Sitting of 6 March 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. GROVES: said he wished to call attention to a case of great hardship affecting a certain number of his constituents who occupied shops in the neighbourhood of Talton Street, a thoroughfare scheduled in the Bill under consideration. These tenants had occupied these premises for some twenty or thirty years, and the great majority of them were in the unfortunate position of being weekly tenants, and consequently had no locus standi before the Committee. This was a position of affairs which he thought required some legislative remedy. Many of these individuals had invested hundreds of pounds in their businesses. The street in question was the only shopkeeping street in a large working class neighbourhood, and if these people were dispossessed, great inconvenience would be caused to their customers, for there was no other place near to which the businesses could be transferred. One man had got a business, the goodwill of which he could easily sell for £500, yet if this Bill were passed that would be swept away, and he would have little chance of getting any compensation from the promoters of the Bill. He wished that these people could be allowed in some way to appear before the Committee, and he hoped some means would be discovered of enabling that to be done.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.' "(Mr. Groves.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: thought it a great hardship on a company which had complied with all the Standing Orders and regulations of the House that its scheme should be postponed merely because in the opinion of the hon. Member the law was defective. The scheme dealt with in the Bill had been before Parliament some years, and after many difficulties had been overcome. Authority was given for constructing the Mono Railway between Liverpool and Manchester. Some deviations in the original scheme had since been found to be necessary, and this Bill was brought forward in order to sanction them. But surely the measure ought not to be delayed simply because in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman a certain class of persons suffered injustice by not having a locus standi If the general law governing these matters dealt hardly with any particular class, another opportunity should be sought to remedy it, but it was not fair, and it would be contrary to the practice of the House, to postpone a measure which in every other respect was unobjectionable.
  MR. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give an undertaking on behalf of the Company that they will take only one side of the street? I believe there is an almost official understanding to do that, and that, at any rate, would get rid of one half of the difficulty.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I believe it is the case that one side of the street in which my hon. friend is more particularly interested will not be taken.
  MR. GROVES: Then I beg to ask leave to withdraw my opposition.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time and committed.

  WEST HAM GAS BILL (By ORDER).
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: said he had given notice of a Motion to postpone the Second Reading of this Bill for six months. He had no personal interest in the matter, but it was one which affected his constituents and hence his action. The Bill violated one of the fundamental principles adopted by the House. In 1856 the West Ham Gas Company got permission from Parliament to supply various districts and vicinities thereof with gas. It had always been an accepted rule that gas, water, and other companies should strictly define the areas which they proposed to supply, and he wanted that done in the present instance. On behalf of Ilford and Barking he desired to get an assurance that the West Ham Company would not enter into competition with them, for they had already obtained from Parliament power to supply gas in their respective areas. The West Ham Company were proposing to raise capital to the extent of £600,000 or £800,000, and he feared he saw in that a threat of their intention to supply gas to Barking and Ilford. In fact they proposed to erect gas works within a few hundred yards of the Barking Company's Works. It might be suggested that now to insist on the insertion of a clause defining their area would lead to difficulties in regard to Standing Orders, but he would remind the House that the Standing Orders Committee was always willing to suspend Standing Orders in bonâ fide cases. The West Ham Pas Company, owing to the fact that they were near London, could get coal at a much cheaper rate than was possible at either Barking or Ilford, and could consequently supply gas at a lower price. But to allow them to enter into competition with Barking and Ilford under such circumstances would be most unfair. Those municipalities had already spent large sums on their undertakings, and they were of course under Parliamentary limitations as to

  573
  their charges, &c. Having done good and excellent work at great expense, they ought not to be exposed to an unfair competition which would create conflicting interests, and which might cause great inconvenience to consumers. He begged to move as an Amendment, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months."
  The Amendment was not seconded.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  KENT WATER BILL [BY ORDER].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BROADSTAIRS GAS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
  NORTH WARWICKSHIRE WATER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP D).
  Sir SAVILE CROSSLEYreported from the Committee on Group D of Private Bills; That, at the meeting of the Committee this day, a letter was received from Captain Jessel, one of the members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of illness, to attend the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

OMAGH URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
  BRIGHTON AND ROTTINGDEAN SEASHORE ELECTRIC TRAMROAD BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Llan brabach; Rudry; Poynton; Aberpergwm; Westhoughton (two); and Newton Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law: From Brighouse; and Great Griffield; to lie upon the Table.
  FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from Hampton Wick, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Llanbradach; Rudry; Poynton; Aberpergwm; West-houghton(two); and Newton Collieries.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Gardenstoun Dunoon Bowmore; Arbroath; Stromness; and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF LAND VALUES.
  Petition from Luton, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP CLUBS BILL.
  Petition from Beith, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SITES VALUES (LONDON) RATING BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION
  Copy presented, of fifty-first Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION
  Copy presented, of fifty-fourth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Census of England and Wales, 1901 (County of Lancaster) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Address for "Return of the net Income and Expenditure of British India, under certain specified heads, for the eleven years from 1890–1891 to 1900–1901."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  (3.35.) QUESTIONS.

    South African War —Boers in the Field— Natives in Military Employment.
    MR. LABOUGHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give an approximate estimate of the Boers now in the field against His Majesty's Forces; whether several thousand Basutos are now armed, and receive pay from His Majesty's Government, and whether, though armed, they are styled civilian night watchers; and what is the number of black men at present garrisoning the blockhouses, and what is their pay per man.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The figures hitherto received from South Africa have necessarily been founded on approximate estimates of the number of Boers in the field, and the great dispersal of the Boers has rendered anything like accuracy a matter of great difficulty. The figures of captures since November prove that the estimate then made was unduly sanguine, and I should be afraid to give another figure without more perfect information. As regards the Basutos, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire, on the 4th February. † The information supplied to me was that natives were employed as watchmen, and were armed for their own protection. I have no information as to the numbers and pay of natives so employed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the number of natives employed and armed?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. † See (4)Debates cii., 355.

    Concentration Camps.
    MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state in what month and in what year the following concentration camps were first formed: Johannesberg, Potchefstroom, Irene, Heidelberg, and Standerton.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): These camps were among the earliest, and were started in January, 1901. While referring to these camps, I may take the opportunity to mention another matter connected with the subject. In the debate the other day† I was taking on assumption the number of farm burnings, when I was met by interruption from hon. Gentlemen opposite, who thought the number was much larger. I have since inquired into the matter, and I now find that the number of farms burned up to the date when these camps were started was 634.
    MR. CHANNING: Are these in addition to those of which we have particulars in the Papers laid before the. House
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, certainly not. I mean the number up to January, 1901, when the camps were started.

    Execution of Mr. Steyn's Nephew.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a nephew of Mr. Steyn was executed as a spy; and whether, if so, lie will lay upon the Table of the House the proceedings of the court martial that condemned him, or inform the House of the circumstances, that led to it.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no information on this matter.

    Boer Surrenders.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for War if he will ascertain from Lord Kitchener whether in fact all the Boers included in the weekly returns of killed, captured,
    † See page 434

    577
    and surrendered, are fighting burghers; and, if others have been included in these lists, whether he will state how many fighting burghers have been killed or captured, or have surrendered since November.
    MR. BRODRICK: In response to inquiry, Lord Kitchener telegraphs as follows:—"It is impossible to distinguish between fighting and non-fighting burghers unless they are very old or very young, in which case they are left on their farms, and therefore do not surrender. All surrenders reported are men liable to service under commando law."

    Native Witnesses before Courts Martial.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Kaffirs who gave evidence against Scheepers and Lotter were sworn on the Protestant Bible; what is the ordinary procedure in African Courts adopted to give sanctity to the testimony of pagans; whether the Courts Martial who tried the condemned men contained any officer acquainted with legal procedure in Africa or England; and, if so, what is the name of such officer; have any record or depositions been preserved of the evidence given on these trials, and who were the officers who composed the Courts; have the Government required or called for an official account of capital trials by Court Martial in Africa; whether these will be placed at the disposal of hon. Members before any Act of Indemnity is applied for; by what process were the Courts of death sentence constituted, and under what procedure; and where can this procedure be found in the King's Regulations.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no information as regards the religion of the witnesses; there is a recognised form of declaration for pagan witnesses. The Return, which I have called for and which will be shortly to hand, will show the members composing the Courts where death sentences have been passed. They will be given to Parliament. These Courts were constituted under the Proclamation of Martial Law, and the procedure was that of a General or Field General Court Martial, details of which will be found in the "Manual of Military
    578
    Law." Records of evidence have been preserved.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will this Return show the procedure in these matters
    MR. BRODRICK: I cannot say until I see them.

    Sir James Willcocks.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what has been the cost of sending Sir James Willcocks to South Africa and back, what was the duration of his service in South Africa, and the nature of his duties during that service.
    MR. BRODRICK: It was decided to employ this officer in South Africa pending his appointment to a command in India. A vacancy has occurred earlier than was expected, and he has accordingly been ordered to India.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question as to the cost of the voyage to South Africa and back, and the nature and duration of the service rendered there.
    MR. BRODRICK: When an officer is required for a high command in India, the Government do not take into consideration the cost of the passage.

    Remounts—Military Court of Inquiry.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOITSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Court of Inquiry into the Remount Department will take cognisance of the total sum of £9,125,000 expended by that Department since the outbreak of the war; and, if not, how much of that expenditure will fall within the scope of the inquiry.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Court of Inquiry is now sitting. I have no power to control the question raised by the hon. Member.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a plain answer to a plain Question? Will the amount spent by the Remount Department be included in the iniquity? Surely there must be some reference to the Committee.
    MR. BRODRICK: I have no control whatever over the Court of Inquiry, which has been asked by the Commander-in-Chief to report on certain points.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: What are those points?
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that General Truman has decided to do without the assistance of counsel at the Court of Inquiry into the Remounts case; and, seeing that the War Office have stated that General Truman will be allowed counsel to assist him, of which they will bear the expense, can he state what arrangements are being made to carry out that decision. In view of the above decision, is General Truman to be allowed to choose his own counsel; can he now state who is the counsel retained to assist the Court by the Treasury solicitors; what position this counsel will hold, and what is meant by the task allotted to him of sifting the evidence.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Court of Inquiry is in no respect under my control. I approached the Treasury with a request to allow General Truman the service of a counsel, and authority was accordingly given for his payment. I know nothing of what General Truman has decided to do, or whom he has employed. The counsel retained to assist the Court as assessor is Mr. Milvain, K.C. He will, I presume, render the Court such assistance as they require of him.

    Wastage of Horseflesh.
    MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he or the Commander-in- Chief has received any report (other than the reports on Army Remounts just published) giving reasons for the great wastage of horseflesh in South Africa prior to, and during the time, Lord Roberts was in chief command; and, if so, whether he will publish the same.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: No report beyond those published?
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.

    Purchase of Horses in Argentina.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can now state what prices were paid under various contracts by or on behalf of the War Office for horses in South America during the last two years.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): No, Sir. The result of giving any of these prices would be that in every case the maximum price hitherto paid would become the minimum for any future purchases.
    MR. DILLON: Can the noble Lord explain why it is not found to be objectionable to give the prices of every other country in the world except the Argentine? What is the special difficulty?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Horse Purchase Contracts—Mr. Weil— Mr. Houlder.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state the names of the persons who were given contracts by the War Office in Victoria, Queensland, Argentina, and the United States respectively, together with the amount in each case agreed to be paid per horse; whether the Mr. Weil alluded to in the despatch from the General Officer commanding lines of communication to the Secretary of State for War, dated 3rd January, 1900, which states that Weil has contracted, and that his horses are not at all good, is the same gentleman who is connected with the Bergl meat contract; whether Mr. Maurice Houlder was at any time since the commencement of the South African War in the employment of the Remount Department; and, if so, what were his functions; and whether this gentleman is connected with Houlder Brothers.
    LORD STANLEY: In regard to the first paragraph, very few horses were purchased by contract in the countries mentioned, the names of the contractors have not been reported, and the prices are confidential. As regards the second paragraph, it is believed that Mr. Weil is the person referred to. As regards the third paragraph, Mr. Maurice Houlder has never been in the employ of the Remount Department; he is believed to be connected with the firm of Houlder Brothers.
    MR. M'KENNA: Had Messrs. Houlder in their employ a nephew of General Truman?
    LORD STANLEY: I must ask for notice of that.

    Remounts—lord Kitchener's Complaints.
    MR. SEALE-HAYNE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to state the reason why, aftertwo years experience in the buying of horses for South Africa, Lord Kitchener had to complain on the 22nd January last that a considerable percentage of all horses landed lacked the compact formation necessary to withstand the hardships of campaigning, and that the Australian horses were specially badly selected; and whether he can state who was responsible for sending badly selected horses to South Africa.
    MR. BRODRICK: Stringent orders have been issued from time to time as to the class of horses required, and every effort is made by the buyers on the spot, but from Lord Kitchener's report it would appear that the efforts to procure such horses in the great numbers required have not always succeeded. Every possible effort is being made in the matter.

    English Horses.
    MR. FREDERICK WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to Colonel Kitchener's Report on Remounts, stating that nothing has really come up to the English horse for cavalry
    582
    and draught, the War Office intends in future to buy a larger proportion of English horses: and whether, to facilitate sale and purchase, he will give a Return showing who are the authorised official buyers in each county, the class of animal required, and the price which will be paid for accepted horses, thereby encouraging farmers and breeders to sell direct to Government at full prices instead of getting a less rate through the middlemen.
    LORD STANLEY: The success of English horses, which, I should mention, include a considerable proportion of horses imported from America, in South Africa, was due in a considerable degree to their hard condition, they being corn-fed. In normal times the horses required for the Army at home have been, with very few exceptions, purchased in England or Ireland. Purchase is being briskly carried on in these countries, and will be continued as long as suitable animals are procurable and required. I will consider whether it is possible to advertise more widely than at present the channels through which horses are purchased, and the conditions.

    Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to do away with the post of Inspector-General of Auxiliary Forces.
    MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir.

    Irish Contribution to New Army Scheme.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state how much extra taxation Ireland will have to contribute annually towards the New Army Scheme when put into operation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HicKs BEACH,): As my right hon. friend the, Secretary for War stated, it is anticipated that by the time the increases of pay which he has proposed come into operation the Army Estimates will be relieved of a large portion at any rate of the charges now imposed on them for new guns, material, and stores, in accordance with.

    583
    the Report of the Committee presided over by Sir F. Mowatt. I do not think, therefore, that his scheme involves an increase which could be measured by taxation.

    British Army in India.—Increased Cost.
    MR. SEALE-HAYNE: On behalf of the hon. Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government of India has been consulted upon the proposed increased cost of £786,000 a year of the British Army in India; if so, what reply was given; and whether the relief by Indian troops of five British garrisons in the tropics has been effected, as foreshadowed in his speech of last year, and whether the British or Indian Government will bear the cost.
    MR. BRODRICK: The Government of India have been informed that the Home Government find it necessary to raise the pay of the soldier in order to obtain the recruits necessary to fully maintain the Army at home and abroad. This intimation was made as early as possible to the Indian Government, and any representation which they may make to the Indian Council will be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government. In reference to the second sentence, the relief mentioned has been effected, and the whole cost is being borne by the Imperial Exchequer.

    Tower of London—Government Contract and Wages.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the contractor employed on periodical painting and repairs at the Tower of London had a dispute recently with his men as to the rate of pay; and that the men complained to the War Office, with the result that the contractor had to pay them the amount in dispute; whether he is aware that this contractor dismissed the men for complaining; and whether, as this contractor endeavoured to evade paying the local rate of wages to his employees, he will be allowed to compete in future with
    584
    contractors for War Office work who comply with the Fair Wages Resoution of the House.
    LORD STANLEY: A workman complained to the War Office that he and others had been discharged for raising the question of wages. The contractor was informed by the General Officer commanding the district that the full current rate of wages must be paid to all workmen engaged on painting. The contractor's explanation was that the men who had been paid less than the current wage were inferior hands. No further report has reached the War Office. The question of the selection of workmen rests with the discretion of the contractor. So long as lie pays the current rate, when warned, he is not held to be disqualified for future tendering. The circumstances are, however, noted against him.
    MR. NANNETTI: Will it be remembered that his excuse was that he employed inferior hands?
    LORD STANLEY: I have said that all the circumstances are noted against him.

    English Beer for Irish Canteens.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will inquire why the authorites responsible for supplying the canteens in Ireland with stout have accepted the tender of the Burton Brewery, whose tender was higher than that of the Dublin brewers; and whether, in the interests of the troops, he will inquire what reason induced the canteen authorities to depart from the commercial custom of accepting the lowest tender.
    LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. The matter is left entirely to the discretion of the General Officer commanding.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Did not the noble Lord give a guarantee last year that he would inquire into this matter, and has he not entirely failed to do so? Why should the contract for Irish whisky and porter be given to a firm at Burton-on-Trent?
    LORD STANLEY: We have pointed out to General Officers commanding districts the advisability of dealing as far as possible with local firms. These are, however, questions of the expenditure of the money of the men, and not of the Government, and therefore we leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the Commanding Officer.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: And, because it is the men's money, the contract goes to an English firm for articles which Irish firms would supply at lower prices!
    MR. NANNETTI: Will the noble Lord lay on the Table of the House copies of these tenders?
    LORD STANLEY: Certainly not.

    Recruiting Age Regulations.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the new conditions proposed for Army service, it is now proposed to require an efficient testimony from the recruit as to his real age apart from his own statement on it, in view of the temptation under existing regulations to falsification; and if not, whether, in view of the increased attractions of pay and the terms of service, steps will be taken to ensure complete accuracy, which is not obtainable under the present system.
    MR. BRODRICK: I fear it is not practicable to obtain the degree of accuracy which the hon. Member desires in relation to the age of recruits.

    Volunteer Officers—Deficiency.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what was the deficiency of officers in the Volunteer Force on the 1st of March.
    MR. BRODRICK: The number of vacancies was 1,987 on 1st March. This number, however, would be reduced by 400 if officers either at present on active service or awaiting absorption were reckoned.

    Brussels Sugar Bounties Conference.
    MR. DAVID MACIVER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with
    586
    reference to the undertaking given by the British delegates at the Brussels Sugar Conference that no preferential treatment should be accorded in this country to sugar imported from British Colonies, whether His Majesty's Government will decline to ratify the Convention, so far as it relates to any agreement which would tie our hands as regards making our own terms with our own people in respect of the duties to be levied upon importations of whatever kind from our own Colonies, Dependencies, or Dominions.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH (for Lord CRANBORNE): Unless my hon. friend intends to suggest that when the bounties on sugar now given by foreign nations are abolished, we should at once proceed to give bounties ourselves on sugar coming to this country from the Colonies. I do not think there is anything in this Convention open to the objection he raises. But as we shall, as soon as possible, lay Papers on the Table which will explain the whole matter, I would suggest that any Questions on it should be deferred.

    Welsh Settlers in Patagonia.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the suggestion he recently made to a deputation from the Principality which waited upon him in respect to the emigration of Welsh settlers from Patagonia that they might go to a warmer climate rather than to that of Canada, was intended to be limited to South Africa.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I confess that I find some difficulty in understanding this Question. It appears to me to be an attempt at a joke. If so, it is a very bad joke, and I decline to answer it.

    Newfoundland—Croc Harbour—English and French Relations.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether stables and storehouses have been erected on the northeast coast of Newfoundland at Croc Harbour by the French naval authorities.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that there are any stables or storehouses at Croc Harbour. The French for many years kept a few cattle there to supply fresh meat for their ships of the Newfoundland Fisheries Service, but the place was abandoned in 1889. Some cattle were again placed there in 1895, but on a representation being made by the English Commodore to the French Senior Naval Officer, they were withdrawn, and since that date the French Naval authorities have not re-occupied the place.

    Destitute Aliens in London.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if the names of the Commissioners to inquire into the most speedy way of regulating the immigration of destitute aliens into the East End of London and other crowded centres have been submitted for His Majesty's approval; and, in such case, will he state when it will commence its labours, and the terms of reference.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): No Sir; but I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the subject very shortly.

    Seamen's Remittances from Foreign Ports.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what sum was received in the last financial year in respect of fees charged for remittances by seamen in foreign ports under the money order and transmission systems referred to in the Report of the Committee on the Engagement and Discharge of Seamen Abroad (C. 8577, 8th July, 1897), and if such sum appears, and under what head, in the Return presented to Parliament on 17th January (No. 12).
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I informed the hon. Member, in reply to a Question asked by him in May, 1901, that the sum charged during the last financial year was £1,018. The amount charged during the current financial year, which will expire at the end of the present month, cannot be given for some little
    588
    time after that date, as it will be necessary to await the receipt of the Accounts of the various Consuls concerned.

    Bakewell Anti-Vaccinationists.
    MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a Justice of the Peace at the petty sessions held at Bakewell, Derbyshire, on the 21st of February, informed an applicant for a certificate of exemption under the Vaccination Act that such people as the applicant ought to be set on an island by themselves and die of smallpox; and if steps can be taken to prevent such treatment of persons making legal applications.
    THE SECRETARY of STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I had not previously heard of the alleged remark; and I am not prepared to investigate the case, or to take any other steps in the matter.
    MR. LEVY: If I prove the accuracy of my Question, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not intend to make inquiry into any silly opinions expressed by Magistrates or any one else.

    Liverpool Food and Betterment Association.—Rating Difficulty.
    MR. DAVID MACIVER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the recent distraint for rates upon the premises of the Liverpool Food and Betterment Association, a local charitable institution; and whether he can see his way to placing the local authorities at Liverpool in such a position as shall empower them to make some reduction in, if not to grant exemption from, the full rates which they are at present entitled or compelled to demand.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL. GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): I have seen newspaper reports of the case, referred to. My right hon. friend has

    589
    no power to place the local authorities at Liverpool in the position suggested in the Question. Legislation would be necessary for the purpose of making any addition to present exemption from rating and, with regard to this, I may point out that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation recently recommended that no further extension of the principle of such exemptions should be permitted.

    Food Preservatives.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends to take steps, by the introduction of a Bill or otherwise, for giving effect at an early date to the recommendations of the Report of the Departmental Committee which inquired into the use of preservatives and colouring matters in the preservation and colouring of food; and whether he is aware of the opinion among the sanitary authorities in England in favour of those recommendations.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Report referred to is under consideration, and I cannot at present make any statement as to the course to be taken in regard to it. With respect to the last part of the Question, the Local Government Board have received only one or two communications from sanitary authorities on the subject.

    Welsh County Councils.—Powers of Combined Action.
    MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state to what extent if any, the County Councils of Wales and Monmouthshire have availed themselves of Section 81 of The Local Government Act, 1888, empowering them to take combined action for any purpose in respect of which they are jointly interested; and whether any difficulty has arisen under the provision in Sub-section 6 for meeting the costs of a Joint Committee.
    MR. GRANT LAWSON: I am unable to say to what extent the powers conferred by the section mentioned by the hon. Member have been acted upon in
    590
    Wales and Monmouthshire. I know of one case of the kind. I am not aware that any difficulty has arisen in meeting the costs of the Joint Committee. A question was, however, brought before the Local Government Board as to whether the accounts of the Committee could, for the purposes of audit, be treated as separate from the County accounts, and the Board pointed out that there was no statutory provision for the audit of the accounts of the Committee as a separate authority.

    Alleged Saccharine Smuggling from Havre.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether the discovery has been made that bags of flour have been utilised extensively at Havre for the purpose of smuggling saccharine and other dutiable goods into the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to prevent this practice.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Board of Customs have no knowledge of such extensive misdoings at Havre as those referred to, but they are fully alive to the possibility of attempts of the kind being made, and their officers are taking all precautions in their power to prevent the irregular importation of saccharine or other dutiable goods to the detriment of the Revenue.

    Penzance and London Mail Service.
    MR. HAIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the boroughs of St. Ives, Falmouth, and Penryn have been excluded from the new mail service which came into operation on the 1st January between Penzance and London; that the two hours later posting would be of advantage to these towns, bringing the North of England one day nearer to, them for postal purposes; and whether, seeing that under the new arrangement these towns are for local postal service worse off than before, the Postmaster General will make arrangements with the Great Western Railway Company by

    591
    which all places in West Cornwall may receive the benefit of the new mail service.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is true that the hours of the post in the boroughs of St. Ives, Falmouth, and Penryn have not been improved in connection with the recent alteration in the West of England Night Mail Service, but the primary object of that alteration was to obtain more accommodation in the mail trains. It was found possible, at the same time, to effect some improvement in the hours at places on the main line, but the Postmaster General did not feel himself justified in incurring considerable additional expenditure for the sake of improving the hours at places on branch lines. The hon. Member was, however, recently promised that the matter should be kept in view, and that advantage would be taken of any opportunity to accelerate the service to the places to which he refers, but the Postmaster General regrets that he cannot hold out any hope of such an improvement in the immediate future. Although a few local letters have, unfortunately, been delayed, the former hours of delivery and despatch of the night mails have been maintained practically unaltered at those places at which it has not been possible to afford an improvement.

    Illicit Stills.
    MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the reward paid to revenue officers for discovery of the illicit still in Scotland in the year 1901, and what was the average reward paid for each discovery of the 2,008 illicit stills in Ireland; whether he will say how many gallons of illicit whisky the revenue officers estimate are produced respectively in Scotland, Ireland, and England; and how many illicit stills were discovered respectively in Ulster, Munster, Leinster, and Connaught.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first question is £3 15s. 0d., to the second £1 7s. 9¼d. I cannot give any estimate of the amount of illicit whisky produced. The answer to the last question is—Ulster 241, Munster 8, Leinster 0, Connaught 1,759.

    Piccadilly Improvements.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to a report recently made to the London County Council by its Improvements Committee, detailing the negotiations which have taken place between the Council and His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests, with a view to secure, upon the expiration of the leases; and at a fair valuation, the strip of freehold land required for the setting back of the buildings on the northern side of Piccadilly, so as to widen to eighty feet the portion of the thoroughfare between the Circus and Sackville Street; and whether he can see his way to assist the object in view.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I have seen the report alluded to by the hon. Member. No doubt the setting back of the buildings on this site would afford a great improvement to the traffic in this crowded thoroughfare; and I should like to see such an improvement carried out. The matter, however, is one which does not come under my Department, and any Question on this subject should be addressed to the Treasury.

    Enforcement of Weights and Measures Act in Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the section of the Weights and Measures Act which declares the necessity for making a Return to the effect that no unstamped weights or measures are on a merchant's premises is generally enforced in Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): There is no provision in the Act, so far as I am aware, which requires a Return such as that indicated to be made. The hon. Member probably has in his mind the form of particulars supplied to traders before the date fixed for the yearly verification of weights and measures. These forms are also supplied at other times when traders obtain new weights or measures which they require

    593
    to be verified. The duties imposed on the ex officio Inspectors in these respects are strictly enforced in Ireland.

    Ballyroney and Newcastle (Co. Down) Railway.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any explanation is forthcoming for the neglect of the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) and the Belfast and Co. Down Railway Company to begin the construction of the connecting line between Ballyroney and Newcastle, for which they received statutory powers in 1900; and, whether he is prepared to undertake that, failing the making of the line within the time specified any application for extension of the statutory powers for its construction will be,opposed by the Government.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am informed that the Great Northern Railway Company are negotiating for the purchase of lands and taking all necessary steps to proceed with the making of the line from Ballyroney to Castle-Wellan. The remainder of the line is, I understand, to be constructed by the Belfast and County Down Railway Company. The Government cannot give any undertaking such as that indicated in the second part of the Question.

    Irish Agriculture — Seed Testing, Fertilisers, &c.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that up to the present no steps have been taken by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to enable farmers to gain a knowledge of their soils and the nutritive elements needed for full productiveness, notwithstanding the desire for this help to husbandry; and will he consider the desirability of establishing a testing-place in connection with the Department whereat the farmers of the country can have soils, seeds, and manures analysed at nominal charges.
    MR. ATKINSON: The Department have already established a seed-testing station at which farmers can have their
    594
    seeds tested for purity, germination, and germinating energy, at small fees. Provision is made in the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893, for the analy sis by district analysts of the local authorities of soil fertilisers and of feeding stuffs. The Department have suggested to the local authorities that they should arrange for the systematic taking of samples for analysis by their analysts; and have promised to contribute a proportion of the cost that may be so incurred. The Department will await the result of their recommendation to the local authorities before deciding what further action, if any, should be taken. The question of the analysis of soils is under consideration.

    Cost of County Administration in Tyrone.
    MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the cost of county administration (cess and poor rate combined) of County Tyrone for the standard year on which is based the agricultural grant; can he also give the amount of consolidated rates for the financial year now closing 1901–2; and will the adoption of half-yearly payments by the Tyrone County Council entitle that body to a re-adjustment of its officials' salaries to the figures at which they stood before the Local Government Board had them increased.
    MR. ATKINSON: The total amount of county cess and poor rate struck in the standard year in County Tyrone (irrespective of excluded charges) on which the grant is based is £67,804. The amount of the consolidated rates in the county for the year 1901–2, including the poor rate in urban districts, but irrespective of excluded charges, is £62,118. Whether the proposed change in the time of payment will affect official salaries must depend on the facts of each particular case. No general answer can be given.

