing. Another point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone was in regard to county associations obtaining the horses for the Regular Army. He said it was no part of their work, and ought not to be thrown upon them. The War Office think the county association the best body to be responsible for the authorisation of this census and classification. But no expense is to be put upon them or upon their funds. It has been asked where are the funds to come from. The funds will come from the Army funds. We have already placed a sum upon the Estimates this year for the purpose. As to the question of the control of officers—a very proper question I admit—let me put it tins way: The general officer, having received his authority from the county association, submits his list of names to the county associations, of officers, adjutants of Yeomanry, Remount officers, and so on. Whore the adjutant's work is as heavy as the Noble Lord pointed out, he will be able to do comparatively little. But other adjutants will be able to do a great deal. These officers, some ex-Regulars, and a few, but not many, Territorials—because they will not have the time—will receive an authorisation from the county association to proceed with the census. For the purposes of discipline it is plain that the general officer commanding, that is in the last resource the War Office, the Crown" must remain the supreme authority. The county association is the person for whom the officers are working, and for whom the information is being prepared in order that the list may be properly drawn up and kept; but I think I may promise that there shall be no divided authority in this matter, any more than there will be in the different matter of the question of the police authority, and the associations.
  Then there comes the question of mechanical transport. We have been asked whether we have borne in mind the introduction of mechanical transport, and the effect that it will have upon the demand for horses. We have borne that in mind but it is very difficult to make an estimate of how soon we shall want fewer horses. I have here an estimate which I believe was quoted by the Secretary of State for War on a previous occasion, showing that the total approximate reduction of horses required for the Expeditionary Force owing to the introduction of mechanical transport was 8,600. That is not a very large reduction out of a total for all purposes of 1,600,000. I doubt
  920
  whether at any time the reduction of horses will be as great as one might perhaps anticipate. I take it that under no circumstances shall we ever want less than 40,000 horses for the Expeditionary Forces. If you eliminate the heavy transport for the guns, etc., you will still have a very large number of horses.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Have the War Office taken any steps in the acquirement of the means of mechanical transport?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes, we have ordered motor lorries, but we are not anxious to proceed too rapidly, because in this, as in so many cases, developments are proceeding so rapidly that by ordering what would be the best thing available now, we might lose the chance of getting better later. That cannot be carried too far. The thing is to choose the right moment. I can promise that we will bear in mind carefully the necessity of choosing the right moment to adopt mechanical transport to a much greater degree.
  Viscount VALENTIA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why he is not prepared to accept the suggestion of Amendment put forward by hon. Members on this side? I think it is admitted that the county associations will not be able to carry out their duty without assistance, and that the Government should help them.
  Colonel YATE: Cannot provision be made by means of which Territorial adjutants who are taken away—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That question does not arise.
  Colonel SEELY: As to the point raised of the Government not accepting this Amendment, it would be most unusual to insert the word "shall" for "may." On the point of leaving in the police authority as the authority, as I have explained twice already to the Committee, if such occasions as suggested should arise it would be a pity that we should have no authorisation authority to enable the work to be carried out.
  6.0 P.M.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The right hon. Gentleman has explained that "may" must be retained as the word, but I think he will agree that the wording of this Clause is rather clumsy, and does not really bear out the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman has given us in his speech. The words suggested by my hon. Friend behind

  921
  me does, to my mind, meet the case. In view of the important Amendments coming on later I shall ask leave to withdraw my Amendment now.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman says there is no chance of accepting the word shall, and that may is more grammatical. Shall, I understand, is mandatory, while may is permissive, but it has nothing to do with grammar.
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, yes, it has a great deal to do with grammar. Shall is mandatory and may is permissive, and it is customary in all such cases as this to use the permissive word and not the mandatory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to move after the words "Reserve Forces Act, 1907,"
  "or by the county association established under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907,"
  to insert the words "or by the general officer commanding-in-chief."
  I fail to understand why the Regular Army, which is most interested in the question of horses on mobilisation, should be entirely eliminated. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is going to place the responsibility for the registration of horses upon the county association, but the general officer commanding ought to be allowed to apply to the county association for power to carry or put into force the actual work of registration. The county association has no disciplinary powers with regard to officers. The general officer commanding has disciplinary powers, yet the whole of the responsibility for the registration of these horses is to remain with the county association which cannot deal in any disciplinary manner with the officers, and which has no control over the general officer commanding who is actually carrying out the various provisions of the scheme. As the Committee is well aware, the countries are divided up into various districts, with general officers commanding responsible for the mobilisation of the troops under their command, and the War Office looks to the general officer commanding to make preparation for and to carry out the various details necessary to be carried out and put into force on mobilisation, so that matters may work smoothly. The War Office have taken away responsibility from the general officer commanding, for one of the most important
  922
  matters which has to be dealt with on mobilisation—namely, the provision of horses, and they have placed it upon the county associations, while at the same time they make the general officer responsible for the mobilisation of the troops under his command.
  I entirely fail to understand the policy of the War Office in respect to the officer they make responsible for mobilisation. I hope for some answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to the exact methods in which he proposes to work the scheme out. I am not satisfied at the present moment as to the division of the command. The right hon. Gentleman says you have not got a divided command. I say you have a divided command. You have one officer responsible for the discipline, and you have the county association apparently responsible for the provision of horses. You have a dual control over your officers. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to introduce the regular forces of the Crown into his Bill as well as the county associations.
  Colonel SEELY: The Amendment in the form in which it is moved would not, I think, commend itself to most hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would make three alternatives, and they have already found fault with the wording of the Clause for making two alternatives. I leave that, however, on one side, and I come to the concrete point. The hon. Gentleman wants the responsibility laid upon the general officer commanding. The Government think it should rest with the county association. There is no way out of this difficulty which amounts to a direct conflict of view, and I am glad that the view of the Government has the support of many of the hon. Gentlemen opposite on this point. Nevertheless there is a good deal to be said from the point of view of simplicity. I regret that after having given full consideration to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet who has given us so much assistance in the carrying out of the scheme the Government cannot see their way to accept it.
  Sir RANDOLF BAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the object of the scheme is the classification and allocation of horses. It seems to me that when the time of emergency comes it would be necessary to have this power in the hands of the general officer commanding. If you bring in the general officer commanding as an authority alongside the others you will get a real and direct advantage in time of emergency. It is quite possible

  923
  that when there is an emergency the police will be fully occupied with other duties, and in such circumstances it would be impossible for the police to do anything in the matter of collection of horses. It would be equally difficult for the county associations, which are to a large extent comprised of officers serving in the Territorial Force. They will be taken away. Your county association would be a very small and hard-worked body indeed in the time of national emergency. They would then be unable to deal with this question of military horses, not only with the supply of horses, but the actual output of further horses afterwards to fill up wastage. As we all know in war time the requirements of the Regular Army after the first few weeks would in the matter of horses be almost as great as in the initial stage, and it would unquestionably be a difficult matter for the county associations to produce the further supply of horses needed if the matter is left entirely in their own hands.
  It may be all right for the Territorial Force, which is to operate in this country. The county associations may be able to provide horses for their own particular troops in their own counties, but to provide horses for the Expeditionary Force would be to insist on a scheme which is bound to break down in a time of real crisis. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the question whether it would not be advisable to put in this extra authority, not merely so much for the collection and allocation of horses and the sending of them away, but from the point of view of looking after further emergencies that may arise in which the police authorities may be of no use and in which the county association could give but little help in this most difficult and expensive work of procuring horses.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am afraid I cannot quite agree with my hon. Friends in regard to this matter. If you have Territorial Associations at all the time they ought to be most useful is on mobilisation. There are plenty of members of the association who will not mobilise, and they know their county better than the general officer commanding. The very best of the horses will have been required and seized for the Expeditionary Force which has already started. I remember that in the three
  924
  regiments in South Africa that I looked after we went out with 4,000 men and 12,000 horses, which showed the enormous wastage there was in a place when no doubt there was a good deal of disease with very little deaths from shooting. The Expeditionary Force, quite apart from the Territorial Force, will bear the first shock of battle, and they will probably take out as many horses as we can supply in this country. I do not think you want a dual authority for them, it should be either the general officer commanding and the remount establishment, or else the county authority. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether civilians may be appointed also as collectors under the general officer commanding. I think probably a good many members of the association themselves may be appointed to look after it, and I should like to know whether if these civilians are appointed they are to be under the discipline of the general officer commanding or of the county association. Under which of the two masters are they to serve?
  Mr. JOHN WARD: It should not be forgotten that after all the object of a Territorial Association is to enlist the civilian element in the military defence of the country upon a voluntary basis, and it is for that reason that a great many people support it who would not otherwise do so if they understood the association was going to be overruled by officers of the Regular Army. From that point of view I think it would be well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether they would not be doing a great deal to alienate sympathy amongst the civilian element by the proposal which has been put forward. I think it would be a great mistake to attempt to overrule Territorial Associations by introducing the authority of the general officer commanding. I am looking at this matter from my own point of view. I have supported this scheme from the beginning because I thought it offered the best chance of making the voluntary system a success. If the Territorial Army is not successful, whether my hon. Friends like it or not, we shall be faced with the alternative of compulsion. I support the Territorial scheme because I hate compulsion. Some of my hon. Friends think it is not necessary to have this Territorial Army, and that we should take no part or lot in it. If we had not done so I am afraid we should before now have had compulsion in military affairs. It is because I wish to see the civilian element uppermost in the

  925
  Territorial Army that I most strongly object to the suggestion made in this Amendment.
  Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not shown us how the Expeditionary Force will be able to take the field within a very short period equipped in all its essentials. It is quite clear that if the scheme is to be effective and the horses are to be provided, those who are to supply them must have some measure of executive authority delegated to them. It would be an unsound principle to put the executive officer in charge of the supply department. The Under-Secretary for War has certainly not shown how he intends, under the scheme now put forward, to work this scheme entirely by the county associations who are not to have any authority except as a registering body. He has not shown how he proposes to obtain the horses necessary on mobilisation. I know this question does not arise so much from the mobilisation of the Territorial Force. No doubt the Territorial Association will be able in time to collect the horses which are registered and that might do for the purposes of the Territorial Army. The War Office, however, do not appear to have considered how through the county associations they are going to rapidly mobilise all the horses necessary for the Expeditionary Force. My hon. Friend has put forward a proposal upon this point, and before it is rejected I think it is incumbent upon the Government to show that they have some scheme in their mind and that the Territorial Authorities will be provided with the means necessary to collect the supply of horses for the Expeditionary Force in case of emergency.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I find myself in agreement with the statement that having our county association we have a right to use it. Many individuals in the country are terrified by militarism, and I think if we could abolish that fear it would go a long way to make the Territorial Army the success we wish it to be. I cannot see the slightest difficulty in the county associations taking up this work and carrying it through with success. I have had some experience in this matter myself, for I happen to be a member of the General Purposes Committee of my own county. Speaking for all the counties I know, I certainly think we can find for this work enough good men to carry it out properly. If there is any fear of the county association not being able to do the work in the stress of a great emergency, inva-
  926
  sion, or war, you may be perfectly certain that the War Office will send a general to assume command of the whole thing; horses will be seized and paid for no doubt after the war is over. I think the military authorities would be quite equal to grasp the situation and deal with it. During the South African war it was my lot to purchase a good many horses for the Government. In the district in which I had command there was no difficulty whatever. The horses were collected and paid for and sent to the fighting line with all possible expedition. I certainly think the county association is the right and proper body to do this work, and supported as it is to be by the police if necessary, I think they will be well able to do the work. I am sorry I cannot agree with my Noble Friend in the Amendment he has proposed.
  Mr. GRETTON: Before the question is put I must press the right hon. Gentleman to give some assurance that the matter I have raised has been considered, and that the Government have a scheme to deal with this question. I have not raised this subject in any spirit of hostility to the Territorial Associations.
  Colonel SEELY: As I have already stated, there are full powers when an emergency comes under Section 115 of this Act to deal with it. There are powers to to take all horses, and in fact the whole matter is most completely drawn up as to what shall take place on mobilisation. On this point no question can arise. The difficulty is that we do not know where to lay hands on the right horses. I do not think there is any difficulty with regard to the powers and the authorities, because they are fully provided for under the Clause I have mentioned.
  Sir S. SCOTT: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to move to add at the end of Sub-section (4) the words, "or any association or military body appointed by Parliament for the purpose."
  It is obvious that all these horses are required by the military authority for military purposes. I feel very strongly that there ought to be some military authority to look after the collection of horses, whether in this country or in Ireland. I do not, of course, wish to eliminate the question of police in Ireland, because probably in that country they

  927
  might be more necessary than in any other part of the Kingdom. In this country, at all events, there might be a good many people unwilling to give up their horses on demand, and they might protest. In Ireland they have a much more practical way of showing their dislike for having their horses seized compulsorily. I think there ought to be some body or association appointed in Ireland for that purpose. Surely the War Office are not going to leave this question to the police in Ireland without having some remount authority armed with proper powers to collect horses. There is another important point upon which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman, or some Members of the Irish party, may be able to enlighten me.
  If in future things turn out as the Liberal party wish them to do, I would like to know who the police authority will be responsible to, because that makes a good deal of difference? Every authority responsible for collecting horses for the Army might be interested to know if the police authority are going to be under this Government or under another Government in Ireland. Without going further into that question I think we ought to have something in addition to the police authority, and you ought to have some association appointed for the purpose. I do not want to suggest that there will be any friction between this country and Ireland in the future, but surely the Committee ought to be prepared to set up such bodies as are necessary to collect the horses whether they are required for the Territorial or the Expeditionary Force. Whether we have Home Rule or not, these associations will certainly be wanted, or, at any rate, some other military authority is required. As we are going to have Home Rule almost immediately, it is necessary for us to know how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to collect these horses. I hope the Under-Secretary for War will be able to accept this Amendment because you want some other authority in Ireland besides the police. It might be unpopular in Ireland for the police to do it. You might find you were causing more friction than doing good, and that you were not collecting the horses. You might find you had to stop the police doing it, and to get some other body to assist.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I assure the Noble Lord he may make his mind quite easy as to the manner and method and success of collecting horses in Ireland.
  928
  With or without organisation, if you are prepared to pay for Irish horses, you will surely get them. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman above the Gangway know quite well that horses were collected in Ireland during the South African War, and they were paid for very dearly. I know it is a fact that the representatives of all the military Governments of Europe make Ireland the happy hunting ground for the supply of horses for their cavalry, wherever they may be. I have read from time to time in the reports of battles on the Continent that Irish horses played no undistinguished part in the various actions. They are sound in wind and limb. [An HON. MEMBER: "Some of them."] There seems to be some doubt expressed, but, if there are any of a defective character at times acquired by the British Army, it may be that the people delight in taking that sort of simple revenge upon their hereditary enemies. Be that as it may, I do assure the Noble Lord and his Friends there are a sufficient number of good horses in Ireland, and they can be had at any time they are needed. It is not the first time Ireland has played a great part in preparing armies for the field to fight the battles of Great Britain, and I can assure the Committee that the capacity of Ireland for supplying the British Army with horses will not be lessened by reason of the fact that Ireland may have Home Rule. There was a time when Ireland did have Home Rule, and what was the arrangement with regard to the Army between a Home Rule Ireland and Great Britain? It may be enlightenment for some of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen above and below the Gangway that Ireland took over a great portion of the Army for many years—centuries I should say, and at all events all during the eighteenth century—on what was called a Peace Establishment, and maintained, armed, fed, and clothed them. These regiments were constantly stationed in Ireland during that period, and the consequence was, when they went into battle, they were composed entirely of Irishmen. It is not many years ago.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I really do not see what this has to do with the Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Probably I am getting a little wide of the horses, but the gauge was thrown down by the Noble Lord, and I have only taken it up. I was about to illustrate how this large portion

