Lords Sitting of 7 April 1910

WARDEN'S DIVORCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read: Counsel called in: Witnesses examined: Moved that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LORD MERSEY OF TOXTETH.
The Right Honourable Sir JOHN CHARLES BIGHAM, late President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, having been created Baron Mersey of Toxteth in the county of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
READING AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 9th and 21st of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL.
Read 2a and committed for Tuesday next.

GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Templemore be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Blyth; read, and agreed to.

GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess of Bristol and the Earl of Albemarle be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl
600
of Harewood and the Lord Muncaster; read, and agreed to.

WATER SUPPLIES (PROTECTION) BILL. [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Wednesday the 23rd of March last, proposing that the said Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament as desired by this House.
LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Committee, to consist of Five members, to join with a Committee of this House to consider the said Bill, and request this House to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the members of their House.

SOMALILAND.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE): My Lords, in view of last night's debate it might be interesting to the House if I read part of a telegram received this morning from Sir William Manning. I will give the general effect of the telegram, because there are reasons why it is not desirable to read the whole of it, if noble Lords opposite will excuse me. The telegram is dated from Somaliland on April 6. General Manning states that later news has since modified the information which he telegraphed on March 29. He says—
"It is now stated that the number of friendlies killed was under 200, and that the rifles lost numbered fewer than 150. The Dervishes' loss was undoubtedly severe, and included the following leaders."
He mentions three names which I think would not convey very much to your Lord-ships, but one of them at any rate was a very important leader of the Dervishes. He then says—
"It is still the intention of the Yahelli combination to make reprisals. They are in a strong position to carry out their intention. The tribes are now generally in a much better position to defend themselves than they were while we occupied the interior."
Sir William Manning adds that it must be remembered that all sorts of exaggerated reports as to the doings of the Dervishes are current at Aden, and that for the sake of sensation such news is readily accepted there for transmission.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. There is one provision in it of considerable importance for the amendment of the Army Act, the effect of which is to give to the commanding officer considerably greater powers of punishment than he has had hitherto. Up to 1906 the maximum punishment that he could give was fourteen days imprisonment, or, in the particular case of absence without leave, twenty-one days. In 1906 his powers were practically decreased, because detention was substituted for imprisonment, and detention is, of course, a much milder form of punishment. What we now ask is that he should be allowed to award detention up to twenty-eight days.
The advantages are these. If you increase the powers of the commanding officer in this way it means that he will be able to award punishment to men who would otherwise have to go to a district court-martial, and there is no doubt that it is greatly to the advantage of a man to be able to be punished by his commanding officer rather than by a court-martial. It affects him in regard to his conduct sheet; and having to go to a court-martial probably means that he gets a less good report at the end of his service, which is a matter of great importance to him when he goes into civil life. Then there is the question of the time and expense of district courts-martial. A district court-martial has to be composed of officers of other corps besides the one in which the man is serving. If the man who is to be tried happens to be in an outlying detachment, very often considerable delay is incurred in assembling the court-martial, and, of course, there is the expense as well. Besides, a great deal of this is absolutely unnecessary.
Seventy per cent. of the men who go before district courts-martial plead guilty when they get there, and I should think that the majority of the offences that they have committed and for which they are to be punished come under paragraph 583 of the King's Regulations, which gives twenty-eight days detention as the maximum for those classes of offences; so that in a very large number of these cases it is practically
602
settled beforehand what is going to happen to the man, and in those circumstances it seems futile that a court-martial should have to be assembled in order to pass sentence upon him. There, is also, of course, the necessity of safeguarding the soldier against the undue exercise of the summary powers which we are proposing to confer on the commanding officer. If the commanding officer proposes to allot any other punishment than a minor one, he is bound to give the soldier his choice whether he will accept the punishment which the commanding officer metes out to him or go before a district court-martial. I think one may safely say that, on the whole, the soldier very much prefers to be tried by his commanding officer than by a district court-martial. The soldier feels that he is being tried by a man who knows him and who will be as indulgent as he can within the limits of his duty, and there is no doubt that in most cases the men prefer being tried by the commanding officer.
Only about one-half per cent.—that is to say, only one in 200—of the men who are brought before their commanding officer and given the option of being punished by him or of going to a district court-martial elects to go before the court-martial. The soldier's safeguard remains as it was before. Increasing the power of the commanding officer to award punishment does not mean that the soldier cannot, if he desires, be tried, as at present, before a district court-martial. I believe that this amendment which we are proposing is really in the interests of the soldier. It is going to do away with a very large number of courts-martial, and it is a reform of which opinion in the Army as far as we have been able to gauge it, and we have made extensive inquiries, is unanimously in favour. I therefore hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PERJURY. [H.L.]
[SECOSH READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, I need not trouble