    Kanturk Union and the Labourers' Acts.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent sworn inquiry in the Kanturk Union, under

    595
    the Labourers' Acts, at which Captain Connellan, Local Government Board Inspector, attended; is he aware that several applications made on behalf of the labourers for the additional half-acre plots have been rejected; and, if so, who is responsible for this rejection; and whether, in view of the fact that no opposition was offered by landlords or tenants, he can state on what grounds these applications for additional plots were rejected.
    MR. ATKINSON: The District Council withdrew a number of applications for additional half-acre plots. Others were rejected by the Inspector on the ground that the existing half-acres were not tilled, or that the owner or occupier had not received due notice, &c., &c. The reasons for the rejection in each case have been communicated to the District Council. Three hundred and twenty-two cottages and half-acre plots had already been provided in this rural district, and as a result of the recent inquiry it is proposed to authorise the erection of eighty-six additional cottages with one acre allotments, and the acquisition of additional half-acres for 127 cottages already built.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Are general instructions given to the Local Government Board Inspector to furnish the County Conncils concerned with their reasons for rejecting applications?
    MR. ATKINSON: I believe instructions are given, but I cannot state their precise nature without notice.

    Prosecution of Mr. Corr, at Templemore.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state what was the charge against Mr. Corr, recently sentenced to imprisonment at Templemore by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, constituted under the Act of 1887; and is he aware that the magistrates refused to allow counsel for Mr. Corr to test the competency and accuracy of the Government note taken, and will he state on whose evidence the prosecution relied; whether, seeing that the
    596
    County of Tipperary, in which the prosecution took place, has been for a considerable period exceptionally free from crime, he will take steps to stop such prosecutions in that county.
    MR. ATKINSON: The charge upon which Mr. Corr was convicted was one of taking part in an unlawful assembly. The accused has, I understand, appealed, and while that appeal is pending I must respectfully decline to answer any question touching the merits of the case or its conduct in the Court from whose decision the appeal has been taken. It is true that the County of Tipperary is unusually free from crimes of violence, but the crimes of organised boycotting and intimidation prevail in some districts, and so far from stopping such prosecutions as are referred to, the. Government will, wherever possible, endeavour to bring to justice those who are guilty of crimes of the latter description.

    Irish Gold Ornaments.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the-Exchequer when the Vote for Law Charges will be taken; and if he will give facilities for the discussion of the costs of the British Museum in connection with the Irish gold ornaments; if he will state what is the amount of these costs; and if he will lay the opinion of the Law Officers of Ireland and England upon the Table prior to the Vote, together with the text of the Treasury Demand for the surrender of these ornaments, the reply of the British Museum thereto, and the answer filed by the. British Museum in the case.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We have not yet been able to move the Speaker out of the Chair on Civil Service Estimates, and, therefore, I cannot say when the Vote for Law Charges will be taken, nor can I promise any facilities for the discussion of the matter referred to in the Question. The amount of the costs, cannot be ascertained till after the trial. As for the Papers for which the hon. Member asks, I understand they would prove a bulky correspondence, and I think that the hon. Member's object may be met by a short statement of what has

    597
    passed since the last Papers were published, which I will undertake to send to him.
    LORD BALCARRES: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that other Members of the House, as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite, see the statement?
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes; I will send the noble Lord a copy.

    Labourers' Act Inquiry at Ennis.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that at the recent Inquiry held at Ennis under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts the Local Government Board Inspector accommodated certain owners by hearing their cases out of the regular order, thereby causing inconvenience to labourers, he will request the Local Government Board to put a stop to this practice in future, and to direct their inspectors to hear all applications in their proper order.
    MR. ATKINSON: Only one case was taken out of its regular order at the Inquiry referred to, and this course was adopted at the request of the Solicitor of the District Council, with the consent of the other solicitors present who represented parties interested. No inconvenience whatever was caused to the labourers by the adoption of this course.

    Appeals against Convictions under the Crimes Act.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the hon. Member for South Mayo and Mr. Denis Johnston, on being sentenced to two months imprisonment at French-park on the 11th of last January by two resident magistrates sitting under The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, appealed to the County Court Judge, and that their appeal is fixed for hearing on the 14th of March, at Athlone, and seeing that both these gentlemen are at present in gaol on other convictions under this special legislation, whether any facilities, and, if so, what, are to be offered to enable them to appear.
    MR. ATKINSON: The accused can, by a simple application to the King's Bench Division for a writ of habeas corpus, secure their appearance in Court on the occasion of the hearing of the appeal. The Grown have no power to provide otherwise for their appearance, but every facility will be given them by the Executive in making this application.
    MR. DILLON: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these gentlemen shall be allowed to appear in Court without having to go through the expensive process of applying to the King's Bench? Will he not himself move that they be allowed to attend? He has not had the same experience in this matter as hon. Members on this side of the House.
    MK. ATKINSON: I will consider what facilities can be given.
    MR. HEMPHILL: Cannot the Crown apply for a writ of habeas corpus?
    MR. ATKINSON: That would be quite unusual except in a case of felony, where the accused must be present. I will, however, see what can be done.

    Irish Local Government Rates.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, under The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and the County Councils Order of 18th April, 1899, Councils of County Boroughs in Ireland are required to hand over to the Guardians one-fourth of their annual estimate and demand on the first quarter day after 23rd January, which in some cases is the 1st April, the day on which the rate is struck and before it could have been collected; and, seeing that, although the Councils are under a penalty for non-compliance with this requirement, the Local Government Board will not permit them to overdraw their accounts at their bankers to enable them; to comply with the demand, as the auditors of the Local Government Board have surcharged members of Councils with the bank interest on such overdrafts when made, whether it is the intention

    599
    of the Government to amend the law in order that the state of matters referred to may be altered.
    MR. ATKINSON: I am informed by the. Local Government Board that the County and Borough Councils should have no difficulty in complying with the demands of the Poor Law Guardians, inasmuch as they receive the amount of the Agricultural Grant before the 1st of April. The subject is too complicated to be adequately dealt with in the form of a Question and Answer, but I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with the Report I have received on the subject from the Local Government Board, if he so desires.
    MR. LOUGH: Can nothing be done in the case of large county boroughs which receive nothing out of the grant?
    MR. ATKINSON: It would require legislation.

    Irish Municipal Corporations Act.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that by the application of Enactments Order of 22nd December, 1898, Sub-section 3 of Section 22 of The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, that a member of the Council shall not vote or take part in the discussion of any matter before the Council, or a Committee, in which he has, directly or indirectly, any pecuniary interest, is made to apply to County Councils and District Councils, but not to the Councils of County Boroughs in Ireland; and, as there is no similar provision in the Irish Municipal Corporation Acts, if it is the intention of the Government to take steps to extend this provision to the six County Boroughs of Ireland.
    Ma. ATKINSON: The provision referred to was made for the new bodies created by the Local Government Act. 1898. Neither the Municipal Corporations Act of 1840, nor the Towns Improvement Act of 1854, contains similar provisions, and it was not considered necessary to alter the law in reference to the later bodies. I am not aware that any necessity exists for legislation on the subject.

    Herbert Estate, Co. Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the Irish Land Commission have sanctioned the advance of public money for the purchase of the holding of Daniel Healy on the Herbert Estate, Co. Kerry, on the understanding that the tenant was to be entitled to an outlet from his farm, whether the Land Commission will now take any steps to provide such passage, or otherwise to make proper compensation or allowance to the tenant.
    MR. ATKINSON: Daniel Healy's agreement to purchase makes no provision for special right of way to the farm through adjoining land. The sale to him was completed in accordance with the terms of his agreement, and he has now preserved to him under the Land Purchase Act such rights of way as he may have previously enjoyed as tenant. The Commissioners cannot interfere further in the matter, and they have no, power to compel adjoining owners to grant a right of way not hitherto in existence.
    MR. MURPHY: When I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Land Commission officials and representatives of the landlord guaranteed to this tenant, who is an illiterate person, an outlet, will he make further inquiry?
    MR. ATKINSON: The reply is specific that no special rights were reserved.
    MR. MURPHY: The guarantee was given in my presence.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot now discuss the rights and wrongs of this matter.

    Ex-Sergeant Sheridan.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord. Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the constabulary authorities, when preparing for the trial of tramp Ryan at the prosecution of Sergeant Sheridan for posting up threatening notices on a gate at Mullagh, Co. Clare, discovered that the paper on which the threatening notices had been written was official

    601
    paper from the office of the police inspector of the district; and will he state what action, if any, he proposes to take in this matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: There is no foundation for the statement that the threatening notices were written on official paper. The answer to the last query is, therefore, in the negative.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Constable Keegan, who was present with Sergeant Sheridan at the burning of Mrs. Quinlan's hay near Hospital, county Limerick, in the end of November, 1897, was examined at the winter assizes in Cork six days later as a witness against Constable Bray for the burning of the hay, and that Constable Keegan aided Constable Sheridan in procuring a Conviction against Bray and a sentence of three years imprisonment; is he aware that Constable Keegan afterwards at the police inquiry in Hossital in June last swore it was Sergeant Sheridan who burned the hay; and can he explain why, when Constable Keegan subsequently resigned the police force, he received a gratuity from the Government.
    MR. ATKINSON: The action of the Government in this case has been discussed in detail by my right hon. friend. It is not one that can properly be further discussed by means of Question and answer, and when a suitable opportunity again presents itself my right hon. friend will be prepared to give any further explanations that may be required and to defend the course adopted by the Government.

    Albert Institute, Dublin.
    Mr. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain why the Board of Agriculture and Technical Education for Ireland have so far departed from their programme of last year in regard to technical education, which provided for free places at the Albert Institute, Dublin, for a certain number of boys who had qualified for the entrance examination, and in view of the fact that in the session now opened
    602
    at this institute such boys are debarred, provision being only made for those who are prepared to pay a fee amounting to, £17 for the summer term, if he will take steps to hasten the supplementary prospectus as promised, providing for free places, and so enable poor boys who were prepared to offer themselves for examination to avail themselves of the advantages of the institution at an early date.
    MR. ATKINSON: My right hon. friend has already stated that the supplementary prospectus, which will deal with the course beginning in October next, will be issued as soon as possible.

    Canal and Railway Rates in Ireland.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the members of the Birr No. 1 District Council have protested against the proposed raising of rates on the canal and railway systems as being prejudicial to business and farming and other interests; and, seeing that the action of the railway and canal companies in Ireland in this respect is at variance with the practice of similar companies in America, Australia, and other countries where railways carry farm produce at low rates, whether he intends to take any action in the matter.
    MR. ATKINSON: The District Council have protested against the application to be made by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to the Railway Commissioners for their consent to increased rates. It has already been stated that the Department of Agriculture will appear before the Railway Commissioners on behalf of aggrieved persons, and that the application will be heard after Easter.

    Forestry in Ireland.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the South of Ireland is being rapidly denuded of trees by the clearances of woods and plantations; and whether, with a view to remedy this evil, it is proposed to take any, and, if so, what steps to assist County Councils in Ireland to carry out the planting of suitable waste lands.
    MR. ATKINSON: The County Councils of Ireland have power to include re-afforesting in any general schemes put forward by them for the consideration of the Department of Agriculture, and to support these schemes by financial assistance. I believe any project of the kind will be most favourably considered by the Department.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ireland contributes £200,000 yearly towards the upkeep of public parks in London?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Mallaranny Foreshore Rights.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the right to the foreshore, below low water mark, near Mallaranny, Co. Mayo, has been assigned to the owner of Rosturk Castle; and, if so, for what consideration. Have the residents in the locality any rights over such foreshores; and, if so, what are those rights.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Trade have lately been advised that the Crown parted with its rights in the foreshore (i.e., the shore between high and low water mark) near Mallaranny more than 200 years ago, but it is impossible to say for what consideration. I am not able to give any information as to what rights (if any) the residents in the locality have over such foreshore. As regards the bed of the sea below low water mark at the place in question, the Board of Trade have not parted with the Crown rights, nor are they aware of any claim having been made thereto?

    Fastnet Rock Lighthouse.
    MR. DAVID MACIVER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the illuminant for the new lighthouse on Fastnet Rock, Co. Cork, and the characteristic appearance of the light have been decided upon; and can he say when it is likely the new light will be ready for exhibition.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The illuminant for the Fastnet Lighthouse will be oil, and the characteristic will be
    604
    a white light shown through a biform apparatus and giving one flash every five seconds. I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that they expect the light to be exhibited at the end of the autumn of 1903.

    Dublin Sorting Office.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the duty scheme introduced in the Dublin sorting offices last April has not given effect, as intended, to the Tweedmouth recommendation, that officers performing split duties have an interval of nine clear hours at their own homes; and that since the introduction of this scheme there has been an increase in extra duties; and, seeing that all officers performing extra duty are called upon to give a triple attendance, whether the Postmaster General will consider the making of an arrangement whereby a continuous eight hours attendance could be given.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: So far as regards the letter sorting office in Dublin, the scheme of April last has provided for a clear interval of at least nine-and-a-half hours off duty for each officer; but in the parcel office there are still a few duties which do not admit of so long an interval. Under present circumstances it is not practicable to give all officers a continuous eight hours attendance. A revision of the sorting office force is, however, being prepared which will have the effect of affording a full interval in all cases, and also of materially diminishing extra duty which has of necessity somewhat increased during the past year.

    University Education in Ireland.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state when the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland are likely to produce their final Report.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir. The Commission will not be in session again until early next month, when the inqniry of the hon. Member will be brought before them.

Business of the House.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer again with reference to the Orders of the Day. I notice he has put down the Civil Service Estimates. May we take it that that has simply been done as a matter of precaution, and that there is no idea of taking them? I wish also to know if he will give at least two days notice when it is intended to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on these Estimates.
Sin M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right; the Civil Service Estimates have been put down as a matter of precaution, and I have no intention of taking them tonight. Perhaps I may remind the House that I promised the other day, on the assumption that both Vote A and Vote 1 were passed by the end of tomorrow's sitting, that I would place Monday at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for the discussion of the Motion of which lie has given notice. I have no reason at present to anticipate that we may not be able to do that, but should it appear from the course of the debate to be necessary, I will move the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule on Friday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What will be the business for next week?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The Report stages of the Votes to be included in the Appropriation Bill. These render it necessary to adhere to the course suggested, otherwise the discussion appointed for Monday will have to be postponed. I will, however, state tomorrow what will be the order of business.
MR. LOUGH: Why is it necessary to get these Votes before Monday? It has not been usual in other years.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I should like to ask whether, in the event of the discussion on the statement for the Secretary of War in its general aspect not being taken before Mr. Speaker is moved out of the chair, the Committee will have full opportunity of discussing it on either Vote A or Vote 1
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Certainly we shall endeavour to secure that.
MR. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I believe the course I suggested to be necessary in view of the other business we have before us. We have to get the Report of several large Votes.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members look upon the statement of the Secretary of War as the most important made since Mr Cardwell's famous scheme, which was laid before the House previous to legislation; and is he also aware that the debate on Vote A is likely to be largely taken up on the Motion for a reduction of the number of men?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am afraid I can only say that if these Votes are not obtained tomorrow, we shall have to proceed with them on Monday, and the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition will have to be adjourned.

NEW BILL.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  "For the acquisition of certain land in Dublin as a site for a proposed Royal College of Science and other offices and buildings for the public service; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Austen Chamberlain, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

SUPPLY—COMMITTEE (ARMY ESTIMATES).
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [4th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Question again proposed.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT, who had on the Paper the following Notice—
"To call attention to the organisation of the Volunteer Force, to the patriotic readiness with which it has furnished officers and men to

607
the Army in South Africa, to the difficulties it labours under in the matter of rifle ranges, manœuvring ground, drill grounds, drill halls, and finance,"
said: I do not believe the House will think that any apology is necessary from me for having placed this Notice on the Paper. The Secretary for War made extended references to the improvement of the Volunteer force, and I have no doubt he will be glad of this opportunity to make more detailed explanations of his scheme, for I am bound to say that his remarks on Tuesday, though not in any way intended to reflect on the force as a whole caused considerable pain to a very large number of individuals. I shall therefore have to claim the indulgence of the House while I refer at length to this subject. I will, however, compress my remarks as much as possible. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to exempt the regiment which I have the honour to command from a share in the observations he made, and I shall therefore approach this matter entirely from an impersonal point of view. I quite recognise that there are regiments and regiments, and that all cannot be brought into that state of efficiency which is possible in London where the corps are more concentrated. Associated as I have been with the command of a regiment for twenty years, I cannot dissociate myself from the general welfare of the force.
Allow me to call attention to the present organisation of the Volunteer force. It consists of 222 battalions of infantry, 68 regiments of artillery, 28 corps of engineers, and 8 of the Volunteer Medical Staff. In October last it numbered 295,000, of whom 97,000 were returned as efficient and 22,000 proficient. Excluding the pay of adjutants and sergeant-instructors, who are members of the Regular Army, the Volunteer force cost the country a little over £1,000,000, and it is therefore one of the cheapest armies in the world. The sum works out at £3 10s. per head, as against over £100 a year for the regular soldier, £8 for the militiaman, and £39 for the Imperial Yeoman. It has endeavoured to keep abreast of the times, for in 1870, only 88 per cent. were efficient, and there were only 8,000 proficient. When the force was originally
608
formed service abroad was not contemplated; but any doubt as to their willingness and ability to undertake active service was dispelled in 1899. At the time a very much larger number of men was required than the War Office had at its command, and the Volunteer force promptly offered to augment the field force. Many individuals and many regiments tendered their services, and although they were then rejected by the War Office, a state of affairs arose in what is known as the Black Week in December, 1899, which made it quite evident that the calculations of the War Office as to the force required were entirely erroneous and that a larger force would be necessary. What did the Volunteer forces do? In January, 1900 they raised and sent out to South Africa 10,787 men at soldier's pay and reinforced them in 1901 by 5,985 men, and they added 5,045 to the levies of Yeomanry. Nor is this all. If hon. Members consult the recruiting returns they will see that every month a very considerable number of Volunteers have joined the regular army; and that between July and October last 800 men joined the regular army from the Volunteer force every month. That shows what an admirable recruiting field there is in the Volunteer forces for the regular army, and that anything which would increase the popularity of the Volunteers is a great and direct advantage to the regular army.
I will deal first with the field force. There is a direct contribution from the Volunteer forces to the field force in South Africa of no less than 22,000 men, besides about 30,000 going from the volunteers indirectly, and that without counting many men of the Imperial Yeomanry who did not join as volunteers. The Secretary of State for War in introducing the Estimates said that there are just under 5,000 volunteers at the present time in South Africa attached to the field force, but this does not include several thousand volunteers serving at the present time in the Imperial Yeomanry. After the observations of my right hon. friend, I must read a short passage from a speech which Lord Roberts, the Commander-in-Chief, made

609
to the City Imperial Volunteers in Pretoria on 2nd October. 1900. He said—
"I have always been a firm believer in the volunteer movement, and I have had strong convictions that some of the best material in the Army is to be found in our Volunteer force. The admirable work now performed by C.I.V.'s and by the Volunteers attached to the regular battalions serving in South Africa and by the Imperial Yeomanry had, I rejoice to say, proved that I was right, and that England, relying as she does on the patriotic volunteer system for her defence, is resting on no broken reed. You have proved your worth, and now you return to receive the well-merited applause of your fellow-countrymen."
I am sorry to say that that applause was not carried into the speech of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War on Tuesday last. General Smith Dorrien, one of the strongest Generals in South Africa, and now Adjutant-General of the Army in India, on September 28th, 1900, telegraphed to the City Imperial Volunteers as follows—
"No regiment of the Army in South Africa has done more splendid work, and I have not only appreciated the honour of having them under my command, but I have been given a pleasure which I shall never forget. Up to the last day some of the corps have been with me. This little band of mounted infantry have, to my mind, done the finest mounted infantry work I have seen in this campaign. For three days they were our only mounted troops, the Boers disputing position after position with rifles and guns, but such was the dash and skill with which Concannon worked his men that our advance was not even delayed. Goodbye, and all the good luck they deserve, to the Volunteers."
One other quotation. On Saturday last there was another speech made to the Volunteers in Birmingham, delivered by Sir Reginald Pole-Carew, who commanded the brigade of Guards and a division for a considerable time in South Africa; in the course of which he made these observations—
"On all occasions the Volunteers in his division proved themselves well worthy to serve alongside the British soldier, and when he said that, he had said that they were fit to serve with or against any Army in the field."
Yet this is the force which was referred to in well-meant but still disparaging terms from that Table on Tuesday last. I venture to submit to the House that the Volunteer force as a whole, so far from deserving this disparagement after having sent all these men to South Africa, merited more generous observations from my right hon. friend.
610
But, Sir, this disparagement was not confined to the observations of my right hon. friend. An Army Order was issued on 16th January last, and there is a passage in that Order which has given very great offence to large numbers of the volunteer forces. I cannot say that I interpreted it so adversely myself, but it is undoubtedly offensive to others, because I have received communications from commanding officers in all parts of the country pointing out the unfortunate wording of that Army Order. It reads that—
"For some years the volunteer force has constantly claimed to be seriously accepted as a reliable and organised section of the Army for home defence."
I submit that all that the volunteer forces have ever claimed was to endeavour to do their best according to the opportunities afforded them. What view the military authorities take of it is another matter; but it is hardly fair to say that they constantly claim a position to which they are not entitled. I do not think that either Lord Roberts, who spoke of the volunteers in the terms I have quoted, or the Adjutant-General, General Kelly-Kenny who was for some time Inspector-General of the auxiliary forces, was a party to that Army Order, or that General Turner, the present Inspector-General of the auxiliary forces was a party to it. I express the feeling of the whole Volunteer force when I say that they have never had an Inspector General snore sympathetic, more painstaking, and more anxious to do all he can for the welfare of the auxiliary forces from the highest to the lowest. I do happen to know who penned this Army Order, but I do not think I should mention any names, as I do not want to introduce any personal matter into the question. All I can say is that it was an unfortunate thing that it was worded as it was, and the speech of my right hon. friend coming on the top of it, has added to the grievous feeling. In October last, the Volunteer forces numbered 295,000; in January these had fallen by 18,000. I am perfectly ready to admit that between November and January there are always a number of resignations, but this year they were very much in excess of any previous year, and the recruits were very

611
much fewer. My own regiment has at the present time 370 men less than three years ago. Many officers have become seriously alarmed at the calls made upon them by the new Rules of the War Office, and some have taken offence against the Order that has been issued. Take another regiment, with which I am acquainted—the Hallamshire Rifles. It has had only one recruit this year compared with over seventy in the same period of last year. This statement was made to me last night by the Commanding Officer, who authorised me to quote it. And this is one of the best regiments in Yorkshire and sent out repeated contingents to South Africa. I direct the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the effect which has been produced by the wording of these new Rules, by the Army Order, and by the unfortunate words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman himself.
THE SECRETARY OF ST ATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I hope that the hon. Member does not mean to suggest that the Army Order, which he has carefully explained, though without any authority, does not carry out the views of the Commander-in-Chief or of the Inspector-General of Volunteer forces —that that Army Order, published under Lord Roberts' name, was published at my instance and against the wishes of the military authorities.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to disclaim responsibility for the Army Order.
MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. I have to take the responsibility for any Army Order issued; but my hon. friend having singled out all the officers, one by one, who he thought were not responsible for the Army Order, left the House to understand that I was responsible for that Order against the wishes of the Army Board, and also for the remarks I made in introducing the Estimates which he does not altogether approve of.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It would be very easy for me to give the name of the officer who was the author of the Army Order, but I should not be
612
justified in doing so. The Secretary of State for War will have an opportunity later on of explaining how this Army Order was worded as it was.
Now, if the House will allow me, I wish to call attention to one or two points in connection with the Volunteer forces, and to the very great difficulties which commanding officers labour under. I do not want to weary the House with details, but I may state generally that a commanding officer is solely responsible for everything connected with the corps, including its debts. Therefore, everything connected with its finances or welfare is of the most vital importance to himself. I will take the difficulties under which the Volunteer forces labour. First, as regards the rifle ranges. The War Office authorities quite rightly insist on a very high standard of musketry, but it must be remembered that it is from men whose time is not entirely at their own control. That standard has been continually increased, but side by side with that increase, the facilities for shooting have been absolutely diminished. In all urban district there is the very greatest difficulty in obtaining any suitable range at all, especially for modern rifles. The commanding officer is entirely responsible for all the arrangements for carrying out the musketry course; and he has to pay the rent of the ranges out o the funds of the corps. Now, if the War Office authorities were to relieve the Volunteer forces of their liability in this respect, and their responsibility, not only for the rent of the present and even longer ranges, but for the provision of drill halls, then a great deal of the difficulty would disappear, and they might reasonably exact a higher standard. If the Volunteers, as has been stated, are to shoot fifty more rounds than at present in their musketry course, then the very greatest difficulty will be experienced in fulfilling the requirements of the War Office. It takes a Volunteer practically a whole afternoon to fire a single course at the targets. When he arrives at the range, after having, with difficulty, obtained leave from his employer, he finds a great crowd of Volunteers there already, and very likely the weather becomes dark and unsuitable for shooting, and his whole time is wasted. I do hope my

613
right hon. friend will be most careful how he increases the requirements; and that he will really look at the matter from a practical point of view, and see whether the Volunteers can fulfil them.
As regards manœuvres, it is perfectly true that everybody who knows anything about the subject, and still more any one who has seen anything of the South African War, will recognise that our manœuvring grounds are extremely small; and that for corps in towns it is extremely difficult to find any adequate space for field training. In London, with its 30,000 Volunteers, there is scarcely a single place nearer than seven or eight miles, where adequate field training can be practised in any shape or form. Even when a regiment goes out, it finds the place occupied, and it is extremely difficult to do anything useful. This is the case, also, with regard to drill halls. It seems absurd, according to the regulations which have been issued, to require that half the combatant officers and a third of the men should be present in order that a parade should count. That meant in the case of his own regiment, that thirty officers and 600 men should be present; and if 599 men and thirty officers attend and the 600th cometh not, the regulation absolutely is that the parade is not to count. As regards company drill, the regulation is somewhat similar. Eighteen men and one commissioned officer or sergeant was the old number required; but under the new regulation, all the officers and men must be from the same company, and the drill must include one commissioned officer, four non-commissioned officers, and twenty men. If twenty-four men attend and the twenty-fifth does not turn up, the time of the twenty-four is entirely wasted. It is obvious that a system such as that is absolutely impracticable. My right hon. friend, on my calling his attention to this matter, appointed a Committee, of which the Financial Secretary to the War Office was a member, and the Under Secretary of State President. That Committee has been sitting some time, and when it reports, as I hope it will at an early date, to the Secretary of State, I trust that some of these difficulties will disappear. But I would earnestly ask the Secretary of State if, before making
614
these great innovations, it would not have been much better, if he had consulted with a few officers who understand the force. The officers are all anxious to work with him and to be efficient, but the injury which is done by issuing these regulations, and then having to appoint a Committee to see whether they are practicable, is very great. How much better it would have been to have appointed the Committee first of all to see what should be done and then to do it carefully.
Then there is the matter of these new regulations emanating from an Order in Council. We all know the unfortunate circumstances under which my right hon. friend was unable to be in the House during the last days of the last session. He had an admirable representative in my noble friend the Financial Secretary, but it was quite by accident that I found that this Order in Council had been put on the Table. Who was responsible for bringing it on, almost smuggling it on in the very last days of the session, I do not know. It was by accident I found it, and I came up a long distance from the country in order to call attention to it. My noble friend, replying to my observations regarding it on the Appropriation Bill, said—
"There was no intention of adhering to them as hard and fast rules, and if it were found that in any place the shoe pinched, something would be done to remedy it. As he said, he could not give a pledge that the requests which had been made would be complied with; but he had it from his right hon. friend the Secretary for War to say that in the autumn he would bring together all the objections which had been raised to his scheme with regard to the Volunteers and lay them, not before a Committee, but before those who were best able to advise him, and that in every case in which it was found that the objections could be met without loss of efficiency, they would be met in the fullest and frankest manner."
Therefore, after an observation of that kind on behalf of the War Office, it was with some astonishment that the fore found these new regulations of so serious a character so suddenly issued. It is true my right hon. friend received a deputation, but when he received it I think none of his advisers were present. I am informed that the Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces was not with him. Whether that was so or not, I do