  929
  of the British Army was in times of peace clothed, fed, armed, and horsed by an Irish Government. What was done in the past can be done again, and I have not the smallest doubt, if this or some future Parliament or this country were to set up a native Government in Ireland, it would use its resources, its organisation, and its influence for the purpose of providing the Cavalry of the Army with horses.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is really travelling far too wide of the Amendment. He must make his remarks apply to the Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I stood up for the purpose of assuring the Committee that, if the organisation alluded to by the Noble Lord in his Amendment should be extended to Ireland, the people of Ireland are, I think, sufficiently alive to their own interests to support such organisations, having regard to the commercial aspect of the transaction, and that there will be a sufficiency of good horses brought forward and placed at the disposal of such committees for the purpose of supplying the Cavalry with the necessary animals. I suppose I should not be in order now in alluding to another matter of serious moment and of considerable concern—that is with regard to the food that is being supplied to some branches of the Army in Ireland at the present time.
  The CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member would not be in order in referring to that.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Well, I shall reserve what I have to say on that point to a more suitable occasion. I trust, before the Bill passes this House, I shall have an opportunity of referring to this important matter. I only rose for the purpose of assuring the Noble Lord and his friends that if the organisation which he wishes to see extended to Ireland be put into practical effect, it will fulfil its purpose to the satisfaction, I am quite sure, not only of the Noble Lord, but of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think this Amendment is necessary, and with regard to what the Noble Lord said as to the necessity of having the assistance of the police authority in order to take a census of the horses in Ireland, I can assure him he is under a complete misapprehension. Whether it was from a desire on the part of Irishmen, as suggested by the hon. and
  930
  learned Member (Mr. John O'Connor), to get as much money as possible for their horses, or from a sense of patriotism, the fact remains that when a census of horses was taken by the police it was in Ireland where no difficulty was experienced in obtaining full information; and so far as we are aware the census in itself is in almost in every particular complete. All the people in Ireland were anxious to let the police know the number of horses they had and what they were. There are in Ireland, unfortunately, no county associations, and the only authority that remains is the police authority; but the police authority—as would be the case here if there were no other authority—is merely a channel. It is not proposed that the police authority shall carry out this census: that has already been done; but they have not classified their horses, as only military officers can do. The executive, instead of sending to the county associations, will send to the police authority, the legal representative of which, I understand, is the lord lieutenant. The lord lieutenant will be approached by the generals commanding to say if they have his authority for taking a census of horses for the purpose of classification, and we can rely on what he will say. The lord lieutenant will say "Yes," and the thing will then be done, and done entirely by the military authorities, because, unfortunately, there are no county associations in Ireland.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am sorry I cannot quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I shall have to push my Amendment to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no other authority in Ireland, but my Amendment proposes to create one. If the Government are going to trust Ireland to govern itself why not allow it to have associations in order to get the horses for them. I should have thought, if they could trust them in the bigger thing, they could trust them in the smaller thing. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks he cannot trust them, he must provide against them. I cannot see why the military authorities are not to be mentioned in this case when they are in the other. I am sorry, but I must press my Amendment to a Division.
  Colonel WALKER: I think the Under-Secretary would be well advised if he would accept this Amendment. The question of purchasing horses for the Army is a very important matter, and there is a great failing in the supply at the present time. Ireland is the principal centre for

  931
  the supply of horses for this country and the whole Continent of Europe, and buyers from the Continent go there and take the best pick of the horses, paying much bigger prices than we pay. There is a very important difference between a horse which is fit for immediate use and one which is not fit and, although you may pay, as you did in the case of the Boer war, probably a larger price than you might have done buying in the ordinary way for the depôts, you are really not giving more than the value of the animal, because he is going to work at once. If you buy a horse which is not fit, it has to be kept for six months, and fed and exercised—
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how the hon. Member makes his remarks apply to the Amendment.
  Colonel WALKER: I was trying to point out that the associations would advise the Government on this matter. I would certainly advise the Government really to take this matter into serious consideration, because it is one of great importance. Although you have taken a census of the horses in Ireland, you do not know what they are, or whether they are capable for immediate war purposes. The association would supply you with the information, and I therefore would certainly suggest that this Amendment should be adopted.
  Dr. ESMONDE: I have had some experience of affairs in Ireland, and I made some inquiries last year. I find the Italian Government are giving a great deal more for horses throughout Ireland than the British Government. I saw two or three horses sold last year at Sligo Fair, one of the best horse fairs in Ireland, and I saw them refused by dealers trying to buy for the British Army, and afterwards bought at from £10 to £12 per head more for the Italian Government. I do not say that this Amendment would be an improvement at all on the system at present in vogue for buying horses for the British Army. That system is admitted to be not at all satisfactory. The dealer who buys horses in Ireland—
  The CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of buying horses—it is a question of taking a census.
  Dr. ESMONDE: I thought I was attacking the present authority for buying horses—and that authority is the dealer.
  The CHAIRMAN: The present authority for the purpose of the census is the police.
  Dr. ESMONDE: I wish to make a suggestion that we should have some other authority. Do I understand that I am out of order in suggesting that the Government should make a different arrangement for this purpose?
  The CHAIRMAN: A different arrangement? With regard to the census it would be in order to discuss that, provided it was relevant to the Amendment, but not in regard to buying.
  Dr. ESMONDE: Am I in order in attacking the system as it stands at present?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not know to what system the hon. Member refers. He is not in order in dealing with the system of buying. This is merely a question of taking a census.
  Dr. ESMONDE: I think the whole system is mistaken. There are plenty of horses in Ireland to be had by the British Government without any census, provided that they pay for them. When you find foreigners going through the country outbidding those who are buying horses for the British Army it is time some different arrangement was made. Irish farmers know the real value of their horses, and if you had a proper system, if you had men who thoroughly understand the buying of horses, there will be no difficulty in getting horses for your different regiments.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in order.
  Dr. ESMONDE: Well, I can only say I consider the system is a very bad one and I think it very desirable that some other authority should be established. As a rule the police do not know much about horses. They have no experience in the matter, and when they are taking a census they are not able to tell whether an animal is fit for the Cavalry, or merely for use as a cart horse. The whole system is very bad, and I look forward to being able to get it altered.
  Earl WINTERTON: There is one point I would like to put to the Under-Secretary. It would be well before we come to a decision on this Amendment to know what is the intention of the Government with regard to the future demand for horses in Ireland. Before the Committee is asked to decide to whom shall be given the duty of collecting a census of these

  933
  horses, it should be known who, under the altered conditions caused by the Government, are to deal with these animals. I think an answer on that point would facilitate the House in coming to a decision.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is rather neglecting my ruling.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not in order to appeal to the Government to tell us whether or not it is intended that the people who at the moment are responsible for taking the census will continue to do the work in the future? Are they at the present time directly under the Government of this country and not under any other Government?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that is a pertinent question.
  Earl WINTERTON: I hope there will be another occasion on which we can discuss the whole question of the supply of horses for the Army. I understand it is not strictly in order to do so now. I certainly think we are putting the cart before the horse in discussing this Amendment before we discuss the question of how the supply of military horses is going to be maintained in face of the competition of foreign buyers. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision not to accept the Amendment of my Noble Friend. I think it is a good Amendment, and it would be far better to give the opportunity which my Noble and gallant Friend suggests than to put it in the form suggested in the original Bill. I hope my Noble Friend will press the matter to a Division. Perhaps I may be in order in saying that I am grateful to the Government for having permitted us to have a discussion this afternoon on this Bill in more decent hours than usual. I think it is the first time we have had the discussion under such conditions, and I hope I am not out of order in thanking the Government and in telling them how pleased I am that they have ignored the protest of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir Henry Dalziel)—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord must introduce some kind of relevance into his remarks. I have warned him two or three times that he is out of order.
  Earl WINTERTON: I thought I might not be travelling outside the scope of the Amendment in thanking the Government for having given us a discussion this afternoon. I hope that the Labour party will
  934
  not neglect this opportunity—they have neglected so many—of showing their independence of the Government—
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Is the Noble Lord to be permitted to be continuously out of order?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord had not completed his sentence.
  Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry the hon. Member did not wait to hear the end of the sentence. I was expressing the hope that the members of his party would show the independence of which they boast by supporting this Amendment. I think in carrying it out, if the Government accept it, they will find it much easier to give effect to the intentions which they profess and which I fully admit are most important. I support everything which has been said as to the importance of the Amendment, and I trust that my Noble Friend will press the matter to a Division.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: When I spoke before I did not quite comprehend the scope of the Amendment of the Noble Lord. I understood that it had to do with the buying of horses for the Army by county associations. The Under-Secretary for War has made it clear to my mind that he, as well as I, deplore the absence of these county associations in Ireland. But that is not our fault in Ireland. One of the very first questions to which I addressed myself in this House when I joined it, over a quarter of a century ago, was the question of Volunteers in Ireland. I understand that county associations are based upon the Territorial system, and therefore you cannot have a county association in Ireland. You deny us the privilege of having Volunteer associations. You recruit there for the Regular Army and you allow Militia corps to be organised, but Volunteers are not permitted amongst the Irish people. While we are loyal enough to supply you with Regular soldiers and with Militiamen, you will not allow that we are loyal enough to give you Volunteers. Consequently you have no county associations to fall back upon at the present time. There may come a day when you will alter all that and when you will have, as Ireland in days gone by has had, a Volunteer Force there, and then you will be able to utilise your county organisations for the purpose of providing yourselves with horses for the Army. I apologise to the Committee for the irrelevancy of my earlier remarks,

  935
  based upon a want of knowledge of the scope of the Noble Lord's Amendment. I desire to point out to the many new Members of this House who do not know the military or economic conditions of Ireland the real cause of the difficulty which is at present experienced. It may be that the time is not far distant when this want will be supplied. I doubt very much if the Noble Lord will be well advised in pressing
  this Amendment to a Division. After all, it amounts to nothing. If there are imperfections in the organisation so far as Ireland is concerned, those imperfections will not be remedied by the Noble Lord's Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 190.

  Division No. 154.]

  AYES.

  [7.0 p.m.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fleming, Valentine

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

  Astor, Waldorf

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grant, J. A.

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Banner, John S. Harmood.

  Greene, W. R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gretton, John

  Stanier, Beville

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Starkey, John Ralph

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill-Wood, S.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Butcher, J. G.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cassel, Felix

  Hume-Williams, William Ellis

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Younger, George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Croft, Henry Page

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Marquess

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  of Tullibardine and Earl Winterton.

  Fisher, W. Hayes

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Harmsworth, R. (Leicester)

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

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

  Adamson, William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Alden, Percy

  Crooks, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hayward, Evan

  Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud)

  Cullinan, J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Dawes, James Arthur

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Delany, William

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barnes, George N.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Barton, William

  Doris, William

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hunter, W. (Govan)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Edwards, Enoch Hanley

  Johnson, William

  Boland, John Pius

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Jones, H. Hadyn (Merioneth)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Brace, William

  Falconer, James

  Jones, W. S. Glyn. (T. H'mts, Stepney)

  Brigg, Sir John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Joyce, Michael

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Keating, Matthew

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Kelly, Edward

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Haywood)

  Hackett, John

  Lansbury, George

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Clough, William

  Hancock, John George

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Clynes, J. R.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Logan, John William

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Pointer, Joseph

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Toulmin, George

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Radford, G. H.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

  M'Curdy, C. A.

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Marks, George Croydon

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Wardle, George J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Reddy, Michael

  Waring, Walter

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Webb, H.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.)

  Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Robinson, Sydney

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Middlebrook, William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wiles, Thomas

  Millar, James Duncan

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rowlands, James

  Williamson, Sir A.

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Rowntree, Arnold

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

  Morgan, George Hay

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sheehy, David

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shortt, Edward

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  O'Grady, James

  Snowden, Philip

  O'Malley, William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sutton, John E.

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg to move, as ail Amendment, at the end of the proposed Sub-section (4) to add the words, "and the word 'animals,' for the purposes of the same Section, shall be deemed to mean 'animals suitable for any military purpose.' "
  I desire, in moving this Amendment, to emphasise the word "military" and also the word "any," and I should like to point out to the Committee that Section 114 of the Army Act appears only to refer to a list or register being made of a certain class of horses, namely, horses required for transport for the requirements of an army on the march; that is to say, for the requirements which are particularly set out in Section 112 of that Act. If I may draw the right hon. Gentleman's notice to that Section, omitting immaterial words, he will observe that under it a justice of the peace in the United Kingdom having jurisdiction in any place shall issue his warrant requiring some constable having authority in such place to provide within a reasonable time such carriages, animals, and drivers as are stated to be required for the purpose of moving the regimental baggage and regimental stores of the forces, and the constable shall execute such warrant, and persons having carriages and animals suitable for the said purpose shall furnish the same in a state fit for use for the aforesaid purpose, that is without any qualification, but such qualification does appear in this Section 114. It would seem that the last Act only aimed at horses required for
  938
  this specific purpose, and no other. It is perfectly apparent from the Debate which has already taken place this afternoon and from a debate which took place in another place during the last Session that it is now intended to include in this register not merely horses intended for transport purposes, but horses which may be required upon mobilisation for every section of the Army. It is perfectly true that when you come to Section 115, which deals with a case of emergency, there is provision made there for commandeering horses of a kind other than the horses to which I have referred. But on the face of the Section to which I have just been referring, and the Section which I now seek to amend by my Amendment it would appear (hat the list cannot in fact be made to include those other horses.
  I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to that point presently, but in any case what I want to emphasise by my Amendment is the desirability of making it perfectly clear in that Section that the list shall contain animals intended for any military purpose, and animals that are suitable for such purposes. It is perfectly clear that the police census has included a very large number of horses, as the right hon. Gentleman has already admitted, which are wholly unsuited for any military purpose—horses which are too old or too young to be so used, stallions which have not been broken into harness, or any other purpose, mares in foal, children's ponies, and a large

  939
  number of other horses which cannot conceivably be used for any military purpose whatever. If you are going to discard, as I understand you are in the future, this police system, in favour of the making of a register by a more or less expert body, the county association, with the assistance of Yeomanry adjutants and the remount officers, you are in a position to have a register which shall not be overloaded with useless horses, but which shall be confined entirely to horses which are suitable to one or other of the purposes for which they will be required in the event of mobilisation. I think the request which I make in my Amendment is a very reasonable one, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept it. He stated this afternoon—I do not know on what data—that something like 1,600,000 horses were included in the police census which might be deemed to be more or less useful for mobilisation of our forces.
  Colonel SEELY: I did not say that.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon if he did not say that, but he went on to say that out of the 1,600,000 horses he is satisfied that at any rate 450,000—a very small proportion of horses—will be available in the event of a national emergency. I do not know upon what data he has come to those figures, but I should think it extremely difficult, from the way in which the police census has been drawn up, to draw any conclusions as to the proportion of that list being available in the event of their being required for military purposes. So far as I am aware, there are four different kinds of horses which are required for our Army at the present time. These horses are Cavalry horses, horses for draft purposes for Light Artillery, horses for draft purposes for Heavy Artillery, and horses for Mounted Infantry, The right hon. Gentleman has already used an expression to the effect that it is desirable that there should be allocation and classification of the horses. But if you confine your list, as I suggest you should, to those horses only which are suitable for one or other of those purposes, it becomes a necessary step that you should allocate and classify those horses under the separate heads to which I have referred. I think I may ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, first of all to make it perfectly clear what this is intended to include, and secondly to confine the list
  940
  to the horses which are suitable to our national needs, and not to overburden the list with a large number of horses which are never likely to be of any use for such a purpose.
  Colonel SEELY: I will not deal at any length with the question of the classification of horses, because I have already done so at some length, and also because I believe there was some kind of general understanding that we should conclude this Bill by 8.15. There are a good many points in the Bill, and one or two of some importance, and I want these to be touched upon before we conclude the business. I was anxious about the legal point, and I consulted an eminent legal gentleman on the drafting of the Bill, and he is of opinion that the interpretation of the word "animals," if you take into consideration Clause 115, makes it clear that the intention of Parliament will be carried out and that animals of all kinds will be included. I think myself that the view of that eminent legal authority is correct, and that the words bear that interpretation.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I refer to line 3 of that Section. Reference is made there to "persons liable (o furnish animals under this Act." As I understand there is no reference to persons liable to furnish carriage horses under the Act except in Section 112.
  Colonel SEELY: It was just that particular line that caused my doubt, and then my legal authority pointed out the various Sub-sections of Section 115, and convinced me that the words did mean that all animals should be included. Of course, if it were finally decided that that were not so the Act would have to be amended, but I am persuaded that that is not the case. "But," says the hon. Gentleman, "assuming that that is so, the words are too wide. You surely do not mean to take a census of all horses." It would be rather wasteful to do that, but except for excluding obviously unsuitable horses you cannot really be quite sure what horses are suitable until you have come to them. You ought not to go to the great expense of keeping a long list of unsuitable horses, but you must in the first instance have a look at all the horses before you can find out which are really suitable for military purposes. I suggest that the hon. Member should not press the Amendment.
  Mr. BATHURST: May I ask whether it is intended under the Act, as amended,