603
your Lordships with any speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. Its object is, as I explained in introducing it to your Lordships [†], to consolidate and simplify the law relating to perjury and kindred offences. I am very glad to know that the Lord Chief Justice is going to extend his assistance, not only in the passing of this Bill but with the other Bills which I hope will follow for the consolidation of the criminal law. His support will give great authority to the steps we are taking in this direction, and will give confidence, no doubt, in both Houses of Parliament.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has been good enough to refer to me, I hope your Lordships will allow me to make a few observations on this matter, which I conceive to be one of great importance. I wish, in the first place, to congratulate my noble and learned friend on his great industry in taking up this matter again, and I hope he will bring it to a successful issue. He told the House, when moving the First Reading of the Bill, that he and others had been giving much consideration to this matter; and though I have been working during the last few days under strict medical orders, I have been able to give some time to this Bill. The drafting I think extremely good. It is not a consolidation Bill in the strict sense of the term. It is more than an ordinary consolidation Bill and puts into plain and simple language a large number of Statutes. That is of great advantage to the Judges, for if Parliament will put its enactments into simple language a great deal of our labour will be saved.
But the criminal law does not depend on Statutes alone. It depends to a large extent on the decisions of eminent Judges which have been given in the past, and which are embodied in the text-books that we have to consult. Some of these matters are not absolutely free from discussion, and it is essential that in a consolidation Bill of this kind there should be some form of amendment. This is a Bill to deal with the law of perjury. It has long been a matter of discussion whether the question of the materiality of a corrupt statement should be for the Judge or the jury. All I can say is that, after a considerable amount of experience,
604
I think the Bill has adopted a wise course in making the question of materiality one for the Judge. It is extremely difficult to explain to a jury what materiality is, and as it must be dealt with by a trained mind I think this is an important improvement in the law.
I do not propose to go through the various clauses in the Bill, as they will be discussed by the Joint Committee of both Houses to whom I hope the Bill will be subsequently referred. In the other House I had a great deal to do with endeavouring to pass Bills which my noble and learned friend below me (Lord Halsbury) sent down to the House of Commons. I did my best, not unfortunately with much success, to get the House of Commons to pay attention to those measures. I cannot help thinking that amendment and consolidation should not be combined in one Bill. That was brought to my notice by Mr. Gladstone, who was good enough, in his great kindness, to point out to me the difficulty in the House of Commons of amending and consolidating at the same time; and he strongly recommended me in connection with any proposed measure to prepare a short Bill of the amendments in the first instance and let it be discussed, and then bring in the consolidation Bill. The result is that you get the Government draftsmen framing the consolidation Bill when the amendments have been made. I do not say that by way of criticism of this Bill. I do hope that these labours will not be thrown away, and I am glad that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is proposing to deal with this matter by referring the Bill to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. I hope that may to a certain extent lubricate the friction which might otherwise occur in another place, and thus tend to the passing of the Bill into law.
This Bill is an object-lesson as to what I would call the waste of time that takes place in our public life. I refer to the way in which work is done by Commissions and Committees and embodied in Blue-books and nothing more ever comes of it. Let us take this particular case. In 1894 a Perjury Consolidation Bill was brought in by Lord Herschell, who was one of the pioneers in one sense of the modern consolidation Acts. That Bill was referred to a Committee consisting of Lord Herschell, my predecessor Lord Russell, Lord

605
Halsbury, and Lord Ashbourne. They worked at it for a considerable time, and produced a Bill which I am sure contained most valuable suggestions, many of which I daresay appear in this Bill. That Bill went down to the House of Commons in 1895. It may be that it did not become law then because of the Dissolution, but when my noble and learned friend below me attempted to get time for that Bill in subsequent sessions it was found to be hopeless. I am not saying this from any Party point of view, for my observations apply to both sides. But it is regrettable that when these attempts are made by distinguished lawyers to improve the law nothing further should happen, and I hope that this effort on the part of my noble and learned friend will be successful.
I only desire to say that as far as I am concerned, compatible with my other duties, and so far as my learned brothers are concerned, we shall be only too glad to render every assistance in our power. I do not make this observation in connection with this Bill alone. I have long desired to see the mass of Statutes on the criminal law put into some shape so that they can be understood generally instead of being a sort of puzzle which the Judges have to construe. Of all branches of the law it is most important that there should be simplicity in connection with the criminal law, whatever you may leave of doubt for the real property lawyer or for those who have not got the liberties of our fellow subjects to consider. I have detained your Lordships in order to express my hearty satisfaction at the step which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has taken, and I hope that the result of the reference of this Bill to a Joint Committee will be that his labours will not be thrown away, because I am quite certain that there is no more useful thing that can be done than to endeavour by a series of steps to reduce the criminal law of this country into some shape so that it can be understood generally by the unlearned.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will you allow me to thank my noble and learned friend for his support of this Bill, and to say a very few words with regard to the subjects that he has raised? The Bill is intended not to alter the law, but to simplify it. I am not one of those who
606
believe that there is any mystery at all about the law of this country. The only mystery is in the inexplicable confusion caused by Statute on Statute and decision on decision. The law itself is perfectly simple when it is explained by a man who understands it, or when it is put into a simple form in the shape of a Bill. This Bill is in the form which people can understand. I hope that this will be the first step in the consolidation of the criminal law as well as of criminal procedure. If we can get forward this Bill and the others which are to follow, we intend to proceed with the matter until we have a code, not only of the criminal law but also of the criminal procedure of this country, couched in such simple language as to be understood by the public at large. That is our purpose.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has suggested that amendment and consolidation should not be combined in one Bill. I will tell him the procedure which we have adopted. In preceding years we have had Joint Committees of both Houses to which four or five Bills of a consolidating character have been referred. I had the honour of being selected by the Joint Committee as Chairman in each case. What happened was this. We examined the Bills very closely to see, that they were strictly in accordance with the law as it is. We had two schedules, which were recommended by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, one of which contained those cases where there might be a point of difference though it might not be a substantial one, and the other contained any amendments which the Committee thought fit to recommend, and which might be called of a substantial, though not controversial, character. Beyond that we did not go. Both Houses of Parliament had the certificate of the Committee that the Bill represented the law as it was, and in the case of any amendments proposed they were set out and the reasons for them given in the two schedules. There was on no single occasion any difference of opinion in the Committee either as regards the actual contents of the Bill or the amendments made, and without discussion and upon that explanation both Houses accepted in each case every amendment to the Bills. That is the method I propose to adopt with regard to this and the following Bills—in other words, to avoid all controversy, to simplify

607
and clarify the law and nothing further. Whether we shall be equally successful in the future I cannot predict, but so far as I am concerned I have done my best in that direction.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Then it was moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament (The Lord Chancellor); agreed to: Ordered, That a message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