615
not know, because I was not in this country at the time; but I have been told that his advisers on the Volunteer force were not with him on that occasion. I have already dealt with the question of ranges and drill halls, and will only add that drills will be rather difficult, if the War Office require, and I think they are right in requiring, a more extended training than in the past; but it is their paramount duty to provide places where we can drill. If not, they have no right to insist on these hard and fast rules. If they do, they must give us facilities for carrying out the regulations. These conditions do not apply so much to country corps as to metropolitan and urban corps. They are very vital indeed, and attention ought to be given to them. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War made a statement the other day with reference to certain corps. No doubt some corps are well managed and some are badly managed. But in a very large number of men—295,000, with 400 separate units—of course it is obvious, whether they be regular or auxiliary forces, that there must be corps and corps. We all know that with the regular Army, as with the Militia and Volunteers, some regiments are better managed than others. But the matter of finance is at the bottom of the whole thing. I may explain to the House, as many hon. Members cannot possibly be aware of it, that the whole burden of finance falls on the commanding officer, and that anything which diminishes very materially the capitation grant deprives him of a considerable portion of his income, with the result that he does not know where he is, or how to make his engagements. He cannot rent increased premises or increased range accommodation, he has to be extremely careful to save every penny he possibly can, and he cannot enter into any future contracts. Every one acquainted with the Volunteer force knows that there is great competition for range and drill hall sites, manœuvring grounds and so on, and if a commander wishes to obtain them, he must be very sharp and active indeed, and be prepared to enter into a lease for a number of years. He cannot do that unless the financial position of the corps is absolutely secure.
616
My right hon. friend must allow me to call his serious attention to certain matters connected with finance. Of all things, the War Office ought to keep faith with the auxiliary forces, not alone the auxiliary forces in the field, but with the Volunteers and Militia. My regiment, like others, was encouraged to form a mounted infantry company two years ago, and we were given ten days, or a fortnight, with which to raise a mounted infantry corps of 180 men. We were told, if we did that, we would be entitled to a capitation grant of £4 a year, and saddlery and accoutrements. My hon. and gallant friend behind me (Col. Denny),and other commanding officers, as well as myself, raised companies on these conditions, and, suddenly, without a moment's notice, we found the capitation grant cut down, first to the ordinary grant, and then it was increased to £1. But we had entered into contracts to stable the horses and to keep the saddlery, and we engaged men for a term of four years, on condition that there should be a £4 capitation grant. The same remark applies to the cyclists. We engaged to form a cyclist company, 116 or 120 strong, and we were to have an extra capitation grant of £2 per head. We formed the Company, but there again the grant was cut down by a half. We had to keep faith with the men, and the War Office does not keep faith with us, and we do not know where we are.
Sir, we all appreciate the hard work and industry of my right hon. friend, but I do earnestly urge on him to pay attention to these matters, if he values the Volunteers at all. If he does not value the Volunteer force, he has a very simple remedy in his hands. The Volunteers have sent thousands of men to South Africa, and 30,000 to the regular Army. We have done our best for 40 years, but if my right hon. friend does not believe any more in the Volunteers, and if he wants compulsory service, we are all of us quite ready. We have no personal motive to serve, we receive no pay, we have nothing to gain; and if the country does not require us, I am quite sure we are all quite ready to take our discharge or whatever the right term is, although we hope it will not come to that. If my right hon. friend is convinced that compulsory service is the thing

617
necessary, let him say so. Some hon. Members are of that opinion. I do not say whether my right hon. friend is right or not, but if he is, let him not undermine the Volunteer force to introduce compulsory service by a side wind. We are entitled to some little thanks and fair treatment for all our services during forty years. We admire my right hon. friend's gift of language; he found it very easy the other night to tell the House good stories and to have the laugh of the House with him. My right hon. friend, I think, should have reflected on the great pain which stories of this character are calculated to give, not only to those who are doing their best, but also to the 7,000 or 8,000 men who are living irksome lives in South Africa. Many of them gave up civil employment, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean anything very serious by his observations.
MR. BRODRICK: My hon. and gallant friend will recollect that I particularly explained to the House that the observations which I made had reference to a very few corps—the worst managed corps —and had no reference whatever to the great body of volunteers throughout the country, and I particularly added that it would be impossible to bring those corps up to the level of efficiency merely by increasing the amount of money paid to them.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I am glad to hear the observation that has fallen from my right hon. friend, but I still think it would be better to improve the corps. The commanding officer is only appointed for four years, and if it is desirable to remove him sooner it is quite possible to do it, but do riot turn into ridicule the whole force for simply the defects of one or two corps. A private Member's words do not have much effect, but, speaking as a Minister of War in this way, whose words are printed verbatim in all the papers throughout this and every country in the Empire, it does a great deal of harm. I am sure my right hon. friend will be glad to have this opportunity to correct any misapprehension. I must touch on the three stories. In regard to the old "chesnut," which relates to himself, and which he delights in telling at
618
volunteer banquets and officers' dinners, he told it to me privately once, and this is the third time I have heard it, and I am weary thereof. It was a story of his undergraduate days. I daresay we all did extraordinary things in our undergraduate and in our younger days which we should not do now. But in one thing I can make his mind easy. He was doubtful if he ought to refund £2 10s. conscience money for his capitation grant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not know when my right hon. friend was at Oxford, but the capitation grant was not given until 1873, so that if it was before that he need not do so. But what was true of the force in 1875 is not true of the force in 1902. The force has greatly improved, and does everything it can to improve itself, and we do not think the old stories of which Punch had so many pictures in other days should be reproduced today. There were two other stories, one of a commanding officer who was sent for to confer with the Secretary of State, and who charged his expenses.
MR. BRODRICK: He was not sent for. He said he came up.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg my right hon. friend's pardon; he came up, but lie came on duty and he charged his expenses. But I have always understood when the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State or any officials of the War Office go anywhere on duty they always charge their expenses. Then there was another officer who made payments to his corps at the expense of the corps. We ought to have the particulars of that case, and if they are not satisfactory the officer ought to be brought to book. I should think very likely upon inquiry we should find it was only giving food to the men after a long march or several hours of duty, and, if so, it was a proper thing to do. But let us have the particulars, do not attempt to throw ridicule on the force with two or three stupid stories of other days. I will not detain the House at further length, because there are others who want, I know, to speak. I put a Motion down on the Paper, but as I understand I cannot take a division on it, it is not necessary to move it. If it had been possible to take

619
a division I would move it. But I was only anxious to draw attention to the difficulties under which the Volunteers labour. The country is, I believe, attached to the Volunteer force, and has no intention whatever of dispensing with that force, at any rate at the present time, or supplementing it by any other force.
MR. CHARLES SPENCER: I know I ought to apologise to the House for intervening in this debate, more especially as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that while the Volunteers were only valued at £3 10s., the Yeomanry were valued at £39. I admit that I am but humble and lowly, but at the same time I must enter my protest against the remark the right hon. Gentleman made on Tuesday night last. Let not the right hon. Gentleman think for a moment that we did not see that his words were intended to be humorous. The House laughed—it is very difficult to make the House laugh—and the right hon. Gentleman must have credit for having made it laugh. But outside the House considerable harm has been done to the force, I have heard, by the remarks, humorous as they may have been, made by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman intended to speak contemptuously of the force, but his words published broadcast throughout the country have done great harm. Take one case that I know, take the recruiting. Is it likely that men will come forward to join as recruits when the chief of the army in this country is laughing at the whole of the force? Recruiting is hard at all times I know. At the present time it is extremely hard. Is it likely, when we are doing all we can to increase the efficiency of this force, that men will come forward and join it when remarks, which I confess I think were unfortunate, are made by the Secretary of State in this House. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of efficiency rather as if he himself and Lord Roberts were under the impression that no volunteer had any idea of efficiency. We spend our time and money in trying to procure efficiency, and we try to make the volunteer forces as efficient as a volunteer force can be, and though the volunteer forces may be inefficient the country calls
620
upon them to perform duties for which it is necessary they should be efficient.
There is one reason why I feel hurt by the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman last Tuesday. I am connected with just as good a regiment as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I do not think it is quite so large in numbers, but I think it is as good a regiment as can be met with coming from the rural districts. Does the right hon. Gentleman know the enormous difficulties we have in the rural districts to arrive at proper efficiency in a volunteer force? Take the case of my own company: men live miles from the headquarters and come seven or eight miles to drill, and then, with regard to ranges, they go miles to the new range which happily we have been able to secure. All these difficulties and the train facilities on which our volunteer force largely depends should be, I think, considered by the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office. But I know this late volunteer order has done a great deal of harm; it has discouraged the men and has taken the heart out of some of the older volunteers who are anxious to remain in the force. Nobody expects a volunteer force to be as splendid in its drill arrangements as the guards, but though we are not quite so good as the guards, I am not sure that we are much behind them, and I will guarantee some volunteers to make as good a show as any regulars we have sent out to South Africa. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office generally is not to treat the difficulties of the volunteer officers in an unsympathetic and contemptuous manner. We do not claim large sums of money for what we do. Believing as I do the enormous importance of the volunteer movement. I cannot sit down without saying I feel somewhat sore at the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
COLONEL DENNY: On Tuesday the House had the pleasure of listening to a speech by the Secretary of State for War, which in many of its parts was masterly,. Being a frank recognition of the faults of our system, and a fearless indication of how that system could be put right.

621
It was an acknowledgment that up till now our soldier has been underpaid, that his terms of service have been too long, that in fact the War Office has been mistaken. Such a frank acknowledgment of error will always bring forgiveness. The speech will be celebrated, I think, for the historical research which was brought to bear in the hunting for arguments to support the right hon. Gentleman's theory. The House dived with him into the ashes of the Norman Conquest, to have disinterred a story of how the head of the then War Office, William Rufus, treated 10,000 unfortunate volunteers. We panted after him down the centuries, as, skipping sometimes two or three hundred years, the Secretary of State artistically brought out in strong relief the iniquities and incapacities of administrations, which tended to throw up in a strong light the work and the importance of the existing establishment in Pall Mall. Sir, no one in this House, I think, grudges the Secretary of State his triumph over the dead and gone—thank Heaven, dead and gone! effects of the Peninsular and Crimean Wars. We are thankful that we live in brighter and in better times, and that we find ourselves in more capable hands. The world has been improving all round; the country has not stood still, and it would have been a pity if the War Office had been the one institution that had made no progress.
In the Secretary of State's description of what is to be done for the soldier, I think the House must have gone with him as a whole. We do recognise that with the present wages in industry you cannot expect men to take service with the Regulars, only to be thrown out when too old to commence a trade, fit for nothing but labourers. The Secretary of State has taken a proper step. A man when he leaves at the end of three years will not now be too old to learn a trade. If he leaves at the end of eight years he will have had opportunities of saving, and I presume he will still have the power of re-engaging to complete his twenty-one years. All the right hon. Gentleman said about the Army we are thankful for and proudly endorse. His compliments to the Militia are reiterated by us who belong to a junior
622
force, and our gratitude to that great constitutional body of men is heightened by the fact that for so many years their excellencies remained unknown to the War Office, of whom they were the ill-treated and despised step-children. Touching next on the Yeomanry, the Secretary of State said not a word that we cannot endorse. I think if he looks over the list of those who have gone out in that wonderful force he will find not a few names who are on the rosters of Volunteer regiments. Sir, it is when we come to the "Cinderella" of the War Office—shoved into that position vice the Militia promoted—that the Secretary of State and every Volunteer in this House and in the country part company. I have seen many creations of nature dancing. I have seen the little animal, the tiny but graceful creature, skipping from flower to flower, hardly leaving a trace on the petal of where its foot touched; and I have seen the other animal, the pachyderm, whose terpsichorean evolutions were a standing menace to the feet of unwary by standers. So is it with the play of human wit. There is the wit which pierces like a needle, a momentary pang and it is gone, having served its purpose, without leaving an indication of where it had taken effect; and there is the wit, whose lightest touch weighs a hundredweight, and which when lifted has left a bruise which is difficult to heal and very much more difficult to forgive. That exemplifies the treatment which the force that I am proud to be connected with met at the hands of the Secretary of State in his speech. The Secretary of State speaks about our not being efficient enough. Have we ever refused to meet the demands of the War Office? I defy the Secretary of State to bring an instance. I admit that as to this last issue of regulations we question the advisability of having a series of cast-iron rules issued from an already over-worked Department, in the midst of a great war, and harassed by such events as everyone regrets. But there was no denial of our intention to work for efficiency, and if we are to be accused of inefficiency let it be done in such a way that it gives no unnecessary offence.

623
What were the stories brought forward by the Secretary of State for War? First of all, he accused former Secretaries of State for War—I see one opposite—and others about having said smooth things about the Volunteers, because they are a popular force, and because they wanted themselves to court popularity, while he is prepared to run counter to every popular feeling, for the sake of telling what he thinks to be the truth. I admire candour, but when a member of an administration boasts of possessing candour at the expense of his colleagues, I do not so much approve of it. Let me recite a few of the stories very shortly—I hope the House will allow me to do so—because I think it is better we should have this question of the Volunteers thrashed out once and for all, so that we may know where we stand. First of all, we have a story of what, according to the heading in a newspaper the next morning, are "Pious Frauds," and the first one has been committed by the Secretary of State himself. When in Oxford, he yielded to the blandishments of a commanding officer to personate an absent sergeant, thereby doing the Government out of £2 10s. The Secretary of State, who was then, according to himself, an innocent undergraduate, did not know what he was doing. Sir, there is an amphibious body of men in His Majesty's service, whose depôt I think is at Portsmouth, who have archives for stories of that description. There is then the story of bankrupt regiments—for I beseech the house to remember that the right hon. Gentleman was not in the singular number—that bankrupt regiments out of their want of cash have been in the habit of spending money on entertainments to their friends. If that is going on, it can be checked every year by the auditors' department in the accounts we have to render in great detail, and if it has not been checked it is the fault of the War Office; but that it prevails to any extent at all is to my mind absolutely not the case. We then have the story of falsification of registers. Might I recall to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman that these registers are not kept by volunteers; that it is the duty of the regular soldiers attached to the regiment to keep those registers; and that it is the duty of the
624
adjutant, who is a regular soldier also, to supervise those non-commissioned officers? In shooting at the volunteer pigeon the right hon. Gentleman has hit the regular crow. I do not like tu quoques; it is not a nice form of argument, but it is forced upon me. The next is about some sergeant-instructor, who appears to have been the "Pooh Bah" of his regiment, filling every office in turn. He made himself pay clerk, for which he drew an indefinite number of shillings; he made himself, or was made, orderly room clerk, for which he drew 1s. a day, and he then voted himself into the position of assistant to himself, for which he paid himself another 3d. a day. This was—if he were an instructor, which I think the right hon. Gentleman said—a regular soldier, employed in the orderly room, where the adjutant (another regular soldier) is all-powerful.
Are not these stories just a little too thin? Are they good enough to bring before this House to raise a laugh? We are not all as gifted in the matter of raising laughs, but we feel them long after the echo of laughter has died away. What causes a man to join the Volunteers? It is not the pay; there is no pay. I have never been paid a farthing, nor has any one of my men touched a farthing, from the year 1859 to the year 1900, when we got the pay of our rank, when we gave up our holidays and left our work for a fortnight. It cannot be the shooting, because although the shooting average of Volunteers, considering the opportunities they have, is high, there are not 20 per cent. who shoot for pleasure. It is not the uniform, for many of the uniforms are singularly unattractive, and those that are a little bit gay are difficult to keep clean. What is it, Sir? It is patriotism. It is the innate soldierly feeling of the country that induces men to give their names in for a service which, when all is said and done, is the cheapest in the world. The cost of the Volunteers is something like from £3 10s. to £4 per man per annum. The whole force of the volunteers is maintained, I believe, at a smaller cost than the Brigade of Guards. And what have we done? We have saved the country, in conjunction with our brother volunteers from the Colonies and in the Yeomanry; we

625
stepped between the country and disaster, for there is not a regular soldier in the War Office—not even the right hon. Gentleman himself, who is not a soldier—who would deny that but for the Volunteers from here and elsewhere this country would be in a very different situation to-day. As a mere incident the right hon. Gentleman mentioned our saving the country from conscription—as if it were nothing to be proud of. Well, perhaps it is not. But be that so or not, we have done it. We have sent 23,000 men out to South Africa at a shilling a day. There is not a regiment in the country that has not sent some men to the front. We may be of use, or we may not. But I would take the country's verdict on that sooner than I would take the right hon. Gentleman's. We may have claimed too much, or we may not have claimed enough. In a question of claims we have generally not pushed ourselves forward, but you have no right to make such a force as this exist on charity, and that is what it is largely doing.
Hon. Members might have gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that money was wasted on the Volunteers. It is not wasted on the Volunteers. There is not an officer in the service who has not had taken out of his pocket since he joined as much as an officer of his rank in the army receives in pay. Take the case of my own regiment—and I do not quote it from any egotistical motive, but merely because it is the one I know best. I am put upon the same platform as any other regiment in the Metropolis here, who, l know, are hard enough put to it. But the average Metropolitan regiment, either here, in Glasgow, Edinburgh, or Liverpool, has, as a rule, one drill hall, half a dozen instructors at the outside, very often a joint range with others, or sometimes the use of Government ranges. What is my case? My regiment numbers over 1,500. I have eleven drill halls, of which I have hired three, and built eight or bought them at an average cost of £1,500 a piece. I had twelve ranges, and when the Government introduced a new rifle, they turned me out of nine, and the landlord put me out of a tenth. I had to build a range on a twenty-five years
626
lease at £100 a year, which cost me £2,200, so that I have in twenty-five years to wipe off the cost of the range, as well as the rent and interest. And how is it done? In financial difficulties there are three ways which a man may adopt. He can beg, he can borrow, or he can steal. Most financiers adopt one, perhaps two, of the three. Most Volunteer officers do the lot. They beg front their friends, as I have cleared drill halls before now; they borrow from the bank; and I suppose bazaars and sales of work are, after all, only a genteel way of stealing. During the last Administration, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland had the duty of expounding the Estimates, we were always sure of a sympathetic hearing. He never asked us to do anything that was not done cheerfully, and the cost to the country was not great. I wish the House to note the position a commanding officer is put in connection with his drill halls. So long as there is a penny of debt on a drill hall so long does the War Office insist on the officer bearing the brunt of the debt. But whenever the drill hall is clear of debt—by whatever means, whether by the process of mendicancy, borrowing, or theft—that drill hall becomes the property of the country. Sir, I have cleared drill halls—not one nor two—by bazaars, and the moment the money is paid into the bank, title deeds have been made out in my name as representing the Government.
Sir, I have kept the House too long. The House is always very good to young Members, and I don't want to weary it. [Cries of "Go on."] But, as I said before, we had better understand the position we are in. Either we are to be recognised as an integral part of the forces of this country, or we are not. Either we are to be treated as rational beings, able and entitled to rank alongside our brethern of the Regulars, Yeomanry, or Militia, or we are not. Sir, I could go on telling stories; I could bring up the scandals of the Mounted Infantry, in which the War Office never knew its own mind for six weeks together. The scandal of my first of all being entreated to raise mounted men, then told to disband

627
them, then an attempt made to starve us into submission to the War Office by breaking faith with us in our arrangements, then the re-establishment of the Mounted Infantry by Royal Warrant, and finally the orders to do a glorious and consecutive system of training for which no money was to be received. Sir, I could multiply these instances, but what is the use This House knows the kind of thing as well as I do. But I think I am entitled to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for a little justice and mercy towards a force which the War Office now appears to despise, or at the very best does not certainly, properly recognise. In the old bad days there was a strong unpleasant feeling between the Regulars and the Volunteers. In the last administration it died out to a great extent, and we hoped it had gone for ever. Sir, it is reviving under the fostering care of the right hon. Gentleman. I appeal to this House to let us have a definite decision as to what we are to expect. Are we, who have done so much for the country, to be starved, to be looked upon as absolutely inefficient, to be derided, to have our work rendered absolutely impossible, or are we to have a chance of showing really what we can do under sympathetic and intelligent administration?
MR. FREDERICK WILSON: said that as an old Volunteer he was very sorry to hear the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, because incidents like those he referred to were within the knowledge of all Volunteer Officers. On the occasion referred to by the Secretary for War at Oxford, he seemed to have been a most admirable "Pious Fraud." With regard to the Volunteer Reserve he thought there ought to be a much better qualification than had been proposed. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to propose that the qualification should be attendance at the range once in two years, but he did not think that was sufficient and it should be at least attended once in twelve months. He knew from his Volunteer experience that rifle shooting was a great incentive to join the ranks, and he sincerely hoped that something
628
would be done in the direction he had indicated. Only within the last few weeks they had heard of the closing of another great rifle range in Essex. Ranges in this country were steadily disappearing, and unless something was done to give Volunteers effective ranges he did not think they could hope to obtain a thorough efficient force. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would take up the question of rifle clubs so that they would not have to rely so much upon a standing army as upon a trained nation. He had been the captain of two rifle clubs, and they were of great use in teaching men who were unable to join a volunteer corp how to use a rifle. When a man had learned the use of a rifle he was half qualified for a soldier, and a month's drill in a camp would make him as good a soldier as the Boer was today. The Boers were a nation of volunteers, and they ought to encourage the English people to make as good material for soldiers as the Boers had done in South Africa. One of the particular demands of the rifle club was to be able to get more rifles and more ammunition upon cheaper terms. At the present time it was left to American gentlemen, like Mr. Astor, to assist rifle clubs. By establishing more miniature ranges they would revive the spirit of the "sixties," when every young man used to think it was necessary for him to be able to handle a rifle. Rifle-shooting in the "sixties" took the place of many of those games which were so popular in this country at the present moment. When the war in South Africa was over, he trusted that it would be a long time before they entered upon another. During that interval he hoped the Volunteer Army would assume far greater proportions than now. The Volunteers were established simply for home defence. It was not likely that England would be invaded at a day's notice, and if they had a lot of men trained in shooting, they would be very useful to defend the country. He hoped that the War Office, whatever they did for the Regular Army, would do all in their power to foster that love of patriotism which was inherent in the English race, and it should be impressed upon every Englishman that it was his

629
bounden duty to be prepared, in case; of need, to fight for the land in which he lived.
MR. WYLIE: I have a notice on the Paper—
"To call attention to the order demanding longer and more arduous training of the Volunteer forces without corresponding augmentation of allowances and facilities, which, it is believed, will seriously reduce these forces; whilst the growing necessities of the Empire require a large increase both of their numbers and efficiency, which should be secured by a substantial increase of capitation and other allowances and of facilities for drill and shooting."
This is substantially the same as the Amendment placed on the paper earlier in session and unanimously approved by eighty Commanding Officers of Volunteer regiments from all parts of the country, and which they were very anxious to have debated on the Address, but which, on account of the exigencies of the Government, could not then be discussed. Since that time there has been a Committee appointed for the purpose of investigating the whole subject, but I think a debate on the floor of this House will be of great advantage to the cause. The authors of the new regulations are, I believe, anxious that they should be criticised, for they say that "the operation of the regulations will be carefully watched, and that any Amendments which experience shows to be desirable will be effected." It is for the purpose of giving a few hints in connection with this subject that I have deemed it necessary to speak on the present occasion. I quite concur with the remarks of my hon, and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield when speaking of the paragraph in the new regulations to the effect that "for some years past the Volunteers have constantly claimed to be seriously accepted as a reliable and organised section of the Army for home defence. It has now been determined that the responsibility claimed shall be realised." The paragraph further sets forth that "the State requires that a suitable standard of military training shall be secured, in return, for the outlay of public money." Now, I venture to say that no other State, ancient or modern, has ever secured a better return for the public money expended than the British nation has done in its Volunteer force, and I
630
am quite certain that, with few exceptions, the whole country recognises them as a reliable, organised, and most important section of the Army for home defence. I am glad to say that it is very fortunate for us that foreign nations so recognise them also. I think the phrasing of this paragraph is a very good example of the War Office depreciation of the Volunteer force, and I was very sorry to read the statement, especially after the long process of starvation to which they have been subjected.
Let me give only two instances of the starving process which the Volunteers have been subjected to. Just the other day we were informed that the Runymede rifle range was threatened with sale—a range which has been used by thirty volunteer regiments in and around the Metropolis, and who have no other opportunity Office practising their shooting. The War Office coolly replied that as the range was not required for Regulars or Militia, the best thing the Volunteer colonels could do was to buy it themselves in their own interest. I hope, however, that the strong representations which have been made to the War Office in connection with this range will be given effect to and that it will be retained for the benefit of the Volunteer. The other instance of the process of starvation was this: an able Volunteer colonel told me that last year he went to Hanover and there visited a museum of antiquated instruments of war. He found there the very gun which his own brigade had still in use. That speaks for the parsimony with which the Volunteer force is treated. It is an example of the contempt, neglect and parsimonious treatment to which they have been subjected at the hands of the War Office.
I was very sorry to find my right hon. friend the Secretary of State on Tuesday last adopting a tone of disparagement towards the Volunteer force. In fact, his whole statement in regard to the Volunteers was most disappointing with the exception of his proposal for a Reserve. He disclosed a most admirable and liberal policy in connection with the regular army—a policy which, I venture to say, will, in conjunction with his reorganisation scheme, add his name to

631
the list of great reforming War Secretaries. The right hon. Gentleman will ever be popular with the soldiers as the man who has secured for them the largest increase of pay ever granted to the rank and file of the British Army. He disclosed that policy towards the Regulars in an able and statesmanlike speech, which, however, I have no hesitation in saying, was marred by his rather antiquated jokes in regard to the Volunteers. For every funny story about the Volunteers, we could give him twenty more racy about the Regulars and the Militia, and fifty still more racy about the hypercritical War Office itself, but this is not the time for sarcastic anecdotes about the various branches of the Service. It is rather the time for serious consideration of how all can best be united and utilised for the defence of the Empire. I believe that the new regulations indicate an honest attempt on the part of the Secretary for War and the Commander-in-Chief to improve the efficiency of the Volunteers. But these gentleman have been so much occupied with the practical conduct of the war, and with their duties in connection with the reorganisation of the Army, that they have not had time to go into the details of this question, and they have committed the very great blunder of exacting greater duties from the Volunteers without a corresponding increase of allowances and facilities. But I do not attach so much importance to the facetious remarks of the Secretary of State in connection with the Volunteers as some of my hon. friends who have spoken before me, because I have noticed that the right hon. Gentleman is, sometimes, not able to refrain from jocosities, even at the expense of serious subjects for the promotion of which he is very anxious, and I hope that the Volunteers will, before long, have as much occasion to thank him for benefits conferred, as the Regulars have at the present moment.
In regard to the regulations to which reference has been made, I may state, for the information of those who have not studied them, that they provide that no corps or individual volunteer will be exempted from attending a camp for two consecutive years; secondly, that ten preliminary company drills must
632
be put in by every Volunteer before he goes into camp. Formerly no compulsory drills were demanded from Volunteers who went into camp. I quite concur with the hon. Member for the Mid Division of Northamptonshire, that this regulation would very materially reduce the strength of the Volunteer force if unaccompanied by an increase of allowances and facilities for drill. I have not now the advantage of being in the active Volunteer service. My interest in the Volunteers arises from an old connection, but I have still the advantage of being in close touch with many able commanding officers of Volunteers in various parts of the country, and from every one of them I have received information to the same effect. I will not weary the House with quotations from the letters I have received, but I will simply state what I learn from them and from other sources of information. Many Volunteer colonels believe that those demands will result in a reduction in the force of 25 per cent., some say 40 or 50 per cent. and others say 60 per cent.; assuming that the reduction amounts to the minimum of 25 per cent. the Volunteer force will be reduced to 200,000. I think the fact has been overlooked that many Volunteer regiments even with their present numbers have not sufficient money for their requirements. When these numbers are materially reduced the capitation grant will be reduced and many of our regiments will be threatened with bankruptcy and some of them even with extinction. Under these circumstances I think it would have been wise if the Government had made arrangements for increasing the efficiency of the Volunteer force by increasing grants and allowances.
I quite concur with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield that a great deal of the success of the Volunteer force depends on finance, and the practical suggestions that I would make are that the capitation grant should be increased 15s., that is from 35s. to 50s. That would amount to about £200,000; that the camp allowance should be increased from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per day, which would amount to £40,000, or less than a quarter of a million altogether—less than one day's cost of the war. This, I believe, would enable the

633
Volunteers to overcome all their difficulties. One of the great lessons of the war has been to show the intense jealousy of foreign countries at the success of the Empire, and also their bitter hostility towards it. It is the duty of the War Office to be prepared for any contingency, and according to their own reorganisation scheme, the Government intend to utilize 100,000 Volunteers for the defence of London alone. That is not a man too many, but if they do so with the reduced numbers and deducting 56,000 in Scotland, there would only be left 40,000 or 50,000 for the defence of England and Wales altogether, an entirely inadequate number. According to their own showing, therefore, they are bound to take some more liberal measures for keeping up the Volunteer force.
I maintain that an increase in the force could be easily secured by a substantial increase of the grants, allowances, and facilities. I believe that would involve very little expense in proportion to the magnitude of the object. By that means the Government could secure a Volunteer force of 500,000 men with a training and efficiency not only equal to that which they propose for the majority of the Volunteers at the present moment, but with a training equal to that of the twenty-five picked battalions who are to form part of the Army corps. By serving four years and passing into the Reserve for six years, in the course of a generation we would have a Volunteer Army of two or three millions of men ready for the defence of the country, and efficient enough to enable them to go anywhere. This plan is not merely theoretical; it is founded upon actual practical experience. The total number of efficient in the United Kingdom is 270,000, and the proportion for England is two-thirds of a unit per cent. of the population, or 214,000; in Scotland it is 1¼ per cent., or 56,000, and in the county which I have the honour to represent, and the Volunteers of which are commanded by the hon. and gallant Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, the ratio is 1⅖ per cent. If all the Volunteers were in proportion to that represented by Scotland. instead of 270,000 we would have a Volunteer Army of
634
460,000; or if the proportion were the same as that represented by Dumbarton shire, we would have a Volunteer Army of 520,000. The closer the Regular Army is associated with the civilians the better for the Army and for the country.
Let me give an estimate of the cost of a Volunteer Army of half a million men and a Reserve of two or three millions. The Volunteer force is the cheapest organised force in the world. My hon. friend the Member for Central Sheffield says that the cost of the Volunteers is between £3 and £4 per capita, but I beg to state that when all the surrounding expenses —not only the immediate—are taken into account, the cost of a Volunteer private is £6 2s. 6d., of a yeoman, £20 6s., of a Militiaman, £19 6s,, and of a regular soldier £84 10s; so that the cost of a Volunteer is only a third of a militiaman, less than a third of a yeoman, and a fourteenth of a regular soldier. But, in order to bring the Volunteers up to the number and efficiency which I have indicated, you would require to considerably increase their allowances. What I would suggest is that besides increasing the capitation grant to 50 per cent., the expense of drill halls and rifle ranges should be paid for them, and a more liberal supply of ammunition should be given them. Besides that, the men who have to abandon their ordinary occupation in order to attend camp should be granted an allowance of from 10s. to £1 per week. Then, in addition to the Adjutant, there should be a paid Sergeant-Major and Quartermaster-Sergeant; and last, but not least, we should have at the War Office a permanent staff entirely in sympathy with the Volunteers. If there had been such a staff, no such Army Order as had been complained of would have been issued. I hope when the Committee is dealing with this subject it will not confine itself to tiding over the present emergency, but take up the whole question of the Volunteer force in a broad and comprehensive spirit, so as to give us a magnificent Army ready for the defence of the country, and to meet any emergency that might arise from the combination of any two or three Continental Powers. Within the last two years the War Office