  941
  that all horses in the county and in the purview of the Association shall be included in these lists?
  Earl WINTERTON: When the right hon. Gentleman said he consulted a legal authority did he take the opinion in the ordinary formal way of the Law Officers, and is it their deliberate opinion, or is it merely the private opinion of some legal friend?
  Colonel SEELY: I consulted one who, I consider, must be the highest sort of military legal authority we could well obtain—the Noble Viscount in another place—because he really was a man of outstanding legal attainments, and he does understand Army matters after nearly five years dealing with them, and he is clear that the words mean what I said they did and are sufficiently wide to cover any horses, and I think we may rest assured that it is satisfactory. As to classifying, what we must do in the first instance is to get enough to mobilise, and then proceed to get enough for an adequate reserve. There is not much chance of getting that before next year, when the hon. Gentleman can, of course, raise the point again.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Do I understand that it is proposed to have a census very much on the lines that the police have taken their census, to include all horses whatever be their description, and whether in fact they are known by any of the associations to be wholly unsuitable?
  Colonel SEELY: Oh, no. Of course we could not go into the question of any horses which are obviously unsuitable—all horses much too old, much too young, or much too small—but of suitable horses we hope in the end to get a complete census.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has noticed that you have already, in Section 112, under the description of horses for transport purposes, the expression "persons having carriages and animals suitable for the said purpose "? I am asking him to put into this Clause the same words applying to all horses suitable to any military purpose.
  Colonel SEELY: It is not necessary.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not quite know if the right hon. Gentleman intended it seriously when he says the Secretary for War is a military legal authority. There is no such thing. A man is either a good lawyer or not a good lawyer. He is no doubt perfectly competent to give an
  942
  opinion on this or any point of law, but it is rather regrettable that on a matter which vitally affects the associations a great lawyer, who is also the head of the Department whose affairs are under review, should be asked his opinion. Could the right hon. Gentleman not give an undertaking firstly to submit this matter in the ordinary way to the Law Officers of the Crown for further decision and if their opinion should be that it does not carry out the intentions of the Government, would he bring in an amending Bill before the end of the Session? I do not think we ought to have in this informal manner a military legal authority brought forward.
  Colonel SEELY: I think in matters of legal phraseology we may really rest assured that if the Secretary for War, who is the highest legal authority, and has knowledge of military matters, is clear, it is really all right; but, of course, should it be found for any reason that that view is wrong we can easily take steps to put the matter right.
  Mr. H. W. FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman I think is under some misapprehension with reference to the arrangement as to finishing this Bill. He suggested that on account of being given several hours of daylight to discuss the matter an arrangement was made that proceedings should be brought to an end at 8.15. That is not quite the case. I want this to be clearly understood that we do not in any way regard ourselves bound by the situation of to-day as to our conduct with reference to the Army (Annual) Bill in future years. We do not in the least wish it to be understood that a part of a single sitting is sufficient. The circumstances under which the arrangements were made were these. There was on the Notice Paper a Motion for the issue of a new writ. That is a Motion which might have been debated, and it was on the distinct understanding that no Debate on that Motion should arise, which would have shortened the hours of daylight in which we had discussed this Bill, that we agreed to allow the Bill to pass through all its remaining stages by 8.15.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I desire to withdraw the Amendment, but I hope this short discussion will be brought to the notice of the Noble Viscount. I think he may have to modify his view.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir S. SCOTT: I beg to move to leave out the words "any proper officer" ["any proper officer authorised in that behalf"], and to insert instead thereof the words "an officer of the Regular Army on full pay."
  This raises the very important point of who is to be the officer who is to carry out the scheme which has been outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. At present all we know is that a proper officer means "any officer or person of such rank, class, or description as may be specified in an order of the Army Council made for the purpose." It would be almost impossible for anyone to frame a Section in vaguer terms. I took the trouble, searching after knowledge, to look up in Webster's dictionary what was meant by the word "proper." I find that it has the following different meanings—"big," "particularly suited to," "pertaining to," "one of a species but not common to the whole," and, lastly, "tall, lusty, handsome, with bulk." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some fuller explanation of what the word means than it is possible to obtain from a dictionary. These officers alone, I suppose, are to have the right of entry to the various stables or places where the vehicles or horses may be. There is no other person, even though authorised by the officer himself, who will have that right of entry, or will be able to do the work for him. It is a very important point as to who is to be the officer to carry out these very important and, on many occasions, very difficult duties. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the officers were to be either Territorial officers, remount officers, or adjutants. It is perfectly obvious that you cannot get this duty carried out unless you get a man who well knows his duties, and pay him a proper sum of money. There is no doubt that the men most conversant with the class of horses required by the Army are the Regular officers and Regular remount officers on full pay. It is no use to try again that system which the War Office hoped to introduce to get everything for nothing. It has failed once and it will fail again; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some full explanation who these officers are to be, and by whom they are to be paid, and whether he intends that if he employs Territorial as well as remount officers the Territorial officers will receive the same full pay and allowances as an officer of the Regular Army,
  944
  and, also, if he employs a civilian, whether that civilian will be under discipline or not?
  Colonel SEELY: I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir S. Scott) could not find a satisfactory definition of the word "proper." He was not quite sure which of the various definitions he quoted would apply in this connection. I should hope that a "proper officer" will be one "particularly suited to" the position to which he is appointed, and as for the rest, I hope he will be tall and lusty, and I would further hope that in some cases he will also be handsome. In all seriousness, I cannot accept the Amendment, because it would exclude some Army officers who might be peculiarly valuable for this purpose, and it would also exclude Territorial officers, some of whom are very suitable. Whether all the officers employed in this work should be Regular Army officers on full pay is another question. I undertake that those who are appointed' for this work will be paid, but I cannot say that they will receive full pay, because it is probable that the work will only occupy part of their time. When I say that they will be paid, the hon. and gallant Member may accept that as showing that we shall not attempt to get something for nothing. As to the question of discipline, I will undertake that these officers will be under proper discipline, and, secondly, that proper officers only will have the right to enter stables for the purpose of inspecting horses. Important as is the work of getting a census of horses, I quite agree that the powers to be given by this Bill must not be administered in an oppressive spirit, and I shall undertake that those who enter stables for the purpose of inspecting horses shall only be properly and duly authorised officers. He generally will be a Regular officer only, who will be allowed to undertake this inspection duty.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Before we pass from this point, may I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the provision in this part of the Bill with regard to Ireland. I find that the authority for the purpose of this inspection shall in England and Scotland be either the police authority or the county association established under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and that in Ireland the police are to be the inspecting authority.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not dealing with the point raised by the Amendment.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: My point has reference to the Amendment which deals with the question of the "proper officer." The proper officer apparently in Ireland will be a policeman.
  Colonel SEELY: No.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us and satisfy our minds on that point? I apprehend that next year there will be certain legislation before this House, and perhaps the police then, in certain parts of Ireland, would not be the most popular people in the world. I have very much at heart this proposal in regard to the taking of a census of horses, and I think it would be rather hard if the stables of certain hon. Members were to be raided by a policeman who is to be in Ireland the "proper officer."
  Colonel SEELY: "Police authority" means the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and him only. The work is to be done by officers acting under the instructions of the Lord Lieutenant.
  Sir S. SCOTT: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir S. SCOTT: I beg to move to leave out the words "at all reasonable times" [" shall be entitled at all reasonable times to enter any premises"] and to insert instead thereof the words "between sunrise and sundown." I think "at all reasonable times" is far too vague a phrase, because what would be a reasonable time for one man would not be a reasonable time for another. It will be far better to put down some definite time during which there should be the right of entry.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not think these words are really necessary, because I think we may be sure that the "proper officer" who is appointed will perform his work at reasonable times, but if he comes to loggerheads with the owners of horses, the inspection will be done only at certain times. Nor would it be convenient if a man who is inspecting some horses in a stable at four o'clock in the afternoon of a winter day after sundown were to stop the inspection for that reason, because there will be plenty of light to carry out the work. I am not now referring to the conditions which would obtain if the Day-
  946
  light Saving Bill became law, and which would make the work still more complicated.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The point raised by the Amendment now before the Committee is somewhat similar to one raised by the Amendment of which I have given notice to insert the words "between six o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock in the evening." That provides that what is a reasonable time will not be altogether dependent on the opinion of the authority who decides, but according to the circumstances of the case. There is no doubt that when this particular Clause is put in practice, people will probably be in thorough agreement in time of peace, but at another time later on the words "at all reasonable times" would be interpreted in exactly the opposite way. Why should the right hon. Gentleman object to state absolutely what reasonable times are? After all, if he does not agree that between six in the morning and nine in the evening is reasonable, I should like him to tell us what reasonable times are. If he will tell us, probably we may be satisfied, but otherwise I should certainly think that it would be wiser to insert the words of the Amendment. It would save a great deal of friction. I make that proposal in no hostile spirit.
  Colonel SEELY: I should think that most persons would consider six in the morning a most unreasonable time.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I propose between six in the morning and nine in the evening, because that period was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman as a reasonable time.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, that is when people are at loggerheads, but not when they are in agreement. If we put in the Bill the words which the Noble Lord proposes, we may encourage an industrious officer to go and knock up people early in the morning, whereas the work might be better performed if done in a more reasonable spirit. I really think that the effect of putting in these words would be the very opposite of what the Noble Lord desires.
  Colonel WALKER: I think it would be better to state definitely when the inspection can be made.
  Colonel SEELY: The beauty of the phrase "at all reasonable times" is that when acting under these words you cannot do anything unreasonable.
  Sir S. SCOTT: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to move, after the word "inspect" ["and to inspect any carriages or animals"], to insert the words "and test."
  I am perfectly well aware that veterinary inspection means a thorough examination of a horse, and that you cannot examine the animal unless you trot it out. There might be some legal quibbler who would say that the officer had no right to run the horse out in order to inspect it, and therefore I think it would be wiser to amplify the Clause in order to avoid friction and trouble in future.
  Colonel SEELY: I have said that the whole object of the Clause is to secure that the horses chosen for this great national purpose should be only suitable for the purpose. It is plain, therefore, that the intention of Parliament must be that the inspecting officer shall be able to do all reasonable things to ascertain the fitness of a horse. I am clear that it is not necessary to add the words "and test." I assure the Noble Lord that our intention is that horses shall be properly inspected, and that will be made clear in the instructions issued to officers.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg to move to leave out the word "a" ["a justice of the peace may"], and to insert instead thereof the words "any stipendiary magistrate, sheriff-substitute, or."
  My reason for proposing that the words "sheriff-substitute" should be inserted is that in Scotland there may be difficulty in getting a justice of the peace. In England you have justices who exercise a certain amount of authority and are, to a great extent, magistrates, in the literal sense of the word. In Scotland the position of a justice of the peace is a sort of social honour, to which everybody aspires. Members of Parliament used to try to get men made justices of the peace, whether they possessed—well, perhaps I had better not go into that. In Scotland justices of the peace are sometimes very far apart and widely distributed, and it is somewhat difficult to get them. They have not the same weight and authority as justices of the peace in England. The man who does
  948
  all the work in Scotland which is done by an English justice of the peace is the sheriff-substitute. He is the sort of legal head in every county. I think it would be wiser to put in the words of my Amendment.
  Colonel SEELY: I have consulted on this matter those who are acquainted with the law, because it appeared to me that there might be substance in this Amendment on the legal point, but after inquiry I am convinced that it is not necessary to insert the words, because the words already in the Clause include the proper authority in whatever part of the kingdom he may be.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of Section 145 of the Army Act with respect to deductions on account of process money.)
  The following provision shall be inserted at the end of Sub-section (3) of Section 145 of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wile and children):—
  "Where by an order or decree sent to the Army Council or officer in accordance with Sub-section (2) of this Section the soldier is adjudged to pay as costs incurred in obtaining the order or decree any sum left in the hands of the commanding officer under this Subsection, the Army Council may cause a sum equal to the sum so left to be paid in liquidation of the sum so adjudged to be paid as costs, and the amount so paid by the Army Council shall be a public debt from the soldier against whom the order or decree was made, and, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, may be recovered by deductions from his daily pay, in addition to those mentioned in Subsection (2) of this Section."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. ACLAND: On this point, although the hon. Member (Mr. King) who has put down some Amendments on this Clause is absent, I have given him certain assurances which I think he would desire that I should make to the House, or else he might think that I had taken advan-

  949
  tage of his absence not to carry out what we are willing to do in connection with this matter. Clause 5 provides that whereas at present if a soldier is charged with being the father of an illegitimate child and a decree is made against him, a certain amount may be recovered from his daily pay for the support of the child. By the new Clause which we now propose, in addition to that sum which may be recovered out of his pay for the support of the child, there may also be recovered the amount of money which has had to be deposited as process money in order to bring the soldier to a place where he is charged. Without the Amendment proposed, the law is at present that the process money, which may be a considerable amount—say in the case of a soldier brought from the Curragh to Newcastle or Edinburgh—has to be deposited by the girl, or someone acting on her behalf, and cannot be recovered by her until after the soldier has left the Army. We thought that was rather hard lines, and therefore in the Amendment which is proposed we say that in Line 16 the Army Council may cause so and so to be paid. I can give quite a definite undertaking that in all cases where the order is given against the soldier we will not take advantage of the word "may" to get out of what we intend to adopt as an obligation—namely, to pay back the sum which has been advanced as journey money for the man. I may add that we will pay it promptly, and my hon. Friend had down an Amendment that we should pay it as soon as may be. We entirely accept that. The money will be paid back within a week or so, as soon as all the necessary documents can be got through. It will be repaid with all possible expedition.
  With regard to another point which is hardly in order, but which would come up if the hon. Member were here to move the new Clause which stands in his name, we do undertake before next year to consider in reference to the amount which may be deducted for the support of an illegitimate child—which is limited to sixpence a day in the case of non-commissioned officers of the rank of sergeant or over, and 3d. in the case of a private or a non-commissioned officer under the rank of sergeant, where even a private or corporal is receiving money which may enable him in spite of having to repay the process money to pay rather more than the maximum of 3d. per day, whether by establishing a scale in the new Schedule to the Act, or in any other way we can, where the soldier
  950
  can really afford to pay a little more, make him pay a little more in future than at present. This matter has been taken up by a society for befriending girls who get into trouble. They have asked us to do something, and we have been able to meet them to this extent. I think that the few matters which I have touched on show that we are genuinely desirous of going a little further even than this new Clause indicates, and I give these few assurances so that those who are interested in the matter may know that this is not the whole extent of what we are prepared to do, but that we hope to be able to bring up further modifications next year when the matter comes up again for consideration.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to move the following new Clause;—

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 46 of the Army Act with respect to powers of Commanding Officers.)
  "With a view to reducing the number of cases which have to be sent for trial by courts-martial owing to the limited powers of punishment exerciseable by commanding officers, the maximum period of detention which may be awarded by a commanding officer who deals with a case summarily shall be fifty-six days and accordingly 'fifty-six' shall be substituted for twenty-eight in (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section forty-six of the Army Act, and Sub-section (4) of the same Section shall be repealed."
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should explain to the Noble Lord that I think I am correct in saying that Sub-section (4) has already been repealed. I have a note in my book to that effect.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I move this Clause with a twofold object, and I am sorry that, owing to limitations of time, it is impossible to enter into a full discussion of this subject. It will be within the recollection of this House that last year I incurred the entirely undeserved censure of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) of endeavouring to place a most formidable power in the hands of commanding officers who would inevitably make use of that power for the purpose of tyrannising over the men under their jurisdiction. I think that the Committee will acquit me of any suggestion of the kind. The first reason for which I desire