THE NON-COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government why they do not pass the usual Resolution authorising the collection of the Income Tax in anticipation of the Budget Bill, as has been the invariable practice for many years past. Almost the last day before the holidays the subject of the Question which I desire to put to the noble Earl the Leader of the House gave rise to an interesting discussion in the House of Commons, and I shall very likely be told that it is unnecessary therefore to revive the question. The answers given were, however, so extraordinary that the fact seems an additional reason for doing so.
As the House is aware, for many years and under Chancellors of the Exchequer representing both Parties in the State, immediately after the Budget statement Resolutions have been passed authorising the collection of the Income Tax and certain duties, such as those on tea, tobacco, and alcohol, which would otherwise lapse. Why has not this been done now? As regards Income Tax on coupons and dividend warrants, banks, companies, and financial houses have been, and are, collecting the Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 2d. The usual course is that at the end of the quarter the banks and other companies notify the amount to the Inland Revenue, and then receive instructions to pay the same to the Accountant-General. At the end of last year they intimated the amount they had received for the preceding quarter, and which they were prepared to pay over. Another quarter has now expired. They have, however, received no instructions to pay over the amount they hold. Government, we know, are borrowing largely;
608
here is a very large sum which must amount to some millions, and yet the Government do not claim it, but prefer to borrow at the expense of the taxpayer.
The Prime Minister told us in December that immediately on the re-assembling of Parliament—
"If we are fortunate enough to enjoy its confidence, then our first act will be to re-impose from this week all the taxes and duties which were embodied in the Finance Bill and to validate all past collections and deductions. In the meantime all persons desiring to do so may deposit with the proper officers the appropriate duty at the rate so sanctioned, and full instructions and information will be forthwith issued by the Departments concerned."
He added—
"It is our duty to do what we can without any infringement of the law or of constitutional principles to mitigate hardships and inconveniences."
Again, in his speech at Oxford the Prime Minister said—
"There are reasons which seem to my colleagues to be unanswerable for pushing the Budget forward with all possible promptitude."
Then why do they not do so? Parliament met on the 15th of February. It is now April, and yet they have not done so. The Budget has crumbled away under criticism. In reality the country has decided against it. Liberal and Labour Members—and I am not sure that they are all in favour of the Budget—number 315. The Irish are against it, and with the Unionists the number is 355. This, I may say in passing, fully justifies the action of your Lordships last session, and is no doubt the reason why the Government have not yet brought the Budget on. It is the Veto, not of your Lordships, but of Mr. Redmond. They know that in the present House of Commons there is, or was, a majority against it. No doubt the Prime Minister may induce the Nationalists to pass the Budget by the promise of Home Rule. They may consider that the advantages of Home Rule outweigh the disadvantages of the Budget. But the fact remains that the majority of the present House of Commons did agree with your Lordships that the Budget was unwise and unjust.
I am not, however, dealing with the Budget Bill, but with the Resolution. According to the report of his Oxford speech, the Prime Minister professes to give an answer. I have doubted whether the report could be correct, for it is obvious that

609
the reason given cannot be the real one. He is reported to have said—
"Ever since 1861 the Budget has been treated, not as a series of Bills dealing with separate taxes, but as one integral and interdependent scheme, and we are certainly not going to be the first …. to depart from the great financial precedent set us by the greatest of financiers."
But who has asked them for a series of Bills? We submit, no doubt, that as they themselves tell us a Budget Bill—I say a Budget Bill, not the Budget. Bill of last year—ought to be, and has not been, pressed forward with "all possible promptitude." But that is not the question I am now asking the noble Earl the Leader of the House. The Government are departing from "the great financial precedent set us by the greatest of financiers"; they are departing from the course which has been followed ever since 1861; and we wish to know the reason why.
It is reported in the City—I do not vouch for it myself, but the noble Earl will no doubt tell us if it is a mistake—that some of the great railway companies were prepared to pay over the amounts due from them, and the Inland Revenue were prepared to undertake to repay the money should the matter not be regularised, but at the last moment, as is understood owing to the intervention of the Chancellor, the arrangement was cancelled and the payment stopped. I hope the noble Earl will tell us what has really happened. At present the position is most anomalous. While in the main the Income Tax is not being collected it is being collected in some places and from some classes. The Government, for instance, we are told are collecting it from their own employés and from officers in the Army. It is said that they are returning in some cases Income Tax which they have not received! Now we desire to know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is departing from the invariable practice of his predecessors, inflicting these heavy losses on the taxpayer and throwing the finances of the country into such confusion. All other Chancellors have desired to secure a surplus. Mr. Lloyd-George seems to wish to create the greatest possible deficit. The House of Commons has been adjourning night after night very early, often even before dinner; yet the Government have not passed the ordinary Income Tax Resolution, and it really seems as if they deliberately wished to throw the finances of the country into confusion.
610
The Government are, moreover, imposing considerable and unnecessary losses on the country, for there are immense sums lying at the disposal of Government, and yet the Chancellor does not collect them, but prefers to borrow and pay interest, the burden of which will fall on the taxpayer. The fall in the Income Tax is, in round numbers, £20,000,000, the interest on which, at three per cent., is. £600,000. The financial policy of the Government is involving the country in this heavy loss. Nor is this all; it is shaking confidence, as we see in the continuous and alarming fall in our national securities. Since the present Government came into power the securities of the other great Powers have risen; ours, and ours alone, have fallen heavily, and are continuing to fall. No wonder that the attacks on your Lordships' House and what seems to many the reckless mismanagement of our national finances create uneasiness and anxiety among English investors. Consols fall lower and lower. The present opinion in the City is no doubt that expressed last week by Mr. Gibbs and Sir Marcus Samuel. Mr. Gibbs spoke of "organised confusion which was being brought into the finances of the country"; and Sir Marcus Samuel characterised the present position as a device—he used, indeed, a stronger term—of the Government in which the interests of the taxpayers were sacrificed in order, if possible, to secure a Party advantage. That is certainly a very general impression amongst business men, and the impression of many who are not Unionists. Mr. Sydney Brooks, for instance, himself a strong Radical, in an article in last month's Fortnightly, condemns the Government "for prolonging the chaos at the Exchequer in some pitiful and fantastic hope of Party gain." I am not, however, now expressing any opinion myself, but am asking for an explanation. There can be no doubt that the non-collection of the revenue is involving the country in heavy loss, that it is introducing great confusion into our national finances, and shaking public confidence. As far as we can see there is no reason why the necessary Resolution should not have been passed, and the collection of revenue resumed. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD FABER: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers the Question I should like to put before him the latest phase of this Income Tax question, and with the permission of the House I will give the