635
has been blowing hot and cold in regard to the Volunteer force. Two years ago they encouraged volunteers to increase their numbers and go into camp by the magnificent allowance of £897,000, or very nearly £5 per head, and the formation of cyclist and mounted infantry corps by liberal grants. Now, the War Office coolly turns round and informs the Volunteers that their numbers are to be very much reduced; that the allowance for going into camp is to be reduced by a fourth, the allowance for the cyclist corps is to be reduced by a half, and to the mounted infantry to less than an eighth of the amount formerly given. I must confess that it is very disappointing, after the brilliant services they have rendered, to find that while the Militia are to be increased by 50 per cent., and the Yeomanry 150 per cent., the Volunteers are to be decreased by from 25 to 40 per cent. The Volunteers have certainly not merited this treatment at the hands of the War Office.
I have no doubt that probably the treatment they have been receiving has been at the instigation of those military authorities who are very strong advocates of conscription. These authorities, however, may make up their minds that with the brilliant results of the Volunteer forces, both Colonial and British, on the field of war, there is no idea at the present moment of conscription being adopted by the nation. The conscription theory, however, is gaining ground. Lord Wemyss, who was one of the founders of the volunteer movement, as Lord Elcho, and for many years a commander of a famous regiment, the other day expressed his regret that he had ever had anything to do with the Volunteer force, because they were a barrier to the adoption of the ballot for the militia; and the hon. Member for Flintshire, who had been always regarded as a peace-at-any-price man, has been so appalled by the hostile feeling on the Continent to Great Britain, that he has run to the opposite extreme, and argues that every man in the country should be put through a conscription drill. If the scheme which I have advocated were adopted there would not be the slightest need for conscription. The great Volunteer movement has done much for the country; it has rendered it practically invulnerable;
636
it has saved the nation hundreds of millions of pounds; it has increased the military ardour of our youths; it has increased recruiting for the regular army in times of emergency; it has improved the shooting of the regular army itself, and it has proved the most efficacious method of training our young men both mentally and physically, in spite of the opposition of the military authorities who have a leaning to conscription. No other country in the world has such ample material ready to hand, eager to be employed, and only waiting for very moderate financial assistance in order to develop into an army between two and three million men. In the meantime there are some Volunteer regiments which are threatened with extinction, and others with financial embarrassment. It is our duty to come to their assistance, to see that their numbers are at least kept up to their present standard, that their able and zealous officers, who have given their time and ability to the movement, without fee or reward, should not be overburdened with financial responsibilities, and that the whole force should be put into that position which its self-sacrificing and gratuitous service at home and gallant conduct abroad have so well deserved. This we can do very easily and effectually at once by a grant not exceeding a quarter of a million—a mere trifle to the country, but which to the Volunteers would mean prosperity and comfort. I believe that if the Secretary of State for War would adopt some such policy as I have indicated, he would have the support of the great majority of the people of the country, and I am sure of the overwhelming majority of this House.
MR. CHARLES ALLEN: Like every other Member who has spoken, I belong to a corps which, in my opinion, is one of the smartest in the country. The new regulations in regard to camps form for us no difficulty at all; and the Secretary of State for War will be glad to hear that we have had no difficulty in regard to recruiting, and that the company with which I am connected obtained in one evening eighteen recruits. But we have our difficulties, being a country corps, in regard to the supply of officers. These

637
are not equally spread over the battalion. In one company we have five officers, in one we have no officer, and in two we have only one officer. The difficulty of the company without an officer is only temporary, but in the meantime it runs the risk of being disbanded. In another the officer is engaged in Government service two or three times a week, and the company being split up into three sections—two of them ten miles apart—it must be evident how difficult it is for that officer to attend all the drills. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in future efficiency in parade drill was not to be considered sufficient for Volunteer officers. If that means doing away with the necessity of going to such schools as Chelsea in future, then I am at one with the right hon. Gentleman. A young officer cannot always give up one month to go to school. In these days it seems absurd that a Volunteer officer should have to go to school for one month to do close order drill. My experience is that a month at Chelsea does teach parade drill uncommonly well, but it turns you out a sort of wooden automaton. Unlike my hon. and gallant friend, I am not in the position of being the commander of a battalion, and I am not at all sorry, but I understand that when a battalion goes to camp the men get a penny per mile per man, but nothing is allowed for baggage. Country corps are not allowed even to average the amount, and if one company costs 6s. per man to go to camp, and another company 10s., the first company gets only 6s. and the next only 8s., and the commanding officer is out of pocket to that extent. We have heard a good deal about rifle ranges. I quite agree that the Government ought certainly to find the money for rifle ranges, and it is quite absurd to come down upon us and tell us that we must be more efficient if you will not find us more rifle ranges. If the Government say that they cannot do this, why do they not take up a little Bill for which I am responsible? It is a very harmless Bill, and I believe, without doing any very great harm to anybody at all, it would very considerably help local and city councils to get rifle ranges, which they are most anxious to do. I commend this Bill to the notice
638
of the Secretary for War and the noble Lord opposite. In conclusion, I should like to say that all Volunteers are exceedingly anxious to make themselves as efficient as possible, and all we ask is that proper opportunities should be afforded us on the part of the Government.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): I would ask leave now to answer some of the Questions which have been brought before the House in connection with the Volunteer movement. I must, first of all, ask the indulgence of the House while I—I am afraid very indifferently—take the part of my right hon. friend the Secretary of I State for War, who is himself debarred by the Rules of the House from explaining, as I think he could so easily do, the I wrong construction put upon the words which he used on Tuesday. My right hon. friend used two expressions which I think must and ought to be taken in connection with any of those other remarks to which exception has been taken. The leading passages in my right hon. friend's speech, if I may say so, on the Volunteer question, ought to be guided by these words. My right hon. friend said—
"Do not let it be supposed for one moment that I am saying that these things are general in the Volunteer force;"
and, again—
"I yield to no man In my appreciation of the efforts of the Volunteers."
My right hon. friend has surely shown that he has always been willing to take the part of those who in the service of the country are doing their best to help themselves and the country. Because my right hon. friend made a joke which hon. Members have described as ancient, that has been taken as being a depreciation of a force which nobody has done more than my right hon. friend to supplement in their efforts. I hope the country at large will not allow itself to believe that my right hon. friend or those at the War Office are in any way prejudiced against what is, after all, a great national force of the country. My right hon. friend has endeavoured in every way in the past to help the force. The Commander-in-Chief has thoroughly

639
shown his appreciation of the inestimable benefits derived from the force which is at present so ably represented by General Turner. The regulations put forward for increasing the efficiency of the War Office—[ironical cheers and laughter]—well, they both go together—for increasing the efficiency of the Volunteers, has been much commented upon. Now, with regard to efficiency, there must be two ways of looking at it. There is the efficiency which is aimed at by the military authorities, and there is the efficiency aimed at by every commanding officer who also knows the local conditions which he may have to encounter. I do not believe that there is any difficulty whatever in securing the efficiency considered necessary by the military authorities and by those who are responsible for the raising and training of the corps. These regulations were submitted to a Committee, of which I myself and another hon. Member of this House, the Member for West Dorsetshire, are members, and I think it will be found that the alteration is not nearly so great as might at first be supposed. The Committee has practically ended their labours, and they hope to report in a few days to my right hon. friend with a view to getting the revised regulations issued as speedily as we possibly can. I believe that there is not the slightest doubt that the regulations as amended by the Committee, as adjusted to deal with the difficulties, will entirely meet all the objections which have been made, and that without any loss of efficiency they can be carried out in their entirety for the whole force.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will they be laid on the Table?
LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. They are for the guidance of my right hon. friend. They will afterwards be submitted in due course. My right hon. friend has told several of the commanding officers that he intends to see them again this on subject. The Institute of Commanding Officers has also asked permission to send a deputation, and after they have been seen—and I am confident they will approve of the alteration—then these regulations will be put forward not only
640
as the suggestion of my right hon. friend, but as the suggestion of the whole of the Volunteer commanding officers.
The whole of this Volunteer question is most difficult to deal with. It is not as if it were a new force. It is not as if, when it was started, any one had the slightest idea of what the force would be. It has been built up by patchwork. It has been added to here and there, and all these things make it more difficult than if we were starting de novo. Looking back to 1863, we see at once that the whole Volunteer force has completely changed in character. In 1863 there were 131,000 efficients, costing £152,995, or roughly £1 7s. 6d. per head. Now they have grown to 270,369, at a cost of £1,145,000, or an average of £3 15s. 6d. per man. To my mind, that shows one thing which we must bear in mind in regard to the whole Volunteer force—that, with the growth of time, there has been a complete change in the personnel of the men who form the force. In 1863 it was made up of men who were able to devote their services to the country without having to ask for any monetary consideration. During the process of time that has changed, and, although some corps remain on the same footing as those of 1863, undoubtedly in the majority of cases the corps are made up of men who cannot spare the time or the means, and who have to earn their livelihood. You have had to meet a vastly different state of affairs as compared with the early years of the Volunteer movement, You have been obliged to have the same set of rules, and, what is more difficult to deal with, the same amount of money has had to be spent upon them. Picture to yourself two corps which you know in camp. I will take my hon. and gallant friend's corps. They are most likely men who have to pay for the privilege of joining the corps. Alongside them in camp you may have a battalion formed entirely of men who come from the East End of London, and who are obliged to be paid in camp. To meet those difficulties you have still got the same pay and the same regulations. Therefore hon. Members must realise the enormous difficulty that there is in dealing with the force as a whole.
It has been said with perfect justice that a great deal of this outcry against the

641
regulations is connected with the finance of the various corps. What I have said about the difficulty that we have in applying the same regulations to the various corps is doubly emphasised when you come to deal with the question of having to give the same amount of money. It has been suggested, but I hope not seriously, that there should be a difference made in the amount given to the various corps. I should not like to see that suggestion adopted; it would make almost a class distinction. We have always endeavoured to regard the Volunteers as men who, whatever their rank or station in life, were equally patriotic in giving their services, as far as possible, to their country; and therefore we wish that they should all be on the same footing, and that no distinction should be made as regarded finance. At the same time, when I come to look into the finances of the corps, as I have done only lately for the first time, they do show great discrepancies in the way in which the finances of the various corps are managed. The same thing has to be done by various corps, yet one regiment manages to do it extremely cheaply, while another runs into debt because they do not know how to do that thing as well as the other regiment. Not for a moment do I say it is not doing its best to do it economically, but it simply has not the knowledge. So far as I can see, we do not afford a regiment of that kind the knowledge which would enable them to manage better; but I hope we shall be able to make arrangements for giving local assistance to corps in dealing with their accounts, and for showing them the best way in which to manage. Not only Members of the Committee, but Members who came before the Committee, pointed out that there were men kept on the strength of their regiments whom they could not call efficient, and who, in their heart of hearts, they would rather not have; but they were unable to get rid of these men, because a falling off in the numbers meant a loss in their capitation grant which they were not able to stand. That does not seem to me the right system on which to work. It does not seem right that this country should put forward a large number of men as being a proof of her strength when there are men riot actually efficient,
642
who are obliged to be kept on the strength of a regiment in order to secure the due efficiency of the rest. That is a matter to which my right hon. friend was going to give his attention. I do not myself believe that the amount of money that is given is as insufficient as hon. Members would have us believe, but I do think it might be better applied, not only by the War Office, but, in some cases, by those who administer it. My right hon. friend is going to take all this into consideration, but the consideration of this matter cannot be done hurriedly; it can only be done by drawing out various schemes and getting advice on those schemes, not by a Committee, but from those who are competent to judge of matters connected with the Volunteer force. My right hon. friend hopes to be able before long to set himself to that task.
I have little more to add with regard to mounted infantry companies. I believe those companies were started without due regard to what they would grow to. We had ample proof that there was a great desire in this country to form an irregular mounted force. With that object in view, the new Imperial Yeomanry has been formed. That force has met with great success, and so did the mounted infantry for a time. But the two forces can hardly exist side by side; we want the one or the other. My right hon. friend has said he wanted the Imperial Yeomanry, and therefore I hope we shall use every endeavour to get the mounted infantry to join the Imperial Yeomanry.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid many of the best men in the Volunteer force were joining the Imperial Yeomanry, and that made their difficulties very much greater. According to the regulations issued, joining the Imperial Yeomanry was equivalent to joining the Regular Army, and these men broke their Contracts and put their regiment in a financial difficulty.
LORD STANLEY: I quite understand, and though I cannot give any definite assurance that the Government will be able to meet the hon. Member's views, I can assure him the question will be considered. My right hon. friend

643
wishes me to say he will look into the question of expense, and will endeavour to save those corps who have come forward with a mounted infantry company from being put to any loss whatever in regard to the formation of that company. My right hon. friend stated that the post of Inspector General of Auxiliary Forces is not going to be abolished. But there will be some changes. It has been found that a great many of the matters connected both with the Yeomanry and the Volunteers, which are sent up to the War Office for decision, are local matters. Any assistant General Turner might have, though he might be cognisant of difficulties in Surrey, could not be equally cognisant of difficulties in Northumberland, and of difficulties in Cornwall. In regard to these questions of advice and administration, there will be, as far as possible, decentralisation. All matters which do not affect the Volunteer force as a whole, will be considered locally by the general officer commanding. To settle these questions he must have some local advice; and the Government hopes, before the drill season comes on, to be in a position to give to each general officer commanding an army corps, or a district, that local assistance which will enable him to give decisions, and would prevent that friction which must inevitably exist when they endeavour to apply cast-iron rules.
COLONEL DENNYasked whether the assistant would be a Volunteer.
LORD STANLEY: The terms are not definitely fixed, but there will be a representative from each force to give advice on that force. I cannot agree entirely with those who wish to see the Government do everything in regard to the provision of ranges. I have invariably found that when the Government apply for land for any purpose, worthless land becomes worth its weight in gold. The consequence is that the price becomes prohibitive; and land which may be obtained by local bodies at a reasonable price becomes practically barred to the Government. Nobody wishes more than the Commander-in-Chief to see good shooting
644
throughout all branches of the Army, and nobody is more determined than my right hon. friend as far as possible to give effect to that wish. The War Office will do all that they possibly can, but there must be a limit to the amount they can spend, and the money cannot be allowed to go all into one particular centre. We must endeavour to distribute the money to the best advantage, to Volunteers as a whole. I ask the House to wipe out from their minds, and the mind of the country, any idea that my right hon. friend is not sympathetic to the force. I hope the House and the country will understand that the Government recognises the great things that the Volunteers have done for the country in the last few years, and that the last thing we wish to do is to show ingratitude by in any way hindering those who have come forward and, at great sacrifice of time, and, in most cases of money, are doing what lies to their hands to help their country.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I think we all of us have sympathy in respect to the object of the Secretary of State that the non-efficients should be wiped out of the Volunteer force, but I hope it may also be the object of the Government that their places shall be filled with additions to the force, because the war in South Africa has shown even more than the advocacy of the Volunteer officers in this House what a reliable force we have had to depend on in case of need. What I wish to do is to put one or two points to the War Office with regard to ranges and other local requirements, and the way in which local needs may be supervised and as far as possible met. Every one is glad that the Volunteer Department at the War Office will be strengthened, but there is another way in which the wants of the Volunteers can be met, and that is by giving Generals Commanding in Army Corps Districts the powers promised by the Secretary of State last year and again referred to by him the other day. Take Scotland for example; in that case it would be quite possible to give a good many of the powers still exercised by the War Office to the General Commanding in Scotland. I have not the honour of the acquaintance of the distinguished

645
officer there, but from what one has heard I am sure no one could be better qualified to supervise the concerns of the Auxiliary forces in Scotland; and what is possible there, must be possible elsewhere. We should like to know what are the powers which have already been devolved upon general officers commanding Army Corps Districts, or are likely to be devolved during the current year. So far as I am informed, very little development has yet taken place, and I gather from the speech of the Secretary of State for War that he does not contemplate giving extended powers to the Generals commanding the three northern Army Corps Districts—viz, Scotland, York, and Colchester—at present. As to ranges, I believe anyone in the position of an officer commanding the, forces in an Army Corps District can do a great deal to help. Hitherto the difficulties as to providing ranges have not been thrown in the way of Volunteers so much by owners as by the agents of the Government themselves. Complaints have been made as to the expense to which the State is put in connection with the purchase of laud. But very many of the ranges are given free. In the country districts a large proportion of ranges have not cost the Government anything at all. In eases where the cost is excessive, I think it arises from not having given the War Office stronger powers in regard to taking land for ranges. That is a matter which for some years was pressed from this side of the House, but without much success, and I hope that now it will be unanimously supported on both sides. We could then have a sufficient supply of ranges. As I was saying, one of the difficulties we have had to deal with has been with the Government agents themselves, who have closed many ranges as dangerous where there was no reason whatever for anticipating danger. That is a matter which requires to be looked into by men on the spot, and that is why I lay so much emphasis no merely on strengthening the Department at the War Office connected with the Auxiliary forces, but also on giving the general officers commanding those powers recommended by the Dawkins Committee. No doubt we may save on the Volunteer Estimate by reducing the number of those who are non-efficient; but,
646
on the other hand, I think more money must be spent on the force in making those who remain thoroughly efficient, and in attracting fresh members to the force. The right hon. Gentleman, I freely admit, has done his best to give the voluntary system for the whole Army a fair chance by taking a bold step and raising the pay. As one opposed to conscription in any form, I heartily support his proposal. But we have always regarded the Volunteer force as a security against conscription, and I trust that, while we recognise fully the effort made to give us a strong, regular Army under the voluntary system, the right hon. Gentleman will not do less to give us a strong Volunteer force, which we believe to be the greatest possible support and security to the voluntary system.
MR. GRETTON: I do not want to intervene in this debate at any length, but I should be sorry if the impression prevailed in the House or in the country at large that a spirit obtained in the Volunteer force against the new regulations which have been put forward for improving their efficiency. I represent a country corps, and we should, no doubt, find difficulties in meeting the new requirements. But those difficulties are not insuperable, and we do not complain about them. The country has come to rely on the military efficiency of the Volunteer force, and we consider that our military efficiency can be improved, and are anxious, so far as we can, with the assistance of the authorities, to effect the improvement. In the past there has been a great deal of doubt as to the actual position of the Volunteer force. Many of us thought the Volunteers were merely tolerated by the military authorities because they were popular and could not very well be got rid of. But another view is now being taken of their position, and efforts are being made to make them what I myself think they have not been hitherto—a thoroughly efficient military force. Much has been said about the remarks made and the stories told by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not take them very seriously, nor do I think the country does, and I

647
believe there is sufficient common sense in the Volunteer force to receive the speech in the spirit in which it was intended, and to understand that the remarks were not intended to apply to the Volunteer force in general.
I do not desire to detain the House longer, but, as representing a country corps, I welcome the new regulations, especially as regards attendance at camp. The military spirit created by a stay in camp is most valuable, and we find, at any rate in the country, that the only really valuable time we have for training our officers and men in the various corps is the time spent in camp. If I might throw out a suggestion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not make an increased grant to those corps which are able to take a large percentage of their strength into camp for a longer period than one week, because I believe it would add very materially indeed to the efficiency of the corps that were able to do so.
MR. NANNETTI (Dublin, College Green)hoped the House would pardon his intervention in a debate on a subject of so much importance to English Members, but a sense of his responsibility as a representative of a constituency largely interested in the question of Army contracts compelled him to call the attention of the House to the manner in which Ireland was treated so far as those contracts were concerned. The noble Lord had said that the policy of the War Office was as much as possible to decentralise. But how far was that statement consistent with the attitude of the War Office in its treatment of Ireland in all matters appertaining to the supply of the troops in the country? On several occasions he had brought the question before the House, but had always received anything but a sympathetic or generous answer. His complaints had been met with the utmost curtness, and it was with the hope of obtaining some redress from the Secretary of State himself that he was compelled again to raise the question. Last year he was told by the noble Lord that it was a matter for the military authorities in Ireland to deal with. Consequently he devoted the recess to endeavouring to bring the grievance of
648
Irish workers and traders to the notice of the responsible authorities in Ireland. He wrote a letter to the Duke of Connaught, the Commander-in-Chief of the forces in Ireland, who, he believed, was in sympathy with much of the claim put forward by Irish manufacturers. It was evident from the tenour of his observations before the Committee on the re-organisation of the Army that, being on the spot, His Royal Highness had a better knowledge of the wants and requirements of Ireland than had the officials at headquarters, but unfortunately those observations did not meet with the sympathy and support they should have done at the War Office. In a sympathetic reply to the letter (which asked that a deputation of trade representatives might be received) His Royal Highness stated in the course of his letter—
"That before troubling the deputation to wait on him he would wish you to lay before him clearly what are the points to which you desire to invite his attention."
He (the hon. Member) then sent a definite statement of the points the deputation desired to bring forward, viz.—
"(1st) The securing for local trades in Ireland a share in the contracts for supplies required for the troops in Ireland; (2nd) a wider extension of the workshop system which already obtains in the Island Bridge and other barracks, wherein civilian tradesmen are employed in the repair and manufacture of saddlery and other works for the troops quartered in Ireland; (3rd) the securing for Irish contractors of the supplies for canteens in Ireland.
He wished the House to bear in mind that in the letter from His Royal. Highness he conceded practically the point as to receiving the deputation, but he asked to be furnished with the points upon which the deputation desired to address him. He told His Royal Highness in the letter he wrote him that Alderman Doyle, President Dublin Trades Council; Messrs. E. L. Richardson, Secretary Irish Trades Congress; James Chambers, P.L.G., Saddlers and Harness Makers Society; W. J. Leahy, T.G., Coopers Society; and — Maloney, Brushmakers Society, would accompany the deputation, together with Major Jameson, M.P., Mr. William Field, M.P., and himself. He believed that it was the intention of His Royal Highness to have received the

649
deputation, but evidently pressure was put upon him from some quarter, for he received the following letter—
"Adjutant-General's Office,
"Royal Hospital, Dublin,
"25th October, 1901.
"Sir,—His Royal Highness the Commander of Forces in Ireland directs me to acknowledge, the receipt of your letter of the 23rd October, and, in reply, to inform you that, after a careful perusal of it, he has come to the conclusion that the several points therein mentioned are matters which only can be decided at Army headquarters. Such being the case, it would not be consistent with military discipline for His Royal Highness to receive a deputation, and give any expression of opinion which might be at variance with those of his military superiors. If, however, you are of opinion that a further communication—giving more detailed information on the points—would make your case more clear, His Royal Highness will be glad to receive and forward it to the War Office with his remarks."
He was very much disappointed with that letter, and his disappointment was shared by the workers in Ireland, who thought that with reference to War Office contracts they would be treated with the same consideration as the people in this country. He was loth to give up his correspondence with His Royal Highness, because he did not consider that either himself or his constituents had been fairly treated, and in asking for something in return for what Ireland contributed to the Army he was only asking for what they were fully entitled to.
How different was the treatment of Ireland to that which was meted out to the colonies, notwithstanding the fact that they contributed I nothing towards the up-keep of the Army. During the evidence of His Royal Highness it transpired that if a ladder was wanted for the troops in Ireland they had to send to Wool-wich for it, and if they wanted a cart or a waggon they had to order it from Woolwich, although all those things could be manufactured in Ireland as well as in Woolwich and could be bought as cheaply in Ireland. So long as they were able to supply those articles as cheap in Ireland, they ought to get their share of the orders. With regard to the opening of the depots, His Royal Highness asked the following questions:—
8790. Where are the ladders manufactured now?—They are either made at Woolwich or purchased locally.
650
8791. Do you mean to say an ordinary ladder has to go round from Woolwich?—
8792. But in your opinion, they could he just as well inspected in Ireland?—Yes. They could be just as well inspected here.
8794. (CHAIRMAN): Are there any other articles like ladders which could be so easily manufactured in Ireland which are supplied in the same way from Woolwich?—Yes. Brooms and brushes, etc., and such barrack stores. This would encourage trade in Ireland.
He was very sorry to say that there were very few people in the same position as the Duke of Connaught in Ireland who favoured that idea. He wanted to know was it because of the expense that Ireland was deprived of that right? Was it because the articles were more durable? No, it was nothing of the kind, but it was really part and parcel of the policy of taking all they could front Ireland and giving nothing in return. It was the policy of destroying Irish industries and then turning round and telling them that they were not able to hold their own. Upon this question of expense the evidence was as follows:—
8795. All these things have to be sent over to Ireland, and the freight on a large mass of things is considerable; whereas you could buy them on the spot or make them on the spot; if this were done, a contract could be made to include delivery to any station or barracks.
8796. What is an Ordnance workshop limited to doing, if you cannot make a ladder?— Repairs, really. That is the only thing they are doing.
He would like to call attention to a Question which he put with reference to the barracks where the saddlery and harness work was done for the troops in Ireland. When he asked if that depôt was used to its fullest extent, the right hon. Gentleman declined to answer the Question. That was a workshop erected out of the taxes, capable of accommodating 20 or 30 saddlers, with the intention of supplying the troops in the country, and the result was that there were only six men employed there, and saddlery and harness were supplied from the sweating dens of England, and when they arrived in Ireland they had to be altered by Irish workmen. The Government would save money if they were to carry out the recommendations made by the Duke of Connaught and insist upon having the

