Sitting of 18 March 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill; North-Eastern Railway Bill, read a second time and committed.
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill (by Order), read a second time, and committed.

THAMES RIVER STEAMBOAT SERVICE BILL.
"To provide for the acquisition and construction of piers and landing places on the River Thames, in the administrative county of London by the London County Council, and to make provision for a service of vessels for passengers and parcels; and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
WEST SUSSEX WATER BILL.
Order for Second Reading to-morrow read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NEATH, PONTARDAWE, AND BRYNAMAN RAILWAY BILL.
Copy ordered, "of Report of the Board of Trade on the Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill." —(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 2).
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN informed the House, That the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills, not being appointed to meet until Tuesday next, the parties promoting the Coventry and Alley Railway Bill, which was set down for consideration upon the first day of the meeting of the Committee, had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Arthur Henry Stokes, of Greenhill, Derby, one of His Majesy's Inspectors of Mines, was essential to their case, and
1086
that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
Ordered, That Arthur Henry Stokes do attend the Committee on Group 2 of Railway Bills on Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILLS ((GROUP B).
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN informed the House that the Committee on Group B of Private Bills not being appointed to meet until Tuesday next, the parties promoting the Cork Harbour Bill which was set down for the first day of the meeting of the Committee had appeared before him and proved that the evidence of Joseph like, chairman of the Cork Steamship Company, Cork, was essential to their case, and that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House.
Ordered, That Joseph Pike do attend the Committee on Group B of Private Bills on Tuesday next at Twelve of the Clock.

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Lewes, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from London (two); Bury; Leeds; Blackburn; Sheffield: and Cheltenham; to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Falkirk; Oathlaw; Dornoch; and Alves; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: from Brentford: Stoke-upon-Trent; Devonport; New-castle-upon-Tyne; Burton-upon-Trent; Dudley; Little Hulton; Worsborough; Weetslade; and, Woking; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Glossop, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Coatbridge, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Holloway; and Sheffield; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SHANGHAI (CONSULAR JURISDICTION).
  Return [presented 17th March] to be printed. [No. 81.]
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of licence granted to James Johnstone, a convict under detention in Wormwood Scrubbs Prison, permitting him to leave the prison on condition of his proceeding to the Middlesex Hospital, there to be examined, and' if necessary, to undergo an operation, and there remaining in the custody of a prison officer, and afterwards returning, when fit to do so, to Wormwood Scrubbs Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (CODE 1903).
  Copy presented, of Provisional Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools and Training Colleges, with Schedules, by the Board of Education [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Reports from University Colleges, 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (ADMIRALTY).
  Copy of Tenth Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which have been removed from the office of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Damage to Breakwater at Port of Ness, Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the breakwater at Port of Ness, Island of Lewis, has been damaged by the storm of the 28th February last; and will he state what action it is proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) Yes, Sir. A letter has been received to the effect that the breakwater was damaged about the time named, but the information given is very vague and is not sufficient to enable any decision to be come to. The Secretary for Scotland has taken steps to get further information.

  Port Ness Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether he is now prepared to make public the report of Mr. William Shield in regard to the condition of the harbour at Port Ness, Island of Lewis.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) If the hon. Member will move for the Correspondence, it will be presented in the usual form.

  Steamer Service between Mallaig, Lochinver, etc.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a petition from the inhabitants of the western mainland of Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland, urging the establishment of a steamer service between Mallaig, Lochinver, and intermediate ports; and whether, in view of the advantage of the proposed steamer to postal service and fishing industry in the congested area, he will consider the expediency of arranging for the Congested Districts Board to grant an annual subsidy in aid of the service.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The petition in question has been received by the Secretary for Scotland and answered by him. No subsidies are now

  1089
  granted to steamship companies trading with the Western Highlands; the only payment made from public funds to such companies is as mail carriers in return for services rendered to the Postmaster-General.

  Vaccination in Scotland—Animal Lymph.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the insufficient supply of animal lymph for vaccination purposes in Scotland, will he consider the advisability of establishing in Scotland an animal vaccine station and laboratory for the preparation of glycerinated calf lymph similar to the establishment under the control of the Local Government Board, London.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I cannot assent to the view that the supply of animal lymph for vaccination purposes in Scotland has been found to be insufficient. But a proposal to establish in Scotland a station for the preparation of glycerinated calf lymph has been made to the Secretary for Scotland, and will be considered.

  Customs Watchers—Annual Increments.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the order stating that one-fourth of the Customs watchers shall proceed by annual increments of 1s. to 24s. a week; and will he explain why all the Customs watchers are not to be allowed to have the benefit of this increment.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) The value of the services of a watcher on first employment was estimated at 21s. per week, but as the value might be expected in many cases to increase with his experience, the Treasury accordingly, in 1900, authorised the grant to a limited number of watchers of an increase of pay, but to grant this increase to all the officers indiscriminately would be inconsistent with the principle on which the concession was granted.

  Liberation of Slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba.
  MR. J. W. WILSON: To ask the Under Secretary of
  1090
  State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to facilitate the liberation of the remaining slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recommend the Sultan's Government to abolish at an early date the regulations, which have now been some years in operation, as to the payment of compensation for slaves in future liberated within the Sultan's territories.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) His Majesty's Government are unaware that there exists any difficulty whatever in the liberation of the remaining slaves in Zanzibar and Pemba. Emancipation lies in their own hands, and no action seems required to achieve the object suggested by the hon. Member.

  Publicans' Licences—Appeals.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets, St. George's): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of issuing directions to the clerks to licensing justices to advise the justices not to appear as respondents at quarter sessions in appeals against the refusals of licences where renewals have been withheld on grounds other than those connected with the conduct of the licenceholders, in order that the costs of the respondents in such cases should not fall upon the rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I have no authority whatever to issue any such directions.

  Shipbuilding at Devonport.
  MR. LOCKIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will arrange that one of the new battleships provided for in the Navy Estimates shall be built at Devonport.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) It is not proposed to lay down one of the new battleships at Devonport, as both Devonport and Keyham will be fully occupied during the coming year with the work of construction and repair already allotted to them.

  Income Tax—Suggested Alteration in Dates of Payment.
  MR. LOCKIE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of making the Income Tax payable in quarterly instalments instead of annually.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The system which the hon. Member suggests was established by law, and to some extent carried out in practice in this country, previous to the year 1869, when it was abandoned for the present arrangement. The practical difficulties in working the system which led to its abandonment are, there is reason to believe, greater now than they were then, and make any recurrence to it inadvisable.

  Ireland—Ancient Monument at Greenan, Londonderry.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of Public Works have as yet ascertained if the proprietor of Greenan, near Londonderry, is prepared to execute a deed vesting this ancient monument in them as promised by him on the 17th November last.†
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Correspondence on the subject is still proceeding between the proprietor and the Commissioners.

  Irish Fisheries—Close Seasons.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that injury is occasioned to the fishing industry in county Down by Scotch and English fishing fleets during the close season of their own coasts, resulting in the destruction of fish shoals on the Down coast and the depreciation of the quality of the herrings; and whether, seeing that the fishermen are unable on this account to compete in the English markets with the fully-developed herring caught elsewhere, he will consider the desirability of making the period from January to June a close season between Clougher Head and Belfast Lough.
  †See (4) Debates, cxiv., 1113.
  1092
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No representations appear to have been made to the Department of Agriculture in this matter. If made they will receive every consideration.

  Labourers' Cottages in Ireland.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution recently passed by the Wexford District Council calling attention to the fact that £59,000 was granted in 1891 to encourage the building of labourers' cottages, and pointing out that a large residue remains, as twelve counties did not avail themselves of the grant; and whether he will consider the advisability of dividing the residue between the counties that have built cottages, giving special consideration to counties that had worked the Labourers Act previous to 1891.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The unexpended balance of the grant in aid of labourers' cottages provided by section D of the 54 and 55 Viet., cap. 48, amounted to £58,942 on the 31st March, 1902. The share of each county in this fund is prescribed by statutory regulations made by the Lord Lieutenant, and could not be diverted in the manner suggested except by an amendment of the law.

  Labourers Act in Galway Unexpended Balances.
  COLONEL NOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant what is the amount of the unexpended balance under the Labourers Acts for the county of Galway.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The share of the county Galway in the unexpended balance of the grant in aid of labourers' cottages amounted to £5,319 1s. 1d. on the 31st March, 1902.

  Drill Hall at Durham.
  Mr. JOHN WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say what proportion of the cost of erecting the drill hall situated in the city of Durham was contributed from Government funds; and whether it is in: harmony with the

  1093
  conditions of such grant for the building to be rented for concerts and kinds of amusements.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No proportion of the cot was contributed from Government funds: the corps has, however, been granted a loan under the Military Lands Acts. There is no objection whatever to the use of a drill hall in the manner alluded to when it is not required for military purposes; moreover, the profits derived from such uses are often utilised to meet the sinking fund charges.

  Army Recruiting—Rejections on Account of Bad Teeth.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of a statement contained in the recently issued Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting to the effect that in the reports from manufacturing districts stress is laid upon the number of men rejected forbad teeth, will he state the percentage of men who were rejected for this cause during the year under review.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of men rejected for bad teeth in 1902 was 4,558, and the ratio per 1,000 inspected was 52·03. This number is nearly double the figures for 1901.

  Boat Slips on Lough Swilly.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: TO ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the importance of Lough Swilly as a fortified harbour of refuge, the Government propose to improve the piers or boat slips along the lough in order to give facilities for communication between the various forts lately erected thereon.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Certain facilities already exist for landing at the various forts on Lough Swilly, and it is proposed to improve these as funds become available. Further, the question of the improvement of the pier at Buncrana is under consideration.

  Volunteers—Recruiting Statistics.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give the number of recruit-
  1094
  obtained for the Volunteers from 1st November last year to the end of February.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The number of recruits obtained between the 1st October, 1902 and 1st January, 1903 was 9,153. The figures asked for cannot be given as the returns are only rendered quarterly.

  Meat Contracts—Substitution of Foreign for Home-grown Meat.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES (Carmarthen Boroughs): To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to cases in which frozen and chilled meat, or meat from animals killed at Deptford, the wharves, or other places within ten days after arrival from abroad, has been substituted for British and Irish grown meat stipulated for in the contracts; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes taking, and give the wording of that portion of the contract that pertains thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No actual proved cases of this nature have been brought to the notice of the War Office. The wording of the contract is as follows:—"The beef shall be home-bred ox, not under two nor more than eight years old, or home-bred heifer and cow, not under two nor more than four years old; the mutton wether or ewe. Carcases of sheep weighing less than 50 lbs will not be received. Frozen mutton when supplied shall be from British Colonies exclusively."

  Army Officers Compulsorily Retired.
  MR. PIRIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Parliamentary Return of twenty-one officers of the Regular Army compulsorily retired or dismissed the Service during 1900 to 1902, can he state the number dismissed by sentence of Court-martial, and also the number who have been brought to resign under the pressure that if they did not voluntarily send in their papers their services would be dispensed with; and the number of those who have asked for inquiry or Court-martial and have been refused; what are the numbers of

  1095
  officers placed on half-pay; and can he also give, where applicable, same details for Militia and Volunteers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The statistics are as follows:—Regular forces—Officers dismissed by sentence of Court-martial, 9; officers who resigned under pressure, 81; officers who asked for inquiry or Court martial and were refused, 2; officers placed on half-pay, 9. Militia and Volunteers—Officers removed, or whose services have been dispensed with, Militia, 26, Volunteers, 15; officers dismissed by sentence of Court-martial, Militia, 6, Volunteers, 2; officers who resigned under pressure, Militia, 38, Volunteers, 33; officers who applied for Court-martial and were refused, Militia, 0, Volunteers 1; Reserve of officers—Dismissed by sentence of Court-martial, Militia, 0, Volunteers, 2.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Compulsorily Retired Officers.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if lie can state how many of each rank of the officers on half-pay, eligible for employment, have been compulsorily placed on half-pay; for how long each of these officers has been on that list; and how many it is the intention of the Government not to employ again.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): The number of officers on half-pay, eligible for employment, who have been compulsorily placed on half-pay amounts to eleven lieutenant-colonels and colonels. The periods during which they have been on that list lie between December 1896 and February of this year. I am not prepared to give any answer to the last part of the Question.

  Officers of the Auxiliary Forces.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say how many Militia, Yeomanry and Volunteer officers, respectively, hold the "Q" Certificate; and how many Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteer officers respectively hold the "T" Certificate.
  MR. BRODRICK: The figures are as follows:—"Q or q" Certificate—Militia, 16, Yeomanry 3, Volunteers, 112; "T or t" Certificate—Militia, 133, Yeomanry, 31, Volunteers, 1248.

  Army Horses.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will cause the horses of Regular troops at home to be classified so that no horse is reckoned effective until five years old, fully trained, and practically sound for active service; and whether he will distinguish in Army Estimates between remount and effective horses, according to the Returns of the previous 1st January.
  MR. BRODRICK: Under present classification no troop horse is considered fit for active service until it is six years old and fully trained. As regards the figures in the Estimates, I do not think any good purpose would be served by the additional tables involved.

  Army Returns.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can see his way to classifying the privates of the Regular forces at home, so than no soldier shall be reckoned effective until he has been dismissed all recruit drills and courses, and is by age and physique qualified for active or foreign service; whether he will distinguish in Army Estimates between; recruits and effectives, as shown by the Returns of the previous 1st January; and, if he cannot see his way to this classification, whether he will inquire the opinions of officers commanding units of Regulars at home, and er final decision till those opinions have been considered.
  MR. BRODRICK: I must point out to my hon. and gallant friend that in the first place the qualifications for active or Foreign Service vary according to the nature of the service or the climate; and in the second place the returns already furnished to the War Office give all particulars necessary for the detailing of drafts or forming of a true estimate of the state of units. When the increased

  1097
  rates of Service pay come into operation soldiers will be classified accordingly, but I do not think any distinctions can be drawn on the lines suggested.
  COLONEL WELBY COLONEL WELBY suggested that under the circumstances the right hon. Gentleman should obliterate the word "effective" from the Army Estimates.

  Army Veterinary Officers.
  CAPTAIN NORTONI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what the proposed improvements in the pay and prospects of the Army veterinary officers will be, and upon what date they will come into force, seeing that the Army Veterinary Department is below its authorised peace establishment.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Committee which is considering these matters has not yet reported.

  Army Remount Department.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of employing retired officers of the Army Veterinary Department as purchasing officers under the proposed rules for the reorganisation of the Army Remount Department, in view of the saving to the State that would be effected thereby.
  MR. BRODRICK: A veterinary officer's responsibility is purely professional, and is limited to the soundness and age of the animals purchased. It is not considered advisable to employ him as a purchasing officer, who has to determine the fitness of horses in point of breeding, appearance, strength and action.

  New Naval Base at St. Margaret's Hope.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the extent and rental of the land proposed to be acquired for the new naval station at St. Margaret's Hope.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The extent and rental cannot be stated as negotiations are still in progress.

  Alaska Boundary Tribunal.
  MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commissioners on the Alaska Boundary Tribunal have been officially nominated by his Majesty's Government and the government of the United States; and, if so, whether he is in a position to submit their names.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): The President of the United States has appointed Mr. Elihu Raat, Secretary for War in the present administration, and Senators Lodge and Turner to be the American Members of the Commission. His Majesty's Government have, at the suggestion of the Dominion Government, decided to appoint as the British members the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Louis Aimable Jetté, retired Judge of the Superior Court of Province of Quebec, and Judge J. Douglas Armour, of the Supreme Court of Canada.

  Education Ordinance at Pretoria.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to an ordinance on education matters promulgated some days ago at Pretoria, in which a maximum of three hours weekly for instruction in the Dutch language, with a maximum of two hours' Biblical instruction given in Dutch, has been established; and whether he will take steps to secure that the number of hours allowed per week for instruction in the Dutch language may be increased.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been directed to the ordinance to which the hon. Member refers. It provides for five hours instruction per week in Dutch when the parents desire it. The time allotted is the same as in the schools of Cape Colony, and I have received no complaints respecting it, and see no reason for any alteration.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not heavy pressure brought to bear on you in the matter by the Rev. Mr. Bosnian in Pretoria?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman has been entirely misinformed. The only communication I have had from or with Mr. Bosnian was a private interview. As the hon. Member refers to it, I may say that Mr. Bosnian expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the arrangement.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But the ordinance was promulgated after the interview.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is irrelevant to the point. The Rev. Mr. Bosnian understood that five hours per week would be given for Dutch and religious instruction, and ho expressed himself, personally, entirely satisfied with that part of the arrangement.

  Taxation on South. African Natives.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether the Government propose to increase the rates of taxation paid by natives in the Transvaal and other Crown Colonies in South Africa.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No proposal for any increase of taxation on natives is before me; but I consider that the present rate is too low in some cases and does not fairly represent the amount which the natives ought to contribute to the Administration which secures them protection for life and property. The subject will probably be discussed at the Intercolonial Conference at Bloemfontein.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Is the tax lower or higher than it was under the Transvaal Government?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a very difficult thing to answer, but I believe it is lower. The fact is a fixed rate has been substituted for a number of separate items. I believe the net average result is lower than it was in the time of the Transvaal, but I certainly do not think it was too high.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): Before any tax is agreed to by the Colonial Office, will the House have an opportunity to discuss it?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot promise that. Of course, the House will always have an opportunity of discussing any decision of the Colonial Office.

  Transvaal War Contribution.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the agreement by the Transvaal to contribute £30,000,000 towards the cost of the war formed the subject of a despatch from Lord Milner before the Colonial Secretary's journey to South Africa; and whether he will now lay upon the Table of the House all the Correspondence had by the Colonial Office with responsible persons in South Africa on this subject.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. The question of laying Papers relating to the war contribution is under consideration.
  MR. BLACK: Will any of the Papers be available to-morrow?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  Free Grants for War Losses.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how much of the £3,000,000 voted as free grants to the Boers, and of the £2,000,000 voted as free grants to others in South Africa who have suffered war losses has been expended; and, further, will he say in what way these amounts have been expended.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in a position to give the information required, but I may inform the hon. Member that the payments made, and the whole of the accounts, will be submitted to the Controller and Auditor-General, who will make a report to the House.

  Cyprus.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will favourably consider the petition addressed to him by members of the Legislative Council of Cyprus, praying for some relief from the taxation in that island which has! been imposed to meet the tribute assigned to the creditors of the Sublime Porte.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not yet received the Petition to which the hon. Member refers from the High Commissioner, with his comments upon it. I must point out, however, that no taxation has been imposed for the purpose of meeting the tribute. On the contrary, since the British occupation there has been a substantial remission of taxation in the island, and the British tax-payer has every year had to contribute a considerable sum towards the revenue of the island.

  Immigration of Foreign Criminals.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a Frenchman, who at the Old Bailey, on the 10th February, 1903, was sentenced to seven years penal servitude for robbery with violence, and who was shown to have been banished from France for ten years after being convicted eight times in that country, and to have been living on the immoral earnings of women in London; and whether representations will be made to the French Government with the object of stopping the deportation to this country of French persons who have been banished from France on account of their criminality.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CHANBORNE, Rochester): My attention has been drawn to the case of the Frenchman referred to. My hon. friend appears to have been misinformed. No sentence of banishment was passed, but the person referred to when convicted in France in December, 1893, and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with ten years
  1102
  interdiction de séjour. This is equivalent to police supervision with a prohibition against residence in a specified area.

  British Indian Pilgrims to Mecca.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say what steps have been taken to secure the payment of the claims of British Indian subjects who have been robbed by brigands when journeying between Jeddah and the Mohammedan shrines of Mecca and Medina; and whether His Majesty s Government will consider the advisability of co-operating with the Netherlands Government in proposing to the Ottoman authorities the necessity for establishing an international police force for the protection of British and Dutch subjects travelling in the Hedjaz.
  LORD CRANBORNE: As my right hon. friend and predecessor stated in this House in reply to a Question on the 16th of March, 1900, the claims of British Indian pilgrims for losses by robbery in the Hedjaz between 1892 and 1898 have been settled.† No further information in regard to such claims has been received since that date. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to make the proposal suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

  British Consular Officers in Turkey.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will be prepared to increase the number of British Consular Officers serving in the European provinces of Turkey; and, if so, to what towns they will be appointed.
  LORD CRANBORNE: An addition to the number of Consular Officers employed in the Turkish Empire has been recently made by the appointment of a Vice-Consul at Monastir in consequence of the disturbed state of that district.