  951
  to give the commanding officers fuller powers than they possess at the present moment is for the purpose of saving the soldier from being tried by court-martial, which he has to be tried by at present, when the offence that he has committed is outside the scope of the power which the commanding officer is allowed to make use of. I am strengthened in that proposition by personal experience. I have had the opportunity of seeing that almost always when a soldier has the power of choosing whether he will receive the award of his commanding officer or be tried by court-martial, he almost invariably accepts the award of the commanding officer. Within the last few years we have seen a great decrease in the number of courts-martial, and that is a development which we are all very pleased to see. I should like to see courts-martial still further decreased, and I believe that that result will be produced by the Clause which I am now moving. A great many soldiers are tried and convicted by courts-martial for offences which to the civilian convey nothing whatsoever, but when it comes to the employment of a soldier after he leaves the army, if there is the stigma of conviction by court-martial against him, it tends to prevent his obtaining employment.
  In exercising that jurisdiction you have to be very careful in the selection of officers. And that brings me to the second point. One cause of the difficulty that you have now in obtaining officers is that it is impossible for them at an early stage in their career to arrive at a position of real responsibility. If you alter their position and give them more real responsibility—and I am speaking not only of officers but of men all through the ranks—it would increase the efficiency of the Army and benefit all ranks concerned. At present there is no inducement to an officer to command his regiment. The commanding officer, as a rule, goes through all the various ranks until he arrives at the commanding officer stage. But the route has been made easier for him because of the other officers who have been more energetic and who have desired to obtain greater scope for their talent and have done their best to leave that regiment and go upon the staff. If you go through the higher ranks of the Army at present you find that most of the general officers have not been in the position of commanding their regiment. To my mind the command of a unit should be the stepping-stone to
  952
  higher rank, and whether you like to make smaller units and so place the individual in a position of responsibility at an earlier age, I should make it a sine qua non that the command of a unit should be the stepping-stone to obtaining the higher grades in the Army. I admit that the Clause that I am proposing to insert lays me open to the charge which the hon. Member for Stoke brought against me last year, but that is not the object which I have in view. It is to place the commanding officer of a regiment in a position of greater responsibility than he attains to at present. It is an inducement which I think would make officers join the Army more readily than they do at present, and when they have joined the Army would urge them to stay in the Army.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: To punish the men.
  8.0 P.M.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Gentleman, I know, is not wilfully trying to misrepresent me. I know that he has most minute knowledge of the Army in a great many matters, but as regards the relations which exist between the officers and the men he has entirely erroneous ideas. He believes that the object of the officers is to tyrannise over the men. I would suggest that the hon. Member should spend a little time consulting with the men in various ranks, and I am convinced that he would then be in a better position to judge of the true state of affairs. I am perfectly certain, if you determine to increase the power of the commanding officer, that from the point of view of the men it will be approved, as is seen from the way in which they accept the awards of the commanding officers, though they have the opportunity of selecting to be tried by court-martial. That is a fact which speaks for itself. In the Clause which I am moving I am making no endeavour to take away from the soldier the right which he has at present of electing to be tried by court-martial. All I desire to bring under the control of the commanding officer is jurisdiction over offences which are taken out of his hands at the present moment, and which consequently compel a soldier to be tried by court-martial, with the stigma which afterwards attaches to him by reason of his having been so tried. I wish to acquit myself of the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Mr. John Ward) that I am bringing anything forward to increase the punishment of the soldier, because my proposal is one which

  953
  has for its object rather to make the punishment less than it is at the present moment.
  Colonel SEELY: We must, of course, entirely acquit the Noble Lord from any desire to be more severe on the soldier, for his object in moving this Clause is to make his punishment less severe, and enable commanding officers to deal with offences rather than that they should come before courts-martial, where not only the punishment might be greater, but where there is the added disgrace of having been tried by court-martial. But we cannot accept the Clause for two reasons. In the first place, the Noble Lord proposes to give the commanding officer power of detention for fifty-six days, whereas the limit of the regimental courts-martial is less than fifty-six days. Of course, we could not give a greater power to the commanding officer than is possessed by the court-martial. That, of course, is a technical point which the Noble Lord could meet by reducing the number of days to forty. But, even so, I do not think we can go any further than we did last year. I think we have reached the limit of punishment which it should be lawful for a commanding officer to impose. I do not think, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, that we can give further power to commanding officers. I wholly agree with the Noble Lord as to the desirability of putting more responsibility on the commanding officers; but I do not think it could be done, or that it would be desirable to do it, in the way now proposed. The Noble Lord has undoubtedly the satisfaction today of seeing one of his labours now bearing fruit. He moved a similar Amendment last year in order to increase the power of the commanding officer, with a view to reducing the number of courts-martial. The annual report of the Army only goes up to the end of September; but the Noble Lord's Amendment of last year only came into operation on 30th June last, so that there were only four months in which it could operate. Although there was only this short time in which to observe the result of the Noble Lord's effort, yet the effect has been very good, and the Noble Lord will be glad to hear that in the short period to which I refer the number of courts-martial was reduced by nearly 900–897 is the precise figure, I think. If you take the number of regimental courts-martial held in all the stations, which is the class of court-martial most affected by the Amendment of the Noble Lord last year,
  954
  we have the very great reduction from 333 down to 211, although the Amendment did not operate throughout the whole of the year. It may be said, however, "if so good a result has been obtained from twenty-eight days, why not try the plan of fifty-six days"? But I think I have said enough to show that we cannot carry it so far as the Noble Lord proposes, and I submit to the Committee that we probably have gone as far as is required, at any rate, in the first instance.
  Mr. J. WARD: The right hon. Gentleman is almost as great an offender in this matter as the Noble Lord opposite. Hero is a beautiful proposition. They give power to the commanding officer to inflict punishment that would be imposed by the courts-martial. Having given the commanding officer power to inflict punishment, they say that courts-martials have consequently gone down in number, and that the scheme has therefore worked magnificently for the common soldier, who may have been sentenced to even greater terms of punishment than he would have received at the hands of a court-martial. To follow the proposition to its logical conclusion it is this, that if you give increased power to commanding officers the number of courts-martial will be reduced, and that if the process be continued courts-martial will disappear altogether. That is a splendid way of showing the efficacy of giving power to commanding officers. A more absurd proposition or answer to the statements I have made on previous occasions in reference to this matter I have never heard. As a matter of fact it is that you have only to give greater powers to commanding officers and there need be no courts-martial at all. The commanding officer may give a sentence of a year's imprisonment, or five years' imprisonment, or even ten years, as the case may be, and then there need be no courts-martial at all, and then see what a grand Army it would be without courts-martial, I must say the thing is utterly absurd, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is even worse than the contention of the Noble Lord opposite.
  Mr. SANDYS: The hon. Member who has just sat down entirely neglects paragraph 493 of the King's Regulations, which gives the soldier the right to elect to be tried by court-martial. The very fact that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 ho prefers to be tried by his commanding officer shows that there is absolutely nothing in the allegation made by the hon. Member.
  Mr. J. WARD: The Annual Report of the Army distinctly traverses the statement of the hon. Member opposite. There have been nearly 7,000 courts-martial.
  Mr. SANDYS: But there has been a reduction from 7,000 to just over 6,000 this year, showing the effect of the Amendment introduced last year. There is one point on which I wish to ask the Under-Secretary a question, and it has reference to cavalry courts-martial. I find at home there were 287 courts-martial for the Cavalry, whereas abroad there were only 158. I think that is a point which requires some investigation, because it shows a very curious state of affairs.
  Colonel SEELY: I will certainly look into the point which the hon. Member raises about the greater number of courts-martial at home, and I will do so very carefully. If the hon. Member will put down a question I will give him as full information as I can upon the point.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  SCHEDULE.

  Accommodation to be provided.

  Maximum Price.

  Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished

  6d. per night.

  Breakfast as specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Army Act

  4d. each.

  Dinner as so specified

  11½d. each.

  Supper as so specified

  2½d. each.

  Where no meals furnished, lodging and attendance, and candles, vinegar, salt, and the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating his meat

  6d. per day.

  Stable room and ten pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw per day for each horse

  1s. 9d. per day.

  Lodging and attendance for officer

  2s. per night.

  NOTE.—An officer shall pay for his food.
  Earl WINTERTON: I beg to move at the end of the Schedule, after the word "lodging," to insert the words "orderly room," making it read "lodging, orderly room, and attendance for officer."
  It is very often necessary, when an officer is in charge of a prisoner that ho should have, in addition to the place in which he has his lodging, another place
  956
  where he can perform the ordinary duties belonging to an orderly room.
  Colonel SEELY: I stated at the beginning of this Debate that I would look into the subject, and, after having given very careful consideration to the question, it is thought that, unless there is some strong reason shown to the contrary, the proposal might be accepted.
  Earl WINTERTON: After that assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask leave to withdraw that Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time."
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I have no wish to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman's getting the Third Heading of this Bill, but I do desire to bring before the attention of the Committee a matter of very serious moment to my Constituents, and that is with regard to the contracts for the supply of meat to the Curragh Camp. On a previous occasion the hon. Member for South Kildare drew attention to what we regard as a great grievance in connection with the Curragh Camp. There are contracts now about to be issued, or probably have been issued, for the supply of foreign meat to the troops in Curragh Camp. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman desires this Third Reading, or whether he would suggest to me some more favourable opportunity for raising this Question.
  Colonel SEELY: The Committee stopped the discussion on many points in order to get this Bill passed through in time to be considered in another place. If the hon. Member will raise the question at any moment some night after eleven o'clock I will give him an answer with regard to it in the best way I can.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: After that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and as I have no desire to delay the passage of the Bill, I make no further observation on the subject at present.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
Mr. GUINNESS Mr. GUINNESS rose to call attention to the constitution and procedure of the Imperial Conference; and moved: "That this House is of opinion that a discussion on the international situation should be added to the programme of the Imperial Conference."
On this the first of the only two nights of the Session which the Government are sparing from the claims of their business, I think there is no question that has a more pressing claim upon our attention than the Imperial Conference, which is to begin its sittings next month. There is no doubt, I think, that the Conference of 1911 will be pregnant with the future of the Empire in a way that none of its predecessors were. The present Government by its blank refusal to the Colonial offer of reciprocity at the last Conference have, for the moment, suspended what most of the Dominions and many of us in this country thought to be the best means of attaining a greater measure of union. Many of us in this House feel that it is a matter of great urgency that the Government should take the opportunity of putting forward some alternative proposal to give to the Imperial Conference that chance of promoting unity which has been taken away by their action in the past. I think it is very encouraging at the present juncture to find a general consensus of opinion on both sides of the House that closer union with the Colonies is necessary. There is an extensively signed memorial of both parties which is to be presented to the Prime Minister in the next few days in favour of closer union with the Colonies. I think that almost every object that transcends the general division of party politics stands to gain much if it can be examined from the standpoint of Empire. A real union of the Empire would do more to ensure the world's peace than any step yet taken. Nowhere will you find communities with more to gain from peace than in the self-governing States of the Empire; nowhere will you find nations where the sacrifices and sufferings of war would form a greater contrast to the bright future which is assured to them if they are allowed the opportunity of developing their own resources interrupted by external circumstances.
I know that in dealing with the constitution of the Imperial Conference I am on difficult, and perhaps even delicate ground. Most of us in this House have in
958
the last year or two taken considerable interest in constitution building. Perhaps even the most sanguine of us have realised that to materialise those castles in the air and form a permanent basis is by no means easy. But in the case of the Imperial Conference the difficulty is exceptional because it is not a matter for our Cabinet alone, or for our own Parliament alone, but for the whole sisterhood of Cabinets and Parliament throughout the Empire. When the right hon. Gentleman who now represents St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton) was at the Colonial Office more than five years ago, he sent a circular memorandum to the Dominions inviting their opinion as to the future development of the then called Colonial Conference. He got an answer from the Canadian Government that they were disposed to consider that any change in the title or status of the Colonial Conference should originate with, and emanate from, that body itself. I fully appreciate that the Conference must be master of its own constitution, and its own procedure, and I should therefore certainly not have the temerity to invite the opinion of this House on any definite step which might be taken with a view to developing or strengthening it. At the present stage of its existence I think the elasticity of that form is a very great advantage. If we compare the present position of the Imperial Conference with its accidental, almost haphazard, origin at the Jubilee of Queen Victoria, we must be struck by the very great progress which has been attained, by the unaided force of evolution. I shall also avoid pressing the Colonial Secretary for any expression of opinion on matters already down for discussion at the Conference. It would clearly be inadvisable to attempt to tie his hands by any premature declaration of policy. At the same time, I think this House ought to have an opportunity of expressing opinions on these subjects, and there are many of us who are glad of the opportunity of putting it on record that we hope some day to see a truly Imperial Parliament, in which matters of Imperial concern shall be discussed and decided by representatives not only of this country but of the Dominions. Meanwhile, we must be glad of any step which even in a small degree may promote that Imperial unity which would find its consummation in a body of that kind.
For that reason we welcome a proposal to be brought up by New Zealand at the forthcoming Conference in favour of an

959
Imperial Council of State, advisory to the Imperial Government on all matters affecting the Dominions. I believe that such a Council would be a real step in the direction of Federation, and it is quite clear that the New Zealand Government in putting forward the proposal have not forgotten that possible development. Sir Joseph Ward, speaking at Sydney on 11th March, said that he believed that the New Zealand people recognised that the day was near for organised Imperial union and systematic co-operation throughout the Empire for defence, reserving for all portions the widest local autonomy, but transferring to the Council or Parliament of the Empire all questions involving defence and all kindred subjects, such as foreign policy, foreign treaties, and international agreements. Without committing himself, Sir Joseph Ward suggested the creation of an Imperial House of Representatives, returned upon a basis of population, and an Imperial Senate, to which each portion of the Empire would elect an equal number of members, such Parliament to be strictly limited to the consideration of the Imperial questions mentioned, and to adjust and determine the contribution for Imperial defence of each Dominion represented. I think that the day of such a responsible federal body, established on a democratic basis, is still far off; but we in the United Kingdom may perhaps hasten that day by showing that we hold in no jealous spirit to those responsibilities of Empire which have come to the British Government from an entirely different state of affairs in the past, and that, though the Imperial Conference must, under present conditions, remain advisory, we hope for a future when our partners may share in the active control of the Empire. Evolution, and not special creation, is in accordance with the spirit of British institutions. It is for that reason we look to the Conference to be the germ of the greater unity to which we confidently look in the future.
There is no doubt that any recognition of the importance of the Conference must do much to help its development, and it is a great advance that the Prime Minister is, under its present constitution, to be the President. Considering the interruptions to the Dominion Governments and Parliaments involved, not only by the Conference itself, but by the long journeys to and fro, it is earnestly to be hoped that the Prime Minister will carry out the
960
obligation of presiding. It is no reflection on the Colonial Secretary to point out that he has not the same long experience as the Prime Minister on the Committee of Imperial Defence, and that matters of defence and of international situations, which are so intimately bound up with defence, urgently demand the presence of the Prime Minister in person. The House will be very glad to hear to-night that the Prime Minister does not look upon the presidency of the Imperial Conference as a mere formality, and that he intends to preside, not occasionally, but day by day, and even at the sacrifice of his personal convenience. Apart from the very great value of the Prime Minister's unrivalled experience, there is no doubt that his presence will have a very great sentimental value. The feeling of the Colonies is expressed in two sentences which I will quote from a Canadian newspaper:—
"This Empire of ours cannot get along on the basis of subordinating the Dominions to the United Kingdom, its Parliament, or Cabinet Ministers. We must have equality of status."
This feeling was probably very largely responsible for the opinion so strongly expressed at the Conference of 1907 in favour of putting the Conference and its Secretariat directly under the control of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. At the Conference about to open New Zealand and South Africa are again bringing up a proposal to separate the administration of the Dominions from that of the Colonial Office. We must recognise that there is undoubtedly a great suspicion of Downing Street in the minds of those who govern the Dominions. Mr. Deakin at the last Conference spoke of the impenetrability, remoteness and unwillingness to be bothered with which he met at the hands of the Colonial Office. Much would be done to break down this barrier if the Colonial Office in future could be limited to the control of the Crown Colonies, and if the business of the Dominions could be entrusted to a separate Cabinet Minister, who might combine the position of Minister for Imperial Affairs with one of the sinecure posts of the Cabinet. Such a Minister would find plenty of scope for his activities in encouraging and giving effect to common action on matters of common interest throughout the Empire. There would be so much work of that kind to be carried out, work which at the present time is neglected, that I do not think the responsibility could be added to the already over-burdened office of the Prime