651
troops in Ireland supplied by the artisans and workmen of that country. The evidence went on:—
8797. Surely you have plenty of officers in Ireland competent to inspect blankets and ladders?—Yes, any inspection that can be made by an artificer.
8798. (SIR GEORGE CLARKE). And, in some cases, might it not be cheaper to purchase locally?—Much Cheaper.
He directed the attention of the House to the pertinent Question put by an hon. Member sitting on the Benches above him, and whose absence he regretted, as he was sure he would support the claim made by him for a share of this work:—
8799. (Mr. MATHER.) And it would be a matter of policy also to employ Irish labour to supply the Army?—Yes.
8800. (Mr. BECKETT.) I was going to ask you whether you do not think that would be a good plan from every point of view?—Yes. Of course they must come up to the standard, and they must not be more expensive than they would be; but as a matter of fact they would be less expensive."
After the evidence given at that inquiry, was it not surprising to find that the same condition of things still existed? Was it any wonder that in Ireland, when artisans and manufacturers saw waggons and other articles imported wholesale with the names of Bristol or other makers on them, that they should feel aggrieved? One hon. Gentleman drew attention to a contract for 400,000 pairs of boots, and he raised a complaint because a portion of that contract had been given to India. Immediately that claim was made, respectful attention was paid to it, because it was made by an English Member. How many pairs of boots, and how much clothing for the troops, were manufactured in Ireland? He was not now simply speaking the sentiments of the Nationalists, for what he was advocating affected every class of people in Ireland. They claimed that if England was going to rule Ireland, she should treat them fairly and deal with Irish manufacturers in the same way as she did with the people of the Colonies and with this country. He asked the Secretary of State for War to carry out his policy of decentralisation, and he hoped that the system of the past would
652
be departed from. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to carry out the recommendations of the Duke of Connaught.
Not long ago he paid a visit, during his holidays, to Belfast, and he visited the establishment of a large boot manufacturer, whose establishment was replete with all the modern requirements of an up-to-date boot factory and fully competent to execute any contract that was given to him. He asked him how it was that he did not tender for boots at the War Office, and he replied that it would be useless, because he would have to send the goods to Woolwich in the first place; and in the second place he knew that Ireland would not get its fair share. That gentleman said he would be able to turn out 7,000 pairs of boots per week, and to guarantee them to be better than they were receiving at the present time. On the question of ordnance workshops he trusted that hon. Members on the other side would give sympathetic consideration to what lie had said. These workshops had been erected at enormous expense, and they should be utilised for the manufacture of boots, clothing, waggons, for the use of the troops, and tin ware, so that Irish workmen might get a fair share of the Government work. The hon. Member also called attention to the catering for the canteens in Ireland, pointing out that the contract for porter was not placed with Irish contractors, although brewing was the staple industry of Dublin, and the article manufactured there was acknowledged to be far superior to that which was made in this country. Besides, the Irish tender for the contract was 10 or 15 per cent. less.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand there is nothing on the Estimates for supplies to the canteens.
MR. NANNETTIsaid he had understood that it would be in order to allude to this matter on the present Vote, but if it was not in order he would take another opportunity of bringing it before the House. Irish workmen were entitled to consideration in the matters with which he had dealt, and he hoped the Secretary of State would give a sympathetic answer.
Mr. BRODRICK: Perhaps with the leave of the House I may be allowed for a moment to explain the course proposed in regard to this Vote. The House is aware that there is a considerable amount of necessary financial business to be got through before the close of the financial year. Some communications have passed through the ordinary channels with a view to arriving at an understanding as to what would be acceptable to Members on the opposite side. The proposal I would make is that, if the Speaker is allowed to leave the Chair now or within a reasonable time, the debate on Vote A should begin this evening at eight o'clock or shortly afterwards, but that the general discussion allowable on Vote A should be concluded and Votes A and I taken tomorrow. Monday should then be devoted to the Vote of Censure on the Government in connection with the Contracts question and the War Office; on Tuesday an additional Vote would be put down for the Army, probably the Vote for warlike stores, and the discussion on the Navy Votes would be continued; on Thursday the Reports of Votes A and I would be taken, and other Reports. That should be continued on Friday, with the report of the Vote on Account. If these arrangements are agreed to, the Govern anent will then provide another day on or after Friday, the 21st, for a special discussion of the new proposals with regard to recruiting and pay now before the house. There will be a preliminary discussion before Votes A and I are taken, and another on Friday, the 21st. That is what is proposed in regard to business.
As I am speaking, perhaps I may, entirely by leave of the House, and it may shorten some of the discussion, be allowed one word of personal explanation with reference to some expressions which have been misunderstood in the course of the discussion. Two or three speeches have been made this evening, of which I make no complaint, because I think that they have been delivered under an impression which could not be rightly deduced from the words I have used. I most carefully guarded myself against being supposed to reflect in any way on the great mass of the Volunteer force. My words, however, have been taken in another sense,
654
but I can only say that they were not so intended. If the words are capable of that false impression, then I regret having used them to the House.
There are two points I should like to refer to. In the first place, our difficulty for at least fifteen years has been in obtaining and in placing Volunteers in the front line of our defences. That difficulty has now been overcome. With it has come a military demand for some higher efficiency on the part of those corps on whom so much more dependence has to be placed. I have felt a heavy responsibility that, while at the same moment I have been attacked for allowing troops to go to South Africa which even the military authorities urged were not sufficiently trained, I should be placing in the front line for home defence troops which our military authorities allege have not attained a sufficient degree of efficiency. Since I have served at the War Office I have pressed on the attention of the military authorities the claims of the Volunteers. I was responsible for adding half a million to the sums given to them. Nothing has been further from my mind than a desire in any way either to depreciate their efforts or to decry their intelligence. So long as I am at the War Office I will always give a sympathetic hearing to the numerous difficulties in which the Volunteers find themselves. I cannot help thinking that my hon. friends who have felt deeply on this matter will agree with me that if an interpretation were given to my words which is not attributable to them the effect might be only to create a chasm between the War Office and the Volunteer force which does not exist, and which, so far as I am concerned, might render it more difficult for me to carry out the work with which I am entrusted, but could not in any way tend to decrease the respect I have for that force.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not rise for the purpose of interposing between the right hon. Gentleman and the representatives of the Volunteer force, who, I think, can settle their quarrel without any help from one side or the other. I was not in the House when

655
the right hon. Gentleman made his statement as to the proposals in regard to business. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say again what the proposals are?
MR. BRODRICKrepeated the statement.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is it to be understood that there are to be two discussions on what the right hon. Gentlemen calls the new proposals as to pay and terms of service in the Army? I understood him to suggest that there should be a discussion on Vote A and then again on some special Resolution. I do not know that that is usual.
MR. BRODRICK: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. It is a question for arrangement. I myself would have suggested that the War Office Vote should have been set down, on which full discussion is allowed, and that the discussion should have taken place on that Vote.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is desirable that it should be distinctly understood, if the Speaker leaves the Chair soon, the House will have a full and wide discussion on Votes A and I. There have not been identical decisions on that subject by successive Chairmen, and I think it is essential, if we abandon the privilege we have of discussing the whole Army Question on this Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, that we should have a distinct understanding that there will be full licence and liberty for discussion on both Vote A and I.
MR. BRODRICK: I want to make it clear that it has been usual to allow full licence of discussion on Vote A, but the discussion on Vote I is generally restricted to matters coming within the Vote.
MR. DILLON: I venture to say that in the whole course of my experience in the House of Commons I have never heard of a Minister jumping up in the middle of a debate, close on the dinner hour, and without notice, proceeding to map out the whole time of the House for the following week. These are matters
656
generally dealt with at Question time, when the House is full, and when Members expect to have such a Ministerial statement made. I protest against the idea that Members are to be bound by these arrangements, or that it is to be assumed that the closure is to be granted at the particular hours the right hon. Gentleman has stated. I most respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that if this matter of the time-table of the business of the House is to be agreed to by the House in accordance with rule and practice, it should be dealt with by the Leader of the House at Question time.
MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman what opportunity the House will have of discussing the amended Volunteer regulations which have been promised by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course it is to be understood that any arrangement of the business of the House will in no way prejudice the full discussion of the Vote of want of confidence on Monday. I do not suppose we shall want two weeks for it; we may be able to prove our case in a few hours; but it must be left open that we may obtain, what is always recognised as a right, more than one night for discussion of that Motion, if necessary.
COLONEL BROOKFIELD: I am under the impression that the debate we have been listening to for the last few minutes is quite irregular and strictly out of order, and I desire with great respect to revert to the discussion on the Volunteers. I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War for the remarks he made a few minutes ago when he said that the observations he had made on the Volunteers on Tuesday should not bear the construction which had been put upon them. I think the time has fully come when the Volunteers should be candidly treated and plainly told their merits and demerits. I cannot see any object in keeping up the old custom of making the Volunteers the subject of extravagant eulogy on

657
platforms or on parade. A General comes down to inspect a corps, indulges in all sorts of mischievous and mendacious compliments, and then goes home and writes a cold and cynical report, very probably contradicting all he has himself said. My principal object in rising is to support the new regulations which have been so frequently referred to. I do not think the best friends of the Volunteer force will resist these proposals. The chief mistake made for a great many years past in dealing with the Volunteers has been that the authorities have been apt to ask them what they would like to do, or are prepared to do, instead of informing them distinctly what has to be done. I had hoped that we should have had a definite scheme laid down for the employment of the Volunteers as a part of our national defence; but the next best thing is for the War Office to tell us what kind of men they want in the Volunteer force and what qualifications they should possess. The great bulk of the Volunteer force will meet these proposals in a soldierly spirit and will be really thankful for them. They will only affect two classes. There are a large number of men in the force who would be much better out of it, and whose services may have to be dispensed with. On the other hand, there are a certain number of good officers and men who will have difficulty in complying with these regulations, and for them we have a right to be sorry, and we should try to meet them if we can. But no good Volunteer ought to create difficulties in complying with these undoubtedly drastic changes. The week's camp should be made a period of serious training; indeed, I would gladly extend it. It is very necessary for some corps which have hitherto never thought of an annual training at all. Another change which I approve of is the proper training of recruits, and the insistence on proper company drill. I do not sympathise with my hon. and gallant friends who find fault with the stipulations as to the number of men who are to be present at company drills. I do not believe in those hole-and-corner squad drills being regarded as company drills; and the authorities have a perfect right to say so, too. I strongly favour, too, the stipulation that an officer should be
658
present at all company drills. Nothing is more disheartening to the men than to find their officers are not present at drills. I believe that the most important change for the good of the Volunteer force which the authorities could make would be more financial assistance. With increased efficiency and discipline, we might fairly ask the War Office for assistance in the provision of drill halls and rifle ranges. At present commanding officers are in this respect placed in a very unfair position, and in many cases their financial responsibilities hang like a mill-stone round their necks. The War Office can do a great deal of good also, by simply sending down financial experts to give advice to corps which are in any difficulty. As to obtaining the approval of the Institute of Commanding Officers, I do not think that the Secretary of State for War ought to ask the approval of anyone over whom he exercises discipline; and for my own part I think this Institute has arrogated to itself duties it has no right to discharge.
MR. MCCRAE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the amended regulations will be published before he asks the Volunteer Vote to be taken?
MR. BRODRICK: I do not see that I can give such a pledge, as there are serious difficulties in the way. I take it, however, that there will be very full opportunity for representative Members of the Volunteers to state their views; but I cannot give a promise without consulting the Leader of the House.
MR. PIRIEsaid there was one point he wished to raise which was very germane to the efficiency of the whole Volunteer Corps in the north-east of Scotland; and that was as to the distribution of ammunition to the Aberdeen County Rifle Association. He noticed from paragraph 782 of the Regulations for the Volunteer force, 1891, that the proportion of five rounds of ammunition for each efficient Volunteer should be considered as free. Some years ago a deputation of the Rifle Volunteers of Scotland waited on the General commanding the forces in Scotland—General

659
Chapman—on the question of increasing the free issue of ammunition to the Rifle Associations in Scotland, and secured from him an assurance that he would secure for them an extra issue of ten rounds per man. The deputation urged that the five rounds per each efficient Volunteer was in many cases insufficient to meet the requirements of their annual meeting, and that in the case of the Aberdeenshire Association it was barely half what was required. It was further argued that the free issue of five rounds per man had been introduced into the Volunteer regulations thirty years ago, and that while the Edinburgh and Midlothian and the Scottish Rifle Associations were able to carry through all their competitions with the present free issue of ammunition, the Aberdeenshire Association had to purchase 50 per cent. of theirs owing to the small number of Volunteers embraced in their sparsely populated districts. They impressed General Chapman so much that he recommended to the War Office that they should grant the request of the deputation and increase the issue by ten rounds. The Secretary of State for War intimated that the application could not be complied with, but in June, 1900, a paragraph appeared in several papers stating that the War Office proposed to grant an increased allowance of ammunition for Rifle Associations, and the Aberdeenshire Association accordingly applied for 40,000 in addition to the free issue. The newspaper report was to a certain extent confirmed by a War Office circular received by the secretary of the Aberdeenshire Rifle Association on the 17th of August, 1900, asking for further information regarding the number and nature of the competitions at the annual meeting of the Association and the probable number of competitors. This information was duly sent, and the 40,000 rounds of ammunition received. Nothing further was heard of the matter until the summer of 1901, when the secretary received a request from the War Office for the sum of £186, which came quite as a surprise. The secretary replied that he had applied for the ammunition under the belief that it would be delivered free, and asked them to be generous, as the Volunteers must be made efficient. After some further correspondence, the
660
War Office said they had duly considered the matter and had agreed to accept payment of the £186 in three yearly instalments, and that pending the payment of the instalments the free issue to which the Association was entitled would be withheld. This Association was without funds to pay the money, and he urged that the generous treatment which the War Office professed it was anxious to show to the Volunteers should be extended to this Association, especially having regard to the fact that this Association represented a very sparsely populated district, and was, therefore, struggling under adverse conditions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would deal with this matter as generously as he could.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)said he thought on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman was likely to fall between two stools. He feared he would obtain neither complete efficiency nor the large forces which he had obtained in the past, owing to the onerous duty which these men would be called upon to perform. He spoke tonight for the reason that later on the House would be called on to vote a large amount of money for the Auxiliary Forces, and there ha d not yet been any clear explanation of the plan with regard to those forces. He understood from the statement made last year that there were to be six Army Corps in all, that three were to go abroad and three were to be left at home, and that the infantry of the three Army Corps which were to remain at home was to be composed chiefly of Militia and the best Volunteers. But he did not understand what was to be done with the remaining 150,000 or 200,000 Volunteers who would not be enrolled in the Army Corps, who were to be left at home for home defence. If efficiency was aimed at, the right hon. Gentleman should have gone further. For his own part, he would prefer to these partially trained men some 2,000 auxiliary officers and 4,000 or 5,000 sergeants and non-commissioned officers fully qualified to drill men and instruct them in musketry and the manœuvres connected with war at a time of crisis. At present when hostilities broke out

661
the country was drained of every officer and sergeant in the Regular Army and a large number of officers and sergeants in the Auxiliary Forces, and there was hardly anybody left capable of drilling an ordinary squad of recruits. He could not believe that going into camp for a week would make these Auxiliary Forces more efficient than they were before. No doubt at a time of crisis thousands of men would come forward and offer themselves for service, but that would be no use unless there were men capable of putting them through their exercises. He believed the great difficulty would be in keeping the Yeomanry and Volunteers up to their full strength. The number of men would never be
obtained. Last year there were 35,000 Yeomanry, now there were not 25,000. and this was at a time when the martial spirit was strong in the land. The same thing would be found in the Volunteers if they had to compete, as they would, with the Imperial Yeomanry. He only hoped that the test of efficiency the right hon. Gentleman intended to put the Volunteers through would be further increased, and that be would keep only those who were efficient.
(7.55.) Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 260; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 60.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Grant, Corrie

Allhusen, Augustus Hen'y Eden

Craig, Robert Hunter

Greene, Sir E W (B'rySEdin'nds)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Greene, Henry D.) (Shrewsbury)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Crombie, John William

Grenfell, William Henry

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Crossley. Sir Savile

Gretton, John

Arrol, Sir William

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Groves, James Grimble

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cust, Henry John C.

Hall, Edward Marshall

Austin, Sir John

Davenport, William Bromley.

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Denny, Colonel

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerard W (Leeds

Dickson, Charles Scott

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield.

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Beach, Rt. Hn Sir Michael Hicks

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale.

Bignold, Arthur

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Bigwood, James

Doughty, George

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Black, Alexander William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Heaton, John Henniker

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Helder, Augustus

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Duncan, J. Hastings

Henderson, Alexander

Bond, Edward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith.

Elibank, Master of

Hogg, Lindsay

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Holland, William Henry

Brodrick. Rt. Hon. St. John

Emmott, Alfred

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Bullard, Sir Harry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Butcher, John George

Fenwick, Charles

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Caldwell, James

Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir. J. (Mane'r

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Finch, George H.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (D'rbyshire

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Cawley, Frederick

Fisher, William Hayes

Keswick, William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fison, Frederick William

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Knowles, Lees

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Flannery, Sir Forteseue

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Channing, Francis Allston

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar

Chapman, Edward

Forster, Henry William

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lawson, John Grant

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Galloway, William Johnson

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., F"reham

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Gardner, Ernest

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gartit, William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond.

Leveson-Gower, FrederickN. S.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Levy, Maurice

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Pirie, Duncan V.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Plummer, Walter R.

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Purvis Robert

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Randles, John S.

Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

M'Crae, George

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Majendie, James A. H.

Rea, Russell

Thornton, Percy M.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Reid, James (Greenock)

Tomkinson, James

Maple, Sir John Blundell

Remnant, James Farquharson

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Markham, Arthur Basil

Renwick, George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Rickett, J. Compton

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Valentia, Viscount

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (S'effield

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Webb, Colonel William George

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Weir, James Galloway

Morrell, George Herbert

Round, James

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunt'n

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Rutherford, John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Muntz, Philip A.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Myers, William Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Newnes, Sir George

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wylie, Alexander

Parkes, Ebenezer

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Partington, Oswald

Soares, Ernest J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Pemberton, John S. G.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Pierpoint, Robert

Stone, Sir Benjamin

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Dowd, John

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Blake, Edward

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Malley, William

Boland, John

Lundon, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burke, E. Haviland.

MacNeall, John Gordon Swift

Power, Patrick Joseph

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

M?Hugh, Patrick A.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Crean, Eugene

M'killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Roche, John

Cremer, William Randal

Murnaghan, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cullinan, J.

Murphy, John

Sullivan, Donal

Delany, William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Dillon, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

Young, Samuel

Doogan, P. C.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork.)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N)

Hammond, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the chair.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1902–3.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 420,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at

665
Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903." (8.12.)
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the debate this evening had been mostly on the statements in the speech of the Secretary of State for War with reference to the Volunteers. He thought the case of the Volunteers had been sufficiently discussed, and he did not wish to pursue it. He quite recognised with hon. Members who had spoken the immense utility of the Volunteer force and the great effect it had on recruiting, and the popularity it brought to the Army and on all concerned. He should like to return to what the Secretary of State said about the scheme he had introduced for remodelling the land defences of the country and the Army generally. His first statement was that there was going to be a continuance of the Army Corps system. That system was very considerably criticised last year by many hon. Members, who said that it was merely a scaffolding and nothing else. They stated that it was a system by which the Government were producing staffs and Generals when there was yet no Army for them to command, and that while the expenditure would be very considerable the result would be very small. Since then that opinion had spread, and was now pretty well recognised, not only in all ranks of the Army, but throughout the whole country, It was pretty well acknowledged that last year's scheme was a dead letter so far as the remodelling of the Army was concerned. Those who criticised the scheme pointed out at the time that the first thing necessary to start this great edifice was to put in the foundations in the way of recruiting. He himself suggested that an extra sixpence per day to useful soldiers would bring about that. He congratulated the Secretary of State on having accepted the advice that had been so freely offered to him in years gone by as to the pay of men who were efficient and useful in the Army, and of men who were engaged on foreign service. That was the beginning of the great scheme of which decentralisation was to be a part. But decentralisation seemed to go on
666
very slowly, while the expenditure on the staffs went on at a great pace. The Estimates showed that in two years they would have spent £94,000 on staffs and Generals to command visionary Army Corps. There was a well-known picture of Napoleon reviewing a phantom army on the Champs de Mars. The hon. Member thought the Secretary of State's Army Corps were phantoms, except as regards staffs and Generals.
As to decentralisation, they were told that this, that, and the other would be delegated to the commanders of divisions and brigades, but they were still waiting to hear that some of the work had been delegated. Many who had been advocating the change for years were delighted that the Secretary of State had started the combined system of long and short service—that was for increasing the short service and making a large and powerful reserve, and giving facilities for the soldier to continue his term, so that when he went to India there might not be the same expense as in past years in bringing him home. The result of the system would be that we would have to have battalions at home, because we could not draft practically half of a regiment to stay at home and send those who re-engaged for six years into another battalion to go abroad. This scheme must eventually lead to what he had always advocated, namely, a system of territorial brigades instead of territorial regiments, and consequently large instead of small depots. He knew that there was the expense of building barracks, but the Government were at present spending money on the building of barracks for the visionary Army Corps who were to come back from South Africa. Figures had been given in another place, and he thought they had been practically confirmed here, that when the war came to an end the number of regular troops to come back would be exceedingly small and would make no Army Corps at all. If, instead of building barracks and preparing for the mythical Army Corps likely to come home some day, they spent the money on training recruits for foreign service, they would do more advantageous work.
Referring to the question of the cost of recruiting, the hon. Member said that the large sums spent were always

667
grudged by the taxpayer. He did not say it was grudged for the Army more than anything else. Of course it was more grudged for the Army than the Navy. The expenditure was divided into £1,048,000 which England had to pay, and £760,000 which India had to pay. He thought £760,000 would be found to be too large an amount to expect India to pay, because India now paid a certain amount for the training of troops in England, and in future we should have to consider the training India, did of native troops whom we used elsewhere, and also the 10,000 men always ready to be taken from India and whom we regarded as a reserve for other parts of the world. There was another thing he was sorry to see in the statement, namely, the pay of the Yeomanry. The new Yeomanry were practically mounted Militia. They had tried the bounty for serving in the Militia and found it a failure, and yet they were starting a £5 bounty with the Yeomanry who offered to serve abroad. That was sure to prove a failure. If they got men to accept the bounty they would only weaken the Yeomanry regiments left at home. He thought this exploded fallacy would be done away with in the case of the Yeomanry in less time than in the case of the Militia. It would give the War Office an opportunity for counting men twice over, and of course they knew the War Office was fond of doing this. He thought the Militia had a real grievance in that they were not to get the extra sixpence when they were embodied. This was not fair, and he believed it would be found to be a mistake. He insisted that the Milita were entitled to the additional sixpence a day, the same as the Regulars. In accordance with the present ridiculous system the Militia had to volunteer before they could be sent abroad, but he held that if they were enlisted on terms of foreign service as many recruits would be got as at present, and the War Office would not require to go down on their knees to ask them to go abroad.
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted and forty Members being found present—
Mr. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he would not press further the Militia grievances. But he wished to point out that under the general scheme the Militia Reserve would be enormously increased without an increase of officers. In times of emergency they had always to depend on the Militia Reserve, but the War Office scheme neglected to consider that Reserve. The Militia was the cheapest branch of the Army. The pay of the Regular Army amounted to £16,000,000, that of Militia to £2,260,000, while the cost of the Volunteers was £1,780,000. That was to say that the Militia cost a seventh of the Regular Army, and the Volunteers a ninth. But what were the proportions of the different arms sent to the front? Leaving out of account the Colonial Forces, there were 70,000 Regulars at the front, 20,000 Militia, and 10,000 Volunteers. The Militia ought not to have been neglected as it had been in the new scheme.
MAJOR BAGOTsaid that it had taken a great many years and a great many Secretaries of State for War to come to the conclusion that if we were to draw to our Army the most desirable class of working men we must enter into competition with the labour market. He thought that a clear 1s. or 1s. 6d. per day might draw good men to the Army; but he was of opinion that if the scale of living amongst working men was to go on improving in the future, as it had done in the last twenty-five years, even this addition to the pay of our soldiers would not be altogether sufficient to attract the class of men required. He admitted that a very great improvement had been made in the social status of the British soldier during the past twenty-five years. When he first joined the Army, nearly thirty years ago, the old Colonels would have thought it was contrary to discipline to allow a soldier to go on furlough in plain clothes. If the British soldier was to be encouraged, he should not only have an increase in his pay, but be allowed more freedom when off parade and drill. The only one Army which could be really compared with the British was the United States Army. The pay of the private

669
in the latter Army was 1s. 9d., after three years service 2s., and after five years service 2s. 6d. That was a very considerable advance on anything we proposed to give to our soldiers, but he did not think, taking into consideration the difference between the conditions of this country and the United States, that it would be necessary to go on to the American scale of pay. He was, however, quite sure that there was no comparison between the general freedom given here and in the United States to the soldier when off parade and out of barracks. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to say that he was going to give the British soldier a clear 1s. or 1s. 6d. a day, but he could not come to the conclusion that that was the case. At no date had the British soldier ever pocketed the clear sum of money promised him on joining the ranks, and which really induced him to go into the Army. There were always deductions. Were these stoppages to be abolished? The stoppages for barrack damages, for instance, were excessive when the so-called damages were only fair wear and tear; and they were difficult to collect. One instance had been given by the hon. Member for East Somerset, to whom he himself had sent from South Africa a paper, in which a claim for damages against a regiment stationed at Devonport had been sent out all over South Africa to recover 1d.! Perhaps the most important, because the most expensive, of all the stoppages, was that which a man had to meet when he went into hospital as the result of some illness or accident, not his own fault in any way whatever. It was perfectly right in certain circumstances that a man in hospital should have his pay stopped, but under ordinary circumstances he maintained that there should be no stoppage whatever. It was the business of the medical officer to find out whether a man was genuinely ill or shamming. If his right hon. friend would state that a soldier would in future get a clear 1s. or 1s. 6d. a day, he was perfectly certain it would be a great inducement to recruiting. The previous history of the War Office dealings with the Army had been in the direction of giving with one hand very
670
publicly and taking away with the other privately.
He next drew attention to the question of the future system of musketry to be carried on in the Army. He rejoiced that his right hon. friend had realised how extremely important good shooting was, and he had also realised that, up to the present, soldiers had been paid in a manner which no private employer would permit. Skilled and unskilled were paid exactly the same wages, and a third-class shot had as much pay as a first-class shot. His right hon. friend proposed to alter that, and to do away with the third class and have only two classes of markmanship. Men in the first class would receive a clear 1s. 6d. a day, but he noticed that a man who did not get into the first class would be mulcted 2d. per day and would only receive 1s. 4d. Although that was an excellent system in itself, and one which would induce men to use every endeavour to be good shots, it might act unfairly on the individual soldier. No doubt the scheme had been drawn up by gentlemen who had given a great deal of attention to the theory of musketry, but he was not sure that they had thought very much of the practice. Musketry was conducted from the 1st of April to the 1st of October. Take two private soldiers, both of them in receipt of 1s. 6d. per day, and each having to get into the first class. One man fired his course early in the season, say on the 15th of April, and failed. He was thereby immediately mulcted 2d. per day and did not get any chance of recovering that sum for at least a year, and possibly for sixteen months, which would mean a loss of about £4. The other man might fire his course towards the end of the season and, supposing he failed, he would have an opportunity of getting back his 2d. per day within six months; and would have a great advantage over his fellow soldier by a mere accident. There must, of course be good and bad luck, but still, he thought the element of chance which he had mentioned might be removed. He should have preferred, himself, to have seen a gratuity, a substantial gratuity, paid to each man who became a marksman, and also that his company officer should give him the

671
indulgences, such as passes and clothes, which would have to be adopted if the Army was to be made popular. By all means let good shooting be encouraged, but under the present system one man might be deprived of 2d. per day for sixteen months, whereas another man might be deprived of that sum for only six months. He was perfectly certain that the question of good shooting was really of the very greatest importance. Under the short service system men would be put into the Reserve for nine years. That was a very long time, and if towards the end of that nine years a man, who had only three years practice of shooting in the Army, were called upon, he did not believe be would be of the slightest use as a rifle shot unless some system of annual rifle training for the Reserve was introduced. It would be a comparatively easy thing to give the men in the Reserve a course of training, if not every year, at least every two years, unless they had passed a high standard. With the exception of these matters, he thought that the Secretary of State had put forward a really genuine proposal which would result undoubtedly in a very substantial increase in the number of recruits, and also a better class of man to serve in the Army.
DR. FARQUHARSON(Aberdeenshire, W.) said that in common with every hon. Member who took an interest in the question, he had read with great interest the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting. While, however, it contained a great, deal of valuable information, the Inspector-General had given no opinion of his own as to the best methods of getting recruits. He thought that such an exceptionally able man as the present Inspector-General, who had special facilities for getting information, could give very valuable advice as to the best way of getting recruits, and as to what should be done to get better conditions of recruiting generally. What interested him very much was that recruiting had been greatly stimulated at Woolwich by having better quarters for recruits. Had the right hon. Gentleman ever visited the recruiting station at St. George's Barracks? It was in charge of most a
672
experienced recruiting officer, but over the door might have been inscribed, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." They were told in the Inspector-General's Report that recruiting for the line was unsatisfactory. He did not wonder at it. If he might use the phrase without offence, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rather living in a. fool's paradise if he supposed he was going to compete with the skilled 1abour market. That was not possible. All he could hope for was to compete with the unskilled labour market, where he could get a certain number of very good men who would make excellent soldiers. One of the reasons why recruits could not now be got was that the Imperial Yeomanry were being paid 5s. a day. He had talked to recruiting sergeants, and had asked them why they could not get more recruits, and he had always been told the same story, namely, that they could not get more recruits because the Imperial Yeomanry were getting 5s. a day, and the ordinary recruit, would not enter the service at a 1s. per day. Another question of very great importance was the question of the physical training of the soldiers. He thought that the physical training of the recruits was being overdone. A recruit was sent to Caterham or elsewhere, and had to go through an elaborate course of training. He saw opposite an hon. and gallant Gentleman who was an old comrade of his in the Coldstreams, and he knew that the young soldier was underfed, and that every farthing he could scrape together was spent in providing himself with enough food, literally to keep body and soul together. Why were not recruits to get increased pay? He considered that, most of all, the recruit was entitled to it, because he was undergoing physical training which placed a very great, continuous, and exhausting strain on his physical development. It should be remembered that he was a growing lad, building up his constitution, and if he were not fed well he would afterwards break down in all directions. He was glad to hear some discretion was given to the doctors with regard to the physical development of recruits, but the doctor should be a man of great practical experience; it was no use for these doctors to be mere general

673
practitioners. The Yeomanry were examined by general practitioners in the districts where they were recruited who had special instructions not to examine them in the same elaborate way in which the ordinary soldier is examined.
A great deal had been said lately about the examination of the officers. The hon. and gallant Member for Mid Essex described the process as the selection not of the fittest but the fattest. If a young officer was sent back for not being of a sufficient weight, all he bad to do was to feed on a particular diet, or like the "Jumping Frog" fill himself up with shot, and he could pass the examination. He had heard of a young fellow who was sent back for being under weight He went away and took a large meal of bread and water, and got his weight up so well as to be able to turn the scale in his favour. He noticed that medical officers Were to look at detective teeth, and to ascertain in the first place whether they were due to constitutional taint or not. How were they to get at the constitutional taint?
Then it was said we must give better pay in order to get a better class fighting material. Was it really required to get a better man than the best; was it to be said that we had not the best fighting men in the world? What we wanted was light-hearted devil-may-care kind of men who would fight our battles; who wore not afraid to go to battle and be killed for their country. Small men were the best, big men broke down with hernia, flat-foot, varicose vein, and, above all heart. It was the small men who wore the best fighting men in the world. We wanted, not men of a bad character, but men of not too good a character men who would fight well and die well for their country. The right hon. Gentleman also wanted to encourage marriage off the strength, which was an illegal action on the part of the soldier; he did not see why they should be encouraged to break a fundamental condition of military life. A married man was a much worse soldier than a bachelor; he had his hostages to fortune at home to consider. A larger army was not required; we could get all the fighting men we required in time of war. When war came we should get recruits in the same numbers as we
674
obtained them for this war. He was fundamentally opposed to this system of Army Corps, and to the proposed increased pay to the soldier, which was quite unnecessary. What we ought to do was, let the soldier get his full pay and not stop anything out of it; give him his pinch of salt and his dust of pepper and his drop of milk for his coffee, and let him have his full pay. It was an unmitigated swindle to make the soldier pay for anything. We should encourage him to wear plain clothes on furlough, and treat him like a human being, allow him to go inside an omnibus or into a box at the theatre in Ins uniform; let him be received everywhere. And when his service is over, we ought to give him a good pension. The right hon. Gentleman, he perceived, did not intend to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, who were the backbone of the army, and who did all the work. The regimental officers, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite knew perfectly well, did nothing whatever.
COLONEL LEGGE: I Cannot agree with you.
DR. FARQUHARSONsaid we ought to feed our soldiers better, and bridge over the gap between their dinner and their breakfast the next morning. At the present time the soldier had his dinner at 12 o'clock, and nothing more until the next morning. That was not the way to make the army popular. The soldier ought to be better fed and be given more amusement, and above all be taught a good trade, so that when he returned to civil life he would become a useful member of society. The Government did very little indeed to give the soldier a reasonable employment when he retired into private life. If a soldier retired on a good pension, with a good character and a good trade, he was a recruiting officer far more useful than any of those who now went about bamboozling the poor fellows who were now induced to join.
(9.42.) COLONEL LEGGEsaid lie entirely repudiated the accusation which had been levelled against the Regimental Officers by the hon. Member who had just sat down. If it had not been for their devotion to duty we should not