  Registration of Motor Cars.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of
  †See (4) Debates, lxxx., 1067.

  1103
  the Local Government Board if he will consider the advisability of affording pedestrians and owners of horses and carriages, injured by motor cars, the moans furnished by European countries of identifying their owners by a conspicuous number on the motor car.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON, Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk): My right hon, friend is in sympathy with the object which my hon. and gallant friend has in view, but legislation would be necessary to give effect to it. The subject, however, is under his consideration.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is there any hope of legislation? We have had that answer for three years.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: Questions as to the possibility of legislation should, I think, be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  Aliens in English Prisons.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now say what numbers of aliens are now in prison; what proportion they bear to the total prison population; and what is the cost of their detention.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): The number of aliens who were in prison on the 2nd instant, when a census was taken, is, so far as can be ascertained, 625; they form about 3 per cent, of the prison population; and the total cost of carrying out their sentences is roughly estimated at £30,000.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: Is there any power to restore these persons to their native country on the expiration of their sentences?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, Sir; I have no statutory powers.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: What percentage does the foreign prison population represent of the whole foreign population in this country?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Notice of such a Question is obviously necessary.

  Postal Order System—Proposed Extension to the Colonies.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General to what portions of the British Empire money may be sent from the United Kingdom by means of postal orders; from what portions of the Empire money may be similarly sent to the United Kingdom; and whether he will take steps to secure an extension of the postal order system so that it shall be available between the United Kingdom and all the Colonies and Dependencies.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): Malta and Gibraltar are the only; parts of the British Empire to which money can at present be remitted from the United Kingdom by means of postal orders; but postal orders are procurable for remittances to this country in Malta, Gibraltar, India, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, Newfoundland and British Guiana. I have now under consideration the question of extending the postal order system, so that it shall be available between the United Kingdom and other parts of the Empire.

  Afforestry in Ireland.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of the Board of Agriculture on British Forestry have received the consideration of the Board of Agriculture (Ireland); and whether action will be taken with the object of re-afforesting the country.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): I would refer to my reply to the similar Question put to me on the 24th February by the hon. Member for South Kerry.†

  Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his
  †See (4) Debates, cxviii., 678.

  1105
  attention has been drawn to the fact that a labourer, named Denis Healy, was the original applicant for a cottage in Scheme No. 6, the site selected being the farm of Mr. R. Barter, in the Mate by division, townland of Cool-flugh, of the Cork Rural District, and that the name of Timothy McCarthy, now deceased, was substituted for that of the original applicant; and will he state who is at present the accepted tenant for this cottage.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Healy's application was rejected because he was not an agricultural labourer. McCarthy's application for another cottage was not recommended by the Inspector.

  Ireland—Peat Fuel.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps, if any, are being taken by the Irish Government to support a project for largely utilising peat as a fuel when treated by certain scientific processes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This question is of undoubted interest. It demands, and will receive, the attention of the Government. But it is essential that the name of the Government should not be used to exploit this or that invention. I must therefore decline to make any pronouncement which might be quoted illegitimately to secure financial support from the the public for projects the practicability of which has still to be demonstrated.

  Irish Quit Rents.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what proportion of the £35,000 received annually as quit rents, etc., from Ireland by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests is spent in Ireland.
  THIS CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The surplus income received annually by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests from quit, etc., rents in Ireland is paid into the Imperial Exchequer, from which of course Ireland receives grants. As this particular revenue is not earmarked, but merged in the general funds of the
  1106
  Exchequer, it is of course impossible to say how or where it is spent.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Can the Government explain to the House the contradiction between the various statements made yesterday as to the order of business to-day? I understood that the Army Estimates would be taken first.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODwas understood to reply that the original statement made by the Leader of the House was that he hoped to get Vote 1 of the Navy and the non-effective Votes, and that to-day would be devoted to the reports of those Votes. The Army and Navy Votes were to be taken at the afternoon sitting. But in consequence of the length of the debate on Vote 1 of the Navy, it was agreed to postpone the report of that Vote till Monday next. In those circumstances it was hoped that the Non-effective Votes, 13, 14 and 15, of the Navy might be taken at an early period that afternoon, and that the rest of the time might be given for the report of the Army Votes A and 1. The first order on the Paper was the report of the Excess Vote taken yesterday.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that nothing was said in the statement of the First Lord on Monday about getting the Non-effective Votes to-day. It. was not part of the understanding.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said it would be very inconvenient to take the non-effective Votes before the general discussion of the Navy Estimates was finished. He would certainly oppose with all his might the report of the Excess Vote, since the House had not yet had the report of the Accounts Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There could not be a general discussion on the Report Stage of Vote 1.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether there was any necessity for obtaining these Non-effective Votes before the close of the financial year.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD,SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD, the greater part of whose answer was inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to say that it would be an advantage to the House to get these Votes.
  MR. BUCHANAN: But am I not right in saying that the arrangement made by the First Lord of the Treasury did not include the taking of the Non-effective Votes?
  GENERAL LAURIE: I certainly understood: the Secretary to the Navy to promise on the previous day that if the Vote were allowed to be taken a full discussion might again take place on report. Many Members accordingly reserved their remarks for the later stage.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is impossible I should have given such an undertaking. I had no power to do so. What I did say was, that there could be a discussion on Vote 1 in continuation of that on Vote A, and that there would be a further opportunity of discussing Vote I when the Report stage came on.
  GENERAL LAURIE: Speaking as one of the Members interested, I must say I was misled.
  *THE SPEAKER: I have nothing to do with these understandings or misunderstandings. The Rules of the House on the matter are perfectly clear.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood that the first business to be taken on the Vote on Account on Thursday would, at the desire of the Government, be that of the Colonial Office, in order to enable the Colonial Secretary to make a statement. What other business, he asked, would be taken?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, N.): I can answer the
  1108
  hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood the situation. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister stated that the Vote on Account would be put down for Thursday, and that the arrangement of the items in that Vote would depend entirely upon any expression of opinion conveyed to him from any quarter of the House. It being understood that there was a general desire that the Colonial Vote should be put down, that has accordingly been put in the first place; but it is not at the suggestion, request, or desire of the Government, who are in this matter absolutely impartial and perfectly ready to take the discussion of any other item of the Vote on Account if the House so desires. The hon. Gentleman introduced another point. He assumes that this Vote has been put down in order that I, as Colonial Secretary, may make a statement. I wish to say at once that I have no intention of making any statement whatever. My recent proceedings have been fully before the public and the House. I am, of course, ready to give any further explanation which may be desired, or to extend in any way the information which is already in the possession of the House. But I have of my own motion no statement whatever to make.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I thought it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman himself to make a statement. Of course, as he says not, I at once accept his contradiction.
  *MR. BUCHANAN: I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject. There is clearly a misunderstanding. I understood that on Monday the Prime Minister stated that he wanted on Tuesday afternoon Votes A and 1 for the Navy. These were obtained. Then he said that Wednesday would be devoted to the discussion on the Reports of the Army and Navy Votes. Does not the arrangement to take Non-effective Votes in Committee of Supply go outside that understanding?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I think the

  1109
  hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I mentioned the non-effective Votes. We must have the Non-effective Votes. What I was chiefly interested in on Monday was to explain to the House the general method of allocating business before the end of the financial year; and, though I mentioned the Non-effective Votes, they were the least important part of the programme laid before the House.
  MR. LOUGH: Is there any necessity for these Non-effective Votes being taken before the close of the financial year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We must have the money. I ought perhaps to give notice now that it will be necessary tomorrow, after the Vote on Account, to take the purely formal stage, which is necessary before we bring in the Appropriation Bill. There are two stages—the Committee stage and the Report stage of Ways and Means—before we introduce the Appropriation Bill. The first must be taken to-morrow. Therefore, when the House meets, I shall move a Resolution enabling us to take that purely formal stage.
  *MR. BUCHANAN: What is the legislative necessity for obtaining the Non-effective Votes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no statutory obligation to get these particular Votes, but there is a statutory obligation to finish the financial business before March 25th. It is necessary, however, that we should have this money, and I would point out that if we do not we shall have to bring in another Ways and Means Bill at a time when we are pressed with the legislative work of the session.
  *MR. BUCHANAN: Then the only necessity is that you want to get a larger amount of money?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order order'.

NEW BILLS.

  LOCAL RECORDS BILL.
  "For the preservation of Public and Private Local Records," presented by Mr. Bull; supported by Mr. Burns, Sir
  1110
  Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Atherley-Jones, and Sir Albert Rollit; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 7th April,, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886," presented by Mr. Weir: supported by Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Leveson-Gower, Mr. Cathcart Wason,, Mr. Bignold, Mr. Harms worth, and Mr. Caldwell; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]
  SUPPLY [17th MARCH].
  Resolutions reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES (EXCESS), 1901–2.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £77,. 15s. 5d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good an Excess on the Grant for National Gallery of Ireland for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1902."

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,312,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses and Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March, 1904."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said he proposed to move that the amount be reduced by £50, in order that he might call attention to the situation in which tin's matter now stood. They had the matter under consideration on the previous day, when he called attention to the fact that hon. Members had not had an opportunity of seeing the report of the Public Accounts Committee on the point. He had since obtained a copy of the report. This was one of the most extraordinary eases of financial irregularity that had ever come before the House of Commons. Sir Walter Armstrong might be a good judge of pictures and of works of art, but evidently he could not keep simple accounts—simple on the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury. Simple as they were he had failed to keep them properly. He had not paid over the money when he should have done, he had

  1111
  not delivered the accounts at the proper time, and, in fact, he had committed every kind of irregularity. In acknowledgment, presumably, of his great financial ability the Treasury recently agreed to raise his salary. The remedy proposed to cope with the present difficulty was altogether inadequate. He would not trouble the House by again reading the catalogue of financial enormities committed by this gentleman; they were all duly set forth in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, but he would call attention to the report of the Public Accounts Committee which expressed regret that, notwithstanding a previous warning, this accounting officer had again neglected to present his accounts in correct form and at the proper time. The Secretary to the Treasury had admitted the whole case, but instead of doing as would ordinarily have been done, insisting on this official performing his duty or giving place to some one else, he said the only remedy that commended itself to the Treasury was to try and make Sir Walter do the work, and if he failed, to keep the accounts themselves. Surely that was a most inadequate method of dealing with an officer who committed financial irregularities of that kind. The amount involved might be small, but the principle at stake was tremendous. In too many cases the Controller and Auditor-General was unable to adequately perform his duty and secure a complete audit, but when he was able to draw attention to financial irregularities, the Treasury ought to apply more effective remedies. He hoped even now that the Secretary to the Treasury would render it unnecessary to press the Motion for a reduction by giving a more satisfactory account of the intentions of the Department.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. HAYES FISHER, Fulham)said he thought on the previous day he had satisfied the Committee with his explanation. He fully admitted that there had been financial irregularity on the part of Sir Walter Armstrong. The Treasury had complained, the Controller and Auditor-General had complained, and the Public Accounts Committee had fully investigated the matter and had administered a reprimand. He had been asked what the Treasury were going
  1112
  to do in the matter. His reply was that they would; try and get Sir Walter Armstrong to keep the accounts properly, and if they could not succeed in that, then the Treasury Remembrance would see that it was done for him. It was only fair and just to Sir Walter Armstrong to say who he was. He was a man very eminent in the Art world; he had done valuable service for the National Galley in Ireland, and for his services he only received £500 a year. If he were to be pilloried by the House of Commons and if their censure were overdone, he would probably throw up his appointment. He would not be the loser, but the nation would. It was sometimes the case that a man of artistic temperament was not very accurate in keeping accounts, but after what had been said he would, no doubt, be anxious in the future to keep his accounts in proper form. If he did not do so, then he would be afforded the necessary help, for they were most anxious not to lose his services to the nation. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not press his vote of censure.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the Secretary to the Treasury misapprehended the point of the debate. There was no desire to attack Sir Walter Armstrong, the object was to learn why the Treasury, realising the difficulty, did not make other arrangements for dealing with these accounts. Why not appoint another accounting officer?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES said he was not by any means satisfied with the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would further consider the matter. At the same time he did not propose to move formally the reduction of the Vote.
  First Resolution agreed to Consideration of Second Resolution deferred till Monday next.

  SUPPLY (NAVY ESTIMATES. 1903 4)
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £784.300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of half-pay, reserved, and retired pay to officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought it very extraordinary that that Vote should be put in the forefront of the business that day, and he hoped the Prime Minister would not press it. Of course the House ought to meet all the reasonable requests of the Government for Votes to enable them to carry on their work, and to supply the money required for their immediate wants, but certainly he could not agree with the suggestion that more than Vote A and Vote 1 were absolutely required. It was all very well to say that the Non-effective Votes were non-contentious, but there was no certainty that they did not require discussion. He wanted to raise a constitutional question and to show that there was no necessity to take these Votes at once.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is wandering away from the Vote.
  MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH said that in order to elicit some explanation from the Government he would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lough.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J BALFOUR, Manchester E.)said the hon. Member, he was sure, would feel that this was a motion which ought not to be pressed. It was a question not of the convenience of the Government, but the convenience of the House. These Votes were required in order to fulfil the statutory obligations of the House in regard to financial business, and in order to avoid the necessity of bringing in a Ways and Means Bill a few weeks before
  1114
  the Appropriation Bill, at a period of the session when the House was very pressed in finishing the necessary work of the year.
  The only remaining question was whether this was a convenient way of getting this money; he ventured to think it was. These Votes involved no question of principle; they were automatic and had no connection with the naval policy involved. He thought under these circumstances the House might well follow the precedents set in previous years and pass these Votes without discussion.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONprotested against what was practically a Vote on Account for the Navy being taken in this way. The only reason for a Vote on Account was to find money to go on with at the commencement of the financial year. That was not necessary with regard to the Navy, because the Votes which the Government had already obtained gave them one-sixth of the whole of the money required for the Navy, and the whole necessity for taking a Vote on Account disappeared. With eight weeks supply the Government were abundantly supplied. The Committee would remember that there had only been a day and a half given to the general discussion of the Army Estimates, and he reminded the Committee that the main increase fell on Vote 8, and, that being so, he appealed to the Government not to take these Votes now, but postpone them and allow the Committee to discuss Vote 8 at an early date.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR said if it would conciliate hon. Members opposite he would undertake to bring up Vote 8 for discussion on the day most convenient for hon. Members and their friends to discuss it. It was important that the Government should get this money for the purpose of avoiding a Ways and Means Bill. The hon. Member opposite thought this system of obtaining this money was not the right one, but that view was based on the old methods of procedure before the new method of obtaining Supply was adopted. This was no doubt practically a Vote on Account, and in those days it was very necessary that the Votes on Account

  1115
  should be limited, other the Governments might take a vote of account and not touch the Estimates for the rest of the session. That procedure had all been altered; the Government was now obliged every week to submit itself to the criticism of the House, and they left the House to choose the subject for criticism. He thought that hon. Gentlemen ought to be content with the statement that Vote 8 should be brought in on the day most convenient to those who desired to discuss it. He appealed to the House not to interfere with the present procedure of the House.
  *MR. BUCHANANthought that if the Committee allowed those Votes to go through without a protest now they would be told in future years that a precedent had been created; that they had accepted the principle and recognised the reasonableness of the practice that the Government must obtain these Votes before the 31st of March in order to keep them going two or three months.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR said the hon. Member argued this question as if the Government could prevent these matters being discussed. That was not the case; they could always be discussed.
  *MR. BUCHANAN*MR. BUCHANAN said when the money was obtained, whatever the result of a future discussion might be, it would not alter the fact that the control of the House was gone. That was a principle he did not agree with.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said there was some inconvenience in taking these automatic Votes before Votes "A" and "1" had been disposed of, but the argument of the First Lord of the Treasury was a very weighty one. Before the 31st of March the Government must have some money to go on with, and that money must be covered by a Vote of this House. As a matter of fact, these Non-effective Votes were not usually discussed, and it was necessary that the Government should get the money, and if this Motion to report Progress was withdrawn, the question of the Army could be discussed. He would point out that the real question to be discussed on the Army Vote was the Navy; the two questions had to be taken together and when they attacked the Army they were defending the Navy,
  1116
  and he would much rather have the debate on the Army than take a long discussion on these Non-effective Votes.
  *MR. KEARLEYthought that the hon. Member for King's Lynn had overlooked the fact that there were matters of great substance to be discussed on the Non-effective Votes, and matters which ought to be discussed. What he complained of was that the understanding arrive I at with the Prime Minister had not been kept. That arrangement was that Votes "1" and "A" should be put down, and those Votes alone. But last night, when the hon. Member for Wellington found he could not get these Votes through, he had placed them first in the orders of the day, and the result was the hon. Gentlemen opposite would be despoiled of their opportunity of discussing the Army Vote, because he himself had a very important matter to bring forward on Vote 14 of these Non-effective Votes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon)did not know whether anything in the nature of an absolute agreement was entered into, but when his right hon. friend was stating what it would be necessary for the Government to have, he distinctly heard him include these Votes.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the real objection was that the House were asked to vote, practically without discussion, a sum of £2,400,000. In the present condition of the finances of the country the Government ought not to ask for such a sum without affording the House a fair opportunity for criticism.
  MR. LOUGH MR. LOUGH suggested that the Government should take Vote 13, and leave over for the present Votes 14 and 15.
  MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE said he was prepared to postpone Vote 14, if the Committee would give Votes 13 and 15.
  *MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY said he had a question to raise on Vote 15 also.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. £350,100, Civil Pensions and Gratuities.
  *MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY said he desired to call attention to the disparity between the number of established men in Government civil employment in the dockyards and the number of hired men. There had been a very large increase in employment but no corresponding increase in the establishment. The word "hired" as applied to Government workmen was more or less of a misnomer, because the men were practically permanently employed, and many of them remained in the Government service until they reached the age limit of sixty years.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, N.)asked how the matter was relevant to the Vote, which dealt only with men who had left the Service.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON said his hon. friend desired to argue that the number of men entitled to pensions should be larger, but the number could be increased only by increasing the establishment. He submitted that that point was relevant to the Vote.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER pointed out out that if they were to be allowed to discuss the position of persons not on the Vote they might discuss every single institution in the Navy.
  *MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY submitted that this was the only Vote on which the question of the number on the establishment could be raised, and it was most unfair to try to dispose of the discussion on a point of order.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN ruled that the hon. Member could discuss only the question of the pensions of men who had left the dockyards.
  *MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY said he could raise the whole question by referring only to men who had left the service. He would take the case of a man who had been in the Government service forty years and was now on pension. Under the Superannuation Act he had forty-sixtieths of his average emoluments for the last three
  1118
  years in the Service. There was another man who had been employed just as long as a "hired" man and gone out of the Service and had received a gratuity. He had been in the Government employment precisely the same time, but his gratuity was only on the basis of one week's wages for every year served. That was the grievance of a man who had served the Government equally as faithfully. He brought this matter forward on behalf of those now serving, and who would find themselves in a similar predicament at the end of their career. The policy of the Admiralty was to have established men. They wanted to have men they could rely upon under all conditions. In war time or some other time there might be a very great demand for labour outside the Government yards, and unless the Admiralty had a hold on the men, such as they had on the established men, they would lose them. Owing to the very large increase in the Navy the employment in the Government yards had enormously increased, but the number of men established had been altogether disproportionate to the old ratio which prevailed ten years ago. There were 25,689 hired men employed by the Government, and only 6,136 established men. Could the Civil Lord give any assurance that the disparity would be altered I It had been put before the Admiralty over and over again, and what amounted almost to an undertaking was given last year, when a deputation waited on the First Lord, that this question would be inquired into. He did not raise this question in any obstructive spirit, but he thought he was entitled to ask the Admiralty if they had come to any decision on this very important question.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASsupported the hon. Member for Devonport, and said that the only way in which the discrepancy could be remedied was by increasing the number of established men.
  GENERAL LAURIEsaid this arrangement was all right when they had simply a boom, and they were going to get rid of a large number of men, but now the hired men were required as