611
example of a company in which I am slightly interested, merely saying that it is the largest and the most important company in this country. This company is in the habit of paying its Income Tax at the end of December and at the end of March, and each of those two payments comes to nearly £150,000. My noble friend Lord Avebury alluded in his speech to a promise that was undoubtedly given on several occasions by the Prime Minister that the first act of the Government if they came back to power would be to regularise the finances of this country'. Further, the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition in your Lordships' House said distinctly that, so far as the Opposition were concerned, they would gladly acquiesce in any Resolution that was brought in to regularise the finances, more especially the Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the £.
This company received a letter on December 6, written from the Office of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, 49, Wellington-street, Strand, informing them that the moiety of the Income Tax assessable in respect of the profits of the company was £148,811, and that if this sum was tendered as usual on or about December 21 it would be accepted by the Accountant-General. The company, in view of the fact that they had the speeches of the Prime Minister before them and also the promise of the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House that he would acquiesce in any Resolution with regard to the Income Tax, paid that £148,811. On March 10 last a similar letter was received from the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. Then, of course, a grave question arose for this company to consider what they ought to do in the circumstances. They came to the conclusion that their business was to look after the interests of their shareholders—in point of fact, that the company must not pay this second great whack, if I may use the expression, of Income Tax unless they were quite certain they would not have to pay it over again if no Budget was passed and if the shareholders demanded their Income Tax. The company desired to pay this money, and I have reason to believe that the Government were anxious to get it.
What could the company do? They were willing to pay if the Government would guarantee the repayment of the money should the Budget not be passed. Whether the Government could give such
612
a guarantee I do not know, though there was a question on the subject in the House of Commons. We took the highest legal opinion we could get, and came to the conclusion that no agent, not even the First Lord of the Treasury, could bind the Government unless the agent was hedged round by certain safeguards which were hardly possible in the case of the Prime Minister. Therefore the company were in this position, that they could not get a guarantee that the money would be repaid to them; and this pitiful result remains, that the company, who are anxious to pay, cannot pay this money because it is not safe to pay it. That is the position we have got into owing to the promises of the First Lord of the Treasury not having been carried out. The Government seem to forget that their position is not quite the same as it was before the last General Election. Then they were at the head of a very large majority, and now, apart from the Irish, they are hardly in a majority at all. If they would think rather more of the interests of the country and not quite so much about their own dignity, we should get on rather better than we have done in the past.
There is another question to which my noble friend Lord Avebury alluded. Consols are on the down grade. On the average the interest paid by Consols during the last few months has been the highest interest that has been paid for the last thirty years, which means that Consols are at the lowest price reached since 1880. It is the sort of price that Consols fall to when we are threatened with a serious war. I suppose, to quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are face to face with some sort of war, for this is what he said on a public platform—
"We have got to secure the economic independence of tho workmen of this country. You will never do that as long as you have feudalism. You have in this country 2,500 landlords who own two-thirds of the soil. They, by virtue of their ownership, exercise complete sway, control, and power over the livelihood of millions of men, women and children."
Here a voice cried "Tax them out of existence," to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied—
"Well, I have made a start."
That sort of language, my Lords, coming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does more harm than anyone can conceive, and

613
I do hope that the noble Earl who leads the House will be able to give us an assurance that the bigger interests of this country will have the attention of the Government, and chat they will regularise the finances of the country.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, there is another matter to which I think we might call attention apart from the question of the inconvenience of the present situation to the mercantile community, and that is that the policy which His Majesty's Government have pursued with regard to this question is directly contrary to what they said was the object of the taxation in the Budget. The desire of the Government was said to be to place taxation on the broad shoulders of those best able to bear it. That was obviously a desire to place taxation on the shoulders of the wealthy classes, and the wealthy classes were hardest hit through the Income Tax. Well, the result of this refusal to collect Income Tax is that the working classes, who pay the greater part of their taxation through the tobacco and liquor duties, have been paying their share of the Budget taxation, whilst the wealthy classes have been practically going exempt through the non-payment of Income Tax. This, I think, is a point the country ought to know.
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord who asked this Question alluded to a debate which took place on the subject in the other House, but he did not refer to the fact that the whole subject was debated here at considerable length, I think, in his absence, on March 7, on the Treasury (Temporary Borrowing) Bill. I cannot help thinking that that debate has entirely escaped his notice. At any rate I am sure the noble Lord will acquit me of any discourtesy towards him if I do not this afternoon go over all the ground which I then attempted to cover.
It will be remembered, to put it briefly, that at that time we explained, not, no doubt, to the satisfaction of noble Lords opposite, but still we explained the reasons why we had not introduced the Budget before the Easter recess. The reasons to the contrary—and here, again, I am sure the noble Lord will acquit me of any slighting intention—were put with a force which even he with his great experience cannot exceed, by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Revel-stoke, and also by Lord St. Aldwyn, who is
614
not in his place to-day. The arguments for the immediate introduction of the Budget, for the possible course, which we declined to take, of passing a separate Income Tax Bill before the Dissolution of Parliament, and for introducing an Income Tax Resolution the moment Parliament met—all these were stated with the fullest force by noble Lords opposite, and we endeavoured to the best of our ability to explain why we were not in a position and why we did not think it right to take any of those courses. It would serve, I think, no useful purpose if I repeated the arguments I used on that occasion.
The noble Lord, however, is entitled to ask why, on the reassembling of Parliament on March 29, the Budget was not immediately proceeded with in another place. The explanations which we gave of the reason for dealing at once with Supply when Parliament met and not then taking the Budget, obviously do not apply to the course which we have taken of proceeding with what are familiarly but inaccurately known as the Veto Resolutions in another place. Before I say a word upon that I should like to refer to a point which was raised in the remarks of Lord Faber. The noble Lord stated the case of a company which had tendered Income Tax, I think, at the end of December, when it was accepted, and which had received in March an intimation that if it liked it might pay Income Tax again, and he pointed out, as an illustration of the confusion caused by the present state of things, that His Majesty's Government could not give a guarantee—I am only quoting the noble Lord, because I have no personal knowledge of what occurred—that the Income Tax, if paid, would be returned in the event of the Budget not becoming law. I suppose it is open to anybody, if a particular tax is paid and not confirmed by Parliament, to sue for the recovery of that amount; and in previous cases, in the case of 1885, when the Budget did not pass the House of Commons and another Budget had to be brought in—in that case my impression is that actual refunds were made. At any rate it was understood that they would be made. What the technical point about an absolute guarantee may be I confess I do not know. I do not understand what material fear such a company could have that if the tax were paid it would not be returned in the event of the Budget not becoming law.