675
have attained the position we now had in South Africa. However brilliant the Staff Officers might be, they had to depend in the day of battle on the fighting men.
DR. FARQUHARSONdisclaimed intention to make any imputation against regimental officers.
COLONEL LEGGEsaid that he would not, in that case, further labour the matter, With regard to recruiting, that question was two-fold. There was the question of getting the recruits, and the question of keeping them when they were obtained. In order to obtain recruits, it was necessary to make the Service attractive, and in order to keep them they must be made comfortable and contented. He hailed with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the War Office was about to increase the pay in the Army. To increase the pay was the only way in which the necessary number of recruits could be obtained. He agreed that it should be made certain that a soldier would get all he was led to expect by the promises made. When a man enlisted, instead of getting the money announced on the posters in every recruiting station, he found himself liable to a large number of stoppages. Under the Royal Warrant he would be liable to hospital stoppages, to a stoppage of 4½d for messing—but, as a rule, it does not exceed 3d. or 2d.— a penny for washing, and he had to pay for hair-cutting, to subscribe to the library and regimental institute, to keep up his clothing—though the clothing scale now was very liberal, and a careful man would have little to pay in that respect—and also had to pay for his "necessaries." The last-named, he thought, was a very great grievance. When a recruit joined he received a full kit of necessaries—i.e., underclothing, brushes, and various articles for keeping his accoutrements clean—but he never received another issue. With great care many of the articles would probably last the whole of his service, but the underclothing and brushes certainly would not. These necessaries should be treated in the same way as clothing, and periodical issues made. Such a course would relieve the recruit of great expense and
676
much disappointment and annoyance. These were matters which required to betaken into consideration in connection with the question of improving the condition of the soldiers and encouraging men to enter and remain in the Army. Another point in the direction of making things comfortable for the recruit was the accommodation in barracks. Last year he called attention to the barracks at a station in Ireland with which he was acquainted. Those barracks were then in extremely bad order, but since then he was glad to say considerable improvements had been made. He hoped the Secretary of State would go on improving the barracks, so as to make the men as comfortable as possible.
Then there was the question of messing allowance. A soldier received the Government allowance of rations, but everything else—groceries, vegetables, bread and butter, and so on—he had to pay for himself. There was a daily stoppage on that account, and in 1898, in order to enable the men to live better, a messing allowance of 3d. per day was granted. But this was denied to the recruits. The recruit, however, was the very man who most needed the extra food. The conditions attaching to the issue of the messing allowance were that the private soldier must have attained the age of nineteen years, have been the full period of six months under training, and during that period have made satisfactory progress. In reply to a question on the subject last year, the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that the matter had been carefully considered, but there would appear to be no justification for the relaxation of the regulation. He, however, thought there was every reason for such a relaxation. It was not desirable that the recruit should receive the same pay as the trained soldier, but the very last thing that should be done was to deprive him of any portion of his food. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to granting this messing allowance to the young soldiers who so much needed it. Possibly the War Office was getting out of the difficulty in another way, as he was told that recruits now had not to do any work before breakfast, and were not put on guard until they had been six

677
months in the service. He did not think that was a judicious way of getting out of the difficulty. It would be far better to give a man, when, as a growing lad he particularly required it, the full benefit of the messing which he got as a trained soldier, and to make him do the duty he had always been required to do. He could not see what object was to be gained by allowing a recruit to do nothing before the breakfast hour. Under certain circumstances, especially in cavalry regiments, it would be impossible properly to train recruits if such a system were carried out. In regard to recruiting, a good deal was sometimes heard about lowering the standard and "specials." To lower the standard was, of course, one way of getting recruits when the Army was hard up for them, and it was not an altogether objectionable plan. A short man, if he was strong, well-made, and active, might be just as good a shot as, and perhaps a better one, than a tall man. But with regard to "specials," there were greater objections. In the regiment he had commanded, he was very particular about the recruits. He used to have them weighed and measured when they entered, and again after they had made some progress, and he found that while they would always grow in chest measurement they did not necessarily grow in height. When, therefore, he was asked to take a "special," under a certain height, he, as a rule, declined to do so, but he had no objection to taking him if he was only under chest measurement. His mason for making the distinction was that his regiment was a Lancer Regiment, and a lancer could not properly wield his lance unless he had a certain length of leg to enable him to get a good grip of his horse.
A further point he desired to touch upon was that of consulting the Colonies with regard to assisting us in keeping up the strength of the Army. Last year he asked the Secretary of State for War whether he would consider the advisability of inviting the Colonies to raise a regular force for service in the Imperial Army at home and abroad during peace and war, and the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that the proposal had been repeatedly considered, but had not hitherto been
678
found practicable, though he hoped the beginning of some such connection might be made through the Imperial Yeomanry. He (the hon. Member), however, failed to see how the connection could be so made, as the Imperial Yeomanry were neither "Imperial" nor "Yeomanry," being under the regulations of last year mounted Militia for home defence. He believed that in course of time the Colonies might raise regiments, each Colony in its own area, having the depôt in the Colony, to be part of the great Imperial Army of the Empire, to take their turn of service at home and also abroad, and be treated in every way like other regiments in the Army. Such a scheme was, he believed, possible. One battalion raised in that way in Canada had been working with us, but not long ago a demand was made that it should be repatriated; that it should have its depôt in Canada again. The localisation of that Canadian Regiment had been rather peculiar. The original regiment was the 100th of the line, the Prince of Wales' Royal Canadians. When the amalgamation took place some years ago, it became the first battalion of the regiment, and had for its second battalion the 109th Regiment Bombay Infantry. It was possible that the Secretary of State at that time had some germs of imperialism in him, and that he thought the connection between Canada and Bombay a judicious one, but, having been thus connected, the two battalions were given the name of "the Prince of Wales' Leinster Regiment, Royal Canadians," and the depôt was at Birr, in King's County, Ireland. He did not think that was quite the way to bring about a connection with the Colonies. But it was possible to do something to bring Colonial regiments into line with our own regiments, and he would like to see such regiments take their turn on home service, and, among other things, be quartered in London, and take their turn at guarding the Royal Palaces.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this was the annual occasion for discussing these questions from a military point of view, and but for one or two interesting speeches they would hardly have gathered from the debate that they were face to face

679
with a great war and with a great scheme of Army reform for the future. There were many active Volunteer officers in the House who al ways took the deepest concern in matters affecting Volunteer regiments which they knew so well. But if they put it as high as they liked, the Volunteer question was, after all, not the most important question before them. He would say nothing on this occasion upon the war, although this was the only opportunity they might have of discussing the military arrangements in connection with the war. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War knew his views upon that subject, and all he had to say was that they remained unchanged and unaffected by the action which the Government had taken in South Africa. He regarded the loss of the convoys and the defeats which we had suffered in the last month at Uitspanfontein and Klerksdorp as being in the highest degree damaging to our military character in the world. He believed that those losses were due to the feebleness of our cavalry work, and that they could have been guarded against by precautions taken in advance. All the promises made to them two years ago that in future the horses should never be sent up at once, to be worked to death, directly after their arrival at Cape Town, had been broken. He believed the whole Intelligence Staff work of the Army was affected by these considerations. If there had been a proper organisation of the headquarter staff of the Army, and a proper use of the intelligence branch, which they knew was a failure at the beginning of the war, these events would not have occurred.
He thought, however, that on this occasion the most useful thing to do would be to consider the plans for the future, which the Government had placed before them. The Secretary for War in his interesting statement two days ago, made some reference to the unfortunate scheme of last year. It was not necessary, perhaps, to revive all that was then said, but the Secretary for War did tempt Providence a little in using such unfortunate language about his Army Corps. The right hon. Gentleman said triumphantly that the Army Corps scheme of last year still held the field [Laughter.] A statement of that sort was no argument.
680
Then there was the most unfortunate quotation about the French officer who, when asked by the Emperor Napoleon where his troops were, said, "Sire, they are there." He supposed the right hon. Gentleman meant that his Army Corps were buried in Africa. While they were there this organisation was a premature device. Then the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way to complain that he had been attacked most unjustly about many matters, one of which, as to the German guns, seemed particularly to rankle in his mind. It was an entire misrepresentation, however, to say that the Government was attacked because the guns were bought in Germany. The Government was attacked five years ago for not having any quick-firing guns—German, English, French, or anything else—and it was shown also that they hail been offered quick-firing guns of the most improved type by a foreign firm—French guns they happened to be. But the Government at that time did not even seem to know what quick-firing guns were. They were taught by painful experience in South Africa, and then, in a great hurry, they ordered some German guns, which were imperfect. The point was, however, that they ought to have had quick-firing guns in their possession years before. A general attack was not made upon German guns, but because guns had to be ordered in a hurry which were imperfect. A few years ago the then Financial Secretary to the War Office admitted that they had no quick-firing guns, and he admitted that this class of guns had been offered to them by foreign firms and refused. He stated that they were refused, because the Government felt that changes were still going on, and they thought the best thing they could do was to wait for further improvements.
But there was a further complaint, and it was that the House of Commons never had an opportunity of discussing this question at all. They were told that one of the greatest needs of the War Office was that they should be able to spend small amounts without the preliminary sanction of the House of Commons. But there was the power which, with the consent of the Treasury, enabled them to transfer money from one head to another. By taking advantage of this power these

681
German guns were paid for out of the Clothing Vote, and be believed it would be in order to discuss that question when in August next the transfer came before the House. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have brought 80 much ancient history into a statement so important that it needed no garnishing. It was a completely new departure which they ought to consider carefully upon its own merits. It was, he thought, useless to consider in that House anything but the in main lines of these proposals. There was one matter, however, which ought to be touched on; it was by no means certain that we ought, to apply the same system of enlistment to the infantry of the Line as to the special branches of the Service—the cavalry and artillery. To introduce a uniform system all round was now admitted to be a mistake by France and Prussia. In Prussia there was now a different period of service for cavalry, and the deficiency and difficulty had liven with regard to the infantry of the Line. It ought not to be assumed by the Government that any welcome or sanction given to their scheme with regard to the infantry of the Line, was also extended with regard to the cavalry and artillery. There were some hon. Members who felt very deeply on the point that the Government roust not be allowed to trust for the mounted services of this country to scratch forces of one kind or another. In the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman two days ago, he referred to the Yeomanry. He saw some distinguished officers of the Yeomanry present, and he believed lie should have them with hint when he said that the Regular Army of the country ought to contain its own regular cavalry in sufficient numbers, and it ought also to have its mounted infantry regular regiments. They could not expect to have their Army in a condition to meet the calls which might be made upon it unless they had more mounted troops of a regular description. With regard to the main part of the scheme, it was that to which his noble friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office referred, when he said that lie (the right hon. Baronet) was like a squirrel in a cage, always making the same motion. He was not one of those indi-
682
victuals who, because his principles were not accepted, thought he ought to change them. It seemed to him that in these maters they should be importunate like the widow in the Scriptures. They had gone on repeating those principles, and they had now got their way, and had made a real impression upon the Government.
Dealing with the main points of the scheme of the Secretary for War, he said that they seemed to him to be satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman admitted to the full that which no Government had ever before admitted—the complete breakdown, the hopeless and discreditable breakdown, of the existing system. Instead of palliating the deficiencies, the right hon. Gentleman stated, without concealment, the horrible wastage of the British Army, which prevented the Cardwell scheme from working in practice and their getting in the Reserve the men they had paid for. This was an advance. Before the publication of the Report of the inspector-General of Recruiting, he and several of his hon. friends joined together in putting on the Paper notices which called attention to the state of recruiting for the infantry of the Line. They said that the conditions must be Unproved. The only omissions he noticed in the statement of deficiency and failure consisted in the right hon. Gentleman making no reference to the breakdown of the linked battalion system, for the state of things now was, worse than it was last year. Four battalions were disbanded last year, or before last year, and the Navy had refused to take over the coaling stations which made matters worse than last year.
The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was a breakdown of the Reserve. He put this somewhat mildly in his written statement, for he said that the Reserve at the end of the war would be "somewhat short of the establishment." But when he made the revelation to the House of the wastage and the causes of wastage which the War Office had glossed over in the past, he used words which were not sufficiently recognised outside as being the death-knell of the conscription remedy. He had seen with astonishment

683
in the Press that it had been suggested that the words of the right hon. Gentleman pointed towards the possibility of the adoption of conscription. To his mind, the right hon. Gentleman's statement had destroyed conscription forever. In the Channel Islands a universal liability to bear arms had existed, but the Government had allowed that liability to go by the board. He confessed that the abolition of universal service in the Channel Islands was good enough for him, and that the Government, in assenting to the abolition of the principle there, was not likely to introduce it here. But the House was saved from all need of discussing the applicability to the peculiar circumstances of the British Empire of the system of conscription by the words which the right hon. Gentleman had used. If the remedies in this scheme were not sufficient, other remedies in the same direction could obviously be tried, and that seemed to him to concede the whole position.
We had been enlisting and training large numbers of unsound and valueless men. It was now proposed that we should have a double system of enlistment, which many of them had always asked for. If he might say so, the Government had reached the point at which he himself stood a few years ago. He had gone a little further since in the same direction, but the Government had adopted the scheme which other hon. Members and himself had put before the House some years ago. The Government had now adopted three year enlistment and eight year enlistment. He had gone further because, personally, he adopted the view which was put before the House last year by the hon. Member for Oldham, that in the interest of the country they ought to accept the services of men for the shortest time which would enable the authorities to make them of some use. A great advantage was gained by allowing men to try our military system; and although be admitted that they could not have men coming in at all periods of the year, yet even in a year's service, if they could get all the men at the same period, a great deal of good could he achieved. He thought that the Government would
684
be driven to that system of taking men for one year provided that they could get them all to join at the same time of the year. He was confident there were a great many men in the country who if they were made fairly comfortable would make trial of the system of service, but, to use their own phrase, they would not "sign away their liberty" by entering for a long term. With regard to enlistments for India, he agreed with the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire on the question of age. There was a terrible piece of evidence given by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught before the Wantage Committee. He said—
"Half the men were really much under the nominal age, and made no secret of tins fact. He had himself received drafts in India, men so young that lie had said on looking at them that half would die during their service, and half did die."
That was a terrible piece of evidence, and if, in connection with this point, the Government could do something to prevent this enlistment of boys for India, and see that they did not make mere fraudulent statements in regard to their age in order to enlist, they would be doing a great deal for the interests of this country, and they would also be doing what the Indian taxpayer demanded. India paid for an article of good quality, and it was a gross fraud on India to send out men under conditions of that kind. In the same evidence, the Duke of Connaught laid great stress upon increased food for the b younger men when engaged in gymnastics and drill.
Members who had become acquainted with men who had just left the Army would know that these men gave the Army a bad name. The men might be wrong, but their opinions were of vital moment, for it was what they thought rather than what was the fact that affected recruiting. It was therefore, worth while to inquire why they held these opinions. The men were apt to give the military service a bad character because of breach of faith, and there seemed good ground for the complaint. They very often heard civilian servants of all classes complain of the hard conditions of their life and the lowness of their pay, but, at any rate, they knew what they were going in for. A soldier did not know, and, therefore, he thought there was great justice in his

685
complaint. Some time ago his noble friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office made a speech at Bolton which the private soldier was continually quoting. In that speech the noble Lord said that the soldier was getting—
"Lodging, free clothing and food, and seven shillings a week to put in his pocket."
Every British soldier seemed to know that speech by heart, and some of them used language with regard to it which was neither Parliamentary nor polite, and he thought the private had some ground for doing this. The hon. Member who had just spoken referred to stoppages. There had been in the past a tendency on the part of the War Office to count the same money twice over, and now that the Secretary for War was in a reforming frame of mind, he thought he might very well give his attention to these matters of which the soldier complained, and which were regarded as breaches of faith. He hoped he should be free from any accusation of doing anything which could do harm to the public interest in these matters. Although no complaints had been made in this House upon this point, Lord Lansdowne did go out of his way in the House of Lords to take to task the Duke of Bedford for some observations he made on the subject. But, after all, the British soldier knew all these things perfectly well, even if the ordinary British public did not know them. The British soldier knew them all by heart. The noble Lord opposite told the British soldier that he got all those things for nothing, together with one shilling per day pocket money. He had in his hand the actual pay sheet showing the actual stoppages referred to by the hon. Member for South Westmoreland and the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken. It should be remembered by those who were not soldiers that the stoppages were not everything. There were many things that had to be paid for out of what was called the pocket money, besides those which were stopped upon the pay sheet itself. There were such things on the pay sheet as messing, washing, hair cutting, library, rifle class (voluntary), games club (voluntary), barrack damages, Army Temperance Association (voluntary), necessaries from regimental store (shirt, trousers,
686
socks, etc.), boot bill and tailor's bill. Besides those, there were a still larger number of things which were virtually necessary, and which had to be paid out of the soldier's own pocket after lie got his money. There were such things as coal for extra fuel, plates, and basins, cleaning material (1s. per month)—boot blacking, pouch blacking, and pipeclay. For marking 1d. Per month and a ¼d per article. A most curious item, of which the soldiers bitterly complained, was the charge for shaving. It was an extraordinary fact, well known to the military Members of the House, though not to civilians generally, that the razor supplied to the soldier by the Government was only for show in his kit and was never used. Then there was the charge for extra washing, 1s. a month for walking-out gloves, hair brushes, walking-out regimental canes (4d. per month), supper, and also beer, which was not necessary, but usual. Now, leaving out the beer and the three voluntary items, which were not entirely voluntary, there were eighteen items—eight of them on the pay-sheet and ten out of the man's own pocket—which every soldier had to pay, and they came to a very considerable amount. The men complained not only of these stoppages, but of the discontinuance of the lodging grant of 4d. a day when on furlough, which had been given down to 1880. They said that the Government had set off against that what was called a concession by the railway companies with regard to travelling; but that was only what every football player, cricketer, and angler got, and was therefore no concession at all.
The one other question which he wished to press was that of food. The right hon. Gentleman said that the recruit was to get an additional 3d. a day for food so soon as he was efficient, but a boy in the Navy got more than the able seaman—not less. Ought not the British soldier to be treated as the British sailor was treated? The Committee on the Food of the Navy, in their admirable Report, laid down the sound principle—and they were dealing with a system of

687
feeding which was already better than that of the Army—that—
"The ration should be sufficient in itself to satisfy all reasonable requirements of the men and able to maintain them in a perfect state of health."
They also said—
"We have taken into consideration the rise which has taken place in the standard of living of the class on shore from which the men are commonly recruited."
Those principles seemed to him to be perfectly sound and perfectly applicable to the British Army. It was impossible to pretend that the food which was at present given as public food to the soldier was sufficient under those naval canons. The very best food, in the regiment where it was best looked after, could not be compared with the food provided for the police any day at one o'clock at Bow-street. The latter was infinitely superior. When we were considering this question de novo, they ought to look at what the men put first. The men themselves put food and comfort before pay. No doubt they might be mistaken in doing so, but what had to Le dealt with was what prevented men, and even soldiers' sons, joining the Army. Food and comfort was what the soldiers looked to, not cubicles and things of that kind.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Do not cubicles promote comfort?
SIR CHARLES DILKE: They are all against cubicles; they sneer at them. This subject of food had been considered by scientific men. Dr. Haldane, of Oxford, who had gone into this matter with a good deal of care, said that the recruit got only 36 per cent. of what he ought to get to keep him in health—36 per cent. of what a Scotch convict got, and infinitely less than the ordinary factory worker. After receiving the threepence messing allowance he got 52 per cent. But he did not bind himself to Dr. Haldane's statistics. He preferred to rely on the opinion of the men, which pointed to the same conclusion. Now that they had gone so far, they ought at once to try to meet the opinion of the enlisting classes with regard to food and comfort. If their present scheme was not sufficient to attract the men, they ought to try a still shorter period of enlistment.
(10.38.) LORD ALWYNE COMPTONsaid that as an old soldier of fourteen years service he felt most strongly that what the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down had said was perfectly true. The scheme put before the House by the right hon. the Secretary of State for War, involving, as it did, our ability to maintain our land forces for the defence of the Empire, was most momentous. He would point out that everything that had been said by the critics of the War Office before the war, as to the insufficiency of the guns for our Army, had unfortunately proved true by events in South Africa. So much was the want of guns felt, that lie believed he was not exaggerating when he said that not only were the arsenals ransacked, but that even some of the show guns from the museums-were taken away to South Africa a year after the campaign was started and that the orders issued for new guns amounted to something like 500 pieces of ordnance. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean that the Army should be properly supplied with regular cavalry and regular mounted infantry. It was generally thought nowadays that a soldier could be made in a very short period of time. That was a dangerous theory. The old saying in cavalry regiments that it took two years to make an efficient soldier still held good. The main point in the speech of the Secretary of State for War was the question of the increase of pay, with the view of obtaining a better class of men for the Army, and he thought that every hon. Member in the House might congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the steps he had taken to obtain more recruits. The next most important stage in his right hon. friend's speech was at the end, where he foreshadowed that after consultation with the Colonial representatives it might be possible that some seal effort night be made to re-organise the land forces of the Empire as an Imperial force, and to distribute it over the Empire, so that it should be ready to meet any attack or danger in any part of the world. As to the increase of pay, he had only a few words to say. No doubt it had been very carefully con-

689
sidered, but he thought that the noncommissioned officers would naturally feel some resentment, and it would he advisable for his right hon. friend to explain.
MR. BRODRICKasked if his noble friend's contention was that the noncommissioned officers should get an equal increase with the men?
LORD ALWYNE COMPTONsaid he did not mean that for a moment, but the non-commissioned officers would naturally say that they were the men who had taken most trouble with their profession, and yet they saw the junior ranks given an increase of pay while they received no addition.
MR. BRODRICKsaid that the noncommissioned officers would get the allowance for stoppages, and 6d. a day later on. That would be 8d. a day more.
LORD ALWYNE COMPTONsaid lie was glad that the point had been made clear. As regarded the additional 6d., for his own part he believed that 1s. a day was quite sufficient for a recruit if he got a clear shilling, but after that he should have preferred a sliding scale rising from 1s. to 1s. 9d. or any higher sum. Human nature was human nature all the world over, and as long as men saw something in front of them, it was a great advantage. It was perfectly true that last year his right hon. friend drew the outline of several Army Corps, and many hon. Members were inclined to support him because of the principles lie laid down, namely, the principle of decentralisation, and the principle, which he afterwards departed from, and later returned to, that the officer who was in command of an Army Corps in peace should lead it in war. But surely the whole basis of that scheme was the distribution of the forces as far as the garrisons of India, South Africa, and other places were concerned. South Africa was to have twelve battalions of Infantry. He did not go so far as the hon. Member who said that it would be necessary to have a garrison of 100,000 in South Africa, but at the same time he had very little doubt that the twelve battalions of his right hon. friend, say 10,000 men, were obviously too few. Now that they knew that 50,000 or
690
60,000 men would be required in South Africa for some time, the scheme to that extent fell to the ground.
His own view was, although hon. Members on the other side who had sympathy with the Boers would not agree with him, that the war was nearly over. It was a bold statement to make, but it was his own feeling. He wished to ask the House what position they should be in as regarded the land forces when the war came to an end. He had read an admirable speech made in another place a few nights ago by the Duke of Bedford, whose contributions, on those subjects were always valuable. As far as he understood, the total strength of the Regular Army in South Africa had been returned at 137,000 men. The Duke of Bedford's figures were disputed by the Under Secretary of State for War, but, although he disputed them, he did not appear as if he knew how to criticise them. There must be released at the termination of the war in South Africa something like 67,000 reservists. The strength of the Regular Army now at home was 120,000 men, and that included the men who had been invalided home and recruits under twenty-one. Thirteen thousand men would be required for foreign service, leaving a residue of 90,000 at home, instead of the 155,000 on which Ins right hon. friend had calculated. The war was entered on with the reserve of 107,000 men, and when it was over there would be no field Army with the colours at home, but merely a depot, so to Teak, of 90,000 men, including invalids and boys, and that number would be called upon to supply drafts, for regiments abroad. No one could deny the gravity of that situation. No one could deny that the condition was a parlous one. His right hon. friend had attempted a solution of the problem. He would express no opinion on the subject, but he hoped his right hon. friend would be successful. He would like, however, to throw out one suggestion. His own belief was that there was one other way of obtaining the men required. The system of recruiting was a very poor system, and had been carried on without any modification for sixty or seventy years. At present it was carried on by military agents alone; that was

691
to say, by recruiting sergeants called away from their ordinary duties to stand about street corners and about the country and endeavour to entrap young men into their nets. He used the word "entrap" advisedly. The recruiting sergeants were making a feeble attempt to compete with the labour market. Surely that might be altered, if the system were put on a different basis. He saw no reason why it should not be put on a national basis, and why the other great Departments of the State who took very little interest in it at present, should not co-operate. He saw no reason why the lord lieutenants of counties and the mayors of cities should not form committees, and why some method should not be adopted to make what was after all a national problem a national question. In that way, he thought, the difficulty with which they were now face to face would be removed. But the War Office should do its duty and that duty was to see that no breach of faith towards the men was committed; and the nation itself had got its duty and that was to receive back again into civil life the men who had served in the Army. Some of the men of the irregular corps he had taken to South Africa, very respectable men who left the ranks with very good characters, had walked about the streets of London looking for work, and they told him that it was better not to say that they had been to South Africa, as they would have a better chance of getting work. The broad point he wished to make was whether the recruiting system could not be put on a national basis. If that were done he believed they would have a better chance of solving the problem they would have to face during the next few years.
SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid he was very anxious to emphasise one point touched on by the noble Lord who had just spoken, and also by his right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean, and that was how absolutely essential it was to differentiate between the time of service for the infantry and that for the cavalry and horse artillery. He would give four excellent reasons, any one of which he thought would be well worthy of the consideration of the
692
right hon. Gentleman. The first was that, unlike recruiting for the line, recruiting for the horse artillery and cavalry was exceedingly popular at present. Whether it was prestige, or the dress, or the riding, or the nature of the service, the cavalry and horse artillery were exceedingly popular. Why therefore, interfere with them, and change the limit of service? He had another reason which was equally strong. The noble Lord, himself an officer in the Lancers, said that it took nearly two years to make a cavalry soldier. He himself did not know that it took quite so long, but he had always understood that the time required for training a cavalry officer and an infantry officer was eight months in one case and three months in the other. He could not imagine that it was good economy to enlist a man for three years when it took him more than a year to become an efficient soldier. It was too expensive a process altogether. That argument, as applied to the cavalry, applied with still greater force to the horse artillery. Then again, what was the use of a cavalry reserve? When he was at the War Office he had always been told that when a man ceased to ride he became unfit for active service. He thought it would be an extremely bad thing to allow cavalry soldiers to enlist, and then to pass the greater part of their time in the reserve. The last reason he had was that in the Report of the Wantage Commission it was distinctly and unanimously stated that the proper period of service in the cavalry was nine years with the colours and three years in the reserve. He earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider those reasons, and endeavour, if possible, to leave the periods of service in the cavalry and horse artillery as they were at present.
The main point that had to be considered in the new scheme was, of course, the increase of pay. He rejoiced extremely that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted almost en bloc the proposals made ten years ago by the Wantage Commission. In the Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting they found that the system of bounties had almost entirely failed. An offer of £5 for an additional service of one year met