  1119
  much as the establishment men, and it would be better to have the establishment increased so that all the men should be placed on the same footing.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid this matter had been most carefully considered by the Admiralty. It was quite true that the numbers in the dockyards had largely increased, and that the number of hired men and establishment men had not been increased in proportion. It should be remembered that a portion of this pension was in the nature of deferred pay, and it should also be borne in mind that the hired men got 21s. and the establishment men 20s.
  *MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY said that the men only got 19s. a week, and this was one of the greatest scandals that existed.
  MR. PRETYMAN: That may be so at Devonport.
  *MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY said that was the case everywhere.
  MR. PRETYMAN MR. PRETYMAN said what he meant to convey was that 1s. per week more was allowed to the hired labourer than to the establishment labourer. Therefore the hired men got the higher wage during their service. He assured the Committee that this matter was being carefully considered by the Admiralty, although he was not in a position to announce their decision.
  *MR. KEARLEY*MR. KEARLEY said that under those circumstances he would not press the matter further at this moment, although he could not forget that the hon. Member gave the Committee practically the same assurance last year, but he would expect to know the decision of the Admiralty when Vote 8 came up for discussion.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY REPORT (11th MARCH).
  Resolution reported:—

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 235,761, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)said he had taken no part in the discussion for reforming the Army, for the reason that he had no special knowledge of Arm}' matters. He had, however, been very much impressed by speeches from his hon. friends the Members for Fareham and Plymouth the other day, and great uneasiness was produced in his mind as to the character and quality of the recruits which were being taken into the Army. He desired on this occasion merely to take the ordinary business view of the matter, and to examine how far the country got good value for its money. He had nothing whatever to say on any question of the Indian frontier, or the proper unit of the British Army, or any question as to the size of the Army. He was merely desirous of giving his right hon. friend an opportunity of allaying the uneasiness which was largely felt by civilians both inside and outside the House of Commons as to the quality of their recruits. The simple proposition he made was that there were accepted and expelled within a short time of their acceptance an unduly large proportion of men. This point he would try to establish very shortly from the Inspector-General's Report. That Report showed that the average expulsion of men with under two years service was about 1,000 for the five years between 1896 and 1900 inclusive; and for the years 1901 and 1902 the average of men so expelled or rejected was over 3,000. The Inspector-General also showed and stated that of 5,000 men enlisted for 1899 over 1,500 were discharged as ineffective within three years, making a proportion of 30 per cent. It might almost be said

  1121
  that his case was proved already by the figures he had quoted from official reports. They all admitted, just as much as the right hon. Gentleman, the difficulty of enlisting satisfactory men.
  It was quite true that they had increased the pay and advantages of the Army, but it was equally true that they had not increased the pay and advantages in the same ratio as the pay and advantages of civilians in the same class of life had increased—he referred to the class from which the men in the Army were mainly drawn. The right hon. Gentleman told them that they must have a greatly increased Army, and if it were true that the average standard of comfort had increased throughout the country, and if it were true that the physique of men in the country had not improved, it obviously stood to reason that the difficulties of his right hon. friend's position must be immense. In these circumstances, how did the War Office proceed? Having learned from their experts the number of men considered to be essential to secure the interests of the country, and having secured permission to give those men certain advantages in order to get that number of recruits, he thought the War Office would have adhered rigidly to their standard of efficiency in every respect, and should have struggled in every way they could to raise as many men up to that standard until the 120,000 required had been obtained. If they had failed to reach the number required by maintaining that standard, then the right hon. Gentleman could have come down to the House and told them that instead of getting, say, 120,000, he had only been able to secure say, 90,000; and then he could have left it to the House and the country to choose whether they would keep up a smaller Army, or whether they would vote more pay in order to increase the numbers. As far as he could gather from reading the reports which had been issued, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have proceeded on completely different lines.
  Even if the motto of the War Office be "good men preferred," under all the circumstances the tally must be made up, and men must be had of one sort or another, so that the Secretary of State for War might be able to
  1122
  come down to the House, and say with pardonable pride, or, at any rate with obvious complacency, that he had achieved his object, and that he had got his men. But he had got them at the expense of introducing a lot of wastrels into the Army, and it was not as if it could be alleged that these wastrels were cheap. Some might think that for a soldier to be a bit bad was a kind of half praise. It was not as if they cost the same as the other men, they were paid the same, but what with their diseases and their Court-martials, before they were finished with they cost the country a great deal more. They were not merely worthless in the Army, but they were worth less than nothing. There was no analogy whatever between the advantage of getting inferior recruits into the Army and having a large number of weakly men pulling at a rope. Ten weak men might make up for five stronger men in that case, but ten inferior recruits would not make up for five good recruits in the Army. No greater mistake could be made by anybody than to say: "Well, they may not be so good as we should like to see them, but we have got them, and, pro tanto, they are so much to the good." What were the requisites of a modern soldier? Character first, then intelligence, and then physical health and vigour. These were essentials without which men were worse than useless. It was perfectly clear to anyone that modern war made a great many more demands than war used to do on the strength and the morale of our troops. Unseen enemies, forced inarches, and things of that nature, were factors, and everyone of them pointed the same way. Once it used to be said that it was rapidity of movement that was required, now it was rigidity of purpose. What other demands did war make upon the men? No trifling ones. Self-denial, self-control, discipline, and the very highest and rarest form of discipline, self-discipline, and nobly for the most part had these demands been responded to by the British soldier. There was no room for self-indulgence now-a-days, when a man had to lie for hours and hours on the ground by himself, far away from his fellow-men, with just

  1123
  the little pittance he was able to bring with him, and unable to touch his emergency rations without risk of a few years imprisonment.
  An hon. Member on the other side of the House appeared to him the other day to imply that really it was not a bad thing, after all—he would not say that these were his words, but this was the Implication of his speech—if a soldier was a bit of a blackguard. These ideas were out of date, and old-fashioned In modern wars private soldiers did not rub shoulders with one another in battle. They did not get even the encouragement and the stimulus which the hon. Member would desire from hearing one another swear. They lay on the ground forty yards from one another, and perhaps 500 yards from the nearest officer. They had to think and to act for themselves. In such conditions as these would the rascal—would the booby—be the likelier man to serve his country well? No, Sir. He asked confidently, was it businesslike and economical of the House to feed and clothe men who (snapping his fingers) would not be worth that? He hoped he was not misunderstood. He knew that there were many of our soldiers who had fulfilled all the requirements that any man could demand. But the worthless minority was too large. They were no value to the country. They were only valuable so far as they administered to the complacency of the Minister for War. Whom did he mean? He meant the boys who imposed upon a singularly credulous medical officer as to their age. He meant the illiterates who could neither read nor write. He meant the weaklings who suffered from hernia and varicose veins, and last and worst he meant the "bad 'uns"—those sickly sheep who might infect a flock. Why should we have them? Oh, how ho wished that he could put one commanding officer into the box here and cross-examine him. He would ask him only a few questions—"How many worthless vagabonds have you had thrust upon you whom, if you had the chance, and if you had a voice in the matter, you would not have looked at?" "How many 'bad 'uns' have you had?" Then he should like to ask what injury these men had done to the Army, setting aside altogether all the waste of the country's time, and of the credit and efficiency of the Army. Next
  1124
  and last he should ask, "How many have you got still, whom you would like to dismiss if you were encouraged instead of thwarted at headquarters?"
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Oh!
  *MR. VICARY GIBBS: The right hon. Gentleman said "Oh!" He was sure that "Oh" would be received with satisfaction by commanding officers. They would now know what was to be done by commanding officers when they got men whom they wished to get rid of. He wished the right hon. Gentlemen were determined that all the men of the Army should be drawn from the cream of the population, and none from the scum. [An HON. MEMBER: "You can't get that."] They could come very much nearer to it than they were now. Let them examine how far the demands on a soldier, which he had mentioned, had been fulfilled, and how far considered. Take first and foremost the matter of character. If it was priggish to desire that the character of those men should be high from regard to their moral welfare, at any rate it was the coldest business instinct which should make the authorities wish for high character on account of the efficiency and the credit of the Army. What they ought to do was to make that profession one which any respectable family would stimulate and press their sturdy and capable sons to take up, not one which they would, as he feared was the case now, do what they could to discourage. It might be said that it was all sentiment to talk about character. Well, were the Marines sentimental? Were they not very shrewd? Did not hon. Members think that if the mere admission into that force was at once an honour and a certificate of character, this very circumstance created a demand for that force. That was not mere declaration. It was proved up to the hilt by the hon. Member for Fareham in a statement which he had made and which had not been contradicted. He supposed if they were going to be us careful about character in soldiers as they were in the case of Marines, it might be said that they were going to turn them into psalm singers. He was not uneasy about that. But supposing they

  1125
  were going to do so, England had had one or two historical lessons. Two hundred and fifty years ago in this country she had a lesson that psalmsinging and fighting went very well together. Fifty years ago she had the same lesson in India at the Mutiny, and not so very long ago she had a lesson from our enemies in South Africa. He was basing this argument on the facts given by the hon. Member for Fareham, but his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, to use his own words, gave these facts and arguments the go by. That was his language, because he regarded them as not germane to the issue then before the House. He had not the military education of the hon. Member for Fareham, but at any rate it could not be pleaded that his remarks were not germane to the issue, and the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to do otherwise than to meet him fairly and to show him where and why he was wrong.
  They all admitted that they wanted intelligence in the soldier. What were they doing for that? They had 1,000 illiterates last year, and these were the words of the Inspector-General—
  "There is a material falling off in well educated recruits, although," he proudly added, "the number of those able to read and write is increasing."
  He had no hesitation in saying the fact that such a statement was possible was a scandal and disgrace to them all. It was a scandal and a disgrace that the conditions of modern warfare were so little recognised that it should be thought desirable to capture such men with the present chances of education existing in the country. To-day the illiterate was not the least like the illiterate of a hundred years ago. The illiterate was now a booby, and one of the triumphs was that we secured 1,000; boobies last year. He would now deal with the question of age. Two thousand men under the age of seventeen were taken last year. Were they all drummers and pipers? If they were, there might be a plan to remodel the British Army on the lines of that of the Highland chieftain who invaded his neighbour's territory—
  "Since he did resolve
  To extirpate the vipers,
  With three and twenty men,
  And five and thirty pipers.
  1126
  Of course that was not so. Let him give as an illustration of this age matter a case that came before him personally. It was not a singular case, and many hon. Members could produce the like. But one concrete case produced more, impression than fifty hypothetical ones or instances reported at second hand. A keeper on his father's estate came to him in great distress two years ago because one of his boys had run away. How old did hon. Members think the boy was? He was between fourteen and fifteen years of age! The next thing they heard of that boy was that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had clasped him to his arms! A very few months after that the boy was in Malta on foreign service. No investigation had been made, not a word had been said to the lad. Nothing could have been easier than to-say to that young rascal, "Where do you come from Let us know and we will write." And in twenty-four hours if they had written to the clergyman, or the squire of Aldenham, they could have got the facts about the boy, who his father was, whether he was worth anything, and how old he was. "Oh! it is not worth while," the War Office might reply, "that is too expensive." He would come to the question of expense shortly. Surely the limit of eighteen was young enough. Let them think for a moment that under modern conditions, under the modern system, these boys only served three years with the Colours. According to the right hon. Gentleman, they were not to go to India until they were twenty, and therefore for two-thirds of their time these boys were unfit to go abroad or form part of an expeditionary force. When the limit was put down so low as that they should, for goodness sake, keep to it.
  His hon, and gallant friend, the Member for Taunton, was quite right in the question he had put that afternoon when he wanted a minute and clear distinction between the men who were available for military service abroad and those who were not; and that all the men should not be bunched together so that they did not know what they had got, what they could use and what they could not use. Each of these boys cost the country £65 a year. That was the official Estimate, but if the matter were

  1127
  approached on business lines it was found that he cost a great deal more. What did the right hon. Gentleman get his salary for? And what were the Staff at the War Office paid for? It was all for the Army; and if they had no Army he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would receive no salary in his particular capacity as Secretary of State for War, while they would lose the inestimable benefit of the services of the War Office. As it was, they had got to be paid because there was an Army; and every member of the Army should be debited with a share of these salaries if the Army was going to be conducted on business lines. If so, up went in a minute the cost of each soldier from £65 to something like £100.
  The next requisite he asked for in a soldier was physical vigour and health. It was not that these recruits were boys that made him so much disturbed in mind. Boys not fit for the Army now might be come so. It was the presence in the Army of those fellows who never would be worth the value of their boots to the nation, that he resented. They were called specials, whether they were so or not in every sense. He would tell the House of a story of what passed between a very distinguished friend of his and a sailor in a train, and what the sailor said. He knew very well that what the soldier said was not evidence: and he dared say that that applied also to the sailor. But he thought the story might afford a very valuable lesson to the House as to the way those things were looked upon. He did not set up to be a military or a naval expert, and he did not know the proper title of the sailor, but he understood that the sailor held a post equivalent in the Navy to that of a recruiting sergeant in the Army. The sailor complained to his friend very bitterly that so many men who came forward as candidates for the Navy had to be rejected owing to physical unfitness. His friend indulged in the usual platitude that that was very sad. "Oh, no," said the sailor, "not sad for us at all, because in the end we get the men we want, and of the right quality." His friend replied, "I did not mean that; I meant sad for them." The sailor retorted "not that either, for they are all right; they all go into the Army, and the Army is glad to get
  1128
  them." Well, that might be the sailor's jealousy of the Army service.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Hear, hear.
  MR. VIGARY GIBBS: Yes, he thought that would be the official answer. What was the meaning of the quotation he was going to read from the speech of his valued mentor the hon. Member for Fareham? What did a commanding officer say to his hon. friend?
  "Out of 180 men recently received 105 were below the standard, or in other words"
  said the commanding officer, name unknown, with a spitefulness he hoped he would not imitate—
  "they were specials, though not so described."
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK said he had asked his hon. friend the Member for Fareham to be kind enough to give a reference to the name of the commanding officer in order that he might verify the statement; and his hon. friend declined to give him the reference, in which he might have been justified. But he hardly thought that an argument could be founded on a statement unless they knew the authority on which it was made.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: Was there then to be one law for the rich and another for the poor; one law for the Minister and another for the poor private? Unless his memory suddenly failed him the right hon. Gentleman did not disclose the names of the experts on whose advice he relied in proposing his Army scheme, although there were cries in the House of "Name, name."
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK said he did not know to what the hon. Member referred.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS MR. VICARY GIBBS said that it was during the general discussion on the policy of forming an expeditionary force. He would look up the passage and if it did not bear out what he was saying he would express regret to the House and the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary for War said that no argument was to be founded on the statement quoted by the hon. Member for Fareham.

  1129
  That reduced him to be brutally plain. There were three possibilities open to the House to consider. First, that the hon. Member for Fareham had invented the story which he said he had from a commanding officer. Second, it was very possible that the commanding officer—he could say this, because that gentleman was not in the House, and, according to the admirable rules of this ancient Assembly, it was not out of order to insult or libel any person outside the House—it was very possible that the commanding officer lied to the hon. Member for Fareham. But if neither of these possibilities was accepted, then there was naturally something rotten in the state of Denmark. This commanding officer said that these men were taken in heaps, and that 105 out of 180 were specials. That seemed almost incredible, though the commanding officer went on to say that "they were not so-called." Well, without being a Heaven-born Minister of War, he thought that a man was not a special by simply not so describing him. He fully believed his right hon. friend when he undertook before this House that there should be no more specials taken. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman meant that, and that he was to accept from the right hon. Gentleman that that was to be the established principle for the future, and that it would not be gone back from without the House having an opportunity of discussing the question.
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK admitted that he had said that in future specials would not be taken; but supposing that his military advisers, while Parliament was not sitting, advised that specials should be taken in certain cases, he should be bound to consider their advice. That would alter the position.
  MR. VICAEY GIBBS MR. VICAEY GIBBS said that that was not very satisfactory, for, of course, they could never know when the right hon. Gentleman's decision might be altered. At present they had the right hon. Gentleman in the frame of mind in which they wanted to see him in regard to stopping the enlistment of specials; but if that was his policy, were they not placed in an alarming dilemma? The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he wanted 50,000 recruits every
  1130
  year for his Army scheme. Last year was a bumper year—certainly far above the average—and he got 51,000. But among these 51,000 recruits he would find 8,000 specials. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War was going to be good now, and never have any more specials. Take 8,000 from 51,000 and there remained, he believed, 43,000. Well, how was that shortage to be made up this year? What were the right hon. Gentleman's prospects if he were to remain the fixed immovable North Star, according to his natural habits? Were these to be realised by making the standard elastic? That was a nice word and a very useful word. He did not see how it was to be done, even if the Secretary for War got specials, or offered a larger stimulus to good men to enter the Army. And the House should remember that he was still allowing for a thousand men who could not read and write who were not specials. Last year, said the Inspector-General of Recruiting, recruits were bad for the first nine months, but in October there was a great improvement. That synchronised with the first murmur which was heard that men were not being obtained under this scheme. No doubt it was purely a coincidence, but it led him to suggest that it would be a capital thing if they could have quarterly reports with reference to recruiting presented to Parliament. He ventured to press that on the right hon. Gentleman. With reference to numbers, his right hon. friend said that he was only 2,300 short; but he learned from a commanding officer—he too had commanding officers—that his battalion was 450 men short, and that other battalions were in the same condition. If that were typical of the Army, what was the total shortage? He saw what the official answer would be. It would be details here, details there, details at the depots, and details everywhere, except under their commanding officer. He would put a question to the right hon. Gentleman which would exclude details. He would ask him whether he would give the number of men now actually with the Colours, who were available for foreign service to-day. He was sure his right hon friend would give the House the numbers. His right hon. friend liked numbers;

  1131
  he revelled in numbers; and, sometimes, he almost flooded the House with numbers. Looking back to those happy days when his hon. friend the Member for the Whitby Division and his right lion, friend took counsel together, he thought his right hon. friend might say with Pope, although certainly not in the same sense—
  "As yet a child, nor yet a fool to fame;
  I lisped in numbers——."
  He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with pardonable pride in the success of his scheme, might complete the line—
  "For the numbers came."
  It seemed to be imagined that all schemes for greater efficiency in the Army cost more money. He denied that. The process of finding out whether the Army was getting a rascal or a good man, on the testimony of people who knew him, would cost only the initial expense of a postcard. They had in the Army 25,000 inefficients, who would never do a hand's turn in time of war. That number at £60 a head, which was the lowest estimate he had ever heard, amounted to £1,500,000. A lot of postcards could be sent for that amount, especially Government postcards, which did not require a stamp. It was admitted that in every battalion three-eighths were ineffective for foreign service, but if the minimum age of entry was eighteen, and if no man was sent to India under twenty, two-sevenths must be always available as far as the Indian Frontier was concerned. But of course the average age of admission was over eighteen; and if there was no wilful enlisting of men under eighteen the average would, he assumed, be something over nineteen; then only one-eighth would be ineffective on the score of age. Yet, of the men required for South Africa three-eighths were ineffective. How were the other two-eighths to be accounted for? He thought it was a very liberal estimate that on any given date the amount of legitimate disease, among men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five might fairly be put at 5 per cent. Still, 20 per cent, were unaccounted for, whom he certainly maintained should never have been enlisted. The average recruiting was about 40,000
  1132
  men per annum; 20 per cent, of that was 8,000; and looking at the Inspector-General's report he found that that was almost precisely the number which was annually ejected from the Army for serious crime. Would the right hon. Gentleman reply by stating that the War Office had taken such tremendous pains that no man went to South Africa unless he were fit for it, and were now being attacked because of their own virtues? Every commanding officer and every medical man in South Africa had, however, another story to tell. They would say that men had to be left at the base; that men had to be kept out of the fighting line; and that men had got into the fighting line who would have been better left out. He had no hesitation in saying that many of the disasters which occurred in South Africa, and all the-discredit, was due to the presence of that unsatisfactory minority in the Army.
  Every year there were turned out of the Army 8,000 men; but by turning out 8,000 men they did not get rid of all the worthless fellows. They only got rid of that particular number in that particular year. He did not think it was an exaggerated estimate that when they turned out 8,000 men per year they had always-in the Army a minimum of 20,000 men who were worth nothing, and probably worse than worth nothing. Other nations did not show that proportion. They did not have to weed out the same number of men. Of course the reply would be that they had an immense advantage over this country, because they had the whole of their population to pick from; but his reply to that was that when they went to war they did not propose to go to war with themselves, but with someone else; and it would be no use telling the enemy that he had a very unfair advantage over them. They could not say: "You have got finer men; it is not fair, and we cannot fight you." It was not a case of little boys playing at school; it was a matter of life and death to the country. He said that whatever else they did they should not enter into a war when the enemy had the advantage, and that would he the result if they enlisted inferior men. The right hon. Gentleman should not let the country live in a fool's paradise and let it suppose that they had got 120,000 available men when the fact was that they were only

