CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 114 of the Army Act with respect to Lists of Carriages and Animals.)

HC Deb 19 April 1911 vol 24 cc896-948

(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 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 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 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 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.

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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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- 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 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.