615
I should have thought that the action of this company was from one point of view something of a defence of our action, because the charge which is brought against us is not so much, I think, that we did not immediately proceed with the Budget, but that we did not pass a separate Income Tax Resolution. I do not know whether, if such a Resolution were passed, the noble Lord's company would feel more disposed to pay the Income Tax than they are at present. They would not, so far as I can see, be in any better position than now as regards the repayment of the tax, should the Budget not become law. Not only that, but I have heard it stated that there are a considerable number of persons, representing large sums of money, who would not pay Income Tax now on the strength of a Resolution passed in another place, and for this reason, to be perfectly candid in the matter, that nobody can say at this moment whether the Budget will pass either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. And supposing it should not pass, it is impossible to say what financial arrangements a Government in power at the time might choose to make. Those financial arrangements might conceivably involve a second payment of Income Tax, and I can quite imagine that matters having reached the situation which they have, owing, as we say, to the rejection of the Finance Bill by your Lordships, a mere Resolution of the House of Commons would not be regarded as sufficient for the payment of Income Tax; and, as I have said, I am told that there are a number of persons who will not pay if such a Resolution is passed.
The reasons which I gave on the last occasion, and which I do not wish to repeat, for taking Supply instead of the Budget no longer hold good; but what I said on that occasion as regards the political situation still holds good. After all, His Majesty's Ministers may be looked at in two capacities. They are no doubt clerks, if you like so to put it, responsible for the management of the taxpayer's money; but they are also for the time being, as long as they are honoured with the confidence of the Crown and the country, the guardians of the Constitution, and it is conceivable that those two functions may, on a given occasion conflict. We have never concealed from the House—in fact, I definitely stated—that it is the political situation founded on the action of your
616
Lordships' House which has caused the House of Commons now to insist upon proceeding with this question of the relations between the two Houses before the financial situation is attempted to be regularised. Your Lordships opposite, of course, think that wrong and foolish. But it is the fact. They are determined to deal with the constitutional question, to express their opinion upon your Lordships' rights in dealing with finance, to express their opinion on the general situation as it exists between the two Houses, before they proceed to the consideration of the financial business of the year 1909–10.
That involves a loss of something over a fortnight of time. I am assuming that we have dealt with the case up to March 29, when the House met. What will happen will be that the Budget will be started in the House of Commons on April 18. I fully admit that the loss of interest on borrowed money accruing to that time is lost for constitutional reasons, and because of the refusal of the House of Commons to deal with finance until it has dealt with the constitutional question. As I pointed out before—and I may remind the noble Lord of it as he was not here—even if we had taken the advice of noble Lords opposite and resigned office, the case would not have been different, because whoever was in office the House of Commons, constituted as it is, would have refused to take any course but that which it has taken. Therefore, so far as the actual facts of the case are concerned, nothing that we could do, even if we desired to do it, would have altered the situation. In the meantime I understand the general situation to be—and we all regret the situation, of course, although we ascribe different causes to its origin—that the Treasury will take money which is offered to it, but it does not feel able to ask for money until it knows for certain that it will be authorised by Parliament to keep that money.
Then the noble Earl below the Gangway, Lord Denbigh, pointed out that while the poorer classes had been paying indirect taxes, yet the broad shoulders on which it was intended to place the burden had so far gone free. I do not think the noble Earl need be seriously alarmed. It is not anticipated that the loss on arrears will be a heavy one, although, of course, there is bound to be some loss, and I think that the burden will be placed on the broad shoulders quite as soon as the noble