  1133
  paying for 120,000 men. These paper soldiers and this stage Army would make no impression on the potential enemies of this country any more than cardboard castles in China would impress civilised troops. That would not impose on their enemies. It had ceased to impose on the House of Commons; and was it worth keeping up merely for the purpose of imposing on the taxpayers? Let the "War Office not shoot any more rubbish into the British Army, and let his right hon. friend give his medical men stringent orders as to the first examination. That was where the great mischief occurred. Let the right hon. Gentleman tell his recruiting officers that they must find out about the character of the men they enlisted. Let him tell them that their own military future depended not on quantity but quality. Let him do that, and there would be a complete revolution in the present system. The commanding officers had certain drastic powers in many respects; then why do not they have drastic powers to get rid of the men who were no use in time of war and who were a nuisance in times of peace. In Dryden's time there must have been a similar War Office to the present, because he found the poet saying—
  "Mouths without hinds maintained at vast expense,
  In peace a charge, in war a weak defence."
  Let the right lion. Gentleman not admit any one into the Army under age or without a character, and the next time a war broke out it would not be necessary for him to come down to the House and tell them that three-eighths of our Regular Army were unfit for foreign service. He had pointed out, he was afraid at some length, what were in his opinion the qualifications of a soldier and how those qualifications might be obtained, and it only remained for him to move that the Vote be reduced by 3,000 men.
  *MR. BECKETTseconded the Motion. His hon. friend, as he had said, had approached this subject from the point of view of a business man with the idea of finding out whether the country got value for its money, and he himself felt bound to admit that in his opinion, on the matter
  1134
  of troops, it certainly did not. These serious charges were a vast burden on the nation. He had heard an hon. Baronet, who represented a Scotch constituency, state that his constituents did not mind how much they were called upon to pay in taxes, which wag strange when we remember that he sits for a Scotch constituency; but he was afraid there were many constituencies who did not share the zeal of Glasgow in this matter. The Government did not seem to appreciate the fact that there was a point beyond which taxation could not go; a point at which the resources of the country could not meet it; a point at which the electors of the country would refuse to sanction it. When income was limited people should spend most on articles of first necessity, and least on matters of secondary importance. Supposing the national income to be limited, was it not a serious matter to be spending as much on an Army, which, was only of secondary importance, as on the Navy which was a matter of prime necessity? The men in the Navy required a much more expensive training, and the materials, guns and ships were much more expensive than anything corresponding to them in the Army, and on that ground alone the Army ought to cost less than the Navy; but when the relative uses of the two forces were compared the disproportion in cost became more glaring and more inexcusable. The Prime Minister had made some priceless admissions. He had admitted that the Navy stood absolutely first, that they did not now hear that a large Army was not required for home defence, that the defence of this country must be trusted to the Volunteers and citizens of the country. All these admissions showed a great change in the attitude of the Government. The Secretary of State for War had accused the House of having changed its attitude on this matter. That accusation did not amount to much in any case, but what would have been said by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House if, when a responsible Minister came down to the House in a time of storm and stress, during a great war, and asked for a number of troops, they were refused? "Pro-Boer" would have been the most mild adjective. The right

  1135
  hon. Gentleman appeared to accept the Volunteer Army with difficulty, and had not been converted. Like the disciplinarians in Pall Mall, he seemed to consider that unless a man was taught the goose-step he must be a useless particle of a disorganised mob. But one of the most conspicuous lessons of the war had been that half-trained men made one of the best mounted fighting forces that one could have. The lesson we had learned was that we could rely mainly on the Volunteers for the defence of this country. Under the scheme of his hon. friend they would, of course have a stiffening of Regulars.
  *MR. BRODRICK: In the hon. Member for Plymouth's proposal these Regulars did not exist.
  *MR. BECKETT*MR. BECKETT said the hon. Member for Plymouth had never suggested that all the Regulars should be taken out of the country, and that remark of the right hon. Gentleman alone showed how much this question had been misunderstood. An Army was of no use unless it was properly trained organised and efficient from top to bottom. With regard to efficiency it should be first of all intelligently directed. He would rather put his money on brain power than on chest expansion. The Intelligence Department had not been strengthened as it should have been. The comparison with Germany ought to be insisted upon.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order order! On the Report of this Vote the hon. Member cannot go into the question of the efficiency of the Intelligence Department. He can go into anything relating to the number of men.
  *MR. BECKETT*MR. BECKETT said the point of his argument was that if the Army was intelligently directed fewer men would be required. The War Office had entirely failed to prove that the Army was properly organised for the necessities of the country. The Secretary of State had never yet been able to show that in the event of an outbreak of war we should have this expeditionary force ready to despatch at a moment's notice, without mobilization, and so forth. All were agreed as to the absolute necessity
  1136
  of such an expeditionary force. Everybody admitted the wonderful change brought about in the situation in South Africa by the despatch of 10,000 men from India, and but for the arrival of that expeditionary force in the nick of time Ladysmith might have fallen. The value of such a force had been clearly demonstrated, but under the present scheme no such force would be provided; hence much of his opposition. The force could not be provided, because the organisation of the Army was based on the linked-battalion system. The Secretary to the Admiralty, who was an expert in the question of Army reform, in a valuable work, the statements of which had never been overthrown, had advocated the abolition of the present practice of maintaining one battalion as a depot for another. He said:—
  "It is dangerous and useless. There is no reason whatever why a whole battalion should be made ineffective in order that another battalion may be supplied with recruits. It is difficult to exhaust the catalogue of the disadvantages which attach to this system, but chief among them is the fact that under it no battalion at home is ever fit for war."
  On the admission of experts the system had broken down, and it was a confession of hopeless incompetence on the part of the War Office to say that they could not devise a better system to take, its place. What was the strength of the Army? The Secretary of State, in an interruption, had said that an argument should not be founded on a statement unless that statement could be examined. But the right hon. Gentleman himself had made a statement as to the strength of the Army which he would not allow the House to examine. Question after question had been asked as to the statement, but the right hon. Gentleman would not supply the details because they were so inaccurate. It was an extraordinary proposition in mathematics to say that you could make up a sum, of which all the details were inaccurate, and yet arrive at a total which was absolutely correct. He had been told on the authority of an Army man that the strength was made up of recruits who were pitch-forked into the Army from the depôts before they were properly trained, of "specials," of reservists on working furlough, of

  1137
  soldiers serving extended terms, and of invalids from South Africa. If all these were included the total might be correct.
  *MR. BKODRICK: said he explained to the House the other day that all the men who were on working furlough had been excluded from the strength of the Army and counted in their proper positions. Those who were about to go to the Reserve had been counted with the Reserve.
  *MR. BECKETT: The 60,000?
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK said that some had been discharged altogether, but the remainder were due for the Reserve, and could be called out if necessary.
  *MR. BECKETT*MR. BECKETT said there was no doubt the battalions were much below strength. As to the training of the Army, the principal place for which "was Aldershot, the following statement had been made to him—
  "We have 25,000 men at Aldershot operating over 2,500 acres—ten men to the acre. There is absolutely no outlet around Aldershot that is worth talkings about. No one who has not been through tin mill can picture the state of mind to which a general, colonel, or captain is reduced after two years at Aldershot."
  As regarded the other training grounds, what did they find?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order: This matter will arise on another Vote.
  *MR. BECKETT*MR. BECKETT said in that case he would defer his remarks on that subject. It had been said that, the people of this country were invited to pay for an expeditionary force of 120,000 men to defend the Indian Frontier. Without discussing the question, he would merely say that that was a two-edged argument If the people of this country were to be told they must pay income tax, sugar tax, and so forth for the defence of the Indian Frontier, he greatly feared the "Perish India" school would receive various reinforcements. It was a dangerous argument The people would naturally ask what the Indian Army was for. Hitherto India had been considered to be self-supporting, but that
  1138
  did not mean that in case of emergency England should not go to her assistance, or even that India should not come to the assistance of England if necessary. He might point out, however, that when we were on the verge of war with Russia in 1878 we did not send an Army corps to India, but India sent troops to Malta. Various epithets had been applied to the critics of the War Office. They had been called "amateurs" and "reactionaries." In one respect they were amateurs. They could not present their case to the House with the trained grace of the Secretary of State for War, or the force and charm of the Prime Minister. Those right hon. Gentlemen had been trained in the art and practice of debate, while he and his friends had been sitting on the back benches listening in awe and admiration. The Secretary of State had very fairly asked, "For whom do you speak? What military authority have you at your back? "He could assure his right hen. friend that the facts they had stated, which had not been questioned, and the arguments the}' had adduced, which had not been answered, had been supplied to them by various military authorities; they could not have evolved their case from their own brain. If the right hon. Gentleman got outside the atmosphere of the War Office, where people were nut always free to speak what was in their minds, or if he would inquire in the Army, without it being known who he was, he would find there was a very strong feeling against this scheme. It was that feeling that the critics of the War Office were voicing in the House, believing that the feeling was so strong that sooner or later it would be adopted by the nation.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave '235,761,' and insert '23,761." —(Mr. Vicary Gibbs.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Resolution.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that although he spoke from below the Gangway he did not speak as a representative of much of the discontent which had lately shown itself in that quarter.

  1139
  Underlying the Amendment which had been moved, and also the more serious Motion of a few days ago, there was the fact that the Government took a certain view of the necessities of the country. We had lately passed through a period of national anxiety and considerable peril. Eighteen months ago we had about 300,000 men locked up in South Africa, and everybody must have felt that if another war had broken out then the country at home was not in that state of security in which such a nation as ours should be. The Government, having looked at the conditions of the day and the events of the last few years, had come to the conclusion, which he heartily supported, that something ought to be dune to strengthen, not only the Navy, but also the Army. He could not say that he regarded altogether with any feeling of tolerance the proposals of those representing the people who, a short time ago, were clamouring against the War Office. He was not referring simply to hon. Members, but also to the Press of this country, for their denunciations of the War Office. They protested loudly against the indefensible position in which the country stood, and now, when a scheme was put forward to remedy that state of things, they made one of the principal features of their criticism the exaggerated strength the Army which was now proposed. The position of this country was extremely serious, and upon a question of this sort they ought not to blow hot and cold at one time. They should take either one side or the other. They ought to remember that the War Office was what this House and the country made it. Surely it was hardly fair that Parliament should refuse to enable the War Office to do what the country had demanded. The Member for St. Albans, in a very amusing speech, said it was a great misfortune that unsuitable and unfit men should be recruited in the Army and counted in the strength of the Army. One would imagine from the speeches that these specials were the men who upheld and maintained the honour of the British Army. He maintained that the men who went out to South Africa were a very fine Army, and no doubt it was the proper thing to leave behind those who were considered unfit. The men who were
  1140
  sent out to South Africa were fine representatives of the vigour, and pluck, and character of the country, and he greatly deprecated the language which had been used this afternoon.
  He had spoken to the late Colonel Henderson about matters in South Africa, and he had told him that he had no doubt whatever concerning the men this country sent out to South Africa; coming into the Army voluntarily from an active life, in the mere matter of marching there was not a conscript army in Europe which could touch them. The bad recruits-were left behind, and that was the right place for them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to take such measures as were required to prevent the introduction of unfit men into the Army. He would remind the House that the history of this country did not begin with the Boer War, and to learn lessons from the late war did not necessarily mean that they should forget every lesson they had learned from other wars. The great lesson they had learned from the Boer War was that they could not do everything at the last moment, and to be prepared, they must make an enormous effort to got the right number of men. The country thought the state of the Army was unsatisfactory at the commencement of the war, and now proposals were being made to remedy it. Those who were opposing this scheme had not produced any alternative scheme. He really must ask whether some hon. Gentlemen had present to their mind what the British Army was wanted for. The hon. Member for Oldham was positively shocked the other day, and showed considerable emotion at the thought that the Secretary of State for War had some idea of circumstances arising under which British troops would be pitted against Continental troops, and he even went so far as to look at the dictionary in order to see the real meaning of the word "pitted." He personally was convinced that just as they had fought in the past so they would have to fight in the future. Did anybody really suppose that the circumstances of the old days were absolutely past, and that in future all that would happen in the case of war with a Continental Power would be our magnificent fleet pursuing an inferior fleet? Such a state of things was unthinkable, and he could not imagine a war between Great Britain and a Continental

  1141
  Power in which the British Army would not be required.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Not in Europe.
  ME. ELLIOT ME. ELLIOT said that when the safety of Belgium was threatened many years ago Mr. Gladstone came and asked for a vote of 20,000 men in order to support the independence of Belgium. Mr. Gladstone did not then suppose that British troops would never be required on the Continent of Europe. Almost every year produced an example to the contrary. In the year 1878, when the Indian troops were brought to the Mediterranean, they were not brought there simply to garrison Malta. There was hardly a war in which they had been engaged where it was not shown that it was present to the minds of statesmen that English troops would almost necessarily have to be engaged. He should not like them to dismiss from consideration the possibility of foreign troops being landed in this country, and, at any rate, where matters were doubtful, the Government ought to be on the safe side. They should not be blind to facts. Naval warfare at the present time way an experiment, and nobody knew exactly what would happen. Therefore, as the Government were the trustees of the honour and security of the United Kingdom, he should like them to be on the safe side, and they should not believe that large masses of troops could not be lauded on the shores of this country, for he knew many very eminent authorities who admitted the possibility of landing large forces of foreign troops on our shores. Considering all these possibilities how could they, with any sort of consistency, declare that the Government were asking for more than was necessary to protect this country from danger. If after having gone through perilous times, and through days when they had no friends on the Continent of Europe—if under circumstances of this kind His Majesty's Government came down to the House of Commons and declared that they required so many hundred thousand men, surely it was a distinct vote of
  1142
  want of confidence in them to attempt to say that they did not want so many men.
  He was perfectly well aware that it was an unpopular thing to keep up taxes, but the question was—ought they not in this House to give some sort of lead to the people, and some sort of steadiness to the politics of the country I If some individual or newspaper that a year or two ago was denouncing the Government for not having made sufficient effort was now denouncing them for overdoing it, he would not associate himself with that individual or that newspaper. He did not think that was the way these matters ought to be dealt with. Once or twice lately he had heard with some surprise reference made to the great name of Sir Robert Peel. They might hear mentioned with high approval in the same quarter the distinguished name of John Bright. They might hear that the Manchester school was not the contemptible school it was supposed to be. They had all much to say for themselves but he said—let them not oscillate so violently from one extreme to the other, because it weakened all of them in the country.
  The Leader of the House talked the other day about the Indian Frontier. He confessed that it was rather startling to him to hear from his hon. friends that there was no use keeping a considerable army available for the defence of that frontier. Did they not all know, without being gifted with the power of prophecy, that if they read the day after to-morrow of the advance of Russia upon Herat, there would be letters and telegrams home from the Commander-in-Chief in India calling for more troops at once. The very gentlemen who now said there should be no preparation would turn to the War Office and say "What are you doing? You are leaving India unassisted to withstand the whole power of Russia." But the Leader of the House made a remark which really weighed more with him than that in regard to the Indian Frontier, which, after all, was only an illustration. He said that every war necessarily brought with it surprises. That might be a truism, but it was a truism which he hoped would sink deep into the minds of his countrymen. He himself would be

  1143
  more surprised than he could well express, if the war was of the character suggested by some of his hon. friends below the Gangway—a war in which no British troops were employed, and in which nothing surprising happened in connection with the Navy and the defences of the country. He did ask the House to take a serious view of these things. Why did not his hon. friends say what they meant? If they meant to reduce the Army by 30,000, or by 3,000 ineffective blackguards, or boobies, let them put it on paper, and then the House would know what it was doing; but the proposal on the Paper was to reduce the Army by 3,000 men, irrespective of the question of their being effective or ineffective. They had no right to read into that proposal words which they did not put on the paper. There was no suggestion about quality. The proposal was to reduce the total effective force, and all these outcries about the way the money was being waited were really based on the contention that the Army was bigger than was required for the safety of the country. He had spoken with some warmth, but he felt—and he hoped the country felt—that, in these days the Government were making sacrifices in asking the House of Commons to support the strength of the Empire, and as long as he was prepared to vote any sort of confidence in His Majesty's Government he should certainly be the last to go into the Lobby with those who would make such an imprudent and ill-considered reduction of His Majesty's forces.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Nobody who has heard my hon. friend can doubt the effect that his speech has created, or the extent to which his voice was representative of a large majority of the Members of this House. If it is any satisfaction to my hon. friend to know that he does not stand alone in these views, 1 can tell him that the number of letters 1 have received in the same sense in the last few days would give him any confirmation ho requires as to the views he has expressed, and as to the action taken by my hon, friends below the Gangway. When I heard the speech of my hon. friend the Member for St. Albans I hoped that no such speech as that which has just been delivered would have been necessary in
  1144
  this debate. His speech gave us the hope of a comfortable and edifying discussion upon the inferiority of certain recruits taken into the Army, and his Amendment, as I understand it, was only devoted to knocking off such men as he believed might be knocked off without decreasing the fighting strength of the Army. But from the moment my hon. friend the Member for Whitby got up we saw at once the old cloven foot of reduction, not for efficiency but for economy, as he puts it, and it was made perfectly clear that this reduction of 3,000 men was only a sort of offshoot of the reduction of 27,000 men which my hon. friend and his supporters ineffecually pressed upon the House of Commons last week. Now, Sir, I think I might be held absolved from answering the hon. Member for Whitby. None of his arguments were new. They have been urged before, and if I may say so without offence his speech was a belated speech. It ran like a speech which was intended to be delivered last week and somehow was not delivered, and the effect of it was that he advanced again arguments which have already been refuted.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Oh!
  *MR. BRODRICK: Well, the hon. Member for Oldham does not agree; but, after all, we must be allowed our opinions—opinions which are based on convictions that I hope are equally shared on those Benches.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Does my right hon. friend mean that we are not acting on our convictions? [Cries of "Order."]
  *MR. BRODRICK: My noble friend should know that the practice of the House of Commons pays no respect to authority of any description, and I really think that until he becomes the custodian of the order of the House by sitting in the Chair he may leave it to Mr. Speaker to correct Members who are out of order. I am only concerned to refute three or four misstatements which my hon. friend the Member for Whitby allowed to crop up in his

  1145
  it is proposed to improve the Naval Medical Department with respect to promotion and pay, so as to place it on a like footing with the Army Medical Service.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) On 24th March, 1902, an Order in Council was issued raising the pay of Naval medical officers and placing it practically on an equality with that of officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Promotion both in the medical branch of the Navy and in the Royal Army Medical Corps is by seniority until the administrative grades are reached, when promotion by selection is practised. Special promotions for conspicuous professional merit or for war service are made in the Naval Medical Service. Owing to the great differences between the Navy and Army it is impossible to conduct the medical services on exactly similar lines.