961
Minister. One of the most valuable functions of such a Minister would be to visit the Dominions in person and to keep in close personal touch with them.
There is no doubt that as a new means of contact with this fertilising relationship it would be of very great value if in each of the Dominion Cabinets there could also be a Minister for Imperial Affairs, whose duty it would be to keep in touch with the Minister for Imperial Affairs in Great Britain, to carry on all the communications with Imperial Government, and to take steps to promote the closest understanding with the Imperial Government. The proposal is that the High Commissioners should be given a much more responsible function in future, and should be the means of communication between the Imperial and the Dominion Governments. We must all recognise the very great work which might be done by the High Commissioners. We recognise that the Dominions have sent some of their most eminent public men to represent them in this country. At the same time it is impossible to believe that a High Commissioner living entirely in this country could keep up the same touch with Colonial opinion and the wishes of the majority in the Colonial Legislature as a Member of the Dominion Cabinet. For this reason—
Mr. SPEAKER: No doubt the hon. Member is touching on a great many very interesting topics, but they are not connected with the Motion which stands in his name. The hon. Member has given notice of a Motion, the specific point of which is that a discussion on the international situation should be added to the programme of the Imperial Conference. That subject is one which he has not yet touched upon, and it is the only subject to which the Motion applies.
Mr. GUINNESS: My only reason for touching on the other subjects was to show that the constitution of the Imperial Conference can best be developed by recognising the great responsibilities which may be thrown upon it in the future, and by immediately giving it greater control in Imperial affairs than it at present possesses. My line of argument would have been that that control could best be given by bringing about a greater continuity in its work. Of course, I bow to your ruling, and I will not say another word on that subject.
962
I think the particular subject which perhaps more than anything else has brought home to us in this country the necessity for closer touch between us and the Dominions than is at present afforded by the Imperial Conference is the subject of foreign affairs. When the states of the Empire were in their infancy they were content to leave the control of foreign affairs entirely to the Government of the United Kingdom. They have now outgrown the nursery, and they find themselves in touch with foreign nations at many new points. Their prosperity continually demands new openings for trade and arrangements for easier intercourse with other countries. For long they were content to devote all their energies to their own development, leaving to the United Kingdom not only foreign affairs, but the armed forces which alone render negotiations in foreign affairs powerful. But they have to come to realise in the last few years that this system is no longer possible. Ever since the last Conference there has been a momentous change in the position. Australia is said now to contemplate the possession of a Fleet of eight "Dreadnoughts," and both Australia and New Zealand are, in the near future, to have under their own control a squadron consisting of one "Dreadnought," three cruisers, and six destroyers. Canada is not at the present time embarking on any programme of construction to include "Dreadnoughts," but she is also going in for a Navy under her own control for home defence, consisting of five cruisers. There is no adequate recognition of this far-reaching change in the position of the Dominions in the programme of the present Conference. It is quite true that Australia is bringing up the question of co-operation between the military and naval forces of the Empire. But that is not enough. That question must be considered in connection with foreign affairs, and the invitation to this new field must come from the Imperial Government. We cannot expect the Dominions to bog that we should recognise their rights. Now that their diplomacy is supported by material power, it is certain that there will be an inclination in the future to stand more on their own feet, and unless we consult them fully and freely upon matters of foreign policy it is certain that eventually we shall find a serious difference of opinion. We have had warnings of the danger in the past. We know there was a strong feeling in Australia at the neglect of the

963
Imperial Government to consult Australian opinion before concluding the New Hebrides Convention. There has been the more recent case of the Declaration of London. I believe if our Foreign Office had been in closer touch with the opinion of the Dominions, they might at least have secured for them representation upon the International Arbitration Court.
There is another case even more important, which is rapidly ripening, and on which the early decision will have to be taken, a case in which the local interests of the Dominions will possibly conflict with the policy of our Foreign Office unless an effort is immediately taken to arrive at a common understanding. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance expires either in August, 1914, or August, 1915—the exact date, of course, depends upon whether either party gives previous notice of termination. Whatever the exact date, it is quite certain that before the next Imperial Conference meets, probably in 1915, the British Foreign Office will have to make up its mind whether to negotiate or not for an extension of that arrangement. The Japanese Alliance has been of immense value to this country. It has made it possible for the British Fleet to be concentrated in the storm area nearer home, because our Foreign Office knew that the friendship of the greatest maritime Power in the Pacific guaranteed the safety of the coasts of our Dominions. Unfortunately our Dominions, owing to their position, have a local cause of friction with Japan on the question of immigration. We must all appreciate their point of view. Asiatics and Europeans are so different that if they are brought into contact they will no more mix than will oil with water. Naturally, the Dominions do not wish to include within their borders a large population which cannot be assimilated, but which would remain apart as a separate community, and if sufficiently numerous could form almost a state within a state. There is another reason. I believe Japan would be equally averse to having a large colony of Europeans in her midst, living in a watertight compartment and owning no allegiance to the Japanese Government. This matter is not one which can be considered and dealt with by our Dominions separately. It must be considered in relation to the general situation in world-politics. If one may judge by the published programme of the Imperial Conference, a matter of this kind will not be discussed at all.
964
The Colonial Secretary, in the recently published correspondence, sums up the matters which will be brought before the Conference. There is no mention whatever of foreign affairs. I say not a word of the important matters which the Imperial Government wish to bring forward, but I think the House will recognise that the question, for instance, of a uniform design for stamps is of less importance than foreign affairs and the whole question of Imperial defence, which must hinge upon foreign affairs. It may be that the Government fears that the Dominions would not welcome such debate on the ground that consultation on this subject will hamper their free control over their defensive forces. I do not for a moment believe that the Dominions would adopt such an ostrich-like policy. The question of the best means of co-operation between the Imperial and the Dominion forces must be brought up and faced in the near future and no shirking of the true issue will make any easier the solution. Australia is actually bringing forward at the present Conference the question of the status of the Dominion navies. All that I ask is that the Conference should not discuss this question without full light upon it. They cannot usefully discuss it unless they are fully seised of the whole international position. A discussion such as that which is proposed by the Resolution which I propose to move would necessarily have to take place behind closed doors and without the presence of reporters. It ought to be opened by the Foreign Secretary in person. I believe that if the Government would agree to it, apart from the actual decision that might be arrived at, such discussion would have a far-reaching effect as showing our Dominions that the United Kingdom recognises their right to be consulted on matters of external policy. The Conference would, I believe, enormously grow in importance by such a step, and those taking part in it would feel that here at least was a subject where a common imperial policy was so vital that machinery must at all costs be created for keeping up that constant circulation of opinion between the Governments of the Empire, by which alone such a common policy and common opinion could be attained. I quite see it would not be wise for the Government to press the case for a closer relationship between the United Kingdom and the Dominion directly upon the Conference. If, however, they could show that the advice of the Dominions was sought and valued in this most important

965
of all common interests, I believe they would do much to encourage the creation of fresh machinery to bring about continuity in the work of the Conference, and at the same time they would give a new unity, and therefore a new strength to the policy pursued by the British Foreign Office in the name of the British Empire as a whole.
Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend, the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I wish to point out in the very first place that we on this side of the House do not raise this important and most vital question to-night in any party spirit, or by any party motion. We heard in the discussion yesterday, on the Motion taking private Members' time, that Wednesday evening was often used by the Opposition in criticising the Government. We are not now either criticising the action of the Government, or the inaction of the Government, because we do not yet know what their action in regard to this Motion is to be, and therefore our object in moving this Motion is in the words of the Motion:—
"To call attention to the existing constitution and procedure of the Imperial Conference, and to move …. that a discussion upon the International situation should be added in the programme of the forthcoming Imperial Conference."
I maintain the existing constitution permits of that, because by the existing constitution of the Conference it is a conference between Governments and Governments. It is not a Conference between the so-called Imperial Government and the" Premiers of the separate Dominions. It is essentially a Conference where the Dominions and this country meet upon an equality, where the status of the Dominion of Canada is equal to the status of the Government that sits upon the bench opposite in this House. That was the underlying idea which promoted the resolution proposed and carried by the great Conference of 1907. That is the constitution under which this forthcoming Conference is going to meet next month, and it is only natural that the Dominions should regard it as a point of great importance that the Prime Minister of this country, as the senior Prime Minister, should preside at that Conference, and should not merely put in a perfunctory appearance as was put in upon the last occasion.
Surely it would be easy for the Prime Minister to do that. But the object of
966
this Motion is not merely to ensure that under the existing constitution the Prime Minister should preside at this Conference, and be there when grave subjects are discussed, but also to urge that the Foreign Secretary should be there, as he can, under the third paragraph of the existing constitution of the Conference, and should give an outline, in camera pre ferably, of the existing international situation. Before I leave that point let me add that it is a matter of deep regret that the Foreign Secretary did not do this at the last Conference. He put in an appearance at the end only on the last day, and then but for a short time. And if the Government say it is undesirable, because the Foreign Secretary's speech would have to be made in camera, I answer that I notice in the minutes of the last Conference the Foreign Secretary's speech was not reported and the discussion upon the Newfoundland Fisheries took place upon the closing day of the Conference, when the Foreign Secretary's speech was not reported in the public Press, or in the minutes of the Conference afterwards issued in Blue Book. There are many occasions when the Foreign Secretary should be present. At the last Conference there came up the important question of the position of this country in the Pacific, and the Foreign Secretary was not there. There came up also the then very important question of the Navy. But I submit that the whole question has altered since the last Conference of 1907, and it is absolutely different to-day for two principal reasons. In the first place because of the growth of the independent Colonial Navy, and in the second place because of the growth of a desire, primarily felt in the Dominions to which I can testify from personal experience, to enter upon a share in the great responsibility of external polities and foreign policy which is the right and natural outcome of every self-governing community to acquire in its dealing with oversea Dominions and other countres. What is the position? I think I cannot do better than quote the words of the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in his introductory speech at the last Imperial Conference of 1907. He said in that speech:—
"It is of course possible to over-estimate the importance of the oversea Dominions as a factor in our Naval expenditure, but however this may be, the cost of Naval defence and responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs hang together."
There the late Prime Minister advocated the absolute interdependence of naval defence and responsibility of naval defence

967
with the responsibility in foreign affairs. But what was the position in 1907? The position in 1907 was that this country, this United Kingdom, and the Government responsible to this House, was acting in a fiduciary capacity, both in foreign affairs and naval defence to the Empire as a whole. It was, in fact, recognised by the Dominions, and recognised by the responsible Ministers of the day—by the late Lord Tweedmouth—that this country did, in matters of foreign politics and naval defence, act as trustees for the rest of the Empire. Let me quote what Lord Tweed-mouth said upon this question in his speech at the last Conference. He said:—
"Well, gentlemen, that being the case—"
the case being that this country had been successful in its defence of the whole Empire as well as these shores—
"what I have in the first place to ask is, that you should place confidence in the Board of Admiralty and in the present Government for the safety of the country. The only reservation that the Admiralty desires to make is that they claim to have charge of the strategical questions which are necessarily involved in Naval defence, to hold the command of the Naval forces, and to arrange the distribution of the ships in the best possible manner to resist the attacks, and to defend the Empire at large, whether it be our own Islands or the Dominions beyond the seas. We thoronghly recognise we are responsible for our defence."
That was the position in 1907, but it is absolutely different to-day. The Conference took place in 1909, and then occurred what has been vulgarly called the Navy scare. After that Conference what happened? The Dominions began building navies of their own. They began to be responsible for naval defence, and did far more than merely prepare to defend their own shores against any possible attack. They started the construction of ships which, although they are called cruisers, are indeed battleships. New Zealand offered a "Dreadnought," Australia laid down a "Dreadnought," and she is going to lay down more. We have at the present moment the beginnings of an independent Dominion fleet. I know they did this out of the greatest acts of Imperial patriotism. They did it with the intention of coming to our aid if necessary, but it must not be forgotten that every "Dreadnought" launched upon the seas influences diplomacy and foreign policy. We do not have "Dreadnoughts" to defend the mouth of the harbour. "Dreadnoughts" are battleships for a battle fleet.
The creation of an Australasian Navy—which I may point out is not necessarily under the control of the Board of Admiralty—affects the foreign situation absolutely
968
and completely. What is the position? As a result of that Conference, Canada is starting with a navy of five cruisers and six destroyers, Australia with one "Dreadnought," three cruisers, and six destroyers, and New Zealand, one "Dreadnought," practically with a condition that it is to remain in Pacific waters. The Canadian and Australian navies are exclusively under the control of the Dominion Government. In the case of Australia the Act says that Australia may transfer the fleet to the Admiralty, but it is recognised in the great Dominion of Australia that those ships are primarily paid for by and built for the Australian Government, and it is for that Government to do what she likes with them, and they have nothing to do with the gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite. The words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier are more clear, and show that he definitely understands the new Canadian Navy as more or less an independent navy which may or may not, as the Government of Canada think fit, be put at the service of the Imperial Government. He says the Canadian Navy has been built for Canadian purposes with a Canadian foreign policy in view. On 29th February last year he said:—
"Under present circumstances it is not advisable for Canada to mix in the armaments of the Empire; but we should stand on our own policy of being our own masters in our own house, of having a policy for our own purposes, and leaving the Canadian Government and the Canadian people to take part in those wars in which to-day they have no voice, only if they think tit to do so."
9.0 P.M.
That is a very important statement, and involves the whole principle whether or not the wars of the United Kingdom are to be the wars of the Empire. Is the foreign policy, is the peace of this country to be the peace of the Empire as a whole? That is the vital question which is specifically raised by the rise of the Dominion navies since the last Conference. The question we wish to raise by this Motion is that before the discussion comes up on the Resolution of Australia with respect to co-operation between the naval forces of this country and with respect to the status of the Dominion navy, the Dominion Premiers and the representatives of the Dominion Governments should be instructed by the Foreign Secretary as to the connection in the present day between the naval policy of this country and her foreign policy; and they should be instructed as a whole in the foreign policy of this country, as it has been exercised in a fiduciary capacity by the present

969
Government. I should like to quote a very important remark made by Mr. Deakin at the last Conference showing the ideas in the mind of Australia with regard to foreign policy and with regard to the outlook on this question of the defence of Australia and the defence of the Empire. He said:—
"I do not want to raise questions which might be looked upon as troublesome."
That is the way in which hitherto the Dominion Premiers have had to approach questions of foreign policy. I will continue the quotation:—
"But we do fear some of the Eastern countries whose teeming millions, so close to Australia and New Zealand as they are, under an educational process, in years to come may find the attractions of our country sufficient to induce them to give us some trouble."
Anyone who has had experience of Australia or the Pacific Coast of Canada, knows that the outlook of those great and growing Dominions is being affected day by day more and more by the position on the Pacific. I know the attitude of the Dominion is that they do not wish to be drawn into what has been called the vortex of European militarism, but they have a vortex of their own in the Pacific. You are dealing not with European nations, but in the case of China, with a nation of which the future is incalculable. China, anxious to migrate her people, may be in such a strong and powerful position as to insist that her people, in return for commercial rights and commercial treaties, should enter into the Dominions that border on the Pacific. Everybody knows that there is a growing problem in the United States of America with regard to the question of Asiatic immigration. I have been in British Columbia, and I know the feeling there is on this question of Asiatic immigration. This question has got to be settled for the Empire as a whole, or it will not be settled at all, and it will prove to be a menace to the Empire unless it is settled as a whole. At the present moment the question is particularly bound up with our foreign policy and with our foreign relations. My hon. Friend who moved this Resolution referred to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. Before another Conference takes place the representatives of the Dominions should be thoroughly instructed so as to thoroughly understand the position of this country with regard to our defensive alliance with the Empire of Japan. Everybody knows that it was the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1905 which enabled us to withdraw our battleships from the Pacific ocean. Up till then we had five battleships and a
970
large number of cruisers in the Pacific, but now we have no battleships, although we have a certain number of cruisers there. Our battle fleet has been withdrawn from that region on account of the alliance with Japan. It is merely another instance of interdependence of naval policy and foreign policy.
I wish to refer to another point, and that is the question of the position of Ambassadors in discussing international relations. I know it is a difficult one and I approach it with reluctance. Let me say at the outset I do not wish to criticise any individual Ambassador or to rake up anything that has been said in this House about Mr. Bryce or anything of that sort. What is the position to-day? Let me take the instance of Mr. Bryce. He has had to act at Washington in three capacities recently. He has had to act as Ambassador for the Empire as a whole and to consider questions from the point of view of the Empire as a whole, he has had to consider the interests of the United Kingdom, and he has also had to consider the interests of Canada. I do not say those three interests conflict. I do not believe they do, but there is no doubt that under the present system and under the present Constitution, where the Dominions are not in any definite relation to our foreign policy or our Foreign Office and the representatives of that Foreign Office abroad, grave difficulties occur and criticisms most reprehensible and undesirable arise. It is a difficult point, but I believe it is soluble by recognising the equality of status of the Dominions in matters of foreign policy, by recognising they have a right to be consulted and to know the exact international position of this country, and by recognising they have a right to the services of our Ambassadors. We have noticed recently the growth of independent Colonial or Dominion negotiations with Foreign Powers. We have noted the fact that Canada has negotiated on her own an Agreement with Japan, with regard to Japanese immigration in British Columbia. We have noted commercial treaties between foreign countries and Canada, and we have noticed that South Africa has negotiated with Portugal in South-East Africa. I should like to ask the Government what is the position of the South African Government to-day with regard to the present difficulties in Mozambique and Lorenço Marques. Is there any Minister who can act independently on behalf of the South African Government? If not, does the Foreign Office act independently