617
Earl himself could desire. As a matter of fact, a considerable part of the burden, as Lord Faber pointed out, has been paid, because the wealthy individual has paid it and it is now in the hands of the banker, who, I suppose, from one point of view, cannot greatly regret the continuance of the existing state of things, for he has a great deal of money which he is able to advance, I hope on satisfactory terms, to those who require it for short periods of time. I confess I do not think the argument of Lord Denbigh is one which of itself need carry very great weight with your Lordships.
There was one more observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to which I wish to allude. He said it is not the case that anybody asked us to split up the Budget and bring in a series of Bills. Is that quite accurate? I thought that one of the main charges brought against the Budget and one of the principal reasons adduced for its rejection was that it ought to have appeared in a series of Bills. That is an argument which was freely pressed by many noble Lords on that side of the House, and it certainly offered to us an additional reason, if additional reason were needed, for declining to treat the Income Tax as a thing by itself, because such a course would undoubtedly have seemed to offer some adhesion to the view so freely expressed by noble Lords opposite that the Budget was not a Bill by itself. The noble Lord, I have no doubt, takes the sound view, which was also taken by Lord St. Aldwyn, that in these times there could be no question of bringing in the financial proposals of the year in more than one Bill; but I am not at all sure that noble Lords opposite, taking them altogether, would subscribe to that doctrine. I am strongly of opinion that they would very much like to see the financial proposals of the year split up into several Bills in order that they might deal with each on its merits. However, I do not wish to dwell upon that any further, but merely to say that if I have not argued at length all the reasons which have induced us not to take the course of bringing in the Income Tax Resolution in another place, which the noble Lord seems to consider so easy and reasonable, it is because in the former debate, on March 7, I and noble Lords on this side dealt with them at great length.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am afraid my noble friends who raised this question cannot feel at all satisfied with the reply which they have received from the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Nothing new has been added in the way of information in reply to the very plain and direct question addressed to the noble Earl. His defence is that he is unwilling to repeat statements which he has already made on a previous occasion. I had not the privilege of hearing that debate, but I understand that the reason why the Government refused to take any special steps for the purpose of collecting the Income Tax was that they could not divide their financial proposals.
I presume that the theory of a single indivisible Finance Bill dates back to 1861, but I do not know how far that is supposed to be a precedent for all time. I do not wish to labour too closely questions of precedent, but certainly it has not been invariably adhered to. In consequence of a debate which took place, I think, in the year 1888 a subsequent Bill, originating in Committee of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, was passed; and in 1900, in order to raise money needed for the war, a similar proceeding took place. I admit that there were excellent reasons for the introduction of those separate Bills and that in ordinary circumstances it is convenient that the financial proposals of the Government should be contained in a single Bill each year. It is a matter of convenience and enables them to state their proposals as a whole and to lay them before the country. But at the same time there have been ample precedents for departing from precedent, as when questions of great emergency arose and when it was necessary that definite steps should be taken to raise money.
I presume that when the Government state that they will use only one measure in which to lay their financial proposals before the country they mean that they will make only one proposal for bringing money into the Exchequer. But what about the present session? Already there have been two Bills originating in Committee of Ways and Means; there is every prospect of another, which will contain the Budget of 1909–10; and of yet another originating in Committee of Ways and Means and constituting the

619
Budget of 1910–11. Therefore, in the one year there is a possibility of four different sets of financial proposals for collecting money being placed before Parliament. Certainly if ever there was a departure from the precedent established in 1861 of introducing your financial proposals in one Bill I think we find it in the present year.
Large sums of money are lying in the banks to-day for the payment of which into the Exchequer only the authority of Parliament is needed. As far as the transaction to which Lord Faber referred is concerned, I can state one which is identical. There had been some previous correspondence between the Inland Revenue authorities and a certain company. The point in question was whether it would be safe for the company to hand the money over to the Inland Revenue. I believe the reply was couched in such a form that it was felt that there would be the necessary security, and it was only upon subsequent development that the Inland Revenue had to write a letter informing the company in question that that guarantee could not be given. Where that subsequent information was received from, of course we do not know, but the inference we are justified in drawing is that it came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer acting through the Treasury. It would have been perfectly easy, we maintain, to have passed the Income Tax Resolution. There has been ample time, and an undertaking was given by the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses that every facility would be given for its passage.
It was no doubt the intention of the Government before the election, probably during the election, and possibly for a few days after they met Parliament, to take steps at once to redeem the very clear and distinct pledge given by the Prime Minister that it would be the first duty of the Government to regularise the collection of taxes. It was only after the somewhat mysterious proceedings which have taken place since the new House of Commons met that the prospects of that pledge being redeemed have been disappearing into the future. As it is understood that we are to continue for some time in this condition, I think, as was suggested by Sir Robert Finlay in the House of Commons, a notice might be put up on the door of the Treasury to the effect that it is a most praiseworthy institution and supported by charitable
620
contributions. By the course which the Government have adopted they have managed to cause the maximum of inconvenience to individuals with the least benefit to the Treasury. And you are now in this peculiar position, that you are having to borrow money in order to refund those abatements which come under the Income Tax laws, and in respect of which you have received no tax at all. If a parish council conducted their affairs in a manner in any degree comparable to that in which the Government are conducting the affairs of the nation, it would have been the duty of the Local Government Board auditor to declare, in the most clear and distinct manner, that they ought to be surcharged and that they were unworthy to carry on the duties entrusted to them.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House has informed us that the Budget is to be introduced on April 18. Can he go a step further and tell us whether it is to be the same Budget? He has informed us that nothing can be done to require the collection of these taxes until April 18, when the Budget is to be again introduced into the House of Commons. Is he able to give us any information beyond that and to tell us whether it will come up to this House without the alteration of a comma? If he cannot give any immediate satisfaction as to the collection of the Income Tax, can he say whether the negotiations now going on have reached a point which give a reasonable prospect that the Budget will be passed by the House of Commons? Perhaps he may be in a position to take us a little more into his confidence and tell us whether there is any reasonable prospect that these very heavy arrears of taxes will be collected. I am afraid it is not likely that we shall get much further information, and I say, with all deliberation, that you have produced no arguments, no reasons, for this wilful and wanton abandonment of the collection of money which is properly due to the Treasury. You cannot possibly have done it in the interests of the country. You may think there is some petty advantage to be gained in this great constitutional question in which we are now engaged by the course you have adopted, but I believe you are doomed to disappointment. The real reason for this course is that the Government are making a deliberate attempt to "queer the pitch" for their successors, and to make it as difficult as possible for them to carry on the government of the country.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Duke and the noble Lord who initiated this discussion were quite fair to the Prime Minister. They found fault with him for not having kept the undertaking which he gave that the first act of the new Parliament would be, to regularise the financial position of the country. But I think they have both overlooked the qualifying words in the Prime Minister's statement, "if we are fortunate enough to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons." It is notorious that the Government do not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, at any rate as far as their financial policy is concerned. If they did enjoy that confidence, then their first act would have been to regularise the financial situation. They do not enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, so nothing is done, and the country is plunged into financial chaos. The Government try to smother up the unpleasant fact that they do not enjoy the confidence of the other House by blaming this House for the chaos. No doubt it is rather galling for His Majesty's Ministers to find that owing to the action of this House last session they no longer enjoy the confidence of the House, of Commons, but it appears to me rather unfair to blame this House for giving the people an opportunity of expressing their disapproval of the Budget.
I am quite aware that it is said the Irish Party are not really opposed to the Budget; that they only dislike parts of it. I am like the Irish Party. I am not really opposed to the Budget. I only dislike parts of it. Your Lordships are not opposed to the Budget; you only dislike parts of it. One would have thought that the Government would proceed with the parts that everybody likes. But that would not be dignified, and it would amount, so we are told, to a surrender of one of the most cherished privileges of the House of Commons. So the dignity of the Government and the privileges of the House of Commons are costing the country about £20,000 a week, and have led to a deficit of some £26,000,000. Nero fiddled while Rome was burning, and it appears to me there is about as much dignity in the attitude of the Government at the present moment as there was in Nero's fiddling.
But what a time for the Government and the House of Commons to stand on their dignity! At this very moment they are engaged in pursuing their unalterable
622
determination to deprive this House of all voice in the financial legislation of the country. Surely on the eve of our doom it would not be a great thing for the House of Commons, of its own free will, to waive one of its privileges in order to save the country from financial chaos. Were it not for the fact that one is more anxious for the good of the State than for Party advantage, the financial antics of the Government would be excessively funny. Only last session a distinguished member of the Government told the capitalist that the time was coming when he would be asked the tremendous question, Where did you get your money? The same Government goes to the capitalists this session, cap in hand, and says to them, "You owe the State a certain sum of money for Income Tax. We won't trouble you to pay it; we merely ask you to lend it to us, and you can settle between yourselves what rate of interest you will charge us. Then we shall both owe one another money, and in the fulness of time we hope we may persuade the people's representatives to swallow the People's Budget and then we will settle it all up." That is better business for the capitalists even than floating rubber companies. There is a certain amount of risk, though not very much, in connection with rubber, but there is no risk in lending the Government money that belongs to the Government; and one of these days, when Mr. Winston Churchill goes to the capitalist and asks him the tremendous question, "Where did you get your money?" he will be told by the capitalist that some of it at any rate he has got through lending money to the Government that was due to the Government and receiving interest on the loan.
During the General Election campaign the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Home Secretary—I forget which—told the country that the Budget was in a state of suspended animation, but that it was destined to a great and glorious resurrection. I suppose the Budget is still languishing in purgatory, and I think it is extremely doubtful whether it will ever emerge; but, if the Government do succeed in galvanising it into life again, I am certain that when it reappears it will not be surrounded by a halo of glory. I am certain, too, that the people will know how to deal with, and what to think of, a Government which have only succeeded in galvanising their Budget into life again by buying the support of those who were returned to Parliament to oppose it.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, perhaps with your indulgence I may be allowed to say one word. My noble friend the Leader of the House mentioned that I was not present when the debate took place in March. I was prevented, much to my regret, from being in my place on that occasion, but I read very carefully all that was then said. We did not understand the reason then given on behalf of His Majesty's Government. We now learn that the present condition is not due to any financial cause, but is really owing to the wish of the Government to get up a case against the House of Lords.