  New Victualling Scheme.—Increased Allowance to Pensioners.
  MR. LOCKIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the new victualling scheme will cost more than the old scale, it is proposed to increase the present allowance of Is. Id. per day to pensioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The reply to the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. The amount of the allowance was fixed more than thirty years ago with reference to the value of the ration at that date; and owing to the subsequent falls in the prices of various articles of food, the allowance has for some years exceeded the actual value of the old ration, and will still be higher than the estimated value of the new ration.

  Naval Works Acts—Expenditure.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what is the approximate amount issued, during the year ending 31st March, 1903, for the purposes of the Naval Works Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The following advances have been issued by the Treasury: Midsummer, 1902,
  1146
  £900,000; Michaelmas, 1902, £748,000; Christmas, 1902, £610,000; Lady Day, 1903, £890,000; Total, £3,148,000. The unexpended balance of advances on 31st vice. March, 1902, amounted to £221,404.

  Education Act, 1902—Applications under Section 11 (1).
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education how many applications under Section 11 (1) of the Education Act, 1902, have been received by the Board; in how many cases the application was to modify the trust deed; and in how many cases it was for an order where no trust deed existed whether any orders have been made which have the effect of rendering the religious teaching in a school denominational where it has hitherto been undenominational; and, if no such orders have been yet made, is it the intention of the Board of Education to make such orders in cases where existing schools; are undenominational.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Up to 21st March, 10,214 applications for orders under Section 11 had been received by the Board. As the classification of the applications has not yet been completed, it is not possible at present to say how many are for orders to modify the trust deed, and how many are for orders to meet cases where no trust deed exists. No orders have been made which will have the effect of rendering the religious teaching in a school denominational where it has hitherto been undenominational. Nor have the Board power under Section 11 to make any such order or to give any directions as to the form of religious instruction to be given in schools.

  Training Colleges—Practical Examination in Science.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if it has been decided that there shall be no practical examination in science at the training college examinations this year; and, if so, whether the Board will reconsider their decision in view of their circular issued to the training colleges in June, 1901, prescribing that the science teaching should in future be of a practical and experimental character.

  1147
  day—not the servants of one Government but of both Governments; not men selected on any ground except that of their being the best representatives of the Army and the men who have seen most of field service. I say the opinions given by those men should not be set aside for any anonymous opinion which is unvouched for, and of which all we know is that it has been given by a military man. I wait until my hon. friend gets up, or some of his supporters get up, to tell us who there is, who has real field experience and knowledge, and whoso opinion may weigh with the House, who is in favour of decreasing the Army by 27,000 men.
  MR. YERBURGH: I am in possession of the name of an authority, who will be recognised, I think, by everybody in this House, whose opinion is to the effect that the Army could be very largely reduced indeed. I have that gentleman's authority to use my judgment in this matter, and I should propose to give his name to the Prime Minister. [Cries of "Oh."]
  *MR. BRODEICK: I shall await the result of that action with great complacency. I said when I rose that I thought this Question which is now before the House was one which should not be obscured by the great issue which the House decided last week. I think there was in the speech of my lion, friend the Member for St. Albans, besides a great deal of humour, a genuine ring of anxiety as to the nature of the recruits. That subject is not by any means so interesting or thrilling as one which the hon. Member for Whitby has drawn across the trail. Still, I think the House will perhaps be interested to know what are the steps which have been taken to redeem the Army from the imputation that in-efficients are so largely introduced. In the first place, there is the gravest possible misconception as regards the physique of our Army as compared with that of foreign countries. I cannot discuss this question at any length this afternoon, but I will go as far as this. My hon. friend amused the House by assuming an encounter between our troops and those of foreign countries, and referred to the official apology which the
  1148
  Government of the day would have to make—that the foreigners were of so much finer physique.
  *MR. VICARY GIBBS: I never suggested for an instant that the physique of the foreigners was finer than ours. I said that the right hon. Gentleman was allowing a lot of wastrels to be brought into the Army who were not fit to be put into opposition to any other troops that I know.
  *MR. BRODRICK: What I understood the hon. Member to say, arid I think he will admit that he did say it, was that, as compared with foreign recruits, ours, as at present taken, certainly showed a marked inferiority of physique.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: I said that foreign nations had an immense advantage over us in the fact that they could draw from the whole of their population. I recognised that as a difficulty with which the right hon. Gentleman had to contend. I said that would not help him when it came to a war.
  *MR. BRODRICK: That is the point I want to make. My hon. friend thinks that owing to that advantage, foreign nations get better recruits. My hon. friend knows, and the House ought to know, that in every single instance—I do not speak of the United States of America—the standard of recruits in foreign countries is lower than it is in this country. Take the standard of French recruits. Nobody who has ever walked through a French garrison town and looked at the soldiers whom he has met will need any statistics. As regards height, there is no standard for infantry soldiers in France. I hold in my hand a book of the French disqualifications. If I had time to read it to them, hon. Members would be astounded at the things which are not regarded as disqualifications, even in men who are under five feet in height. As to German recruits, the minimum height for infantry, telegraph corps, and rifles is 5·05 feet—that is under five feet one inch; and no rules are laid down regarding chest measurement, the matter being left to the medical officers.

  1149
  In Russia the minimum standard for infantry is five feet one-quarter inch, for rifles five feet one and a quarter inches, and the minimum chest measurement is half the height plus seven-eighths inches. In all those armies I am quite convinced hon. Members will find that in all respects, except that of age, men are taken as physically inferior as any recruits taken in this country. I fully recognise that there is and has been a tendency perhaps in the last fifteen years to go lower in the physical standard of recruits. Why is that? Hon. Members are under the impression, I think, that that is done under civilian pressure in order to produce a larger number on paper. I can assure the House that is not the fact. During my experience at the War Office, which extends back to 1886, with, of course, intervals, I never remember a discussion of this kind in which the military Members did not press for a lower standard or for the introduction of specials, and in which, on the whole, the civilian opinion was not the other way. Why is that? The reason is very obvious. In the Navy they have the great advantage of enlisting boys for boy service. In the Army that is only done to a limited extent. I believe every military man and every naval man prefers taking a recruit as a boy to taking him when he has reached eighteen years of age. Such an one is far better trained, he is far more amenable to discipline, and he learns his business and becomes a soldier or sailor of the best class. To take boys on a very large scale in the Army would be an enormous expense. You would have to spend practically all you are spending now for grown men, and you would also have to spend money on your boy establishment. Therefore, almost every soldier I have come across goes as near as he can and says—Let us take all the grown men we can get and any man who is a little under the standard who is likely to come up to it, because that man will be well trained by the time we want to use him. That may or may not be right, but it has not been concealed from the House of Commons.
  When I came forward to urge the House to accept, as I have twice
  1150
  done in the last seven years, an increase of pay, on the first occasion I explained to the House that the pay of a recruit on joining was practically 7d a day—that is to say, there was a messing allowance of 3d which he paid and there were various necessaries for which there were stoppages of 2d., making up the shilling. I told the House then that, recognising that many of these boys were not fit immediately to be put into the field, we could not give the increased allowance of 3d. at that time, and we have since not allowed the increased allowance of 5d., making up the shilling, to be given until one of two things has happened—until a boy or recruit is pronounced to be efficiently trained, which may be after six months' training, or until he has reached nineteen years of age; and that is the rule. Therefore my hon. friend is in error when he says that we pay the same for boys who are inefficient, and specials who have not reached the standard, as we pay for the trained soldier. For specials or weedy boys we pay 7d., and not until they become trained soldiers or are over nineteen do they receive a shilling.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: But if he is kicked out of the Army in six months, he has surely during that time cost as much as the best men?
  *MR. BRODRICK: That is another point. I am coming to that. It is true take a certain number under standard, but we treat them as boys and do not count them as fit or eligible to go abroad. This may be wrong or lot, but there has never been any concealment about it. Now what is our position? Of the recruits we have taken certain percentage under standard. During the war, every man who presented himself was naturally taken and drilled, because he might become useful before the end of the war, and it would have been unwise to refuse him; but the moment I learned the condition of recruiting at the beginning of the year, within two days of receiving the Adjutant General's Report, we did raise the standard, and I have gone into the whole subject of recruiting and its conditions. My hon. friend, in his enumeration of qualifications, mentioned

  1151
  character, intelligence, and, in the third place, physical vigour. Well, I think physical vigour comes very high in the qualifications for a soldier, but, at any rate, it is one of the characteristics we cannot do without. When we come to the question of character, I find much in what my lion, friend said with which I can agree; but we must remember there are variations in the term character, and in these variations we must not press the question too far. We shall all agree in saying, let us have a system that shall keep out men who have been in gaol for criminal offences, let us have a system that will keep out the habitual drunkard and the man likely to demoralise his comrades. But what I demur to is the laying down of a number of Sunday School rules as to character. You must not lay down a rule under which a boy who has, say, kicked up his heels, and, perhaps, been impertinent to his master, or something of that kind, would be without a character; or a man may have left two or three situations without any cause except such as would prevent one giving a character to a butler or a servant: I do not want such a man to be debarred from Army service on the ground of character. While on this subject perhaps the House will allow me to give a few extracts taken at random from reports I have received from rive or six districts in reference to recruits taken last year. In the London district, where I think 8,000 men were taken, the recruiting officer reports that the recruits are more satisfactory now that greater care is taken to make inquiries as to age and character. From Dover the report says there is a marked improvement in the average of education, and characters, when applied for, have invariably been got. In the western district—from Devonport—the reports say the forms in reference to character are filled in in a satisfactory manner. From Warring-ton it is stated that no recruit is taken who cannot produce a reference or is not known to the recruiter, with the result that there is an absence of fraudulent enlistment. In Birmingham the physique is fairly good, education very good, and character good, owing to the complete system of inquiry. I only take these as typical instances of what we
  1152
  are doing, and I think the House will see they do not show there is that indifference to character of which something has been said. What I propose to do, with the full consent of the Commander-in-Chief, is to cause reference to character to be asked for in each case, and I propose in fact to put in force the system which has been carried out in four of these five districts. Of course, it must be understood that we, in estimating character, must be guided by the conditions and circumstances, but the hon. Member may rest assured that personally I am heartily in accord with his view.
  If hon. Members really believe that any occupant of this Bench has any advantage to gain by making a sham statement showing a total of men, a considerable number of whom will fall out before the close of the year, I can assure them they are very greatly mistaken. Where will be the test? What does it matter what happens to-day or to-morrow? The test is the state of the Army two or three years hence. I only wish that those who now so strongly criticise the Government would remember that the present system of Army enlistment is not a year old, and that the results they so vehemently challenge have actually not had the trial of twelve months. It is entirely a delusion to suppose that if, by discarding, waste, you get less than 50,000, therefore you necessarily reduce the number of troops you desire to maintain. If you waste less you want less; you gain, if you get a lesser number on whom you can rely. That is why I say I am heartily in favour of the principle of the proposal put forward. I make no prophecy in this matter. I have never, in any circumstances, ventured to tell the House we could lay down any fixed rule as to the number of men we could get in a year. As everybody knows, recruiting must largely depend on the state of the labour market, and the par and prospects offered by the Army. But I do believe—although we cannot control the state of the labour market—I do believe that a great step forward has been taken, not only in the pay, but in the improvements of the prospects in the Army in the last few years; and I believe that anything that will tend to advance that step, that

  1153
  any system improving the condition of our troops, will induce men who have not hitherto joined the Army to come to it as an honourable profession in which they will be adequately remunerated. I hope, in that my hon. friends and the Government are not far apart in their views, that they will not think it necessary to divide on this Motion for a reduction, which I understand has been put forward to give them the opportunity of expressing the strong feelings they hold, and in which, so far as I can see, we are in almost entire accord.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he wished to speak on the subject from the point of view of the taxpayer. He was entirely in favour of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He voted for the reduction of the Army last week, and he would vote for a still greater reduction if a division were taken on the Motion. He had a firm conviction that the burden which was being imposed on the taxpayers for the defensive forces of the country was becoming intolerable, and that the country was becoming tired of it. They could not view the increase in the forces of the country without considering their future position. Hon. Members opposite appeared to live in an atmosphere which was three years old. Every part of the country that had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the present policy of the Government had rejected it. That was seen last week, and again yesterday in one of the strongholds of the Conservative Party; and probably within a week it would be seen in another Conservative stronghold. He understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite introduced these discussions on the Army, firstly, because they thought the Army was unnecessarily large, and therefore necessarily expensive; and, secondly, because they thought the country was not getting value for the money expended. Their contention was that it would be better to have a small, thoroughly-equipped and effective Army, then a larger Army not equipped and not efficient. He understood hon. Members to say that the strength of the Army as shown by the Secretary of State was a paper strength; and that the War Office was drawing
  1154
  recruits to such an extent that they were compelled to take men and boys who otherwise would be rejected. There was a great change in the position imposed on recruits since his time. Forty-five years ago he submitted himself to the consideration of a recruiting officer. He had a little refreshment within him, and was inspired with great hopes and expectations as to his military prospects as he marched through the streets to the barracks. However, lie was not even permitted to reach the medical officer's department. He was immediately stripped of his boots, put under a measure, and declared short, and so ended his connection with the British Army. He could only speak of the Army up to that point, and no further. He was not a wastrel physically, whatever else he might have been. For the last forty-five years he had been in pretty good health, but the standard for the British Army in that time had been so reduced that they now took mere shadows of humanity compared with what he was then. That was the one weak point of this system, and that was the point to which hon. Members opposite had drawn attention. They showed that we were hanging on a broken reed; that we were taking recruits unfit to bear arms, and training them for six or twelve months at a great cost, and at last they had to be rejected as utterly useless as a fighting force.
  The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in the last two or three years he had come down to the House with Motions for improving the Army by giving an increase of pay. But he would not improve the Army by increasing the pay alone. That no doubt was necessary, but they would also have to improve the condition of life in barracks, and increase the self-respect of the rank and file of the Army; they must also be able to hold out to the private soldier a moderate course of promotion, and do away with much of that hateful and detestable class distinction which now ruled so much in the British Army. If something of that kind were done, a great deal would be done for the recruiting of the British Army, and they would obtain the best persons available. Another difficulty which

  1155
  they had to contend with was the decrease in the physique of the class to which they had to go for the rank and file. That was a very serious matter, and so long as the agricultural labourers of this country, from which the great majority of our recruits were drawn, were decreasing, and the conditions under which they lived were so demoralising to their physique and morality, that difficulty would remain. He had thought it necessary to inform the House of his slight connection with the Army, and, speaking for himself, if he were an officer, he would rather go with 100 strong and true men, who were intelligent and physically fit to meet the most extreme strain that might be put upon them, than he would with 150 half-breeds who were physically and mentally unfit for any undertaking. He trusted that the hon. Member for St. Albans would divide the House upon this point, in which case he would vote with him. They must reduce. They could not go on in this ridiculous way, spending millions and millions on both services, and yet having no guarantee that with this inceased expenditure they had increased safety. If they were to have a real War Office reform they should get rid of the old, useless, ineffective administrators, and place in their positions men who would be capable of giving twenty shillings worth of value for every pound which was spent. They did not grumble so much at the amount as the fast that they felt the money was being wasted and the country was not getting value for it. That was one of the main reasons why they continually opposed this increasing outlay of public money. Real reform must start at the bottom and continue to the top, and anyone who was inefficient, who came between them and the object they had in view, must give place to others. He supported the reduction.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LOUD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)pointed out that the Government must have Vote I and Vote A before half-past seven. He only rose to call the attention of the House to the fact, and hoped hon. Gentlemen would bear it in mind.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he had no intention
  1156
  of making a speech, but that after the statement made by the Secretary of State for War he thought it was only right that he should express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the announcement he had made with reference to the new system of enlisting recruits. He had taken great interest in this matter, and had brought it to the attention of the House on several occasions in past years, and it was a matter of great satisfaction to him that the right hon. Gentleman should be willing to try this new system, at any rate as an experiment. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he accepted the principle of the hon. Member for St. Albans' Amendment, and further that he was "heart and soul with him." That was a statement the House had heard with great satisfaction, and it showed that the right hon. Gentleman was not impervious to argument.
  One other word by way of personal explanation. The hon. Member for Durham had vigorously attacked those who had placed on the Paper Motions for reduction, on the ground that their only motive was to reduce the fighting strength of the Army, otherwise, he said, they should have stated in their Motion the motives of their reduction. He would point out to his hon. friend, however, that by the Rules of the House it was not possible to show on the Paper the motives with which a reduction was to be moved. Personally he had handed in a notice to reduce the strength of the Army by a certain number, "being the number of ineffectives now in the ranks," but the clerks had ruled it out. Whatever hon. Members might think, he could assure them that, as far as he was concerned, his motive was to reduce the strength of the Army not by a single fighting man, but only by the number of ineffectives. In conclusion, he wished to express the confident belief that the reforms which the Secretary of State for War had just announced would prove very successful in practice, and would have a most beneficial effect, not only upon recruiting, but upon the Army generally.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion),in supporting the Amendment, said that while he agreed with almost

  1157
  every word of the mover, he did not confine his opposition to the Vote to the grounds stated by the hon. Member. His main objection was that the total war expenditure of the country, on a peace footing, was monstrously extravagant, and ought to be reduced. His reading of recent elections was that a great revulsion of feeling was taking place in the country on the question of expenditure, and that there would have to be a return to methods of economy. The enormous increase of war expenditure in the last ten years was due to the great change of policy involved in the revival of Imperialism, which had taken place since the retirement of Mr. Gladstone. In the year following that statesman's retirement, there was an increase of several millions in the war services, and that increase had been going on by leaps and bounds ever since. But would anybody suggest that the country had been freer from apprehension of attack? The reverse was the case. The confidence of foreign countries in Mr. Gladstone and his policy of pence, which Liberals of former days, and real Liberals of to-day, advocated, had secured the country from apprehension of attack, That policy had been changed, and with it the attitude of other countries had altered. The alternative policy he would suggest was a return to the old traditions, which had been the policy as much of Conservatives as of Liberals. Hon. Members on the other side would not be abandoning the old traditions of Conservatism by adopting the policy of retrenchment and economy, and particularly of minding our own affairs, and not seizing the property of other people.
  The hon. Member for Durham had suggested the possibility of our Army having face Continental armies in an European war. He demurred altogether to that view. Even if we raised as many men as the most extravagant Member on the other side desired, it would be as a mere drop in the ocean compared with the armies on the Continent; while if our Navy were defeated, and this country invaded, we should not be on the "safe side," to use the hon. Member's words, if we had three times as many men as we have.
  1158
  If we were to prepare against invasion, we were woefully below the necessary number, while if we simply desired to guard our possessions in other countries, our Army was a great deal too large. He agreed with what had been said as to the class of men required in the Army, and that was one of his reasons for thinking a reduction necessary. The proper class of men could not be obtained unless higher pay was offered, and, as the country would not dream of voting more money than was now being voted, the only way to enable better pay to be given was to reduce the number of men. He should certainly support the Amendment, and he only wished it had been proposed to reduce the Vote by a much larger number of men.
  LORD HUGH CECIL LORD HUGH CECIL said that perhaps he might be permitted to say that when he interrupted his right hon. friend it was not on the point of Order. He was annoyed by what appeared to be the very great discourtesy of his observations [Cries of "Oh" and "No"]—he was entitled to his opinion of them—and he really did not see any inherent absurdity in challenging his right hon. friend upon amenity of manners. He was better pleased, however, to deal with the main part of his right hon. friend's speech, which was of a very satisfactory character. He quite agreed with his hon. friend that what had been said by the last two speakers was not so relevant to this matter as to a previous occasion. But to avoid misapprehension, he was obliged to say that his hon. friend the Member for Durham, whom they always listened to with interest and instruction, really misapprehended the case with which he dealt. They did not desire in the slightest degree to alter or destroy the military character of the Empire. They did not propose that there should never be in the future, as there had been in the past, military operations where necessary. They did not in the slightest degree deny the importance of the Indian Empire or the necessity of defending the Indian Empire. All these were objects of national policy on which there was substantial agreement on both sides of the House. The whole question that had been debated in these discussions