971
of the South African Government in difficulties of that kind, which really concern the external relations of a self-governing portion of the Empire with another Government.
It seems to me that the problems of Empire in this matter are beginning. We have witnessed in the last few years the genesis of a problem which is going to grow very largely before another Conference comes round. It can only be met by careful inter-relation and careful consideration of the problems of Empire, and by the problems of foreign policy coming before the Imperial Conference. Surely, if Imperial union is to mean anything at all, it must mean unity in matters that affect the peace of the Empire—namely, in matters of defence and of external or foreign policy. I do wish we could get away for a moment from the idea of Naval and Military Defence being merely questions of Home Defence. There seems to be a sort of idea current in this country, as well as in the Dominions, that the question of defence is a question of the defence of each parish pump, or each little local harbour or little local country, whereas the prime and first object of all armaments is not to defend a place, but to defeat the enemy's navy or army. The sole object is that it should act as a whole, not for the defence of a place, but for the defence of the Empire as a whole. Let me also point out in regard to Naval Defence that the Empire is equally vulnerable and just as grievously vulnerable everywhere. Unless this Empire can maintain supremacy on any sea, then there is a grave menace to the peace of the Empire. We are just as vulnerable if we lose command of the sea in the Pacific or in the Persian Gulf, and it is almost as bad as it we lost the command of the sea in the North Sea. If we lose the command of the sea anywhere, that elaborate chain of the trade routes of the Empire is broken. If we are vulnerable anywhere, then the position is full of menace. It is essential, in considering the defence of the Empire, in considering the provision of "Dreadnoughts," and in considering the status of the Dominion Navy, that regard should be had to the defences of the Empire as a whole, and not merely to the defence of a particular sea or a particular strait, or a particular bay or harbour. I know there are difficulties but I am perfectly certain they can be overcome. We have the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at the last Conference that above all things we agree. We all
972
move towards the same goal and the same end. That end surely is unity—unity in the two first necessary principles of Imperial existence—unity in questions of defence and in questions of foreign policy.
It is most important for another reason that this question should be raised at the forthcoming Conference, and should be raised more repeatedly in future. There is in the Dominions a desire for further education and information in this matter. Take the position in the Dominions today. I have travelled there and read their papers. You do not see, like you do in the British papers, so much reference to foreign policy. They have been brought up hitherto and they have lived hitherto under a system where the foreign and external politics of the Empire has been managed exclusively by this country which has acted as trustee for the rest of the Empire. That is bad for the future of the Dominions, and bad for democracy as a whole. Nobody can claim to be a democrat, and nobody can be a true democratic unless he is willing and anxious that the whole of the people and the governing people should have the ultimate say and voice in questions of foreign policy. It is essential that Dominion and Colonial opinion, and even opinion in this country, should be educated more in great matters of external and Imperial affairs. That can only be done by stimulating interest, by stimulating the Press, and by stimulating discussion in the Dominion Parliaments and in this Parliament of great matters of Imperial and foreign and external interest. We recognise that no form of human government is absolutely perfect, but if there is one form of human government which approaches perfection more than another it is a democracy inspired by a common Imperial idea, by a democracy which recognises that it is not that the State is a law unto itself but that it is an interdependent part of a great community of the same race, scattered throughout the world, and existing for the good and peace of the world and the prosperity and progress of civilisation. That being our belief of the essence and ideal of Empire I ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that the forthcoming Conference shall be the opening up—the genesis—of a fresh and new participation of the Governments of the Dominion in the responsible foreign and external affairs of the British Empire as a whole.
Mr. CRAWSHAY-WILLIAMS: I think both the hon. Members who have spoken and the House as well are to be congratulated on the way in which the discussion has at present been kept outside the confines of the party arena. Personally I am in very substantial agreement with a great many things which have been said by the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for the Denbigh Boroughs, and more especially am I in agreement with the views which they have expressed with regard to the possibility of Imperial federation—a policy which, I think, personally, is inevitable if we are to continue to have an Empire in anything more than name. I also agree that the British Dominions over the seas should be kept as far as is properly possible in touch with the course of foreign affairs. But I am not sure, however, whether discussions at the Imperial Conference would be either the wisest or the most adequate way of ensuring this. In the first place, in spite of what my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs said, discussions at the Imperial Conference are, in the nature of things, of a semi-public nature, and foreign affairs are delicate and difficult matters to deal with. We in this House think sometimes that we have cause to complain on that score, although we recognise fully the reasons therefor. But I would point out that foreign affairs can be discussed if brought up by any one from the over-seas Dominions, and that they can also be discussed on questions of defence at the Conference. I certainly would join in advocating that the Foreign Secretary should always be present on any occasion when foreign affairs might be even distantly related to the subject under discussion. Foreign affairs can also be discussed in the Committee of Imperial Defence.
One other fact seems to be of some importance, and that is that sporadic discussions at four-yearly intervals at the Imperial Conference would not be sufficient to ensure that the Over-Seas Dominions are kept adequately in touch with foreign affairs, and those intervals of four years would have to be bridged over somehow if the Over-Seas Dominions are to be kept constantly and properly in touch with the course of foreign affairs. Some may say that it is always possible to read the reports of our Debates in the House of Commons on foreign policy. But although that would be a means of convey-
974
ing information to our friends across the seas, it would not be consulting them. It may be said that it would be possible, through the Imperial Secretariat, always to keep them in touch with foreign affairs. It is true that the Secretariat is an enormous advance—that it is a connecting link between the Conferences. But would it be enough, even if we had these discussions on Imperial affairs at successive Conferences, as has been advocated by the hon. Gentleman? I should be the last to utter a word of disparagement of the Imperial Secretariat. It is a very great advance on anything we have seen in the past. Its officers, some of whom I know personally, including the secretary, are men of extreme ability. But what is necessary, to my mind at least, in all these matters of Imperial policy is not only to inform, but to hear the voice of the Dominions over the Seas, and I do not think myself that the Imperial Secretariat will continue always to supply that need adequately. The Secretariat is a focussing point; it is a channel through which, after some period, we can make our opinions known to the Dominions over the Seas, and the Dominions over the Seas can make their views known to us. But it has certain defects. It has not a representative character or consultative or advisory functions, and we want something better than sporadic discussions at Conferences: we want something more than we can get out of the present Imperial Secretariat. We want closer contact with the Over-Seas Dominions both on foreign and other Imperial affairs than can be got by cable and despatch. I think this is due to those who are concerned in a great many matters of Imperial importance. They are recognising that it is due, and I think the method by which we shall be enabled to more adequately consult and meet their wishes has been already foreshadowed. Sir Joseph Ward at the last Conference, in a very interesting passage, said:—
"Our country is very anxious and willing to assist the old land in the event of trouble arising, to do so voluntarily by men or by money, and, I think, would always be ready to do its share in fighting for the defence of the Motherland in any portion of the world. We want to keep clear of the possibility of being drawn into what one might term Continental troubles with England itself. We want to have a distinct line of demarcation drawn in that respect between the responsibility we accept of our own free will and the responsibility that may be imposed upon us without our having had any opportunity of Conference or discussion with regard to it. To my mind that is one of the matters upon which such an Imperial Conference or Council permanently established, with the understanding that the members would correspond with one another during the recess from time to time, should circumstances require it, would be beneficial. … To secure a position of that sort I regard as of very great

975
importance, and we in New Zealand should have the benefit of the advice of a gentleman, say in the position of Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself or of any other who might when the time comes take his place which I hope will be a long way off. What an enormous advantage it would be for a country like New Zealand to have the opportunity of conferring, perhaps with General Botha, or Dr. Jameson, which we could do with some authority if we had a permanent institution properly established."
I should like to dwell for a moment upon this permanent institution properly established, for it is only through such an institution that I think we can adequately and properly keep the over-seas Dominions in touch with what is happening in regard to foreign affairs. The institution, I think, is foreshadowed in the passage I have read, and is one which could be developed out of the present Secretariat. It was foreseen by Mr. Deakin, who called the Secretariat a seed which might grow. It is now four years since that, and the seed may be looked to to put forth a few sprouts by this time. And what applies to foreign matters applies to all other questions of Imperial importance. Indeed, the development of the Imperial Secretariat would become a part of a larger scheme by which the affairs of the Empire, not merely those connected with foreign affairs, could be discussed and the opinion of the over-seas Dominions could be consulted thereon. What would this development be? It would be what I conceive to be the next step in the history of Imperial development.
In was in 1887 that the first Colonial Conference, as it was then called, was held when Mr. Stanhope summoned it on the occasion of the first Jubilee. In 1897 there was another Colonial Conference, summoned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in connection with the second Jubilee. In 1902 it was resolved to have periodical four years' conferences, when the third Conference was summoned in connection with the Coronation. In 1907, as we all know, we called an Imperial Conference, as it was then called, for the first time, ad hoc, and the Secretariat was instituted for the first time. The development of this series of Conferences became more definite, more methodical, and more called together for specific purposes, and it does seem to me that the Imperial Secretariat should be expanded somewhat in the direction foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Alfred Lyttelton) in the despatch which he laid before Parliament in 1905. That despatch together with the
976
answers which followed it, forms, as I think one of the most interesting documents that has ever been published in connection with the whole history of the Empire. The suggestion made, and it is a suggestion which to all practical intents and purposes, I would humbly make, is the suggestion most likely to meet the need of getting our over-seas Dominions in touch in connection with Foreign affairs. In it the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be instituted
"A permanent commission representing all the States concerned, to which in each case the Conference could have directly referred the task of examining facts and reporting as to the best way of carrying out the principles laid down."
Its functions would be of a purely advisory and consultative character, and would not supersede but would supplement those of the Colonial Office. That commission or council it was suggested might be appointed for a term of years, and then if it were found successful it could be renewed, but if not it might be dispensed with. That purely consultative form of commission or council, whatever you like to call it, would have one great and novel advantage. In point of fact it would be representative, and so it would be able to express authoritatively on behalf of the over-seas Dominions, the opinions of those Dominions. And another great advantage of this permanent commission would be that its deliberations could be held when and how seemed best, and they could be held with absolute secrecy. There would be no objection I conceive to such a commission or such a council having a certain amount of information imparted to it with regard to Foreign affairs, and I would point out what an enormous advantage there would be over the cumbrous method even of communication by cable, if we had such a Secretariat, which, as I say, is the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, then the Colonial Secretary. That seems to me to be the direction in which we should move. It may be said, of course, that the overseas Dominions are not in favour of such a council, but I do not think that is quite a fair rejoinder, because although in the replies to that despatch there were dubious references to the institution of such a council, they were not all unfavourable. Many of them were favourable, and those which were unfavourable were not definitely hostile. They merely declared that such a council should not have executive power, or that they did not think that the time was ripe for the institution of such a council. In no case

977
did they go so far to declare hostility to such a scheme. Since that time has gone by and the situation has changed in the direction of a more favourable consideration of the scheme, and to-day we see on the agenda paper of the new Conference a resolution put down by New Zealand asking for the constitution of such a council. That representation comes from one of the over-seas Dominions, and a short time ago there was presented to the Prime Minister a memorial, signed by 300 Members of this House, asking that the question of the institution of such a permanent council should be considered. There will be in this Debate, I have no doubt, and there have been already given in the course of it, many indications that sentiment in this country is flowing strongly in the direction of such a proceeding, and if you want any further evidence, go to the Press of this country. Here and over-seas many articles have been written and suggestions made in this direction, many of them fantastic, but all of them well inspired.
No doubt it would be grossly impolitic to press the Dominions on this point. But I think that they are seeing the logic of the situation and what at least we can do is to make clear to them that we do not propose to suggest any infraction of their autonomy. That is what they fear, and quite rightly fear, and if it were made plain that instead of risking or impairing their autonomy we were only meaning to call them in for the purpose of consultation, where to-day we are not able to call them in, then, I think, the attitude of the great over-seas Dominions towards the scheme would be considerably altered. I think in this matter we have come to something like a crisis. The Colonies are no longer children, they are fully grown, and the time has now come in my humble opinion at least when we should revise the rules of the home. If we do there are three courses open to us. First, we can go on as we are doing now, very well, no doubt, but I really think with greater difficulty every year, trying to manage by ourselves, no doubt, with a certain amount of consultation, but trying to manage mainly by ourselves affairs which concern not only ourselves, but the whole Empire. That I do not think can go on for ever.
The second course that is open to us is one which does not look at the present moment to be an entirely impossible one and it is that each portion of the British
978
Empire should go forward independently on its own account with its own army and its own navy, and then within the course of not very many years we should have with regard to our own Dominions nearly the same relations that we hold with regard to the United States. I am not one of those who think that would be an absolute calamity. I have no doubt whatever upon this that we should go on as happy and prosperous nations. But I can see that there are advantages to be gained by co-operation and that by joining forces we could keep more efficiently and economically up with the trend of events than we can do by ourselves. Therefore, I think that course will be one which in the end we should deplore. The third course which is open to us is to co-operate, and if we are to co-operate I am perfectly certain it will be found that we can only do so by some constitutional means. I do not think we can go on as an Empire under the loose system under which we should have with our own Dominions very little modified the relations which we have with the foreign Powers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Why not, because I believe if we had only those relations we should lose enormously in force and power and in efficiency.
There is nothing whatever in this constitutional idea which need be repugnant to the most radical-minded Member. It is the extension of democracy, the logical process of devolution carried a step further than it is to-day. If it can be carried further, let us carry it. If it cannot let us go on, but if it is humanly possible to co-operate with this great Empire, to weld it into a unified or agglomerated mass so that we can do more by that means, let us do it, and we shall have a greater effect on the peace and prosperity of the world and on our own peace and prosperity than we ever could by ourselves. What we are doing in one direction to-day I am only suggesting we should do in another direction to-morrow. So, although I can not perhaps agree entirely with the mover and seconder of the Motion with regard to Foreign affairs being a fit subject for general discussion at the Conference unsolicited by the Dominions themselves, I look forward to the development, of Imperial machinery by which these foreign affairs and all other Imperial matters shall in future be ordered by a body even in closer touch with over-seas opinion than it is to-day.
Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: If I might tender some advice to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, or, to put it another way, if I happened to be in the position of the Prime Minister, I should have jumped up and leapt over the barrier which separates the hon. Member (Mr. Crawshay-Williams) from the Front Bench and put him into the Ministry right away. It certainly does one's heart good to hear expressions of opinion such as we heard from him coming from that side. I do not mean by that to infer that Gentlemen on that side of the House are not as keen on these Imperial questions as we are on this side, but an expression of opinion such as that which we have just heard, is not often heard coming from hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House. I approach this question as one who has lived and worked amongst those in the over-seas Dominions, and helped to develop parts of the Empire as we know it. If I may on this occasion speak as if I were still there and not here, I should like to tell the House what I personally often felt, and what Britishers overseas have felt, in reference to this question of unity or of taking part in discussions or expressions of opinion or joining hands with Britishers in this country. The feeling has existed amongst many of us that once a Britisher leaves these shores he forsakes to a certain extent the right of having a voice and opinion in the management of affairs which to him have just as much interest as to any man in this country. If you would only extend to them and to those Britishers over-seas a wholehearted welcome whenever they express an opinion and whenever they wish to offer advice, or join you in Imperial questions or in questions which affect the prosperity of the British race, one and all would jump at the opportunity, but unless it comes from this side I do not think you will make much progress. Patting him on the back and saying, "My brother Colonial, come home to the old country and talk, come to the Imperial Conference and chat away," and to offer no encouragement or inducement to them will not do much good. It does, if anything, more harm. They go back home with the idea that they are looked upon, as I have often heard them say, as something Colonial—a blessed Colonial, or something like that—and their co-operation is not wanted. You have to get them to co-operate with us if you wish to maintain the supremacy of the British race, for without their cooperation you are not going to maintain it as it has been maintained in the past.
980
In joining with one or two hon. Members in the recent attempt to get signatures from Members in all parts of the House it was a great pleasure to find that so many on both sides did welcome to-day, even though probably they would not have welcomed it twelve months' ago, some opportunity of encouraging the desire which does undoubtedly exist of bringing about some Imperial representation in Imperial affairs.
It has been said to-night that we should not press our opinion upon the Conference. It is not a question of pressing. If you want their co-operation you must call them to your counsels and give them a right of voicing their opinions in questions which concern them just as much as they do Britishers. There is no one on either side of the House who will question for a moment the extraordinary loyalty and devotion which exists in our over-sea Dominions. They were Colonies, and now they are young nations. You take a great deal of trouble in negotiating treaties with Japan and other countries. If you would seriously consider, as I am perfectly sure, after the memorial signed by nearly 300 Members of the House of Commons and presented to the Prime Minister, it will be considered most seriously, if you would consider in what way you can promote the Imperial unity which is essential to our well-being as the British nation, you will be doing the best day's work in the interest of every Britisher, wherever he may reside, concerning the future of our race. With regard to the question of foreign affairs and discussion at the Imperial Conference, we have heard to-night the suggestion that the Conference is of a semi-public nature. I venture to think that would be overcome by the chairman at that time moving that the question of foreign affairs should be discussed in private and without the Press. I know it is essential that there should be discussion, and I know it is wanted. I have travelled and spent day after day on the veldt and in the bush, where men get together as closely as it is possible for them to get at any time, and I know that they, like some of the leading politicians on both sides of this House, and particularly in recent years, have the feeling that they want counsel and advice. They want to discuss foreign affairs—a question which affects Australia, British Columbia, and every unit of the self-governing Dominions. That is a question on which you should take them into your counsel and ask what their opinions are and what their ideas are