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE AND FOREIGN SERVICE.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the War Office are able to give any information with regard to Army Form E 624, containing the terms of an agreement seeking to subject officers and men of the Territorial Force to liability to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom in the event of national emergency.
I shall not occupy the attention of the House for more than a few moments in calling attention to the terms of this agreement. Certain conditions are attached to the agreement, but the point to which I wish to draw attention is that these conditions and the very nature of the agreement involve a certain amount of pressure, because the Territorial officer or man who signs on for foreign service in time of national emergency is to be awarded a badge, which will, of course, distinguish him from the other officers and men in the regiment. The question has already been mooted of having service squadrons, so to speak, which I feel sure would be extremely unpopular, at any rate in Yeomanry regiments. I have privately tested the opinion of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men with regard to the wearing of these badges and the whole question of voluntary liability for foreign service, and I can assure the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War that if he carries out this agreement and if men are to be awarded badges for saying they will come forward in time of national emergency to serve abroad, it will be an exceedingly unpopular move.
I submit, moreover, that it is not neces-
624
sary. If you wish to draw upon your home Army for foreign service, it is hardly necessary to make the arrangements now. Should the emergency arise, all those anxious to serve abroad could easily enlist to do so at the proper time. Is it desirable that you should now call upon the men of a force enlisted for home defence to volunteer for foreign service? Your Territorial Force must be either for home defence or not for home defence. If it is not for home defence, then we had better say so at once. We cannot possibly have it both ways. We ought to tell the nation that, after all, we cannot allocate the force solely to home defence, but are compelled to draw upon it for foreign service. But if the force is for home defence, let us keep it for that purpose. The opinion of the War Minister himself is that 350,000 men will be sufficient for home defence. Others do not think so. But he has not got 350,000 men. He has only got 270,000, and these 270,000 men are to be further drawn upon and to be asked to serve outside the United Kingdom. Some may wish to do so. Others—and it would be very hard on those men—may be just as patriotic and just as willing to serve abroad, but for private reasons and reasons of necessity may not be able to comply with this agreement. If you do this with your Territorial Army, you are trying to rob Peter to pay Paul, and you will have the appearance of counting your men twice over.
I venture to suggest, with great respect, that the Territorial Force at present is not large enough, and that it is very undesirable, not only in the manner in which it is proposed to do it but in any case, to try and suck away from that home defence Army any appreciable number of men for other purposes outside the United Kingdom. Supposing a certain number of officers and men respond to this invitation. how does the noble Lord propose to fill up the gaps? I daresay he will tell us that he has a Reserve for the Territorial Army. I do not propose to enter at length into that question now, because it ought to be a subject for a separate debate, but it is an extremely interesting proposal. I do not know how far it has matured, but one thing about it we do know—that according to the terms of the Reserve force the duties of a Territorial Reservist are to be exactly the same as those of a member of the Territorial Force with the