  1159
  was whether the Army, under his right lion, friend's scheme, was an instrument well suited to the needs of the country, or could it not be made much better suited to the needs of the country at a much smaller cost, and, in that case, should they not gain in military efficiency and still more in national economy by reducing it. To that opinion he adhered, and his lion, friends adhered, and they did not find their opinions in the least changed either by the imputation of motives, or the appeal to military authorities in lieu of arguments to which the Government had had recourse. They continued to believe, and they would continue to believe, that his right hon. friend's scheme was a bad one; but they had, he confessed, received very great encouragement that afternoon, because, for the first time in these debates, the Government had been inspired by a spirit of sweet reasonableness, excepting his right hon. friend's exordium, and had given assurances which were of a most satisfactory character. The only criticism he would make on that part of the speech was that he wished his right hon. friend had said something more about the age of the recruits. But, on the whole, he thought his hon. friend the Member for St. Albans might congratulate himself on having drawn from the Government declarations of a highly satisfactory character. He hoped this might be the swallow of a summer of reason, and that, in other respects also, the Government might be able to meet the views of their critics—views which, he might be permitted to assure his right hon. friend, were founded on conviction and defended by argument. He hoped the Government would meet the views of their critics, and thus avoid a recurrence of these extremely critical debates.
  *MR. TOMKINSONsaid he desired to dissociate himself from the opinion that this country in the event of anything happening to the Fleet would be left entirely unprotected. It was time some protest was made against the impression that in the event of war, and in the event of our Fleet being defeated, this country would have to surrender because they would be un-
  1160
  able to defend themselves. He thought such an exhibition of cowardice would be unworthy of the great nation and the great Empire they had inherited. He thought they might rely upon the Auxiliary forces for the defence of this country. He knew from his own experience how much had been done at a small expense with regard to the Yeomanry in which he had the honour of serving. By the addition of about £300,000 to the national expenditure, the Yeomanry had been increased to something like 35,000 men, and he thought more might be done to increase their defensive forces by encouraging the Volunteers. It was in that direction, and not in the direction of a great increase in the standing Army, that they ought to look for insuring the safety of this country. On those grounds he should support the proposal for a reduction. He only wished to add one word about India. He well remembered how the whole question was threshed out years ago when a very wise statesman, the late Lord Derby, said that the true defences of India were a contented people and a well-filled Treasury, an Army not too widely scattered for its work, and neighbours who are satisfied that we have no designs on their independence or their territory-The safety of India was secured very much by their good relations with Afghanistan, a country which constituted a most ideal buffer state, because it was inhabited by tribes who would not permit an armed force to come within their borders, and it was a country so difficult that the Duke of Wellington once said that in it a small army would be annihilated, and a large army would starve. He believed that in India they were safe enough, and in this country they had Auxiliary forces sufficient to defend these shores. He was in favour of maintaining a small and well-trained Army with proper reserves, and he should cordially support the proposition before the House.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS MR. VICARY GIBBS said that with the leave of the House he would withdraw his Motion. He desired to thank the Secretary of State for War for the way in which he had received his arguments, appreciated his motives, and acceded to his desires.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is almost presumption for an outsider, who watches these little domestic jars with pain, but not with a wholly unsympathetic interest, to intervene at all on an occasion of this kind, particularly at a moment when there seems to he a prospect of a temporary reconciliation. My sole object in rising is to say this: I understand that the object of the hon. Gentleman in the Motion he has brought forward is to deal entirely with the question of recruiting. The reduction which he proposes is very much less than those who were opposed to the whole scheme would be prepared to vote for; and it is because of the limitation suggested by the figures of the hon. Gentleman, and borne out by the arguments of his speech, that some of us who would otherwise have taken part in the discussion have not been able to do so. The hon. Gentleman, I think, has very good reason for congratulating himself upon the response he has received to his Motion. Similar points were made in a speech of very great ability, marked by wide and minute knowledge, by the lion. Member for Fareham, who did not on that occasion get anything like the same amount of satisfaction from the responsible Minister as has been conceded to-day. It is well worth while to have spent some hours of the time of the House of Commons in inducing the Secretary of State to make the admission he has made to-day, and to give the undertakings, which I am sure will be carried out to the best of the right hon. Gentleman's ability, and which we hope will result in putting a very different complexion on the whole of this question. I, for my part, am not prepared to stand in the way of the withdrawal of the Motion.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he believed the right hon. Gentleman had made an omission which, more than anything else, would have satisfied everybody upon this recruiting question. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to give a pledge that when making inquiries as to character, he would also include inquiries as to age. This would not require any expert correspondence, and
  it would be just as simple to do this as to inquire about character.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have over and over again endeavoured to secure some proof of age. I am told that a very largo number of recruits do not know where they were born, and it is useless to ask them to prove their age. All I can do in such cases is to give instructions that the medical officers shall be very particular with the men about whom they have any doubts and see that they have the physical appearance and development of eighteen years.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER MR. COURTENAY WARNER said that all he wished for was that when inquiry was made as to character inquiries should be made as to age at the same time. He knew there were difficulties in some cases, but in many cases it would be very simple to get the age as well.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid that as far as his experience went there was very little difficulty in ascertaining age in order to meet the requirements of the Factory Acts. Factory owners were bound to know whether boys were over fourteen or not, and whether they were eighteen or under. When the right hon. Gentleman became strict in inquiring into character he would find that boys of good character knew their age. It was only boys who did not know where they were born who did not know their age. He hoped the right hon Gentleman would make inquiry about age, and not simply trust to the report of the doctor.
  *MR. BRODRICK: At present inquiry is made into age, but in a great number of cases it is very difficult to get. I am quite certain that if every Member of this House were asked to go into the Vote Office and to write down at once where he was horn and where his birth certificate could be obtained the great majority would not be able to do so.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes, 246; Noes, 73. (Division List No. 36.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Forster, Henry William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Garfit, William

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J. (Manch'r)

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Barry, Sir Eras. T. (Windsor)

  Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Gore, Hn, S. F. Onnsby- (Linc

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bigwood, James

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Groves, James Grimble

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

  Hain, Edward

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Brassey, Albert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Percy, Earl

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  Purvis, Rubert

  Butcher, John George

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Kobt. Wm.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Randles, John S.

  Carson, Rt. Hn Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Heath, James (Staff S. N. W.)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helder, Augustus

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Kenshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J (Birm

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Renwick, George

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hope. J. F. (Sheff. B'tside)

  Rigg, Richard

  Charrington, Spencer

  Horner, Frederick William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hoult, Joseph

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Howard, Juo (Kent, Faver'hm

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jessel, Capt. Hubert Merton

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Scott, Sir S. (Marlylebone, W.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Keswick, William

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

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Knowles, Lees

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Law, Andrew Banar (Glasgow

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Lockie, John

  Smith, Jas Parker (Lanarks)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Spear, John Ward

  Doughty, George

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ommskirk)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lonsdale, John Brownloe

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Father, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Finlay. Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Vincent Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffi'd

  Fison, Frederick William

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Mitchell, William

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Flower, Ernest

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  1164

  1165

  Webb, Col. William George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

  NOES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Shackleton, David James

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Asher, Alexander

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire.)

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope John Deans (Fife, West

  Tomkinson, James

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Toulmin, George

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ure, Alexander

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Wallace, Robert

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Walton, John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Buchauan, Thomas Ryburn

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Burns, John

  Levy, Maurice

  Warner, Thomas Courteoay T.

  Burt, Thomas

  Lloyd-George, David

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Cameron, Robert

  M'Crae, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Crombie, John William

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Parting on, Oswald

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

  Edwards, Frank

  Priestley, Arthur

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Huddr'sf'd

  Ellis, John Edward

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Labouchere and Mr. J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Runciman, Walter

  H. Whitley.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [12th MARCH, AFTERNOON SITTING] REPORT
  Resolution reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,647,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, Allowances, and other Charges of His Majesty's Army at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments,) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904."
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he wished to draw the attention of the House to the question of the status of the officers of the Army Veterinary Department, to the insufficiency of their pay, and to limitation of their prospective career in the Army. This subject had been repeatedly raised by himself before the war, and even that very day, by a question to the Secretary of State for War. The fact was that so great was
  1166
  the discontent of veterinarians that the Department was unable to obtain the requisite number of officers, and at present there were thirty vacancies without candidates. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that dining the late war, in consequence of the dearth of veterinary officers, vessels carrying horses to South Africa were despatched without veterinary surgeons on board, with the result that a large proportion of the horses were lost in the course of the voyage; and when the remainder were landed in South Africa they were rushed up country in an absolutely unprepared state for active work in the Field. In fact, millions had had to be paid in consequence of this special Department not being sufficiently staffed. He insisted that the Secretary for War should so improve the position of the veterinary surgeons in the Army, more especially by granting combatant rank, better pay, and a retiring allowance after so many years of service, that competent candidates would be induced to offer their services. Promises, to the effect that this question would be investigated, had been made

  1167
  before the war broke out, hut the investigation was delayed. Now that the war was over he was given to understand that a Committee was sitting considering the matter, and he thought that this was a suitable opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to state what he had been able to do in regard to it.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER MR. COURTENAY WARNER said that the had expected that day to see hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House moving the reduction of the Vote which had been put down on the Paper preferring to the question of Army Corps, so as to press their views as to getting a more effective Army than now existed, and at less cost. He could not see this Vote passed without making a protest against the extravagant system introduced by the Secretary for War, and against the enormous numbers of the existing Army. Personally, he did not object to a large Army, but he believed the country could not and would not spend the money they were now asked to spend on the Army. The strong reaction against this extravagance, shown from day to day, was increasing; and the wave of feeling against that increased expenditure was so great that hon. Members who laughed would not be there to laugh again. The reaction, lie believed, would be a source of real danger to the country. He would not move a reduction of the Vote, because the last time he had done so he had been told that it was too large, although he thought it very modest; but a reduction there ought to be, although he saw no attempt on the part of the War Office to make it in any department of the Army, which, he felt sure, would not only endanger the position of the Secretary for War and his friends, but the efficiency of the Army as well as of the Navy.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he wished to direct attention to an item in the Vote which the Committee bad not had an opportunity of discussing. He referred to the item of £90,000 for the pay of the China Expeditionary Force. Last year £50,000 had been voted for that purpose, and he could not understand how so large a sum as £90,000 could
  1168
  be demanded for the pay of that Expeditionary Force in the next financial year. They knew that, unfortunately, China was in a very disturbed condition, and he would like to know how many British troops were there now, and for what purpose this £90,000 was required. It was rather a strong order that they should be asked to pass such a huge sum for a purpose of which they knew nothing, and he hoped the representative of the War Office would be able to give some satisfactory explanation of it. If not, he would be compelled to move the reduction of the Vote.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton)said that the hon. and gallant Member for Newington West had practically asked the Secretary for War to prejudge a case which had been referred to a Committee which was now sitting. It was quite recognised that there was a shortage of candidates for the Veterinary-Department of the Army, and that there was a difficulty in obtaining a proper supply of veterinary surgeons; but that matter would be dealt with by the Secretary for War as soon as the Report of the Committee was presented to him.
  With regard to the China Expedition, the reason for the increase was that it was rather a difficult matter to arrange all the accounts with India. India paid the money, and the British Government had now to repay India. Some of the accounts which were not rendered last year had now been rendered. The China Expeditionary Force was a remnant of the force that went out in 1900, and on y a sufficient number of troops were left as were considered to be necessary to guard our interests in China.
  MR. WHITLEYasked, on a point of order, whether it was in order to pay in the next financial year expenses which had been incurred during the present year; and whether they should not have been met by a Supplementary Estimate.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The matter is quite in order, as I understand the noble

  1169
  Lord to say that the sum will only become payable to India in the course of the next financial year.
  *MR. BUCHANAN*MR. BUCHANAN said that a Paper had been circulated that morning containing a restatement of the figures with reference to the Army, and an appendix was inserted which hitherto had always been inserted in the Army Estimates. He would ask why these important statements had not been included in the Army Estimates when issued. Then there was another important appendix generally inserted in the Estimates showing the sums of money which were expended on military services in the Colonies and Egypt. That had been omitted this year, and he could not think why, as it was of the greatest importance that they should know from year to year what the military expenditure out of Estimates was in the various Colonies and Egypt.
  MR. SOARESsaid he wished to protest against the great increase in the General Staff. The Army Corps were still in a more or less nebulous condition. The men had not yet been obtained, and he should like to know whether they were going to pay officers to command these Army Corps when they had no men to command. The figures were rather serious. Exclusive of all charges for South Africa he found that the General Staff in 1901–2 was 279, and that their pay and allowances were £160,000. In 1902–3 the number increased to 338, and the pay and allowances to £194,000. For 1903–4 the General Staff was estimated at 381, and the pay and allowances at £222,000. He should like to know what was the reason for such a tremendous increase.
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK said that he thought the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when he made a full statement as to the Staff a few days ago He would point out that the increase in the Staff was not connected with the Army Corps scheme. The House would hardly expect him to repeat his statement; but he might say that in no case had an officer been appointed who had not troops to command. In one
  1170
  or two cases officers had been indicated for command before the troops were enrolled, but they would not be put on pay until they were on active duty. As to the absence of some of the tables, complained of by the hon. Gentleman, he would look into the matter. Some of the tables were rather later than usual this year.

  SUPPLY [12th MARCH EVENING SITTING]. REPORT
  Resolution reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,638,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1904."
  MR. WHITLEY MR. WHITLEY said that when the Vote was in Committee he raised a point with reference to the rewards for meritorious services which appeared in the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion that he had made an alteration in the system of distributing the rewards, and that, whereas they had hitherto been given to officers on full pay, and had ceased when officers retired, in future they would not come into operation until an officer had retired, and they would continue as long as he lived. What he wished to know was, whether officers who obtained rewards under the old system would in future be able to retain them when on retired pay. He rather gathered from what the noble Lord had said that some officers would have it both ways.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER MR. COURTENAY WARNER asked how it was that when the Army was demobilised after the war the number of general officers on half-pay, instead of being increased, was reduced. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reason was that officers had not been put on half-pay, but on retired pay. He found, however, that the number of general officers on retired pay had also decreased: and he could

  1171
  not quite understand the matter. The only explanation was that more general officers remained on full pay, but he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that that was not correct.
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK said that there were more officers on full pay owing to the forces in South Africa. The number of officers on retired pay was annually decreasing.
  CAPTAIN NORTON CAPTAIN NORTON said he should like an explanation as to why certain officers in the Indian Army were included in this Vote.
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK said if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question, he would explain the matter to him.

EVENING SITTING.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).
  *MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvon-shire, Arfon),in calling attention to the question of Welsh local government, said he asked for administrative and legislative devolution applicable to the local needs of Wales, and dealing with its special and peculiar interests. This was no new question. It had been dealt with by both Parties in the House, and he recognised that the demand for local government affected the whole country. The principle of devolution was not a principle which affected Wales alone—it ought to be applied in accordance with the requirements of the different communities concerned. In that, he believed, was to be found the only solution for the congestion which paralysed the efficiency of Imperial Parliament and its administrative action at the present moment. He knew the objection was to giving to Wales a distinct or separate treatment, but they believed that they had clear, genuine, deep-seated differences of local conditions. No one could deny the success which had attended the special treatment accorded to Wales in the matter of education and Sunday closing The Royal Commission showed that the latter was a success. For twelve years they had had no measure passed for tin benefit of Wales exclusively, except three
  1172
  years ago, when a very small Bill was passed with regard to the educational endowment of a single parish, that of Berriew, against the direct vote of the vast majority of the parishioners, and contrary to the expressed wish of the overwhelming majority of the Welsh Members. Wales had its own Church question, its own temperance question, and a special and question. A Commission had sat on the latter subject, but they had not. had any Act dealing with it. Why should the doctrine of identity of treatment with regard to England and Wales be insisted upon when both Parties in the House had agreed to deal with Wales-separately already? Lord Salisbury had stated that if ever there was a people who had a separate nationality it was the Welsh, and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had also stated that he recognised that the circumstances of Wales were in some respects peculiar and different from those of England.
  They were not asking for an independent or separatist government, but merely for what the Colonial Secretary had said he believed to be just and necessary—beyond a purely municipal organisation—a larger arrangement by which various portions of the United Kingdom should be enabled to exercise greater influence over local administration and legislation for their special needs and requirements. The difficulty was that owing to the tremendous pressure of Imperial business Welsh business got crowded out, just the same as Scottish business; but Parliament, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, might delegate to a local assembly—to local, national or provincial assemblies, such questions as education, public works, local government and Private Bill legislation. The Prime Minister, when Secretary for Scotland, had described the Private Bill legislative system as utterly absurd, expensive and antiquated, and when the Scotch Act was passed it was understood, if successful, the system ought to be extended. Why not apply it to Wales? In his constituency there were small watering-places which had been put to enormous expense to pass Private Bills, and ha asked—Why should not that money be spent in Wales? Wales provided a great deal of local legislation. One year it was shown that whereas Wales promoted twenty-five Private Bills Scotland only

  1173
  promoted nine, and yet there was a private legislation procedure for Scotland. Many places desiring improvements in Wales were kept back because of the enormous cost of coming to Westminster. The Welsh County Councils and non county boroughs were unanimously in favour of the transfer of powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act of 1888, but because English non-county boroughs opposed it a proposal to carry it into effect was dropped.
  He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would use his influence with the Government to get his Local Government (Transfer of Powers) Bill passed in the present year. By the Bill it is proposed that Section 10 of the Act of 1888 shall be construed so as to authorise the transfer of all or any of the Powers, duties or liabilities mentioned in that section, to the Council of a particular County or County Borough, as well as to such Councils generally. These might include amongst many others, the granting of charters of incorporation and Provisional Orders for tramways, gas, water, and electric light, sanction for loans for purposes of Public Health and other Acts, compulsory purchase of lands, appeals by ratepayers and others. Wales was willing to accept that transfer of powers, but of course that would not signify complete satisfaction and finality in their demands. They contended that in the matter of higher and intermediate education the Welsh Central Board and federated university colleges, Wales hail shown not merely its desire, but competence and qualification, for administrative local government. That local government ought to be in the hands of an authority which would represent the whole Welsh nation, for the purpose of developing all its forces and character. It would make for effciency, and strengthen the most important factor's in the Empire which Wales had done so much to build. The Tudor dynasty that mainly founded the Empire and its Navy was a Welsh dynasty. He believed that no people in these realms were more able to administer local government than the Welsh, who had been disciplined in the best school—the school of religious institutions. What he asked for was self-government all round and Imperial government round all. On this basis and according to this principle they asked
  1174
  for a measure of self-government that would satisfy loyal and patriotic Wales.
  *SIR ALFRED THOMASsaid that he associated himself with his lion, friend the Member for Arfon, and endorsed all he had advanced in favour of his Motion. Some twelve years ago he had introduced a Bill into the House entitled, "The Welsh National Institutions Bill," in which he had proposed a devolution of administration, and the setting up of new institutions. One of the most important of them had been established for some time, namely, the University of Wales, and another, viz., a Welsh National Museum, would soon be in course of construction. When he introduced that Bill, such institutions appeared to be quite beyond the legislative horizon, especially the University, but those institutions, and such important items of legislation as the Intermediate Education Act, passed since then, encourage them to hope that the present Government might—especially in the way of devolution—do much to facilitate the administration of Local Government, and to lessen the congestion now existing in several if the great Departments. They hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would be able to tell them that he contemplated the setting up of a united council representing the County and County Borough Councils in Wales and Monmouthshire. There was not another Department in which the work had so much increased as that of the Local Government Board, and while he often felt that the public interest suffered from the congestion of business, he always appreciated the effort s of the staff to do all in their power to meet the demands of local bodies. The work of this Department could not be estimated simply by the increase in the population, for the volume of business increased by leaps and bounds. He believed that it would be beneficial if much of the work carried on by the Home Office was directed from a central office in the Principality.
  With regard to Elementary, and Intermediate education, the Board of Education could relieve itself of the work of inspection and examination, which could be carried out by the Welsh Board, Then with regard to