981
as to the best action to take. That complete confidence, and that complete confidence only, will lead to the desired end. A pat on the back and recognition that they are coming nations is all very well but when they wish to discuss foreign affairs seriously and not merely Colonial or Dominion affairs, that will not do very much good.
We have an example in the past concerning their willingness to join us in connection with the supremacy and the strength of our Navy. It has often been said in this country that they would not contribute towards our Navy. I say emphatically that unless you give them a voice in the management of the Navy they will not be so willing to contribute towards the Navy. But if you can through this Imperial Conference create some sort of Imperial Council as a real and genuine stepping-stone to ultimate Imperial unity by Imperial representation in an Imperial Parliament, you will then find every desire on the part of those Britishers who live over-seas to join the people of this country in paying for and maintaining the Navy, and taking good care that it shall remain supreme over all other nations. And what would it be for us if that should be brought about. It is surely worth attempting. While I sat listening to recent Debates on the Navy Estimates there seemed to be a universal cry of hardship as to the maintaining of our naval position against the nations of the world. If we were to unite for one common cause and purpose you would never hear a word of that kind uttered, nor would such a Motion be brought forward as that which was moved not long ago by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Murray Macdonald). You would not hear any such criticism as we listened to from speaker after speaker about the burden of maintaining the British Navy. I asked the Prime Minister whether there was any possibility of getting Imperial representation on the Board of Admiralty, and the right hon. Gentleman answered that it is not practicable. I do not wish to complain of that answer from the Leader of the Government, but I find that the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister also exists among many others—some Conservatives and some Liberals—outside the House. In many directions the view is held that it would not be practicable. I maintain that it would be practicable, and that it is the only way ultimately of getting unity of purpose in regard to an Imperial Navy.
982
When I was in the Colonies I did not think of coming back permanently to reside. Supposing I married and had children, why should not I have the privilege of getting my children into the British Navy and of ultimately having a career for them in that Service. It may be that they have, but, if that is so, I wonder why the right hon. Gentleman gave the answer he did. When I asked the question I did not expect a definite answer, but I did expect some encouragement and some welcome from the Front Bench of the opportunity which I gave them of answering the question. It may not be practicable at the moment, but it would be a great thing if it could be brought about. The expressions of opinion in this Debate will be of the greatest assistance in bringing about that Imperial unity, because it will be realised that this Debate has been carried on, not on a party basis, but on a non-controversial basis, and that we have discussed the matter in a way which should lead towards a definite solution of what I admit is a great difficulty to be overcome. If the Imperial Conference was not taking place in the course of the next few weeks, I should say that we had time to work quietly and persistently in connection with the memorial which was taken round the House. But this Imperial Conference, which is to take place soon, will be of greater moment in the history of our country and of our Empire than any Conference has been before. I say, in all seriousness, as one who knows the Empire intimately, that time is not at your disposal. You have not unlimited time before you to bring about the unity which has been referred to. The question ought to be discussed with our representatives over-seas, and you should enable them to realise that you are willing to take them more into your counsels than you have ever done before. I would appeal to right hon. Gentlemen to do their utmost on all sides of the House during the coming Conference to give every encouragement to the expression of opinion and to try to bring about some definite form of Imperial unity by creating that council which has been referred to by previous speakers. I would only add in conclusion that we have in the Empire all that God or man can give us, but it is unorganised, there is no attempt at organisation or unity of purpose, and no attempt to turn to account that strength, wealth, loyalty, and devotion to the Empire which we possess. If the Cabinet would only on this occasion take

983
the unusual step of impressing on the over-seas visitors that the day is not far distant when we shall have to have here a permanent Consul, advisory or executive as the case may be, and if they can go away to their respective Parliaments with that impression they shall have done the best day's work that any Government have done for a long time past.
The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): There is one point which I am glad to be able to clear up at once. I can assure the last speaker, the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Norton-Griffiths), that if he had married in one of our Dominions and produced a brilliant son there would have been no difficulty whatever ill that son exercising his talents at once in the interests of the British Navy. I acknowledge gladly the nonparty standpoint of all the speeches delivered to-night, and there was much in the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution with which I am sure every Member of the House is in accord. I believe he was perfectly justified in saying that this union of the Empire would be a force in the world making for peace. I think that the union of the Empire which exists is a force making for peace. No doubt our great Dominions have a preponderating and a greatly preponderating interest in their own peaceful development. The tone of the hon. Member with regard to the constitution of the Conference was also extremely reasonable as recognising what we, all of us, recognise, that these things cannot be forced or manufactured, but that they must come through what he calls a natural evolution. He congratulated the country on the fact that for the first time the Prime Minister is presiding over the Conference to mark the national sense of its importance. On previous occasions, as the House is aware, the Colonial Secretary presided, and of course one cannot draw any conclusion from what happened at those Conferences to apply to the Conference about to take place, because now for the first time the Prime Minister will be the president of the Conference. The hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who seconded the Resolution, spoke about my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) not attending many meetings of the Conference. He only attended one meeting; but the hon. Member ought to have
984
recognised what Sir Robert Bond recognised, that that was not the whole of his labour in connection with the Conference. Sir Robert Bond pointed out that he had the privilege of discussing the question of foreign affairs with Sir Edward Grey and other Members of the Government. Both speakers recognised that these discussions on foreign affairs necessarily must deal with delicate and important matters, and must be carried on, as one speaker said, behind closed doors. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmund (Mr. Guinness) laid down a very proper and reasonable proposition to guide our Debate to-night. He said he did not wish to discuss the resolutions which were to come before the Conference. He a little departed from that intention, if I may say so, but not very much.
Mr. GUINNESS: I said I would not ask the opinion of the House upon it.
10.0 P.M.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: If a self-denying ordinance is proper to him it must be much more proper to me. He will recognise that. I will not, therefore, follow him in the discussion into which he entered of the practical difficulties of dealing with this matter. I think he seemed to realise that there were practical difficulties, because he said he was not satisfied for the Agents-General to deal with this matter, as they were resident here, and he rather sketched a scheme of peripatetic Ministry to deal with foreign affairs. He said there must be someone resident in this country to represent the Colonies, and he thought that the Colonial Minister who had charge of the affairs of the Dominions must be a person who visited those Dominions. But I will not enter into the discussion of the practical difficulties which the hon. Member recognises in working out a system for keeping the Colonies in close connection with our Imperial affairs. He made two complaints, however. One was that we might perhaps have got representatives of the Dominions in the International Prize Court. I do not think he could have reflected very much on that subject in making that suggestion, because he could hardly imagine foreign Powers agreeing that, while they should have only one representative in the Prize Court, the British Empire should have five or six.
Mr. GUINNESS: Why not?
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to that is very simple. There would be

985
a certain amount of common sense with regard to their own interests on the part of foreign nations, and it would be rather ridiculous to expect another great country like Germany or France to consent to this country being represented five times as strongly as they. The second complaint of the hon. Members was there was no mention of foreign affairs in the agenda of the Conference, but I think he answered himself, because he pointed out that the question of Imperial defence must necessarily hinge upon any discussion upon Foreign affairs, and undoubtedly that is true. That must be done, therefore, by such a discussion at the Conference, and there will be more than one opportunity for discussing Foreign affairs at the Conference. There will be the kind of informal discussions between the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Colonial Prime Ministers to which I have referred as having taken place at the last Conference.
Mr. GUINNESS: Will those discussions be behind closed doors? It is only in those conditions that they can really be as free and as full as to render them of any value.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Undoubtedly the private discussions between the Prime Ministers and the Foreign Secretary will be behind closed doors. I quite agree with the hon. Member that any useful and fruitful discussion of Foreign affairs must be carried on in that way. That is one way in which there will be discussion of Foreign affairs. Then, undoubtedly, there must be a discussion of Foreign affairs at the Conference itself, because one of the proposals which are made by the Commonwealth of Australia is to discuss the question of Imperial defence. I have the hon. Member with me in saying that that must involve the discussion of international relations. There is a third way in which the Prime Ministers of the Colonies will have an opportunity of discussing international relations. They will be summoned to a meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and there, again, they will have an opportunity of dealing with the matter, so I do not object in this Resolution to the suggestion that there must be a discussion between the British Government and the Governments of the Great Dominions in regard to International relations. I object, however, from the point of view that it is entirely unnecessary, because these discussions will take place without it, and if it is un-
986
necessary it is undesirable. It is two years since we asked the Dominions to send notice of the matters which they desire to discuss. It is obvious that it is not every point of Foreign affairs which would be of interest to the Dominions. One does not want to say beforehand which ones will be of interest. I will not mention the points, but one can imagine that perhaps South Africa is not particularly interested in Servia or Montenegro. I think we had better leave the matter to be brought up by the representatives of the Dominions by the Foreign Secretary, as they find on discussion that they are interested in the particular point. It would be undesirable, I think, to start a precedent of having a mandatory resolution of the House of Commons, and I hope in view of these facts, and the fact that there will be a discussion on International relations which we all agree, there must be, and the fact that the opportunity is provided for is in several ways that the two hon. Gentlemen will see their way to withdraw this Resolution, and not divide the House upon it, because I think it is better with this matter, as so many other matters, that the relations between friends and relatives should be unforced, spontaneous, and natural, and not the result of a mandatory Resolution of this House.
Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: I will not undertake to make a party speech on this occasion, following the excellent example set me by all the speakers hitherto. I wish, however, that the speech which the Under-Secretary has just made was of a more satisfactory character than it has been I quite agree that it is possible that informal discussions may take place between the representatives of various States of the Empire at the time of the Imperial Conference; but, if that Conference resembles even in the faintest degree those of which we have had experience on the last two occasions, there will scarcely be any time or any leisure for those Gentlemen to take part in any informal discussions, or, indeed, to do anything except to keep the actual engagements which they have formally to make. The initiative in this matter I venture to say should come from His Majesty's Government. They should freely and frankly, in my opinion, inform the representatives of the Dominions of the broad outline of the international situation at the present moment. This international situation need not be entered into in detail. I quite agree

987
that, necessarily, there are many insignificant matters, and, indeed, there are some important matters with which the Dominions have not at this present moment any immediate concern and which they would not desire to know. But there are exceedingly important matters with regard to the general international situation upon which they have no information; and the representatives of their Governments, when they are questioned in the Houses of Representatives in the Dominion Parliaments, say, and say perfectly frankly, "We have no information on this point, because those matters are the concern of the Imperial Parliament."
I think the House owes a debt of great gratitude to my hon. Friend for having brought this matter before the House, and I make a most strong appeal to the Colonial Secretary to give a rather more definite answer than has been given by his colleague already. If you will allow me a short time, I think I can persuade the right hon. Gentleman that it is really of the greatest possible importance that this full information upon the general international situation should be given to the representatives of the Dominions when they come here. The whole position has radically changed since the last Conference. The House is quite familiar with the fact that for many, many years—for nearly one hundred years, the Dominions and Colonies lived altogether outside the zone of international concerns; they were not affected by international concerns. They were allowed complete immunity from international troubles in which the Mother Country was from time to time involved. The supremacy of the British Navy was amply adequate to protect them—adequate without any great burden upon the Mother Country—beyond that which she would have in any event to have undergone for the benefit and protection of her own trade. The supremacy of the British Navy was sufficient for many and many a year adequately and sufficiently to protect the interests and security of the Dominions. Foreign policy, therefore, was severely let alone by the Dominions over-seas, and, as my hon. friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) said, it was almost a formula, and perhaps is even to this day in several of the Dominions, that they "do not desire to be drawn into the vortex of international militarism."
988
It was during these sheltered times, in the same way as we developed our great industrial supremacy while our neighbours were quarrelling on the Continent—it was in those sheltered times that the Dominions over-seas developed valiantly and energetically the great natural resources of their countries. Their contest was not with man; their contest was with the forces of Nature. That was the first chapter of what you may call Colonial history. There was no necessity at that time in the Dominions to have any external defence, and there was no opportunity or scope for any foreign policy. But the second chapter is now open; that first chapter is closed. What has happened in the last twenty years.
There has been a vast expansion in America, in Europe, and in Asia, and that great expansion has left us in a very different position, and has left the Empire in a very different position, from that which it previously occupied. What is the position with regard to our ourselves? Vast navies have been added to vast armies, and we are now, as every Member of the House knows, in the presence of at any rate three great Powers, two of whom are equal to ourselves in wealth, in industrial skill and efficiency, and superior to us in population. I say, and I think everybody knows this too, that with all the goodwill in the world, and with all the desire and intention to make every sacrifice that we can possibly make, there is a doubt, and a substantial doubt, whether it would be possible for this country, unassisted, for any very much longer time to protect adequately the great Dominions over-seas. What is the evidence and index of this great fact? It is palpable before the Under-Secretary of State's own eyes, and the representative of the Admiralty will be, of course, perfectly familiar with it. The result of these great naval preparations of our rivals has been to bring about a policy of naval concentration. Practically speaking, the whole strength of the British Navy, or almost the whole strength, is concentrated in home waters. And there are contingencies, I do not wish to refer to them more particularly, in the Far East, which might make it necessary to consider—what an enormous effort this would require—in addition to this huge concentration which we have in home waters at the present moment, we should also add a good many battleships in order to protect our position in the Pacific. I think the fact of the great

989
change which has taken place in the last twenty or twenty-five years is affecting this country.
Let me ask the House for a moment to glance at what effect it must have upon the Dominions. Practically during the last twenty-five years, after outbursts of the spirit of Imperial federation, which has now lapsed, the Dominions, by the assent of all men in this country and of all parties, have become definitely Nationalist, and are, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, independent nations owing allegiance to the Crown. That is his formula. We hope to see, though, every true and sane Imperialist hopes to see, a partnership of autonomist States in the future. Those Dominions under those conditions are no longer out of the sphere of international complications. They are brought, by the great expansions I have pointed out in Europe, in Asia, and in America, into contact with the ambitions, economic, military, and otherwise, of great countries. They are brought into contact with great world problems, such as those that have been referred to by my hon. Friend, such as Asiatic emigration and other great questions. Canada is brought into great and immediate contact with important questions in regard to tropical West Indies. She is watching the movements, of course, of her great and distinguished neighbour. Australia and New Zealand are watching the Far East, South Africa, again, is watching Europe, and is watching Germany. They have become sensible, acutely sensible, that they are no longer spectators, but that they are actors in the great drama of International politics. And how have they shown that? They have shown it by resolving, at great cost to themselves in Australia and New Zealand, upon universal service. Canada has made a great effort in the direction of voluntary service of great numerical proportions. But they have gone beyond that. They have, as the result, first and largely, of the Press Conference, moat handsomely admitted by the Colonial Office to have had a very great and important weight in this question, and as the result of the Conference which took place afterwards, in 1909—those countries, except South Africa, as yet, but she will too, those other Dominions have founded, and are building local navies. I was myself at that Conference an advocate of local navies, because I have always been persuaded once the Nationalism of the Dominions was established that the only way in which you could appeal
990
permanently to, and rely permanently upon their assistance in the great Imperial affair, was that they should have a visible example before them of the glory of sea service, that they might see the ships, that they might see the sailors, and might take part in building the ships, so that they might obtain for themselves visible, and at the same time personal, contact with this great affair. They were perfectly ready to build local navies, but what is the situation at the present moment. It is a great departure, as I would remind the Secretary of the Admiralty, from the expectations of the Admiralty. The First Lord of the Admiralty in 1909 took as a postulate at the beginning of the Conference of 1909—the Naval Conference—that it was a certainty that the local navies of the Dominions would at once place themselves in war time under the command and at the service of the British Navy. I must remind him and the representatives of the Admiralty that Sir Wilfrid Laurier has distinctly contradicted that postulate and has avowed, as has been quoted by one of my hon. Friends, that that navy might not necessarily take any part whatever in a war with this country, and is held entirely in the interests of Canada. Neither Australia nor New Zealand has pledged itself to join us in any war which might take place. These local navies are quite independent, though they are entirely friendly to this country. It is surely necessary that the Dominions should thoroughly understand what that position involves. A most able writer in "The Times"—and indeed, some articles in "The Times" in the last few days have dealt with this subject with the greatest possible ability—has asked what would be the position of the local navies of the Dominions under the present condition of the Declaration of the Prime Minister. They would be a very great force if they were co-ordinated with and co-operated with the Imperial Navy. If we were at war—these questions must be put—would they be at war also? If, when we were at war, they were sending to this country cargoes of grain, would they be liable to seizure and confiscation by any Power who was at that time the enemy of this country and at war with her? What would be the position of the Australian Fleet, flying the British flag in Australasian waters, independently of this country—not under the orders of the Admiralty, but flying the