625
exception that he is not to come out to camp and do any training. This seems to me to be rather a formidable differentiation. I beg to put the Question standing in my name.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord the best answer I can to his Question. One is always faced with a certain amount of difficulty in answering an interrogation like this, because both question and answer are hypothetical. To endeavour to give a definite answer as to what will arise when you do not know what the situation is going to be is always difficult, but I think I can explain our general attitude in this matter.
As to liability for foreign service, the point which the noble Lord raises now might well have been raised nearly three years ago, at the time when the Territorial Forces Act was passing through this House, because all that the recent Army Order and the form to which the noble Lord calls attention do is simply to put in force what is already in the Act. Section 13 of the Act lays down, after saying that the area and service of the Territorial Force is the United Kingdom, that—
"It shall be lawful for His Majesty to accept the offer of any part of the Territorial Force to subject themselves to liability to serve in any place outside the United Kingdom."
What we are doing with regard to this is simply putting that section of the Act into force. You have, I agree, to look at the question of how far you can use your Territorial Force for service abroad primarily from the standpoint of the question of home defence. The Territorial Force is primarily a home defence force, and although a certain number of men accept liability to serve abroad I think you have to give the Government of the day, whoever they may be, credit for not employing these men for service abroad if their services are required at home for the purposes of home defence.
With the present organisation of the Regular Army, when you have got the Special Reserve to maintain the Expeditionary Force in the field it is very hard to conceive any circumstances in which you would want units, or parts of units, of the Territorial Force to go out to augment your force abroad during the early stages
626
of a war. We have had quoted in this connection the analogy of the volunteer companies which went out in the early period of the South African war. In general organisation we have advanced a good way beyond that stage; and the fact that you have now the Special Reserve and that you have now organised a larger Expeditionary Force makes it difficult to conceive that you could in any circumstances require to augment your Expeditionary Force during the early stages of a campaign. But if we are engaged in a big war, the position at sea as the war goes on is bound to become more defined and our liability to or our security from the possibility of raids or invasions is bound to become clear, and I can quite conceive the position under which, after the war has gone on for some months, the Government of the day should be able to say that our position at sea was sufficiently commanding for them to be able to weaken our home defences in order to augment the military forces abroad. It is to meet that position, which conceivably might arise in the later stages of a war, that we are desirous of having men of the Territorial Force to call upon.
In a great national emergency of that kind the strong presumption is, of course, that the Territorial Force would have been embodied at once on the outbreak of the war and would have undergone a long training on embodiment. Therefore these men would have done their training on embodiment before the question arose of sending them abroad. As to the question of weakening the Territorial Force by sending members of it abroad, I do not see, as I have said, how we can send them abroad in the early stages of a war; but during the progress of the war you would have called out your Reservists, the men who were recruits at the time of embodiment would have received several months training, new men would be coming in a number of whom would be ex-Territorials, and I should think it would be pretty certain that all the units of the Territorial Force would be well over establishment and would be able to spare men without weakening themselves below the standard necessary for efficiency.
Then as to the position of the man himself who is asked to undertake this obligation. I quite agree with the noble Lord that

627
it is very important to prevent any sort of pressure being put on these men. The noble Lord suggested that you would avoid putting pressure upon them if you waited till the emergency arose and then asked them to volunteer. My opinion is that the pressure which would then be put upon a member of the Territorial Force and the stigma which would attach to him if when a war was going on he refused to serve abroad would be much greater than under our present system, safeguarded by the instructions given to commanding officers that they shall not certify any offer until they have fully explained to the man that the offer is purely voluntary on his part and made quite sure that no pressure of any kind has been put upon him. Then the noble Lord instanced the badge as one means of putting pressure on these men. The badge cuts both ways. In some cases it is quite possible that it may be considered that a man who does not wear a badge is a fit subject for opprobrium; but I know of one regiment in the Territorial Force the members of which are quite willing to come forward and volunteer, but they will not wear the badge. Therefore, if the badge is an unpopular thing in itself, as in some cases it may prove to be, I do not think it is likely to be used as a weapon against the man who does not undertake this liability.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I do not think your Lordships can have been taken in by what seemed to me the rather sorry subterfuge to which the noble Lord resorted. The noble Lord said that the War Office were merely putting the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act into force, but as I understand the Act that is not the case. As I read that Act, it merely says that it does not forbid a man to serve abroad if he pleases. That is a purely negative provision and demands no present action. That is the sense in which everybody understood it when the Act was passed, and I do not think the noble Lord has any right to say that this complaint should have been raised at that time. If anyone had a notion that those words would have been used in this way, there would have been a good deal of protest. The action now being taken by the War Office amounts to a direct invitation to the men to engage in advance for foreign service. That is entirely different from saying that the King, in spite of anything in the Act, may accept the services of those who choose to volunteer when an emergency has actually arisen.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is very encouraging to hear the optimistic view of the noble Lord as to the military potentialities of the future. Everything is perfectly admirable—on paper. He tells us that there is an admirable force, but it is a force on paper, and that there is an admirable force of Reserves, also on paper. I have only risen for the purpose of suggesting that it would be much better for the War Office to concentrate their efforts upon filling up the ranks of the Territorial Force before embarking on distinctions of this kind. The noble Lord assumes that there will be an unlimited number of trained soldiers in this country who would be prepared to go anywhere should an emergency arise. That may possibly be the case. But we have to look at the facts, and to realise that the Territorial Force from whom all these things are expected is at this moment 30,000 or 40,000 below its establishment; and I venture to suggest that the most practical thing to do would be to fill up the force to its proper figure before making these distinctions between the classes of men who form it.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.