  1175
  private Bills, the experiment that had been proved so successful in regard to Scotland could be extended to Wales They knew that the charges imposed upon the promoters of private Bills were so excessive as to be a positive scandal. He knew of enterprises projected by people of small means, whose capital account was increased 50 per cent, by the exorbitant charges made upon them before they could carry even an unopposed Bill through Parliament. And the case was equally hard upon those who opposed any proposed legislation. A District Council in his division found itself called upon to oppose the passing of a Bill by a private company, which sought to impose higher scales of charges for the supply of water than the District Council were charging for water they supplied from their reservoirs. They determined to oppose, and, doing so, had to pay a sum that equalled a rate of two shillings in the pound. If they had to appear before such a tribunal as that set up in Edinburgh, it would not have been necessary to spend a tenth of that sum. He believed that there should be a Minister whose duty it would be to administer Welsh affairs, and to transact such duties as those performed by the Secretary for Scotland.
  But while they might not expect anything of heroic dimensions from the present Government, they had given precedents of greater reform than those already mentioned. Wales has always believed that the County Councils deserve much wider powers than they now possess. The admirable manner in which they have administered such limited powers as those now entrusted to them abundantly testifies to their fitness to carry out legislative and administrative duties of a much more important and responsible character. And whatever can be said for them individually, much more could be said for a group of Councils representing all Wales and Monmouthshire. One part of the country would be a check upon the other, and would take care that no portion of the country should overrun the constable at the expense of the remainder. Had a more progressive Government been in power, their demands would have increased in a like ratio; but what he had sketched
  1176
  in the very modest proposals he had just made were well within the power of the present Government to put into practice, and he believed, modest as they were, they would do much to facilitate public work in the Principality.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is desirable to grant self-government in local affairs to Wales, subject to the supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament."—(Mr. William Jones.)
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE JONESsaid he found no reason to change his mind in regard to this matter. It was quite true with regard to the Welsh University that the Government, quite apart from politics, had treated Wales generously, and they were doing something to support a Welsh museum, but these were matters upon which Members of the House from Wales were agreed, and that made a substantial difference. It was no argument, though, that they agreed to a Motion with regard to self-government, and he believed the hon. Members oppposite were mistaken in asking the House to grant that. The adoption of the policy embodied in the Resolution meant the setting up of a separate department dealing with self-government in Wales. That he did not think would be fair to Wales itself, because it would put in the hands of the County Councils all the minor authorities, and it was well known that the County Councils represented mainly the territorial and aristocratic interest. This was a parochial resolution not worthy of the House of Commons or of the Imperial Parliament. On the previous day he attended a meeting of the Montgomery-shire County Council. They were engaged in appointing Committees, and when a proposal was made for the election of a Small Holdings Committee, an hon. member asked why they should take that course. The reply was, "Because the Act of Parliament says we must." Then he himself asked, Why do not the Montgomery County Council put the Act in force?" and he took the opportunity to state his well-known views on these questions. He inquired what was the use of them asking

  1177
  Parliament to confer further powers on them when they failed to take advantage of those they already possessed. They were doing nothing in regard to small holdings, allotments, isolation hospitals and inebriates' homes, yet his hon. friend opposite was now asking Parliament to confer powers which Wales had never demanded. Until the County Councils in Wales had met together and agreed to appeal to Parliament for these powers they ought not to waste the time of Parliament in this way. Some of the powers now being asked for they already possessed under the Act of 1888. He might be told that they had no power to spend money. But that was not the fact. They could spend money out of the rates for legitimate purposes on matters in which the County Councils wore jointly interested. In debating resolutions such as this under these circumstances, therefore, they were simply ploughing the sands.
  *MR. EDWARDSsaid he was sorry they were not to have the support of so ardent a patriot as the hon. Member; but he thought a little conversation with so strong a Welsh patriot would easily break down the barrier that kept him from joining them. Me congratulated the Government on the fact that his hon. friend had cast his æegis over them and had sought to guide them in some of their counsels. No doubt they would be grateful. As he understood him the hon. Member took exception to the Motion because, as he said, the County Councils had power to do what was desired now. That was not the case, and a Bill had to be brought in to give the County Councils the powers which they were asking for. The hon. Member's memory must be very short if he did not remember that a deputation waited upon the President of the Local Government Board last year to ask for further powers.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES:Really, I am bound to correct the hon Member. With regard to that conference, the County Councils in Wales had not been consulted beforehand. I pointed that out in the debate last year.
  *MR. FRANK EDWARDS*MR. FRANK EDWARDS said he would not argue with the hon. Member, because he had personal knowledge of the fact that the County Councils were aware of the Motion to be submitted, and his hon. friend was quite wrong when he said that the County Councils could combine now. The Welsh County Councils did try to work together and combine for the good of Wales, but they failed to do so because they had not got the power to spend the money that would be required. There were two things which struck one with regard to powers given to local institutions. One was the degree to which such powers had been extended in recent years under the Acts of 1888, 1894, and other Acts, and side by side with that there was the fact to be noted of the extraordinary limitations which had been placed by the timidity of Parliament on the local institutions which it had called into existence. Some of these might be necessary, but he was bound to say that many of them were quite unnecessary. The other day he read in a Welsh paper that a Welsh District Council was advertising for a Sanitary Inspector. He was to receive of the magnificent sum £8 per annum, and the advertisement stated that the appointment was to be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. Surely that was one of the powers that could very well be left to the County Councils. The County Councils had now existed for something like fourteen years, and although they had been in existence so long, it was only now that a responsible Minister of the Crown brought in a Bill to give them power to promote measures of their own, etc. This should have been the case from the beginning. The fact was the County Councils had been hampered and hindered by Government Departments in matters which might very well have been left to the localities themselves. There was no doubt that if they had left them for the localities to deal with in their own way they would have been settled far more speedily and satisfactorily.
  The result of the present arrangements had been unnecessary delay, unnecessary expense, and unnecessary irritation on the part of the localities concerned. It was no wonder there had been delay when they remembered that there were

  1179
  thousands of local authorities which must be in constant communication with the authorities at Whitehall. Efficient local Government, he maintained, must depend on perfect knowledge of the local circum stances. Local people had that knowledge but that was not so with the clerks al Whitehall. The Government must either increase the number of the officials a Whitehall, which meant increasing the number of those who hindered the action of the local authorities; or they must increase the powers of the local authorities making them more worth sitting upon If they did that they would get a better class of men to take an interest in public work. He was sorry that the fortune of the ballot had prevented him bringing in a Bill to grant powers of combination to the County Councils, because that Bill would have gone to the root of the whole matter. Its object was to grant power not only to individual County Councils, but also powers for combination by groups of Councils, which was a thing he saw no sign of getting yet, but which was very necessary if they were to do any good in this matter of extending the power of local bodies. It seemed to be a wise thing to make an experiment of this kind in Wales, because the geographical position of Wales was such that the experiment could be safely made there without injury to England. But it had been urged that it was not a wise thing to give these powers particularly to the Welsh County Councils, because they wore most of them of one political colour. He supposed that if they were of a different colour, politically speaking, these powers might safely be given. That was a serious imputation on the County Councils.
  LIEUT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES LIEUT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES said it was a case of the rural against the urban.
  *MR. FRANK EDWARDS*MR. FRANK EDWARDS said the hon. Member had not helped him any further. Ho only convinced him that he was at the back of the people who wished to block the Bill referred to. Such a charge as that made by the hon. Member was not applicable to the County Councils of Wales, who had, as a rule, done their work efficiently. If they wanted to make men trustworthy they had better trust them as much as possible. The
  1180
  extension of the franchise had proved that thing in this direction, and the present Government was the last that ought to be afraid to trust the people of the country considering the confidence which had been placed in them by the people in recent years. Some hon. Members were fond of talking about devolution, but unfortunately they could not be got to vote for a particular application of the principle. He remembered his hon. friend the Member for the Eifion Division once saying that some Welsh farmers were Liberal by conviction but Tory by profession. That saying might be reversed in the case of the Government. The Motion before the House went further than the extension of powers to the County Councils; it referred to the power of Wales to have separate legislative facilities of its own. Scotland had had much the same facilities granted to it, and the block of business in this House rendered it necessary that some steps should be taken.
  Some time back the Prime Minister tried to mend matters by amending Rules of Procedure, but all the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman then were sound arguments in favour of removing from the House work which it was unable to do. Private Members now had very little chance of carrying any legislation through Parliament; the Government were all-powerful; the House of Commons itself was losing its power. That was a serious matter for the country, and the only remedy was some system if devolution. Home Rule for Ireland was objected to on the ground that it night lead to the dismemberment of the Empire. Personally he had no fear of any such result, but in any case the argument could not be applied to Wales, t was sometimes asked, why should Vales any more than Yorkshire have Home Rule? Considerations of nationality, language, and geographical position placed the two places in totally different categories. There was no doubt as to he use Wales would make of these powers. Certain legislation was urgently squired. A Royal Commission had reported on the Welsh land question, making certain moderate recommendations which, if carried into effect, would confer upon Wales distinct

  1181
  boons, but although the necessary Land Bill would not cost the Exchequer a single penny, the Welsh people were unable to obtain it. It was time such a state of affairs came to an end, and he cordially supported the Resolution.
  *MR. DUKEsaid that lion. Members from Wales appeared to forget that their fellow-subjects were entitled to be protected from local and artificial sub-divisions of an existing national administration. For hundreds of years the course of policy in this country had been for the betterment of the Kingdom at large by the elimination of local sub-divisions which made a wide scheme of government impossible. In the time of Henry VIII the first great step was taken in the direction of raising Wales to the position of an integral part of the Kingdom, and in more recent times the great Council and the separate Judicature were abolished. These steps were taken for the good of the people ["No"], and to the advantage of the principality. It seamed to be the fashion nowadays for persons, with a legitimate pride in separate nationality, to regard it as a consequence that they should have a separate Government, and that any majority of persons of a particular nationality should have the right to impose laws on the minority. Why should not the same position be granted to Cornishmen? [An hon. Member: Why not Ireland?] The cases of Ireland and Wales were entirely different. Down to 100 years ago Ireland had been an independent kingdom, while the position of Wales was that of a principality which for many hundreds of years had been more and more closely identified in its Government with this country.
  It was an impossible suggestion that the County Councils in Wales should form the basis of a new system of Government. Was there to be a separate system of Welsh taxation, or was the Welsh administration of the future to be set up at the cost of the United Kingdom at large? Was this Parliament to levy taxes to be appropriated to local purposes in Wales defined by the County Councils 1 He thought these practical questions had
  1182
  not been considered by the supporters of the Resolution, because this was not a practical proposal. The people of England as a whole, and a large minority of the people of Wales, were strongly opposed to the setting up of an independent legislative or administrative body of a national character in any part of the United Kingdom. With the desire for a wise delegation of local administrative powers he entirely sympathised. It was most unfortunate that County Councils, where there was practical unanimity with regard to such matters as providing a water supply and so forth, should not have, with some moderate provision for appeal to an authority in which all parties would have confidence, power to carry out local government and make it efficient for all purposes. Where he joined issue was in the proposal to set up something in the nature of a national administration wherever there could be found the remains of an ancient national constituent of what is now the United Kingdom.
  MR. EUGENE WASONheartily supported the Resolution. Scottish Private Bill Procedure had been several times alluded to. It was not all that they desired or hoped to get, but it had conferred a great boon on the people of Scotland. Since he first entered the House he had been a consistent supporter of the principle of devolution. He had never supported anything in the nature of an independent Parliament, but he would strongly support the extension to Wales of the system which had been applied to Scotland, believing that it would do much to relieve the pressure of work from which Parliament suffered.
  GENERAL LAURIEsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had struck the right chord. What he suggested was perfectly reasonable; but when it came to a separate Parliament for Wales, with all the matters intrusted to it which had been indicated in the debate, that he could not support. He lived in Canada at the time the Federal Government was organised, but the organisation was not carried out, as some hon. Members seemed to suppose,

  1183
  by way of devolution. It was a number of self-governing communities which decided to unite in order that for certain purposes they might act as one. It was no idea of a central body devolving certain duties on outlying communities; it was exactly the opposite. They had yet to see how the system worked in Australia. He did not think the object of his hon. friend would be obtained by a system of devolution from a central to a provincial organisation, but he thought a great deal might be done to take local work out of the hands of Parliament. It was for some local organisation to be devised that would relieve Parliament of local work. How to create such an organisation was a matter which had got to be determined. At the present moment the proposals put forward were very vague, and he could not agree to pass this Resolution which would leave matters to be worked out in the direction of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Radnorshire. If this Resolution simply meant the relief suggested by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Kinross, who had just sat down, everybody would agree to it. The experiment had been tried in Scotland, where it had proved successful; and at the time the Act was passed for Scotland it was understood that if it proved a success it should be extended to other parts of the country. Until they had something definite showing what this Resolution was intended to lead up to, lie did not think they were justified in passing it.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he thought the observations made by the hon. Member opposite with regard to Canada had very little relevance to the question they were now considering. His hon. friend's Motion was somewhat large in its terms, but seeing that they were not able to introduce the Bill which his hon. friend brought in last year, and seeing that they had been unable to induce the President of the Local Government Board to modify his attitude, the only course for them to take was to place such a Resolution on the Paper, enabling Welsh Members to express their views upon the numerous questions connected with local government in Wales, which
  1184
  had arisen very largely in connection with the working of the Education Act. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth appeared to him to show that he had hardly grasped the true position of Wales in regard to the United Kingdom. He had represented Wales as coming into partnership with the United Kingdom willingly, but that was not the case. He had stated that at one time Scotland was a kingdom, but he would remind the hon. Member that the same also applied to Wales. It was perfectly true that in 1830 the Welsh Judicature was suppressed, but not in accordance with the feelings of the Welsh people, or with the sentiment of the lawyers at Westminster, nor was it done with the approval of the Welsh Tory Members of this House at the time. They were coming to a time when they would have to sum up the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.
  The hon. Member for East Glamorgan, with the conciliatory attitude which was so well adapted to his personality, was inclined to be friendly towards the President of the Local Government Board. He could not help recalling what had taken place in Parliament. Discussions about Welsh affairs were no new matters. With regard to the importation of cattle into West Glamorganshire, in order that the price of meat might be reduced to the working classes of that part of the county, when the right hon. Gentleman was approached to remedy this, he said "no." When it was a question of the Agricultural Holdings Bill, and they asked the right hon. Gentleman to embody certain clauses for Wales, which had been recommended by Lord Kenyon and Sir John Llewellyn, again the right hon. Gentleman said "no." When they asked him to agree to the Bill of the hon. Member for Radnorshire, once more the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was "no." Like Mephistopheles he was, as far as Wales was concerned, the spirit of the everlasting "no." They had always been ready to look upon the right hon. Gentleman as a great constructive statesman, but what had they discovered? They had found that really his attitude was a Quarter Sessions attitude, and that he had got what Lord Beaconsfield

  1185
  called "the Quarter Sessions mind." The right hon. Gentleman thought that what was good enough for Wiltshire was good enough for Wales, but this Resolution was a protest against that attitude.
  He did not want to go into any great details, because the character of this Motion, and the limited time at their disposal, prevented that. Their point was that Wales was a separate entity by virtue of its history and its social and economic conditions, and by virtue of the fact that its own language was spoken by over 50 per cent, of its inhabitants; and that in all the essential elements which went to form a nationality Wales was distinct from any other county in England, Scotland or Ireland. That point had never been fairly and squarely met by the right hon. Gentleman. They wanted from the Government a definite recognition of this for many purposes, for Wales was a separate entity. They were not wild and sentimental persons imbued with any notion of separation from the United Kingdom. Why was Wales always treated like this? They understood the enormous benefits that England obtained from its connection with Wales, but everybody seemed to speak as though all the advantages of this connection were on the side of Wales. The hon. Member opposite seemed to think that Wales derived great advantages from being connected with England, but if England would only put Wales in the position of the Colony of Tasmania, he believed Welshmen would be ready to accept it. In that case they would not have to pay towards the cost of Imperial defence, or the expensive luxury of a Secretary of State for the Colonies. He would not, however, pursue the general argument.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Hear, hear!
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES MR. BRYNMOR JONES said that apparently the right hon. Gentleman did not agree with that argument.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Not with that particular one.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES,MR. BRYNMOR JONES, continuing, said he endorsed his hon. friend's remarks as to the working of the Scottish Private
  1186
  Procedure Bill. He wished to impress upon the Government that the time seemed to have come when it was quite possible to extend to Wales a system of a similar character to that which now existed in Scotland. He could, of course, go into many details connected with Wales without raising any broad and general questions or any controversy between hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side in regard to which some alteration might be made. There was the question of extending the powers of the County Councils so as to enable them to combine together. The question of the main roads had been referred to, but he would remind the lion. Member that they already possessed a special authority dealing with main roads. He would now conclude, as he thought he had given a sufficient answer to the criticisms which had been passed on the Motion of his hon. friend.
  MR. STOCKsaid he would not follow the hon. and learned Member beyond saying he had made quite an unnecessary attack on his right hon. friend, who, outside his office, had as much right to speak for Wales as Bristol. The only claim he had to intervene in this debate was, being resident in a border county, he was constantly in contact with Welshmen and Welsh interests. He could only speak in broad terms in regard to the Motion before the House, and give the reason why he should vote against it. The House believed there was no general demand for local self-government in Wales, and he did not believe a scheme of the kind suggested would tend to promote efficiency in local government in Wales. There was no doubt Welsh County Councils, like the majority of her representatives in this House—he would not like to say that this showed Wales was more enlightened than England—were chiefly of one political complexion. Therefore he thought subjects affecting private rights or interests ought to continue to have the benefit of the impartial control of a central authority. Lastly, if this demand were granted, as the mover of the Motion admitted, there would be no finality. Therefore, a call for administrative control would be