991
British flag, and, I suppose, constituting a liability for anything that was done by them? What foreign policy would they support?
These are questions which must be put; they are questions which must be answered. I believe they would be answered perfectly satisfactorily by the Governments of the Dominions if they had behind closed doors a definite intimation of what the broad lines of British policy were. You cannot expect that they should be willing, without any knowledge and without any communication with regard to the general trend of our foreign policy, to hand over blindly to us the ships which they have built, and the men with which they man them. These subjects are already beginning to arouse great attention, and just and right curiosity in the Dominions themselves. Questions are asked of the Prime Ministers. Questions are asked of General Botha in South Africa. The Dominion Prime Ministers are obliged to say that they cannot answer, and to excuse themselves from answering by saying, "This is a matter not of our concern, but of Imperial concern." That is not right. Surely our duty is perfectly plain. What was the first and central Resolution of the great Colonial Conference of 1907?
"That it would be to the advantage of the Empire if a Conference called the Imperial Conference was held every four years, at which questions of common interest might be discussed and considered as between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the self-governing Dominions beyond the seas."
Who can get up on that Bench opposite and possibly contend that it is not a matter of common interest to ourselves and to every one of the Dominions what should be the policy which should dictate the disposal of the local navies, which, with great patriotism, the Dominions themselves have built and equipped? I think the Under-Secretary in a sense admitted that it was a matter of great common interest.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I said it was one of the subjects down to be discussed at the Conference.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: The Under-Secretary said that it might be discussed informally.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: He also said that on the debates on defence it might be discussed.
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Must!
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: He also said that the Committee of Imperial Defence—
Mr. McKINNON WOOD: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman. I agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that the question of Imperial defence must hinge upon the discussion of international defence. The one involves the other.
Mr. A. LYTTELTON: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that unless this question was brought up by the Dominions themselves it would not be discussed, because His Majesty's Government would not take the initiative. The Colonial Secretary will have the opportunity of speaking after me, and I would like to ask him these three questions: Whether he will undertake that a broad outline of our international, our foreign, policy, as affecting the Dominions, shall be given to the Prime Ministers of the Dominions behind the closed doors of the Conference; that the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary shall be present on such occasion, and that they should be ready to explain fully the situation, and to deal with all these subjects of foreign policy that closely affect the Dominions; if he is not able or willing to give such a pledge, at any rate will he pledge himself that all the Prime Ministers of the Dominions shall be invited to meet him and to meet the Imperial Defence Committee. Failing that which we have asked for, I quite agree that a good and as confidential a discussion as possible should take place there.
It is impossible to get what we all in this country wish—coherent co-operation between ourselves and the Dominions—unless you have this definite and clear basis, founded upon the broad lines of foreign policy which would be declared and explained by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and which the assent of the Dominions would be asked. What we desire is that which the Secretary for War has often talked about—plain, clear thinking, and plain and clear statement, not nebulous rhetoric. A plain statement is what should be given to the distinguished men who come here so that they may judge the effect with clearness. If the Colonial Secretary is able to give us such an assurance—I, personally, have not the slightest desire to criticise him or the Government—I shall be glad. I have spoken about the Dominions, but I do not wish it to be supposed that the Crown Colonies and India should not at some future date also be considered. This is

993
an extremely important matter. As part of the general organisation of this Empire it would be unfair that the Dominions should contribute largely to the expenditure both of the Army and the Navy; and the Crown Colonies and India, who are equally interested, should not also be given the opportunity of a similar contribution, to be followed by similar privileges. I desire also to thank the hon. Member for Leicester, who spoke from the benches opposite, for his advocacy of the policy of the Government of 1905, which I pressed upon the Dominions, and I am glad to find it met with the approval of some hon. Members opposite. I agree with him that it would be quite impossible in the future that these discussions should be as sporadic as they have been in the past. I think there must be some organised, and more rapid, communication than these four-yearly Conferences, in which there can be perfectly free exchange of views between the Dominions and ourselves on questions of general and foreign policy in which they have equal interest. May I summarise what I desire to press upon the attention of the House. I have endeavoured to show in the first place that during the last twenty or twenty-five years the Dominions, which were once outside altogether the sphere of international politics, have now a closer and closer interest in them; I have endeavoured to show it is quite obvious if, as we all hope, they are to co-operate with us in the future, we must confide in them the broad lines of our international policy. The opportunity is here before our very eyes, in the Conference which is about to take place. The movement for further co-operation must not proceed from us; it must come from them, as I am sure it will when they know the facts and when the facts have been fully explained to them. From them should proceed the offer of further and freer co-operation than they have felt themselves at liberty up to the present to offer. They cannot make such an offer unless they know, and know thoroughly, the international situation. Here is a chance. They come thousands of miles for it. Is it too much to ask the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to give up a day or two in order to explain it to them? I am perfectly certain they appreciate the desire the Dominions have for this, and that they will put more time at their disposal if necessary. There is a very great chance, and it would be in my opinion a national misfortune if we missed it.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I do not propose to make anything in the nature of a speech in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. With much of what he has said, sketching the establishment and development of the Colonial situation and the naval situation, I find myself in complete agreement. I have risen, not to Debate the matter, but to answer a question he put to me. I intend to be brief, because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs seems to have met the situation as it has been placed before the House. I have been definitely asked by the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Government to take the Prime Ministers of our great Dominions into consultation on matters of international concern. It always has been our intention from the very first. We shall withhold from them no information which they desire. We shall proffer to them all useful knowledge which may be of service to them in the great work they have to perform; but we shall do so under absolute secrecy, and I must warn the House that we cannot be liable to be asked what information we have given or on what subjects. It has always been our intention to summon these Prime Ministers of the Dominions to meet the Committee of Imperial Defence, and of that Committee of Imperial Defence the Prime Minister is President, and the Foreign Secretary and many other Ministers, including myself, are members. There they will meet, in the secrecy of that Committee, and they will be able to receive all their information, and more probably than has been suggested in this House, but I do beg the House not to attempt by a resolution carried in this building, to dictate to the Imperial Conference the method in which it shall conduct its business.
Mr. MACKINDER: The statement just made by the Colonial Secretary will, I am sure, justify the action which has been taken by my hon. Friend who moved this resolution in bringing this question before the House. We have been told that it has always been the intention of the Government to offer to the Prime Ministers of the Dominions beyond the seas all the information which they would ask for, and that nothing would be withheld from them in the way of information which would be of value. That is a most important statement to have had made in a form in which it can be cabled to the ends of the earth.

995
What has to be considered here is not merely the fact that there is to be a consultation between the Prime Ministers of the several parts of the Empire, but the knowledge that that consultation is actually taking place on the part of several Dominions. This Empire is a great unwieldy machine, which takes time to get into action, and we have to carry with us other democracies; and if they feel that their Prime Ministers are being honoured, consulted, and valued, and have weight here, then we shall have accomplished a great deal of that which we set out to do by bringing this Motion before the House. There were one or two points in the speech made by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs which I ask the permission of the House to allude to. He has told us that it is not every point in foreign affairs which will be of interest to our Dominions beyond the seas. That is a wrong position to take up. Surely what we have to consider is a world balance of power, and what is essential is that the responsible authorities in all parts of the Empire should have before them the entire theory and position of our foreign affairs, and not merely those particular matters which happen to interest them in their several localities and portions of the Empire.
I take it that there is no fundamental difference of opinion as to aims, although there seems to be a difference in regard to methods. The Front Bench opposite are still in the attitude of masterly inactivity. Inactivity is masterly only when we know how it ends. No doubt in 1907 inactivity on the part of our Government was desirable, but many things have happened since then, and some very important things are about to happen. It is the view of many of us that the time has come when the Government of this, which is after ail the most important Dominion of the Crown, should take a certain lead, and we believe it would find a reception for that lead other than it might have had a few years ago. I will point out three things which have happened in the immediate past. You have had the Navies of the Dominions established. You have the tariff treaties which have recently been made. You have the great question of the Eastern immigration very much to the front, and immediately before the next Conference assembles in 1915 you will have the termination of the Japanese Alliance. You will also have the opening of the Panama
996
Canal. Is it not a fact that what is preventing the Dominions from joining with us in the way that we on this side would like in the matters of foreign affairs is that to a considerable extent the centre of world politics is shifting, and that the Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even South Africa are passing into the forefront of the battle, and of a very different position from that round which foreign politics have centred in the past. They feel that we here hardly realise that change of position. You have to-day in the Far East, as we all know, new problems which, at the rate at which things develop, may very quickly come to be the chief problems of the world. Our Dominions across the seas are aware of that, and what they require is support. They want our support in a way they did not want it a very few years ago. The time has come when we can have their support in return for giving them our support. What we require is that they should give us their support in regard to European affairs on our undertaking to give them our support in regard to Far Eastern affairs. This Empire has now two fronts—one to Europe and one to the Far East. We have two different sets of Dominions, and if we are to hang together it must be by a frank give-and-take between the two. The Dominions will only be honoured if we appeal to them for their support as we appealed to our foreign ally, Japan, for support, and we, on the other hand, should feel ourselves bound to recognise their point of view and be ready to give them support in their portion of the world. It is the point of view that matters, and what we want is that there shall not simply be an incidental discussion of foreign affairs arising out of the practical problems of defence, but that there shall be a real discussion in which foreign affairs are in the forefront, and a real interchange of views in order that we may be perfectly certain we no longer take up an insular attitude with regard to foreign affairs, but a new Imperial point of view, recognising the fact consequent upon the opening of the Panama Canal. It may be said these Eastern affairs will ripen presently and that we are looking too far ahead. May I venture to suggest that coming events cast their shadows very deeply before them at this time. The opening of the Panama Canal bringing the United States face to face with the Far East will put new problems before our Dominions, and what we have to consider is not only the

997
relations of the Empire to the Far East but also the relation of the Empire to the United States of America. We want these things discussed before they become urgent, and we want to feel certain that the Dominions throughout the Empire do know that their attitude, not only with regard to the Far East, but also with regard to the United States in connection with Far Eastern problems, has been taken into account by the responsible authorities, and that years beforehand and before the Panama Canal is opened, there shall be such a consensus of opinion and such a thorough search into the details of what is likely to happen that the different Governments will be in a position to educate their several democracies, so that we run no danger of popular movements in divergent directions in the different portions of the Empire. You have indeed a totally changed position, and it is no longer necessary to wait for a movement first in the Dominions. The Dominions are asking for support, and they know they require it. Under those circumstances it is possible now for us to abandon the position of masterly inactivity and to take them fully into confidence in discussing what is likely to happen in the immediate future. Further than that, the whole Empire ought to be assured that such a discussion has taken place, and that the upshot of it has been satisfactory.
Mr. MARTIN: While I agree with many of the views put forward I should like to observe that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have told us that they have been to Canada and are able to voice Canadian opinion. I admit it is a very good thing that hon. Members on both sides of the House should visit Canada and other parts of the Empire, but I must protest against any Member of this House who has been to the Dominion for three or four weeks coming back and claiming to speak in this House on behalf of Canada. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have gone to Canada have necessarily, in the very brief period of their stay, associated with those of their own way of thinking. They have gone out there with letters of introduction to prominent Tories; they have been taken to the club; they no doubt have had a very good time indeed, but can they possibly have obtained such a full and complete knowledge of the Canadian people as to justify their claim to speak on behalf of the people of Canada? They come back thinking that Canada is
998
a nation of Tories. But they have overlooked the fact that the Conservative party in Canada for some fifteen years has been in a hopeless minority. They come back thinking that the Canadians are all Protectionists or Imperial Federationists. There are to-day in Canada Imperial Federationists, but they are not Liberals; they belong entirely to the Conservative side, and they are looked upon, I think I may fairly say, by the great bulk of the people of Canada as being afflicted by a very harmless kind of lunacy.
The object of hon. Gentlemen opposite who have brought forward this Motion has been to carry on a propaganda which has been singularly active lately in favour of some kind of Imperial council or Imperial Parliament. While I am not surprised at their taking that stand, I certainly was surprised to hear a Liberal Member standing up and agreeing with that proposition. Several hon. Members have said that they want some kind of Imperial Parliament, as well as autonomy for the Dominions and for the Colonies. The two things are absolutely impossible. They cannot go together. If you are going to give to the Colonies what they think most of—autonomy in their own matters—you cannot take it away from them and draw them into an Imperial Parliament, where each of these colonies will be in a hopeless minority. If, for instance, Canada comes into an Imperial Council or Parliament, it would be no good to the Empire, unless Canada was prepared to submit to the decision of that body. It would be absurd to think that Parliament could accept on questions affecting Canada the ideas of the representatives for Canada, or on questions affecting Australia the ideas of representatives from Australia. Necessarily, if it was a council or parliament at all, what would be decided would be the views, not of the particular colony affected by the question before it, but the views of the majority of the Council or Parliament, no matter where they might come from. Let me give a concrete example of how it would work. Take the question of autonomy. Canada at the present moment controls its own local affairs and its relations with foreign countries and with the Government of the United Kingdom, It has entered into a treaty with the United States, and what has happened ever since in this House? Why, we have seen lavish attacks made by hon. and right

999
hon. Gentlemen opposite upon Mr. Bryce and the Government of this country because they could not bring pressure to bear upon the United States and upon Canada not to enter into this treaty.
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is the hon. Member justified in attributing to this side of the House statements which have not been made on this side, and which I challenge him to substantiate?
Mr. SPEAKER: This matter does not seem to have anything to do with the resolution.
Mr. MARTIN: I am in a difficulty, because I am attempting to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, as to the question of the representation o£ Canada in an Imperial Council, the suggestion for the formation of which was made by the former Secretary for the Colonies. The hon. Member dealt almost entirely with that aspect of the question.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not so. It was only incidentally that the hon. Member for Leicester referred to Imperial Federation. The greater part of his speech dealt with the subject matter of the Resolution.
Mr. MARTIN: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I have to bow to your ruling in this matter, but I have ears, and I want to deal with these matters separately. I am sorry if I am not allowed to do it, but I think the Resolution and all those speeches about greater unity of the Empire are most mischievous. I say we have to-day an ideal state in this Empire. We have Colonies which are bound to the Mother Country by ties which require no strengthening. They are as strong as they can be made, and speeches such as we have heard to-night from the hon. Member (Mr. Crawshay Williams) and others suggesting that there is any necessity for tying tighter the bonds of union are most mischievous. These Colonies have their own autonomy, and through that autonomy desire to do their part as members of this great Empire, and if you do anything to change the present position you are making a great mistake, and I for one, at any rate, when the Division comes, as I hope it will, shall have great pleasure in recording my vote against it. I know that the people of Canada have no desire whatever to be mixed up in any way in the foreign relations of this country. If those foreign relations at any time bring this country
1000
into war Canada, in the future as in the past, will be ready to sacrifice blood and money in defending the Empire. But so far as foreign relations are concerned they are content now, as they always have been and always will be, to allow them to be controlled by this Parliament.
Mr. GUINNESS: I should like to thank the Government for the undertaking which they have given in the matter, and as that undertaking very largely meets our object in bringing the matter before the House, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SMALL HOLDINGS ACT (1910) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Sir F. BANBURY: I have not heard any word in explanation of this Bill, and we are naturally desirous of knowing something about what we are going to pass. I was told at the Vote Office a few minutes ago that the Bill is not printed, and I should like to ask if it is in order to move the Second Reading of a Bill which is not printed.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the Bill is not printed and has not been introduced I do not think the House ought to be asked to pass the Second Reading. If the Bill was introduced last year and has not been printed and circulated during this Session it would be another matter, and the House might possibly overlook it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say whether the Bill has been introduced or not.
Sir F. BANBURY: If the Bill proposes to amend an Act which was only passed last year it cannot have been introduced before.
Mr. SPEAKER: There was an Autumn Session.
Sir F. BANBURY: We did not do anything except to decide to dissolve.
And it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That the House do now Adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Adjourned accordingly, at Four minutes after Eleven o'clock.