693
with no response at all in South Africa, The increase of pay would, no doubt, be a great inducement. He was glad to know that the pay of the lance corporal was to be increased. That was specially recommended in the Report of the Wantage Commission. He thought every military Member of the Committee would agree that a great many men gave up their stripe when they got it because they did not find the small increase in their pay was sufficient for the extra time, trouble, and responsibility that were involved. As he understood the scheme, it was intended to appoint ten corporals in each battalion. With regard to another very important point, he confessed he did not quite understand the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as regarded the alteration of the good conduct pay. He would, however, call his attention to the fact that the Wantage Commission strongly recommended that the period of service for obtaining the first good conduct stripe should be one year. The hon. Member for the Fareham division alluded to the fact that there was a progressive rate of pay in the American Army, and that it had been found very attractive. If one good conduct stripe could be earned in one year, two after three years, and three after five years—that was the recommendation of the Wantage Commission—it would give a man a chance of obtaining very early in his service additional pay.
There were other matters which the right hon. Gentleman would do well to keep in mind. There was the very strong recommendation of the Wantage Commission that the recruiting quarters should be in a popular part of the town. The Inspector General of Recruiting said that a recruit disliked nothing so much as to have to enlist in a low quarter of the town, and he pointed out two striking examples. Liverpool, and Woolwich. The recruiting quarters in Liverpool were in an extremely bad part of the town. At Woolwich a new house was taken in a popular part of the town, and the expense was amply repaid by a rapid increase in recruiting, mainly from that cause. His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean alluded to the question of not overworking recruits when they first came in. He
694
understood that Lord Roberts had now under consideration a great many points with reference to the duties to be discharged by recruits. It was the greatest possible advantage that they should be able thoroughly to understand what was required of them, and that they should not be bullied by drill sergeants, and made uncomfortable when they first came into barracks. Another question ho would like to have answered was, why, considering the great want of men in South Africa, there had not been some interchange in the regiments. Why was it that certain regiments were not sent out at all? There was that splendid, regiment the 11th Hussars at Cairo, perfectly fit to go to South Africa. Then again why should not the 10th Hussars which, he presumed, was played out, be exchanged for the 15th Hussars; and why should not the 5th Dragoon Guards be exchanged for the 4th Dragoon Guards, so that there might be an influx of new horses and new men into South Africa. The right, hon. Gentleman in his speech alluded to the additional clerks who had been sent from the War Office to carry out local audits in the three Army Corp Districts. A sum of £8,800 was taken under sub-head B in order to pay those men. But there ought to be a corresponding diminution in the vote of the Accountant General's Department at the War Office. He saw no diminution, but a great increase. Hon. Members who took up the question of the local audit believed that it would be carried, out by clerks from the Accountant General's Department, and that there would be a corresponding reduction at the War Office, and Lord Wolseley and General Brackensbury distinctly stated before the Committee that if local audits were carried out the War Office clerks might be diminished by 100 men. He would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an answer later on as to why there was an increase of £8,800 and no corresponding diminution at the War Office.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would pardon him if he did not attempt to go in any great detail into the matters which he had brought before the Committee in his very interesting speech. No doubt there

695
were great reforms in the Army and in the administration of the War Office which, in the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, should be made. He desired a greater elimination of the civilian element, and so long as the elimination did not compromise the authority of the Secretary of State he should be very glad to associate himself with the right hon. Gentleman in the matter. He desired to congratulate the Secretary of State for War upon the marked improvement which his new scheme presented to the scheme he introduced last year. Last year they had entered on a new era. They were invited to become a military nation. It was, as his right hon. friend had said, by accident that they had become a military nation, and they were to endeavour to make that accident permanent. They were to make themselves a military nation almost regardless of expense, and any hon. Members who suggested financial considerations were very nearly voted traitors to their country. They were told that if lavish expenditure did not succeed in drawing recruits then they were to have conscription or even universal compulsory service. There was a great improvement now. His right hon. friend was quite tame and mild. The cloud of conscription had passed away, and they could approach the thorny question of Army reform with a great deal less prejudice than characterised their discussions last year. His right hon. friend last year produced a scheme which was to militarise the British nation. That scheme had now become a convenient method of decentralisation. The Army corps which were to have careered all over Europe were merely useful administrative units, and the militarism which was to have pervaded all classes of society was replaced by the doctrine, which the Secretary of State in a most luminous passage, in a most admirable speech, which made a great impression on the House, described when he said that:—
"The more the soldier is merged in the civilian the better the discipline of the Army and the smaller proportion of crime."
He hoped that that meant that his right hon. friend had finally and thoroughly abandoned the fatal and foolish theory of conscription, which no doubt would be still of some use in providing occupation for Members in another
696
place who had not got too much to do, but which never seriously entered into the practical politics of the country. His right hon. friend, in a very eloquent passage in his speech, said that conscript soldiers did not fight at Alma, Waterloo, or Delhi. He thought his right hon. friend might have said with equal force, that it was not conscript soldiers who had fought the long weary war in South Africa so steadily and so unflinchingly. He did not wish to say anything uncomplimentary to any foreign nation in view of their extremely delicate susceptibilities, but he should like to see the conscript soldiers who would do what the British soldiers had clone in South Africa.
Then, the financial aspects of the present scheme were somewhat more satisfactory. He did not say they were everything that could be wished, but there were patches of blue in the cloudy sky. It was true the increased pay would add £1,048,000 to the cost of the Amy as a permanent charge. That somewhat falsified the hope in which some of them had indulged that when the war came to an end there would be some reduction in the Army Estimates. But, at the same time, there were compensating considerations, and in these days small mercies were not to be disdained. The right hon. Gentleman had boasted of having reduced the Army Estimates by £375,000 on the ordinary service of the year. That might not be a very large decrease, it might be only a nominal or even an illusory decrease, but it was a decrease, and it was one of which the right hon. Gentleman was proud. That was an immense advantage, because last year the impression was created that anyone who expressed a desire to decrease the Army Estimates ought to be ashamed at having uttered such atrocious sentiments.
Another very healthy feature about the present Estimates was that the gloomy anticipation which some of them had formed last year that the Army Estimates would be larger than the Navy Estimates had been falsified. Pride was taken by the Secretary to the Admiralty that the Navy Estimates were increased, and pride was taken by the Secretary of State for War that the Army Estimates had been reduced. That was a sign of steady progress towards a healthier and better state of things. If he might presume to lay

697
down any principle at all, he would say that the first and main principle which should animate British statecraft in the realm of Imperial defence was the promotion of a steady transfer of expenditure from military to marine; and the high ideal which should be held up before the eyes of the present or any other Government was that in times of peace the ratio of expenditure between the Navy and the Army Estimates ought to be, quite irrespective of the scale of the Estimates, something like two to one on the side of the Navy. If that principle were applied to the Estimates of the present year, the Navy Estimates would be £40,000,000, and the Army Estimates £20,000,000, and there was no Member in the House who looked at the question from an impartial point of view—and he rejoiced that so large a number did adopt that attitude in regard to Imperial defence—who would not say that was a much better position. It was, however, hardly within the range of practical politics at present. The Secretary of State for War had told the House that the scheme introduced last year held the field, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had somewhat unkindly recalled the phrase to the memories of the House. Naturally that scheme would hold the field while the right hon. Gentleman was the only person entitled to propound a scheme. If only one horse were allowed to enter a race, that horse would very probably be able to walk over the course. But this horse had not been able to walk over the course, and another, a much better one, had been employed to win the stakes. The right hon. Gentleman had stated—
"Our experience of the year has fortified us in the position which we then took up."
The House would regard those words not so much as an actual statement of fact as a pious tribute to the theory of Ministerial infallibility. This time last year the right hon. Gentleman propounded a scheme for reforming the Volunteers — without consulting the commanding officers. Was the right hon. Gentleman fortified in the position he then took up? If so, it was to be hoped he was strongly fortified, seeing the attacks which had been directed against him by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield and others. Then
698
there was the question of coaling stations. Coaling stations must be fortified, but it was doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman was fortified in the position he took up last year on that matter. The Secretary of State also thought that Sir Redvers Buller was a fit person to command the First Army Corps, but was he fortified by the experience of the year in the position he then took up?
There were some points in regard to which, without doubt or dispute, the right hon. Gentleman had changed his opinion, and the most remarkable was on the question of pay. Last year the Secretary of State almost suggested that an increase of pay to the Army was a step not warranted by the circumstances and hardly to be justified by the results. It was in no factious spirit of antagonism or criticism that he raised these questions; but it was right that attention should be drawn to these changes of opinion because they justified a great deal that was said by the critics of the scheme last year. The Hon. Member for the Fareham Division of Hants was entitled to the congratulations of the House, because as a young Member, in his first session, in spite of the opinion of a great Department, he propounded a theory and put forward a policy which that Department had since adopted. He hoped his hon. friend was proud of the success he had achieved. It made it a good deal easier for people like himself who last year had their prejudices excited and their sentimental instincts stirred by the militaristic tendency which was in the air to support the right hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby this year, whereas on the former occasion they were not able to indulge in this satisfaction. Some objections of principle urged against the scheme last year had been modified, other objections of detail had been altogether removed; and although some of them still thought that it would have been better that consideration should precede action, that the great impetus to army reform which had grown up in the country—which might have been made supreme use of, but which perhaps had been allowed to fritter itself away in a false start— should have been utilised to its fullest extent, that it would have been much better for the Secretary of State to have

699
been occupied entirely and solely with the duty of carrying through the great war in which we were engaged, and that they should have waited to reform the Army until calmer times—yet, in spite of all these objections, and they were weighty objections, it was only common fairness to say that the scheme now put forward in its amended and revised form was a great advance upon anything they had had so far. It contained many minor provisions at once ingenious and practical, and it carried the tangled problem of Imperial defence one step, and a long step, nearer its ultimate solution.
If the Committee would allow him, he would look in some detail, but at no great length, into one or two points raised in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman. First, there was the question of good conduct pay. No doubt good conduct pay had done a considerable amount of good in the past. Whether it was right or wrong partially to abolish it, as now proposed, he would not at present discuss. The point he desired to criticise was that of abolishing the pay but keeping the badge—abolishing the substance, the real emolument and privilege, and keeping only the shadow. Soldiers would look on their sleeves and say, "What is this badge for?" If they had read the Speech of the right hon. Gentleman they would realise that it enabled them to commit one pennyworth of minor military crime without having their pay mulcted. They would regard it as a balance at the Bank of Good Conduct, and would doubtless draw and utilise that balance on some really worthy occasion. Probably this was an oversight, and he was inclined to think that such a principle would be subversive of the general discipline of the Army. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should abolish the good conduct pay if lie liked, or establish a new system, but he should not take away the whole substance of the reward and leave only the empty shadow, or he would probably bring the reward for good conduct in the Army as a whole into some contempt.
Another, and a much more important, point to which he desired to draw attention was as to whether the proposed increase of pay was going to prove effec-
700
tive. He came now to the noble Lord. This time last year he most conclusively proved that the very scheme to which they were now committed was absolutely doomed to failure. The noble Lord showed that an increase of 9d. in the pay of the soldier involved an increase of £2,422,000 for the home service alone; but now with an increase of 10d. the additional expenditure only amounted to £1,048,000. No doubt the noble Lord's figures were susceptible of explanation. But he would venture to suggest that the figures he quoted from the admirable book referred to, showed prima facie that he was guilty of selecting from a number of statistics those which most fitted in with the general tenour of his argument. The noble Lord went a great deal further, and said they must not overlook the burden to be thrown on the Indian Empire; they might place a charge on India which it could not bear and which would ultimately fall on this country. There was, however, a more serious question involved in this increase of pay. They had obtained a supply of recruits under certain conditions hitherto in the labour market, but the moment they went beyond those limits they must either increase the attractions or reduce the standard. Either "efficiency," that great word—and perhaps the leader of the Opposition would excuse his mentioning it—
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN:. It is not my word.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLdesired to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for obtruding it on his intention. As a matter of fact they had tried first one of these expedients and then the other, and latterly they had tried both, In the present year nearly 9,000 men had been enlisted at great expense to the country, so that they had continually been in the position of paying more and more for an article that was worth less and less. But that was not the whole of the recruiting problem. They had no reason to know, although they had great reason to hope, that the attractions now offered would succeed. Once they got outside the class from whom they now obtained recruits they would have to appeal to an entirely different class. They had no longer to cater alone for the thoughtless or the poor man who did not know where to

701
go for a square meal; they must go to another and higher class. The inducements must be such as to attract the solid artisan. They had to compensate him for the loss of civic rights. He must remain a bachelor, and they had to compensate him for foregoing all the inducements of wife and home. He was very doubtful whether it was within the power of the State to offer inducements to more than a very small number of that class to join the Army. And they must remember that what they offered to secure some they must offer to the whole mass, including that class which for many years had done battle efficiently and successfully for the Empire.
That was the case against the increase of pay, and no one recognised that more than the noble Lord. Last year he pointed out clearly that if the soldier's pay were increased to 15s. clear— under the present scheme it was only proposed to give 10s.—the only class they would attract would be painters. He would not say there was not some use in the details of military organisation for painters or even whitewashers, but he ventured to say the response the noble Lord would receive from that quarter would hardly meet the demands of the six Army Corps he proposed to set up. Those who, like himself, thought that six Army Corps were more than our need, stood on secure ground, but he did not know what was going to happen to the Secretary of State if this scheme of increased pay failed in its object. If six Army Corps were necessary, they must compete in the labour market for men; but, apart from whether the increased pay was a utilitarian proceeding or not, it was justified on the ground that a private soldier had long been shamefully and scandalously underpaid, and the money offered under the new scheme was only a fair measure of justice.
He confessed that the part of the scheme which attracted him most was the proposal of shorter service. It was a proposal which Army reformers had advocated for a long time before he himself was added to their ranks. He heartily approved of the scheme which provided for shorter service at home and longer service in India, because it possessed the elements of elasticity. We
702
wanted a small Army capable of being brought up to much larger proportions in the hour of need, a large Reserve attached to that small Army, and a Navy to give us an opportunity for mobilisation. Any money that could be spared after that should be spent on the Navy. Shorter service at home would distribute healthy military training more widely among the population. He read lately a book describing the awful condition of the poor in large towns, and he could not help feeling glad that a larger proportion of the population would get good food into their bodies. He felt certain that an increase of the Army, however small, must upon the whole increase the well-being of the community and the prosperity of the State. Shorter service at home agreed with the lessons and experience of all modern war. In the old days, when troops were brought into the field in solid masses, great accuracy of drill, precision of alignment, and almost mechanical obedience, were the main qualifications of the soldier. Now all was changed. In these days initiative and individual judgment and determination were worth more than mechanical discipline and rigid obedience, and a long period of training was not required. The War Office should cater for all sorts and conditions of men who were prepared to accept some terms of service.
There was one point more to which he would refer, and it was rather a sentimental one. It was a reproach to our system that in the course of this absorbing war we had produced no single military invention which had attracted the attention of the world. In the great American Civil War, there were inventions which revolutionised the military matériel of the world. What had we produced during the South African War? We had discovered a cap—a monstrous thing which affronted Members on the way down to the House of Commons. We had borrowed that from Germany. We had utilised Navy guns for field purposes. We had imitated the Boers by adopting the pompom. There was room for originality and inventive talent in the Army. He did not think such a nation as the British ought to try to imitate foreign countries. Where would the Boers have been if they had modelled their Army

703
on the lines of ours? They did not form so many regiments of Lancers and Life Guards, and so many batteries of Horse Artillery. It did not follow, because this was good in some other country, that therefore it was the only way to win in war. On the contrary, nothing seemed more certain than that the short road to ruin was to imitate the military system and methods of your adversary. He said, once for all, let us abandon servile imitations of continental methods; let us leave off endeavouring to play the continental game on a scale of one inch to a mile; let us, on the other hand, endeavour to develop the unique resources of this country with its unique and peculiar dangers. Instead of trying to make a miniature German Army in England; let us try to build up such a force as would represent the natural and the military characteristics of the people.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that, in the speech which the hon. Gentleman had just delivered, he detected no single particular in which he suggested a reduction in the proposed expenditure. The greater part of the military expenditure of this country depended on the cost of the Army over-sea. He did not think that anybody who looked at the allocation of the forces in the garrisons oversea—putting entirely aside the condition of things caused by the South African war—could fail to see that there were a considerable number of fortresses and coaling stations which were admittedly undermanned at the present moment. The nature of these garrisons had been considerably altered during the tenure of office of the present Secretary of State for War. So far as European troops were concerned, the numbers had been greatly reduced. The hon. Gentleman opposite had advocated a small Army capable of expansion. Of course, it was easy to talk about calling out the Reserves in time of war, but those who had not closely studied the subject seemed to forget that it took 30 years to build up the Reserves to the dimensions they had now reached, and that even to get that number it was necessary, since short service was started, every year to increase the number of effective troops.
As to the proposals of the Secretary
704
of State, the right hon. Gentleman was not so hopeful as he was a year ago that the scheme he sketched out would be realised. Some part of it had been postponed, if not indefinitely, at all events for the present. The Secretary of State dwelt on the subjects he could dilate on favourably to the House. There were a great many subjects connected with the resuscitation of the Army which he slurred over, or, at all events, did not touch upon at any length. He would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's notice to one or two points in order that he might deal with them when he replied on the debate. He wanted to know something of the loss of effectives. The total number of effectives last year was 406,000, and this year they were only 383,000. It was very singular that the loss exactly corresponded with the diminished number of enlisted men taken since last year. In 1900 the total number enlisted came to 98,000, and in 1901 to 75,000. Therefore it was clear that the decrease of effectives was not occasioned by any excessive wastage of men. The Secretary of State had admitted that the question of desertion from the Army was very serious indeed.
It being Midnight, the Deputy Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT (LONDON) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

NEW BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT (LONDON) (No. 2).
  Bill to amend Section 43, Sub-section 1 (b), of the Local Government Act, 1888, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Robertson, Mr. Bousfield, and Mr. Allhusen.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT (LONDON) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend Section 43, Sub-section 1 (b), of the Local Government Act, 1888," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to he printed. [Bill 114]
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

The Lord Stuart of Castle Stuart (E. Moray) sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.
The Lord Vivian took the Oath.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:—
CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS).
  Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with.
  ROSSENDALE VALLEYS TRAMWAYS [H.L.]
  The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
  Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 14th of February and Thursday last discharged; and Bill committed.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

    YSTRADFELLTE WATER BILL [H.L.]
    RUSTHALL MANOR BILL [H.L.].
    WREXHAM WATER BILL [H.L].
    Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee did not meet to-clay until One o'clock; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

    ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE AND DUKINFIELD CORPORATIONS (ALMA BRIDGE &c.) 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 13th of February and Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed.
    TIVERTON MARKET BILL [H.L.]
    Report from His Majesty's Attorney General received, and ordered to on the Table.
    WREXHAM DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    Committed, The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
    CENTRAL ARGENTINE AND ROSARIO RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Reported, with Amendments.
    TIVERTON MARKET BILL [H.L.]
    Read 2a (according to order).
TYNE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

    YSTRADFELLTE WATER BILL [H.L.]
    RUSTHALL MANOR BILL [H.L.].
    LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
    WREXHAM WATER BILL [H.L.].
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Eldon be proposed to the House as member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Bradford on and after Monday next; read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COMMONS ACT, 1899.
  Return respecting, laid before the House (pursuant to Order of the 20th of February last), and to be printed. [No. 25].
  TRADE REPORTS.
  Annual Series; No. 2746. Portugal.
  CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
  Fifty-first Report from the Church Estates Commissioners, for the year preceding 1st March, 1902.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
  Fifty-fourth Report from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England; with an appendix.

  CENSUS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1901 (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Area, houses, and population; also population classified by ages, condition as to marriage, occupations, birthplaces, and infirmities.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PROTECTION OF INNKEEPERS BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, the object of this measure, which I introduced on behalf of the Hotel and Restaurant Protection Society, was to protect innkeepers and others against fraud. I am informed that the difficulty which an hotel or restaurant proprietor or manager finds in protecting himself against fraud is that the law compels him to prove that the guest who does not pay his account incurred the indebtedness with the absolute intention of defrauding. The section in this Bill would throw the onus of proving absence of fraud upon the defaulting guest, which is the law in America, France, Germany, and all over the Continent. I understand, however, from the Lord Chancellor that this provision is unnecessary, and that he intends to oppose the Bill. In these circumstances I ask the permission of the House to withdraw it.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I think the noble Lord has exercised a very wise discretion in withdrawing the measure, which would introduce a very dangerous principle into the law of this country. If the Bill became law the innkeeper would be
  544
  compelled to inform his customer that unless he paid his bill he would be liable to be brought before a Criminal Court. This is a little ludicrous, and so far from the Bill being an improvement of the law, the measure is of a retrograde character. What the noble Lord desires to deal with is met already by the Larceny Act, which makes it a criminal offence for anyone to obtain credit under the exact circumstances the noble Lord has suggested. Only recently a man was sentenced to two months hard labour for obtaining food for which he was unable to pay. The Bill, besides being unnecessary, would introduce an absolutely new principle into the law of the country.
  Bill, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  PLUMBERS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

BENEFICES (CITY OF LONDON).
Moved, For a Return of the benefices in the City of London, the values thereof, with the name of the incumbent of each benefice, and the curates (if any) licensed thereto, distinguishing those benefices in which no parsonage house exists, and those in which the parsonage house is not inhabited by the incumbent; and also of all City benefices, distinguishing those in which the incumbent is nonresident, and those in which he is resident, and in the cases where he is non-resident the rents received for the parsonage house, and in the case of each the name or designation of the patron or patrons thereto. [Similar to Return made in 1872.]— (The Earl Beauchamp.)
LORD BELPER: I have received a communication from the Bishop of London, who is unfortunately not able to be in his place to day, stating that there will shortly be published a diocesan book which will contain very full information with regard to the benefices in the City of London, and which will cover the ground mentioned by the noble Earl and render this Return unnecessary. But if the noble Earl presses his Motion there is no objection to granting the Return.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: In view of the fact that a Public Return would reach a far larger circle than a diocesan publication, I must, as there is no objection to the granting of a Return, press my Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Return ordered to be laid before the House.

THE EDUCATION ACT AND MINUTE OF 1901.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP rose, in accordance with a notice which he had put on the Paper, "To call the attention of the Lord President of the Council to the effects of the Education Act and Minute of 1901, and to move for Papers." He expressed his sense of the difficulty of addressing the House on this subject, because the noble Duke the Lord President of the Council had more than once declared that he was wholly unable to understand the speeches made on education, whether in that House or outside it. It was scarcely necessary to inquire whether the noble Duke, when he said that, was influenced by recurrent attacks of modesty or not; but at any rate it suggested that there was urgent need for the application of those principles of efficiency in the Education Office, and even in the higher ranks of that Office, which the last Premier desired to write upon his clean slate. If in the course of his speech he should prove somewhat prolix, he hoped it would be ascribed to his desire to make one speech in that House on education which should be intelligent to the noble Duke. The reason he asked for Papers on this subject was that the Government had promised in the King's Speech to deal with the question of education at an early opportunity, and as it was not unreasonable to suppose that this Bill would proceed on much the same lines as the Act of last year it was only natural that they should have same figures to tell how the Act and the Minute of last July had acted on the education of the country before they were asked to pass a measure the effect of which it was difficult to exaggerate.
Sir John Gorst, the Vice-President of the Council, had stated in another place that so far the number of evening
546
schools seemed to be greater than in 1900, when there was a decrease. That statement was everywhere received with considerable astonishment, because from the very beginning of their history, with a single trifling exception, the career of these schools had been one of uninterrupted progress. According to the figures issued by the Board of Education, while in 1899 there were 2,083 schools open, in 1900 there were no less than 2,174, and while the scholars in 1899 numbered 201,855, the number in 1900 was 206,335. That showed an increase in schools in 1900 of 5 per cent. and in scholars of 2 per cent. In the absence of any official information on the effect of the Act and Minute, voluntary Returns had been asked for from a large number of School Boards; and these sufficed to prove that from every part of the country there was the same complaint—that the Act and Minute had had an injurious effect on the evening continuation schools of the various School Boards. In Belper the night schools had dropped in consequence of the difficulties created by the new regulations. In Blackburn certain subjects had been dropped. In Barry schools had been closed in consequence of the restrictions of the Minute. In Birkenhead two schools (three departments) had been closed, the publication of the Minute being an important factor in arriving at this decision. In Darwen a very successful Voluntary School had been dropped. In Crook all night schools had been given up in consequence of the age limit imposed by the Minute. In Rochester all night school work had been discontinued, and in West Ham the number of evening schools under the Board had been reduced from sixteen to two. The Walsall School Board, which had over 1,100 pupils in their night schools, had not applied to the municipal authority to continue the classes, but had allowed all the night schools to drop. Similar reports had been received from Willesden and Rhondda. In Bacup, while there had been a diminution in the number of pupils, the number enrolled in the technical instruction classes remained practically the same, which showed that the scholars who had been driven out of the evening continuation schools of the

547
School Board had not been able to find accommodation in the other schools provided under the Act. The number of pupils in Birmingham had dropped from 8,236 to 4,882, due partly to the fact that an entrance fee was now charged. In Bolton two evening schools had been closed, and the Clerk of the Board had stated that he did not think the pupils had been accommodated by other agencies. In Oldham the number of pupils up to October had decreased by 1,100, as compared with the previous year, but the technical instruction classes had only increased by 100, which was the average normal yearly increase. In Portsmouth the number of pupils enrolled had fallen off to the extent of over 50 per cent., but they had not been accommodated by other agencies; and, although all the night schools in Rochester had been discontinued, only a few pupils had gone to the classes under the Technical Instruction Committees. In Sheffield the number of pupils had decreased by over 1,000, and the School Board had stated that they had no reason to suppose that their late pupils had been accommodated elsewhere. In Southampton the decrease in the number of pupils had been attributed to the delay of the Municipal Council in giving its decision; and the decrease in Southend-on-Sea had been declared to be principally due to the exclusion of day scholars. The report from Wolver-hampton was to the effect that the diminution in the number of students was doubtless due to the uncertainty which existed at the commencement of the Session as to the re-establishment of the evening schools. The School Board added that it was very improbable that the class of students who attended their evening schools would he at all likely to attend the technical school. He hoped these instances would suffice to show the injurious effect which the Act and Minute had had on the evening continuation schools of the various School Boards. The Return in regard to London showed that the number of departments had been reduced from 395 in 1900 to 386 in 1901, and the number on the books from 90,775 in October, 1900, to 82,677 in October, 1901.
He urged the desirability of making the Returns furnished by the Education
548
Department a little more intelligible and practical. In the average attendance returns the total number of hours attended by the scholars was divided by the total number of hours that the school was open, with ridiculous results. No consideration was given under such figures to the subjects taught or the number of times that scholars were expected to attend. One result of the Act and Minute was that there was a kind of neutral zone which the School Boards were forbidden to enter, while the other bodies, such as the Technical Instruction Committees of the counties and county boroughs, were unable and unprepared to enter it. Possibly it was some satisfaction to the cynics on the other side to reflect that by one Act the Government were able to make two popularly elected bodies neutralise each other in regard to their work. What was the Government prepared to do in the future? They had promised legislation before, and nothing had happened. He urged the noble Duke to make some official statement in order that work might be started as soon as possible. The noble Duke, he noticed, very carefully avoided saying what would be the policy of the Education Department. The noble Duke had only twice been in a building connected with a School Board—at Sheffield and at Manchester—and when he did go he devoted the first half of his speech to the expression of his surprise at finding himself, as Lord President of the Council, in charge of education, of his incapacity, owing to his previous training, to undertake the duties, and of his incapacity to understand the speeches made on the subject. Naturally very little time was then left for dealing with the policy of the Government.
They tried to repair the noble Duke's omissions by studying what was said by Sir John Gorst, and they found that at one time, speaking of some of the classes of the School Board, he said that the education they were spreading among the people was cheap and shoddy, while at another time he said it would be a most unfortunate thing if the work of the School Boards in connection with their schools and classes was in any way interfered with. With which of those sentiments was the noble Duke in

549
harmony? It was impossible for him to be in harmony with both. He thought the country owed a debt of gratitude to the county councils and borough councils, to whom the supervision of so much of the work of evening continuation schools was confided by the noble Duke, because they had left the matter severely alone. They had realised that they were incompetent for this work, that they were elected for quite other purposes, that they had other business to do, and that it was far better to leave it in the hands of the School Boards, who had carried it out with so much success in the past. He ventured to suggest to the noble Duke that, this being so, his legislation of last session could scarcely be described as a brilliant success, or as indicating the lines on which the future development of the educational organisations of the country should be allowed to continue. He thought he was justified in asking that Papers might be presented to the House showing how the work had proceeded during the past session, and that this should be done before the Education Bill was brought in, so that they might have some time to consider the way in which the Act had been administered.
Moved. "That there be laid before the House, Papers relating to the Education Act and Minute of 1901."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): The noble Earl at the beginning of his observations expressed the hope that he would be able to address to me at least one speech upon the subject of education which I should be able to understand. I am not quite certain, although I think I was able to follow a considerable portion of his arguments, that he has entirely succeeded in that ambitious attempt. The noble Earl can scarcely expect that I should follow him into a detailed examination of the great number of cases he referred to, and in regard to which I understood him to allege that the evening continuation schools had been prejudicially affected by the Act of last year and by the Minute of July last. The noble Earl, has been, I think, somewhat premature in drawing attention to this subject, because it is impossible to
550
appreciate what the result has been until the close of the session of 1901–02, and until we have much clearer information than is at present in our possession as to the working of the evening schools during that session. I understood the general allegation of the noble Earl to be that the action taken by the Government last year in consequence of the decision of the Courts had been of a disastrous character to many evening schools. That, at all events, is an assertion which it is impossible at present to prove. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl has stated, that up to a certain period—up to two years ago—there had been a considerable increase all over the country in the number of evening schools. That increase, however, was not necessarily entirely an increase in the evening schools managed by School Boards. All schools which are held in School Board buildings are classed in the returns presented by the Board of Education as Board schools, but that is not by any means the fact. A large number of evening schools held in Board schools are managed and financed by Technical Education Committees, and have nothing to do with School Boards at all. It is impossible, therefore, for any one to assert with confidence that the increase which had taken place during a long series of years up to the year 1899–1900 had necessarily been an increase of schools conducted by School Boards. Whatever it was, that increase had reached its limit in the year 1899–1900. In the following year—the returns are not yet before Parliament, but they are in the possession of the Education Department—a small decrease had already taken place. But that decrease could not in any way be due to the Minute, as it had, apparently, begun before the Minute came into effect. Therefore, even if it were the case that a further decrease in the evening schools had taken place in the present session of 1901–02, it does not by any means follow that it was due to the action of the Minute, because the decrease had commenced before the time when the Minute could have had any effect upon them. But, so far as we can ascertain, no such decrease has taken place in the present session. So far from that being the case, the total number of evening schools is, we believe, considerably in excess of that

551
of the two previous years, and that increase, we have also reason to believe, has taken place where it was most desirable it should take place—namely, in the counties where the evening schools are the only means for continuative education of this kind.
It is urged that although there may have been an increase in the number of evening schools, there has been a considerable decrease in the number of students. Until the close of the present session, and until accurate statistics are obtained, it is impossible to make any accurate statement on that subject. The noble Earl has referred to certain Returns of a voluntary character obtained in answer to a circular which was issued, I believe, with the avowed intention of getting up an agitation against the Minute. The circular was addressed to School Boards, and it made no reference whatever to the very large number of schools which are not conducted by School Boards at all, but are conducted either by voluntary agencies or by county committees. Out of 400 School Boards which, I believe, were addressed, 132 answers only were received. The Return, therefore. covers only a fractional part of the country, and any general conclusions which are attempted to be produced from it are absolutely misleading and fallacious. For instance, in the use which has been made of this Return, it is attempted to show that, where a diminution of schools or of enrolments has taken place, that diminution was due to the Minute of last year. But, if the Return is carefully examined, it will be seen that that is by no means the case, but that, in many instances where evening schools had been closed, it was not in consequence of the Minute, but in pursuance Of a decision which had been arrived at in the previous year in consequence of the unsatisfactory character of the attendance in those schools. The Board of Education are of opinion that it is far more desirable that a smaller number of scholars should attend these schools and go through methodically a useful and efficient course of instruction, than that a larger number should be enrolled and not stay long enough to obtain the benefit of such instruction.
Whatever may he the nature of the proposals to be made this year, the new
552
arrangements cannot possibly come into operation before the end of March, 1903. Therefore it is evident that the work of the winter session must go forward under the previously existing conditions. The Board of Education will take an early opportunity of giving to those engaged in this work the necessary assurances that for the ensuing session their position and their powers will remain substantially unaltered. It is also our intention to issue, at a very early date, not a new Minute, but a Paper which will embody the Minute of last year and those provisions of the Board of Education Directory which are applicable to the case of School Boards. There is no reason to suppose that any diminution has taken place in the actual work of the evening schools throughout the country. But even if it were the fact that there had been a diminution, either in the schools or in the number on the rolls, that does not seem to me to be the real question. The question is whether the regulations issued last year were, or were not, educationally sound. Those regulations were intended to give effect to the principle which the Courts of Law asserted to be the principle of the Education Act—that the continuative education given in these schools belonged to the sphere of secondary education, and therefore ought not to be provided or controlled by bodies elected for the management of elementary education, and that the cost of it ought not to be defrayed out of the rates. We believe that the intentions of the Government in issuing this Minute are being satisfactorily fulfilled. Careful inquiries have been made in a large number of the administrative counties, and, so far as the information at present available can be judged, the results have been found most satisfactory. As regards London and the county boroughs, where the evening schools have very largely been under the control of and managed by School Boards, the Board of Education feel confident that, whatever may be the-effect of the Minute upon the mere number of students on the rolls, as compared with those of the previous year, this is no criterion to go upon. The object of the Minute was to encourage as far as possible solid and continuous educational work by the students, and

553
to discourage the practice of making a large number of irregular attendances in a great number of ill-assorted and unconnected subjects. What the Government have had in view in their reorganisation of evening classes is the prevention of waste and overlapping, and the recognition of quality rather than quantity in all their educational output. It would be premature altogether to estimate the whole educational effect of the changes of last year, or to present any useful Return until the Government have much more information respecting the work now being done than we possess at the present moment.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

SOUTH AFRICAN WAR (CONTRACTS FOR WINES AND SPIRITS).
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I rise to move for a Return of all contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, the War Office for the supply of wines and spirits for the use of British troops in South Africa, showing in each the names of the contractors, with the prices and origin of the stores contracted for. I may say that "origin" is a trade word, and means the stores, bond, or wholesale house from which the wines and spirits were taken. I make no apology to the House for again bringing forward the subject of contracts, in which a great deal of interest is taken throughout the country; and I am also pleased to see, from the state of the Benches opposite, that the subject is not without some interest to your Lordships. I would remind the House that on February 20th, the Marquess of Lansdowne, speaking on the first meat contract, said—
"The question was not whether the Cold Storage Company had put a large sum of money into their pockets, but whether the contract entered into with them, on the part of the Government, was or was not the best that could be made under the circumstances."
The contracts for wines and spirit—hospital comforts for the troops—amount to a total of hundreds of thousands of pounds, perhaps to a total of a million sterling, and there has been considerable doubt as to the manner in which they have been entered into and carried out. I feel perfectly certain that no one
554
would grudge any expenditure that was necessary to send the best of hospital comforts to our brave soldiers at the front. The opinion of the trade is well expressed in the circular of Messrs. Southard & Co., whose principal is one of the leading auctioneers in the wine and spirit trade in the city of London. In their trade circular of February 19th, this year, they say—
"While on the subject of legislation, we hope that when the question of contracts is discussed in the House, the question of Government contracts for wine and spirits will also be inquired into, for anything more unbusiness-like than the present way of granting these contracts can scarcely be conceived."
The principal wine and spirits sent out to South Africa were brandy, champagne, claret, and port; and to save time I will give only one example of how the contracts were entered into. There was a tender in February, 1901, for seventy-five pipes of port in pint bottles. That means 102,600 pint bottles of port. Samples were to be sent in on February 20th, 1901, and one of the conditions of the contract was that a third of the parcel—34,200 bottles— should be delivered during the month of February, another third in the month of March, and another third in the month of April. As the samples were not delivered till February 20th, it was impossible to deliver one-third of the parcel in February, according to the contracts, for it takes considerably more than eight days to get wine bright and to obtain Government bottles, corks, labels, and cases. Moreover, the War Office insist on wine being sent in in cases of ten bottles each. A dozen case costs 10d. in England and 8d. abroad, whereas the cost of a ten-bottle case is 2s. in England and 4s. on the other side, so that on wine packed in Bordeaux there would be a loss of 3s. 4d. a case. Holders of wine lying in Oporto were also invited to tender for these seventy-five pipes of port, and as the time was short they were invited to send their samples by parcel post! Between England and Oporto there are three frontiers, and it would have been absolutely impossible to get the samples under a week; yet one-third of the parcel was to be delivered on the eighth day. And, again, there is tremendous risk in sending wine from

555
Oporto except at the proper season. Ridley's Circular, quite a leading publication in the wine trade, says:—
"These may be details, but they show that amateurs, so to speak, are dealing with business which they do not understand."
And Mr. Southard states:—
"Anything more unbusinesslike can hardly be conceived."
I now come to the selection of the wine. The Government wine-taster, when the war broke out, was a Mr. Gordon Mills, a member of the firm of Messrs. Robinson & Co., of 20, Mark Lane. He was also in business himself, and was bottler to Messrs. Cockburn, who hold a European reputation as port wine shippers. The spirit-taster was a Mr. Robinson, of Messrs. Trower & Sons, 39, St. Mary-at-Hill. Recognising his disability as being connected with one of the largest firms of shippers, Mr. Mills, greatly to his credit, gave up his appointment. Thereupon Mr. Robinson was made wine-taster as well, although the War Office knew he belonged to a large firm of port shippers who were also agents for brandy, rum, whisky, sherry, and claret, and agents for Messrs. Eschenauer & C who had secured a large Government contract. In August, 1901, Mr. Robinson was replaced by Mr. Godselle, of 81, Great Tower Street, who is agent for a claret house, and is, I am told, connected with other wine businesses. I beg distinctly to state that I do not wish to make any imputation on any one of these gentlemen, but I do say—and I think I shall be supported by the noble Lord behind me—that any one employed in this capacity by the Government ought to be a well paid official and entirely independent of and absolutely unconnected with any houses having business relations with the War Office or any other Government Department. I desire to say a few words with regard to the procedure in connection with the tasting. The bottles are covered with bags before being placed before the taster, so as to be all alike. The glasses are numbered, and when the tasting is over three selected samples are placed on the table. The taster then leaves, and the trade are very interested to know which of the samples is recommended and by whom, and how mistakes are guarded
556
against, so that it is absolutely certain that the selected firm gets the contract.
With regard to the selection of firms to tender, I should like to know—for this is a question which greatly concerns and puzzles the trade—by whom and how the selection is made. Most people would think that the proper thing to do would be to purchase first hand, and not from retailers. The Government had an enormous selected list, so large, indeed, that some of the principal shippers who sent in tenders had been told that their applications could not be considered. I should like to know by whom these firms are selected. That is a mystery which requires to be cleared up. I am told that some of the tenderers on the list had very small stocks indeed, smaller even than those kept at Chatsworth, Knowsley, or at Lord Londonderry's, and that they had to get their samples from the wholesale houses, possibly from the houses who had been refused the opportunity of tendering themselves. There are a great many ugly rumours about which are openly spoken of in the street and on 'Change, though when asked to come forward and confirm them people say they would rather not.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of SALISBURY): Hear, hear!
EARL CARRINGTON: You may know a thing to be absolutely true and yet not be able to prove it. If it is a fact, as I believe it is, that a certain amount of inferior spirits has been supplied, and that the tip-top price has been paid for it by the Government, who desire to send the best stimulants to our wounded soldiers, I do not hesitate to say it is a national dishonour. The charge ought to be proved or disproved, and the only way of getting at the truth is by the adoption of my Motion. A Commission has been asked for to inquire into the questions of remounts, meat, and transport, but this request has been refused, and we have been told that we must be content to wait till the feelings of public indignation have entirely evaporated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That reason was never given.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am quoting from the speech of the noble Marquess. If the Prime Minister will refer to his speech he will find that those are his exact words.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I said was that the reason noble Lords opposite desired that we should concur was that we might have an inquiry while the indignation existed, because that would serve the purpose of noble Lords opposite.
EARL CARRINGTON: I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. That is what we directly challenge. The word "indignation" has never been used on this side of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it was used by Lord Tweedmouth.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon. I did not use the word.
EARL CARRINGTON: The word used by Lord Crewe was "uneasiness." So far as I remember, the word "indignation" was not used on this side of the House. Another reason for refusing an inquiry was that it would dislocate and paralyse all business in public offices. On that point I do not profess to be qualified to speak, but I see behind me Lord Welby, who has been intimately connected with the Civil Service for a great many years, and I hope be will be able to say a word on that subject. I would remind the House that the American Civil War Congress appointed such a Committee, which did a vast deal of good. The third reason why the inquiry asked for was refused was that it would last ten years. I respectfully submit that my Motion has none of these objections. All the arrangements could be made and the evidence produced by civilians in London, and you would not have to recall a single soldier from South Africa. If there is nothing to conceal, why not grant my request?
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for a return of all contracts entered into by, or on behalf of, the War Office for the supply of wines
558
and spirits for the use of British troops in South Africa, showing in each the names of the contractors, with the prices and origin of the stores contracted for."—(The Earl Carrington.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN): My Lords, within the last twenty-four hours the noble Earl has altered the terms of his original Motion, which was an extraordinarily wide one. In the original Motion he asked for a Return of all the wines and spirits supplied to His Majesty's Government since the commencement of the war. That would not only have taken in the War Office, but also the Admiralty, the Colonial Office, and the Foreign Office; and I was not at all certain whether it would not have applied to the private wine bills of the members of Government. However, the noble Earl has altered the wording of the Motion, and he now asks for a Return of all contracts entered into by, or on behalf the War Office for the supply of wines and spirits for the use of British troops in South Africa. The noble Earl has asked me several questions with regard to the manner in which the testing of the wine is done. I regret to say that the Under Secretary for War is not a member of the Tasting Committee of the War Office, and therefore I am afraid I cannot give the noble Earl any information as to exactly how the glasses are marked, whether they are labelled 1, 2, and 3, or A, B, and C. But I do not think that is very important so long as care is taken that there is no possible way in which the taster can discover to whom the wine belongs. The noble Earl made a great point of the fact that the tasters employed by the Government had been at different times, or were at the time, connected with the various firms in the wine and spirit trade. I do not think it would be possible to find any competent taster who is not, or has not been, connected in some way with the wine and spirit trade. I do not think it would be wise to make any alteration in that direction.
As to the question of prices, I regret to have to repeat what I have already said on that subject. I am not a great orator, as, no doubt, your Lordships are aware, and it is a matter of extreme difficulty to me to deliver several

559
speeches on the same subject; and, in the circumstances, I do not think your Lordships can look for anything fresh. I have before pointed out that the Government have in their decision not to publish prices the support not only of the immemorial custom of public departments, but of the great commercial bodies qualified to speak in the name of business men. We believe that the publication of the prices would inevitably tend to increase the price of every article purchased by the Government, and the best contractors have the greatest possible objection to tendering when their tenders may be, at a moment's notice, laid open for the inspection of their trade rivals. Moreover, the immediate effect of publishing prices is that the maximum price of an article becomes the minimum price. In buying a large quantity of different articles you cannot get them at the same prices, and if one firm discovers that another is getting a higher price from the Government for a certain article, that firm will immediately put up its price to the highest figure. I do not suppose the noble Earl conducts his own private business on these lines. The publication of these prices would inevitably enable sellers to form a ring against the buyer, and the Government is in a different position from another buyer, because it is obliged to buy when it wants a thing, and cannot wait for a favourable turn in the market.
With regard to the question of wine, I would venture to point out to the noble Earl that price is absolutely no guide whatever. I have myself drank wine costing a very high price which was extremely moderate in quality, and I have tasted cheap wine which was very good. The dearness or cheapness of wine has nothing whatever to do with its quality. I honestly think that the only way in which your Lordships would be able to judge whether or not the price paid was justified by the excellence of the wine received, would be by placing samples on the Table. Noble Lords opposite refuse to recognise the tremendous pressure at which the War Office is working, and seem to imagine that the preparation of this Return would throw very little extra
560
work on the staff. I was not brought up with a very great affection for the War Office, but since I have been inside that Department I have been struck by the great amount of work which has had to be done, and the long hours which it has been necessary for the officials to put in, in order to cope with it. I deprecate placing on the already overburdened shoulders of the War Office Staff the extra load which would be imposed by the Return asked for by the noble Earl, and I hope that he will not press his Motion. The whole point seems to me to be, has the supply of medical comforts to sick and wounded in hospital been good and constant? We believe it has, that the sick have been properly supplied, and that the wines and spirits have been secured at reasonable prices.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord the Under Secretary has made the rather surprising statement that price was no guide at all as to quality. I should have thought that price was a very considerable guide. With regard to publishing the prices, I should like to know whether he had consulted the Wine Trade in the matter. Apparently the noble Earl, who has brought this question forward, has consulted them, and they are anxious that the prices should be published. The noble Lord said it would be impossible to have a wine taster who was not connected with a wine firm. Though that may be, he need not be a man connected with a particular wine firm which is tendering to the War Office. It seems to me that it would have been perfectly possible for the War Office to have got a taster who was entirely unconnected with any of the firms who tendered. The noble Lord, at the conclusion of his speech, said the point was whether the medical comforts were good or bad. There is some evidence on this point in the Report of the Hospitals Commission. Colonel Richardson, the Deputy Adjutant-General for Supplies and Transports, was called before the Commission, and he stated—I am quoting from page 182 of the Evidence—
"On April 3, 1900, the port wine, whisky, and arrowroot supplied by the War Office was condemned by the medical authorities."

561
The War Office replied that in the opinion of the experts—experts who, we now know, were sometimes connected with the firms tendering—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: How do you know that?
LORD MONKSWELL: The noble Earl has given one instance of an expert who was interested in firms tendering. The War Office replied that, in the opinion of the experts, the port wine and whisky, were of excellent quality. There being this conflict of testimony, Sir F. Walker, the General Officer commanding at Cape Town, was appealed to, and the fact that he, after tasting the wine and whisky, considered them of good quality, was accepted as ample evidence that they were all right. It appears to me that, after the condemnation by the medical authorities of the wine and whisky supplied by the War Office, the matter ought to have been inquired into.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I desire to say one word, and one word only, with regard to the position in which your Lordship's House is placed by these constantly renewed inquiries from the Front Bench opposite. Your Lordships decided the other evening, after a protracted and close debate, that the investigation of these matters should not take place at the present time. I do think, my Lords, that we have a right to protest against attempts to ignore that decision, and to transfer to the floor of this House a minute examination of questions of detail which can be properly dealt with only when that inquiry is held. The noble Earl, who introduced this subject, displayed an extraordinary, and, I think I might almost say, bewildering acquaintance with the minutiæ of the wine trade. How is it possible for your Lordships, who have not had the same opportunities that the noble Earl has enjoyed of studying these questions, to follow him into all these details The noble Earl complained, for example, that the Government orders had been for wine in cases of ten instead of 12 bottles. If that is so, it seems to me a perfectly
562
reasonable point to take up. It may be very advantageous that at ordinary times wines should be delivered for the use of the troops in cases of ten bottles. On the other hand, if you want that wine in a great hurry, it may be desirable to dispense with that condition. When I was at the War Office during the earlier stages of the war we constantly found it necessary to give up what is called the sealed pattern, and to be content with something else which could be more readily and more expeditiously procured in the market. But surely that is not a matter your Lordships can pass judgment on tonight. Nor can we undertake to say whether the gentleman or gentlemen employed to taste the wine was or were in all respects the most competent to decide the I question of the merits of these different beverages. I think however that, if you lay it down as a rule that your expert is to be a person wholly unconnected with the wine trade, you will find that he is not an expert at all, and you will be taken to task for relying upon the judgment of an amateur. Then, again, we have such cases as those cited by the noble Lord who spoke last, where in South Africa certain medical comforts were condemned by the medical authorities; but what is there to show that those stores were not of an excellent description when they left this country? They had travelled about South Africa, and might have suffered from the journey and the climate. Those are points which it is impossible for us to deal with in this House. With regard to the question of the publication of prices, I ventured the other evening to remind your Lordships that this matter had been very thoroughly gone into some years ago, in, I think, the year 1888, and that it was then decided that it was undesirable in the public interest to make known these tenders, not upon the advice of one or two isolated authorities, but upon the advice of an immense number of the larger houses that were consulted, and of the Chambers of Commerce, to which this point was specially referred by the Directors of Army and Navy Contracts. I humbly submit to your Lordships that we should accept the decision arrived at by the House the other evening, and abandon the wholly futile attempt to deal

563
with these small matters of detail by discussion across the Table.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I rise to protest against the statement which has just been made by the noble Marquess. I very much regret that the proposal of Lord Tweedmouth was couched in such general language as to afford an argument, when that proposal had been disposed of, that we were to be precluded from any further discussion with reference to these matters. The noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, speaking the other evening with a singular absence of judicial spirit, but with an exuberance of judicial manner, imputed that we on this side of the House were guided in this matter by Party spirit. I emphatically protest against that imputation. But if this is to be turned into a Party matter, there is no more efficacious way of doing so than to adopt the policy of the noble Marquess opposite, and, by means of a decision arrived at in respect of one matter, to rule out any further inquiry into these subjects. I do not say that this question, in itself, is one of enormous importance; but, having regard to the fact that there exists, as my noble friend has stated, among men of all political opinions and of all classes, a feeling that there has been a great waste and leakage of public money in respect of War Office contracts and other matters, I think it would be a great misfortune if some means were not found of investigating the question. I think the Government might give an assurance that they would be prepared to meet some of the responsible members of the Opposition, and look into these things together. The inquiry could be a confidential one, but, at any rate, the country would then know that the matters had been looked into. It is no satisfaction to be told that there is to be an inquiry after the war is over. We have been blamed for desiring to have an inquiry while the feeling in the country is hot and strong on this matter. We do not want to do any injustice, but if you are to have this matter properly attended to in the country, it must be taken up when the feeling in the country is hot and strong. If my noble friend divides the House I shall support him. But I hope the
564
Government will see their way to meet the views of those on this side of the House by proposing some means by which these matters can be investigated by public men, irrespective of Party, and in that way assure the public that these great sums are not being wasted and misspent.
LORD WELBY: My Lords, although I would not assume or pretend to voice the feeling of the Civil Service on such a question, yet, as I have been referred to by the noble Earl, I may, perhaps, give the House my opinion after forty years experience in the Service. I understand the argument to be against adding to the work already performed by the War Office officials, but I would venture to point out that there is something which comes before the convenience of the Staff —namely, the reputation of the public service. My experience has, I am happy to say, left in my mind a conviction of the uprightness and purity of the Civil Service. But where such immense sums of money are entrusted to public servants, there are always some opportunities and temptations, which may sometimes lead to individuals forgetting their duty. The only preventative of that evil is vigilance on the part of heads of Departments, and, more especially, on the part of His Majesty's Ministers. If the knowledge gets abroad throughout the service that His Majesty's Ministers do not shrink from investigating any suspicious circumstance or any doubtful question, and that they are not afraid of probing them to the bottom, I think that knowledge will prevent evils of this kind occurring. My experience is that, when any doubtful question arises, the best civil servants would, without exception, desire that it should be probed in the interests of the public service. There is throughout the Civil Service a fine feeling of esprit de corps, and where that feeling exists there is considerable danger of an objection to publicity in fear that it would cloud the reputation of a great service; but I think it is the duty of His Majesty's Ministers to take care that such a tendency — not an unnatural tendency—should not lead to evils much greater than those which attend the postponement of inquiry. There is no

565
question but that there are rumours about—I hope and trust that they are unfounded or exaggerated—but, however that may be, I believe the only way of meeting them is to pay some attention to the criticisms that are made in this and the other House of Parliament, and to bring the question to a conclusion by investigation.
My Lords, I confess that I was disappointed with the speeches of the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Chairman of Committees the other night. It appeared to me that they hardly realised their public duty when they wished to postpone inquiry until the end of the war. I am afraid that members of His Majesty's Government are not quite so stalwart and bold as were their predecessors in 1854 and 1855. I recollect that when the Crimean war was at its height the War Office was being reorganised. The whole frame of that Department was put into the melting pot at that time. I remember, also, that the Government of Lord Palmerston, when they were subjected to the severest criticism, were able to send out two men to investigate charges of mismanagement in the Crimea. Throughout that time the Government did not rely upon the plea that the officials were not to be called upon to answer or investigate these charges. Here, again, I would point out the danger of postponing inquiry. The Report of these two gentlemen was submitted to a Board of Officers at Chelsea, who issued their Report immediately after peace had been declared; and it may be in the recollection of your Lordships that that Report whitewashed all the officers concerned, and that the country was so contented at the conclusion of the war that the whitewashing was allowed to pass. Towards the close of the Crimean war a question of fraud arose in
connection with the purchase of mules in the East, and my recollection is that the Government lost no time in sending out a high financial officer to inquire into the charge. This resulted in the establishment of the fact that there had been very considerable mismanagement and very great losses of public money from the transaction. The plea that the time of Government officials could not be made use of to rebut accusations of mismanagement and charges of malversation did not obtain with the Government of that day. As an old civil servant, having a real pride in the service to which I had the honour to belong, I urge that no opportunity should be lost for reasonable investigation into the charges which have been brought forward.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, having had the misfortune—I say misfortune because it took me away from my work, not on account of the wine with which I was supplied—to be wounded in South Africa, and to be three months in hospital, I should like to state that during the whole course of that time I never heard a single complaint either from a private soldier or an officer as to the quality of the wine supplied.
THE EARL OF ERROL: My Lords, I had considerable experience of the hospitals during the time I was in South Africa. I gathered the evidence of doctors and of officers and men who had been wounded, and I can entirely corroborate every word the noble Lord who has just spoken has said. The quality of the wine and spirits was most excellent and I never heard any complaint at all.
On question, their Lordships divided— Contents, 16 Not contents, 79.

CONTENTS.

Northampton, M.

Spencer, E.

Northbourne, L.

Ripon, M.

Reay, L.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Carrington, E. [Teller.]

Aberdare, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Tweedmouth, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Monkswell, L.

Welby, L.

NOT CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Nothumberland, D.

Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

Grafton, D.

Wellington, D.

Salisbury, M. (L. Pricy Seal.)

Marlborough, D.

Lansdowne, M.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

James, L.

Verulam, E.

Kenyon, L.

Clarendon, E.(L.Chamberlain)

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Bradford, E.

Westmeath, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Camperdown, E.

Lawrence, L.

Carnwath, E.

Cross, V.

Macnaghten, L.

Cawdor, E.

Knutsford, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Dartmouth, E.

Llandaff, V.

Mostyn, L.

Dartrey, E.

Muskerry, L.

Eldon, E.

Addington, L.

Newton, L.

Feversham, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Pirbright, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Avebury, L.

Raglan, L.

Harrowby, E.

Balfour, L.

Rathdonnell, L.

Howe, E.

Barnard, L.

Rathmore, L.

Lathom, E.

Belper, L.

Robertson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Rosmead, L.

Lichfield, E.

Chesham, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Lindsey, E.

Churchill, L. [Teller.]

Sinclair, L.

Lucan, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Onslow, E.

Congleton, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Romney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Glenesk, L.

Suffield, L.

Selborne, E.

Harlech,

Wimborne, L.

Stamford, E.

Harris, L.

Zouche of Harynworth, L.

Stanhope, E.

Hylton, L.

REMOUNTS—PURCHASES IN CANADA AND NORTH AMERICA.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is the fact that the Remount Officer in Canada asked permission to buy out West in 1902, and, if so, what reply was given to him, and whether the War Office intend to buy from the West and North-West of Canada this spring, and whether a Return can be given of the various classes of horses and mules purchased at home and abroad, stating the places from which they came, their numbers, prices, and cost of transport to South Africa. It appears from the Return we already have that 11,000 horses have been obtained from Canada as against 77,000 for the United States. Now Canada produces many good horses of all sorts and kinds, and I think it requires some explanation why comparatively so few horses have been obtained from Canada. In the West and North-West of Canada there are an immense number of excellent horses of the mounted infantry type to be obtained, and I am informed that those who have been willing and anxious to supply them from those districts have received no encouragement whatever. I do not think that the Return asked for need impose any work on the Department as the details must be there already, or that the inconvenience with regard to the
568
publication of prices obtained in this case.
LORD RAGLAN: With regard to the first part of the Question, the reply sent to Lieutenant-Colonel Dent by the Remount Department was—
"We shall certainly continue to purchase in Canada so long as South African requirements are maintained and you are able to procure suitable animals."
It is not advisable to make the prices generally known. Where there were contracts the prices are of course known, but much purchasing was done otherwise than by contract, and if prices are mentioned there will be a tendency to level up. I am afraid it would be impossible to give all the information the noble Lord asks for.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government (1) what number of horses have been purchased in Colorado and in the Western States of North America for the use of the Army in South Africa; (2) between what dates such purchases were made, and whether such purchases are still being made; (3) what has been the average price paid for horses delivered to His Majesty's Government at Kansas City; and (4) what arrangements, by way of commission or otherwise, were made on behalf of His Majesty's Government with the agents by whom such horses were purchased.
LORD RAGLAN: In reply to the first and second Questions, the Government do not possess the information, as the horses were all shipped at New Orleans, and the tickets, dates of purchase, or places of origin were not sent here, but I will see if this information can be obtained and given. As regards the other Questions affecting prices, I must give the same answer as I have given to Lord Tweedmouth.

STANDING ORDERS.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The sole object of this Amendment is the preservation of documents of great antiquity which cannot be produced without risk of injury because they are so fragile.
Moved, That Standing Order No. LXXXVII be amended by leaving out the following words, viz.—
1. "In the case of documents in public custody within the United Kingdom, officially certified copies thereof (or officially certified extracts or excerpts of such documents, if deemed sufficient by the Committee for Privileges) shall be delivered in by a witness, who will be required to swear that he has examined them with the originals, and that the copies are correct. (With regard to the documents in public custody in England, the originals, as heretofore, must be produced at the Bar by an officer of the department having custody of the same)."
And by inserting the following words in lieu thereof, viz.—
1. "No original of any record or public document in the custody of the Master of the Rolls shall be required to be produced before the Committee of Privileges or any other Committee of this House without a written order for such production, signed by the Lord Chancellor or the Chairman of such Committee. Such records and documents shall be proved by certified copies as provided by the Public Record Act, 1838, 1st and 2nd Vict., chap. 94."—(The Lord Chancellor).
The said Standing Order amended accordingly; and to be printed as amended. (No. 26.)
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.