  1187
  followed by one for legislative control, or, in plain words, it meant finally an appeal for Home Rule all round, tie did not think the Imperial Parliament would ever consent to such a thing, and therefore he should oppose the Motion.
  *MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid he should like at the outset to thank the President of the Local Government Board for the courtesy and patience he showed to a deputation from Wales which waited upon him last year. Upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman expressed his sympathy with their object, and he, personally, should have liked to have seen that sympathy take a more practical form. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not considered more favourably the Bill of his hon. friend the Member for Radnorshire. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that there was no argument to justify the particular change suggested by the case of Wales without extending it to the North of England. The right hon. Gentleman had spent a good deal of time in the Principality, and knew the feelings and wants of the Welsh people, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had property there which was likely to turn out another El Dorado. Consequently he had expected him to have shown more sympathy towards Wales in regard to this matter. Everything must have a beginning, why not begin with Wales in these matters. Surely Wales deserved some consideration. He did not think they would find that the Local Government Act of 1888 had been better administered anywhere than in Wales.
  On their local bodies they had elected in some cases members of the Conservative party as chairmen, and in Wales they would find Conservatives, Liberals, Nonconformists and Churchmen putting aside their religious and political differences, and all working together for the common good of their country. The northern part of Wales, with which he was connected, was known as the country of the white kid gloves, and at the court with which he was associated he had received sufficient white kid gloves to keep his boys in gloves for dances for the next two years. It was recognised that Scotland, Wales, and Ireland had certain racial characteristics which distinguished them from England. He instanced their
  1188
  keener enthusiasm in regard to matters in connection with social progress and the well-being of the people. Welshmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen had a position all their own in the consciousness that they belonged to small nations, imbued, permeated, and invigorated by the strong feeling of nationality This might be said to be mere sentiment, but sentiment, after all, was the well-spring of all that was best and noblest in human life and character, and their attachment to national sentiment could not but help them to a proper conception of what an Empire ought to be—free, tolerant, non-aggressive, the friend, protector, and nursing mother of freedom. But in the present day with its spirit of commercial Imperialism, unsatisfied greed, vulgar tone, and worship of wealth, we were in danger of drifting into ways full of peril to the higher aspirations of a free-people. He thought Parliament might consider the feeling of Wales and help the people to keep alive the distinctive sense of their nationality. What would mankind be without varieties of nationality? It would be a world without the charm of diversity between hill and dale. It would be one dead-level plain of vulgar-uniformity. What would history have been had any of the despots from Nimrod down to Napoleon been able to flatten out the whole world into one huge dominion in which there was but one speech and one language, in which there had been nothing distinctive between the glory that was Greece, and the grandeur that was Rome, in which every mark had been obliterated which gave a different aspect to the brilliancy of France, the fascination of Italy, the diligence of Germany, and the energy of Great Britain? He was sure they must all hope for the time when nations "shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks," but they wished them to be nations still, in all the charm of these separate dominions which they had received from their national surroundings, in which they had been cradled by the hand of God. He maintained that Great Britain would inevitably be a considerable loser were Welsh nationality indistinguishably merged in the common English life.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I am sure it is unnecessary for me to say that we have listened with considerable interest to the debate; and that the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just made was one of great eloquence and commanded alike the sympathy and admiration of the House of Commons. The difficulty in which I find myself in dealing with this question on behalf of the Government is that, interesting though the debate has been, and practical from at all events one point of view, as the speeches have been, yet we have never really throughout the debate come to close quarters with the real proposition made in the Motion of the hon. Member for Carnarvon. That Motion is that a separate form of local self-government should be granted to Wales. A great deal has been said by lion. Gentlemen on the other side of the House as to the advantages which would flow to Wales if this Motion were to be adopted, and the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken told us in very eloquent terms of the good that would come to his country if she were given the advantages which he believed she would derive from the adoption of this Resolution; but with one or two exceptions of a somewhat vague character with which I shall deal in a moment, no case has been made out which would justify the granting either to Wales, or to any other part of the United Kingdom, of a system of local government different from that which now exists.
  What argument has been advanced to show that Wales or Scotland—those are the two countries which have been referred to chiefly to-night—suffer under the existing system? I venture to say that, if a careful examination is made, it will lead us to a totally different conclusion. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution in an eloquent speech, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Kinross who spoke on behalf of Scotland, told the House that the justification of the demand now being made was to be found in the fact that both Scotland and Wales already enjoyed separate legislation for dealing with a variety of subjects which had been useful to both these countries and had pro-
  1190
  duced to them great advantages. If it be true that the Imperial Parliament has been able to deal both with Scotland and Wales already with regard to a variety of questions specially affecting those countries in a different manner from that in which the same questions are dealt with when they affect England, what reason is there that the Imperial Parliament cannot deal in the future with those questions? Why is Wales to have a separate local governing body, and what is that body going to do?
  There is one part of the Question in regard to which rather more definite remarks have been made. That is the Private Bill question, which has already been dealt with in Scotland, and with regard to which it is suggested that different procedure should be adopted in regard to this country. I have long been interested in the Private Bill system of this House, and I have long believed that it will be necessary to alter that system, and that one of the first alterations to be made, if you are to relieve Parliament of some of the work which unduly presses on it at the present time, must be by devolution in regard to that part of our labours. But that must not be taken as a suggestion that you are to have separate Private Bill procedure for Wales.
  The demands from the North of England in regard to Private Bill legislation are as great and pressing as any that come from Wales. While I admit, and I am proud of the fact, that our experiment with Scotland has been completely successful, I am not prepared to admit that there is any justification on the part of Wales for Private Bill procedure which cannot be made by those populous parts of England from which Private Bills emanate more frequently than from other parts. With the exception of the suggestion that there should be an Amendment of the Private Bill procedure system, what else has been suggested? Some reference was made earlier in the debate to the Bill which is already on the Paper, and which I introduced last session in consequence of the action taken by the hon. Member for Radnorshire. That Bill was not successful last year. I hope it will be more successful this year. Hon. Gentle-

  1191
  men opposite told us that the Bill was defeated by the English boroughs. They are not really quite accurate. That Bill found; opponents among some of the English boroughs, and I think that was owing to a misunderstanding on their part of what the effect of the Bill would be, but it has found something more serious than the criticism of the English boroughs in the opposition of one Member of this House who, as hon. Gentlemen know, devotes his special attention, to legislative proposals, particularly when we are approaching twelve o'clock, and who exercises a very severe control over any proposals that are made at that period of the evening.
  *MR. WILLIAM JONES*MR. WILLIAM JONES said the only gentlemen who blocked the Bill were English Members.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not referring to "blocks," I am referring to the action of an hon. Member opposite. I noticed this evening when the hon. Member stated that he believed this block had been removed, the hon. Member to whom I am referring signified that that was an incorrect description of his attitude, and that he maintained the same position now as he took up a few days ago. Be that as it may, I hope we may find a means of pressing: the Hill even in the face of the opposition of the hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred. That Bill does not propose to do all that has been suggested this evening. What I consider that the Bill proposes to do to enable some of these powers to be conferred on separate County Councils, whereas, as the law stands, they can only be conferred on all at the same time. It does not go so far as some hon. Gentlemen desire, but I believe it will be a step in the right direction.
  Now, let me come to closer quarters I with the proposal to establish some central body in Wales which should take the place of the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, the Home: Office or any other Department which; has central Control. There was some little controversy early in the evening between the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs and the hon. Gentleman opposite as to whether the County Councils had been fully consulted before
  1192
  the deputation waited on me last year. I know nothing of what took place before that deputation came, but I would apply to that a more practical test than the one raised by my hon. friend. My hon. friend says it is not a question between. Tory and Liberal, but one between town and county. I can assure the hon. Member for Radnorshire that in Wales-the controversy between town and county exists in a marked degree. Only the other day I was called upon to arbitrate in a case in which a Welsh County Council complained that a Welsh Town Council were making an undue demand upon them in respect to the cost of the maintenance of highways. This is essentially one of those local questions, which the hon. Gentleman thought, speaking in general terms, might properly be left to the local authorities. Yet we find in this case, as in similar cases, the County Council complaining in the most bitter terms of the action of the Town, Council, while the Town Council declared that they were entitled to the demand they were making. Are those who present, this claim quite sure that these local, authorities are willing to see these powers transferred to a central board in Wales? Are they quite sure that if that central board were established you would not have at once arising the very differences between town and county which arise now? With regard to the composition of the County Councils, I do not know whether what my hon. friend said was-correct in the case of Wales, but I do not think he is quite correct in the case of England. He seemed to believe that the County Councils were largely composed of rural representatives, but in a great many of the English counties it is undoubtedly not so. In the English counties there is a predominance of urban representatives.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: In Wales the proportion is about one in four—one urban and three rural representatives.
  MR. WALTER LONG: That really is not important to my argument.
  LIEUT.-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: But it is.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No; whether; a majority of the representatives come from the urban or country districts is not important. All that I am endeavouring to point out to the House is that on these County Councils you have representatives who come from the urban and the rural districts. In some cases a majority of the members are urban, and in other cases a majority are rural, but from whichever side the majority comes, the County, Council has to decide questions which arise as between the rural and the urban districts of the county, and these questions raise in the sharpest possible manner the difference between the town and the country districts. Hitherto these questions have not come up in an acute form, but I believe there will be very considerable opposition even in Wales if it were realised that the jurisdiction now vested in a separate Department in London was transferred to some central body in Wales. On that central body it is obvious there must be a majority either on the urban or the rural side. If there is to be an equal number of both representatives, it is obvious that you will have the casting vote of the chairman. All these questions depend upon the way they affect either the rural or the urban parts of the county. The decisions of a Government Department are not affected by these considerations; they are governed by what they believe to be the equity of the case and general conditions, and, although it is only a matter of opinion, I believe that, if the question arose as to the transference of the powers held by the Local Government Board, the Board of Trade, or any other Department, you would find a great amount of opposition which you do not find now when dealing with the subject only in a general way.
  Another argument used to-night is that Wales is justified in claiming separate treatment by the admirable manner in which she has dealt with the Local Government Act and the Welsh Education Act. Nobody who has followed the history of the Local Government Act and the Welsh Education Act will for one moment deny that both have been admirably administered by the Principality. But those Acts have come from the Imperial Parliament, and they have not depended on any local or central board. Wales has got all she
  1194
  wants with regard to education and other questions, as the mover of the Resolution pointed out, without the intervention of any central board or local governing body such as that which is contemplated by the Resolution. What other argument has been advanced in favour of this proposal? The only-other argument is that advanced by the hon. Member for Swansea, that Wales is a distinct nationality with a separate language of her own. Surely that language can be talked on County Councils as it is talked on Boards of Guardians and Town Councils, and in the selection of inspectors and other officers who are called upon to deal with these local authorities, I am happy to think it is the invariable rule to appoint men who can speak that language; and therefore there is nothing in the language argument to justify the creation of this central body.
  The hon. Member for Radnorshire anticipated the argument that Lancashire and Yorkshire would be equally justified in demanding a separate central body. I am bound to say that if you look at the rateable value of Lancashire and Yorkshire, the population, and the local needs, they would be quite as much entitled to a local governing body as Wales would be. The hon. Gentleman said that we might wait until they asked for it. But surely Wales should be able to show some difficulty under which she labours now, something which prevents the development of her prosperity, something which puts her in a totally different position from that occupied by the rest of the country, before she asks this peculiar and separate treatment. The hon. Member attacked me for what I did when I was at the Board of Agriculture, and he produced very curious evidence in support of his attack. He said the people of West Glamorganshire suffered from the action I took. But what did the people of the rest of Wales think of I the action I took in that case? The majority of the Welsh counties supported me heartily in what I did. Why? Because in their opinion, and judging from their experience, my action was beneficial to their industry and trade. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is, that because one section

  1195
  objected to what I did at that time, they should be given a central body to do in a different way that which the majority approved of.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: The application was renewed after the right hon. Gentleman left the Board of Agriculture, and we have received no evidence at all to show that Wales objects to the importation of cattle.
  MR. WALTER LONG: What I said was, that the people of West Glamorganshire took a different view from other people in Wales.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: What other people?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware of the fact that the majority of the farmers were grazing farmers. It is undoubtedly a fact that the majority of Welsh farmers produce store cattle. It is a valuable industry in Wales, and they did not view with disapproval my action at that time, which had for its object the protection of the flocks and herds of this country. Those who have followed this question know that the same argument was applied in the case of Scotland. There was a small section in Scotland who disapproved of that legislation, but the majority of the people approved of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Oh, yes. I can only judge by the votes in this House, and it was approved, not only on this side, but on the other side also. That is a very thin argument by which to support the proposition before the House to-night—that you should have a local governing body in Wales because the Minister of Agriculture has interfered with the
  1196
  importation of cattle from abroad. What is there advanced to-night to justify us in believing that Wales requires some special local government facilities which are not equally required by the rest of the United Kingdom? What is there to show us that Wales is at present hampered, or that her progress is hindered by the system which is good enough for the rest of the country? Reform may be necessary in regard to Private Bill legislation, but we believe that what may be done for Wales in that respect should also be done for England. We do not, and cannot, admit that Wales has made out any case that would justify separate treatment either in regard to self-government or any of the other matters that have been referred to in the debate.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no arguments had been adduced by his hon. friends who supported the proposals before the House to prove that there was any necessity for any extension of local self-government in Wales; but the speeches of all his friends had embraced a great number of cases in which such necessity had been put forward from time to time by the Welsh people, and had been rejected by the Imperial Government. It was urged as a reason for refusing these moderate demands that the Imperial Parliament had no time to deal with them. But nothing stronger could be said in favour of the Resolution before the House than that. Even the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had shown how completely the Imperial Parliament had broken down as a legislative machine. Here was a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman believed in and which had the unanimous support of Members on both sides of the House, with the ex-

  1197
  ception of one, but why was it not carried? Because the potent voice of his hon. friend the Member for Mid Lanark was raised against it, and the Imperial Parliament quailed before the hon. Gentleman. There was legislation perfectly practical, which the Government themselves deemed to be absolutely necessary, and which had been asked for by the Welsh people no end of times, and which was yet denied them. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what injury or damage could be traced as a result of the failure of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for Wales. He did not know of any greater injury which could be done to any community than the failure of those in charge of the law to make the law in sympathy with the views of the population in particular parts of the country. It was an injury to the law and a damage to the community itself.
  The right hon. Gentleman had said, "Look at the Bills you have had dealing especially with Wales." Yes, but these were Bills which the Welsh people were forced to take because the Imperial Parliament had no time to consider the matter thoroughly. What was still more important was, that a good deal of the special legislation given to Wales was experimental. Take, for instance, temperance legislation. They had an Act of Parliament which dealt with the question of Sunday drinking, but it was rushed through the House because there was no time to deal exhaustively with the details, and the Welsh Members agreed to accept it for what it was worth. In the course of its working, defects in its construction were shown by a good many things that had happened, and a Commission was appointed in 1896 to inquire into the
  1198
  whole matter. That Commission had made a good many recommendations, because they felt that the Act could not be complete unless amended in the direction of their recommendations. But there had not been time to discuss these recommendations in this House, or to introduce any measure founded on them. What, then, was the use of the right hon. Gentleman saying that Wales had got separate legislation when legislation on which all parties were agreed had been waiting for twelve or thirteen years, and yet could not be passed?
  The right hon. Gentleman asked: "Where was the injury?" His reply was that the injury could not be calculated. This was a matter which affected the sobriety of large communities, and if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read the report of his own Government's Commission, he would have seen that in many places in Wales the law was inoperative because it was not effective, and that the injury caused was beyond the assessment of any court. He could quote many cases of a similar kind. Take education, for instance. They had heard a good deal about it being a bad proposal to give separate legislation to Wales on that question, but the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway had made out the best case for Home Rule. The one argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool was that there was no evidence in support of separate legislation for education for Wales, and that as he lived in an adjoining county he was a better judge of what Wales wanted than the Members sent to Parliament by the Welsh constituencies themselves.

  1199
  Then the hon. Member for Plymouth talked very glibly of Wales, of its manners and language, and said he knew exactly what the Welsh people wanted, and could tell them what would benefit them much better than they who had lived all their lives in Wales. The hon. Gentleman really knew very little about Wales, but talked with all the assurance which generally accompanied a lack of knowledge. The hon. Member said that the proposal in the Resolution before the House was impracticable. Did he know that the Welsh Members were in this matter simply the humble followers of the Colonial Secretary, the only undamaged Member of the Government that was left? The right hon. Gentleman was undamaged because he had been away. If he had remained at home his merits also would have disappeared.
  *MR. DUKE*MR. DUKE said he did not think the right lion. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies had ever proposed to set up a Welsh Parliament to deal with such national questions as the Church and the land.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE said that the Colonial Secretary had not called it a parliament, but a local assembly; the Welsh Members called it local self-government, and he did not know that these phrases differed very much in meaning. In fact, parliament was not a Welsh word at all. They used the word "Cyngor," and the hon. and learned Member who presumed to be able to govern Wales could not tell the meaning of that word.
  *MR. DUKE*MR. DUKE said that the point between them was not what was the name for a Welsh Assembly, but what its functions were to be; whether it was to legislate on matters of Imperial or national policy. He maintained that the right hon. the Colonial Secretary had not proposed any such assembly.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Nor did the Welsh Members; and now that they and the hon. and learned Member understood each other, perhaps the hon. and learned Member would vote for them. They did not propose to set up a Parliament to deal with Church reform or land reform. What the Colonial Secretary desired was to delegate to local assemblies, to local, national, or provincial assemblies such questions as Education, Public Works, Local Government, and Private Bill Legislation. If these matters were taken from the Imperial Parliament, said the Colonial Secretary, it would relieve the Imperial Parliament of an immense amount of labour. For his own part he and he believed the vast majority of the Welsh Members, would accept every syllable of the Colonial Secretary's declaration. Would the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth and his friends do that? It was all very well for the hon. and learned Member to get up and talk as he did, but they were really getting so accustomed to attack and flout their leaders that, he was sorry to say, the contagion had extended even to Plymouth. All that he proposed was that this great policy which had been laid down by the Colonial Secretary, the saviour of this Government, should be applied to Wales now. It was, perhaps, a little belated, because the letter in which the Colonial Secretary propounded that policy was

  1201
  dated a good time ago. But then the right hon. Gentleman had since been travelling in South Africa.
  This was purely a practical proposal. There was no notion of separation in Wales. He had never heard from any platform in Wales a single suggestion from a single Welsh orator, or even from an Englishman in Wales, that they desired separation, or anything in the nature of separation. Wales gave this country a dynasty once; Welshmen governed the destinies of this Empire, and it had never been governed well since. It was not an English Empire; it was a Welsh Empire; and no Welshman suggested that Wales should divest herself of her inheritance—of what she had really given to England. They did not want anything of the kind, and nobody would dream of exploiting any assembly of the character proposed except for the purpose of improving the condition of the Welsh people. The hon. and learned Member talked of the inheritance of Englishmen in Wales, but Englishmen in Wales were quite as keenly in favour of self-government as Welshmen. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not know even the elements of the case, although he must say that, as a rule, that was not his defect. At any rate they in Wales were as loyal and as law-abiding as any in the whole kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: NO.] He admitted that there might be certain exceptions, and at any rate the hon. and learned Member should have mastered the subject of their case in Wales. The Welsh Members were too few in number to compel the concession of their demands, but they put forward claims which eventually were recognised. Even the Prime Minister had had to declare that
  1202
  a good deal which they had urged in regard to education was true.
  It was the habit of the Government to give them a Tuesday afternoon to discuss-their complaints, but they had never the remotest chance of getting their affairs attended to South Africa had consumed three or four years of the time of the Imperial Parliament; the chance of Ireland came this year and. would probably occupy a good deal more than this year; while the claims of Scotland would come next to be considered, and after that it might be the West Coast of Africa, or the Mad Mullah. They never could tell what the Colonial. Secretary would bring forth. The-result, however, was as he had said—that Wales had no chance of having her case attended to. Take last year. What, happened was that an Education Bill was introduced to deal with the whole education in England and Wales, but it was clearly inapplicable to Wales. More than half the people of Wales were against it, and why should it have been forced, upon them? Suppose the Prime Minister had said that that was a matter for the Welsh people to deal with, seeing that, they managed secondary and higher education so admirably, he would have saved much worry to himself, and a great deal of the time of the House of Commons.
  Last year a Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Radnorshire, which was supported practically by all the Welsh County Councils, and although, it had been sent round to every town in. Wales there was no protest against it except from his hon. friend the Member for Newton, who protested against every proposal. Under these circumstances why on earth should not the right hon. Gentleman give them a chance of dealing

  1203
  with matters purely Welsh? It was perfectly clear that the Imperial Parliament could not go on as it was at the present moment. Business men on both sides of the House recognised that fact. They had too much to do Even on the Education Bill the Prime Minister did not complain that there was obstruction, and in that he thought the right hon. Gentleman was right. He had never seen less obstruction in the sense of Amendments being moved that were not substantial; but on any Bill a sufficient number of Amendments could be moved and relevant speeches made to take up the whole of the session. Did not that prove that the Imperial Parliament could not do more than lay down general principles and give directions, leaving it to the local authorities to carry them out. Take the School Boards at the present moment, for instance. They had really power to establish a religion by bye-laws. He would suggest that representatives from for two or three months in the year with the Welsh Members of Parliament to frame proposals with regard to local matters to be laid before the Imperial
  Parliament, which could either throw them out, or accept them.
  The English people would never consent to the cutting up of the Imperial Parliament, or to the mutilation of the Imperial Parliament. He was not now speaking of Home Rule, which appeared to be on a different footing; but he thought that what he had said would apply to Scotland as well as to Wales. No one wanted to cut the Imperial Parliament up; all that was wanted was some scheme that would relieve the Imperial Parliament of purely local and provincial affairs, reserving to the Imperial Parliament full powers to modify or reject any proposals which might be injurious to any interest or dangerous to sound government. Let the representatives of the Welsh County Councils and the representatives of Wales in the Imperial Parliament meet for a certain number of months every year; that would relieve the Imperial Parliament; and would conduce to the solidarity and strength of the Empire, because it would produce grater contentment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 74 Noes, 164. (Division List No. 37.)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Ure, Alexander

  Woodhouse, Sir JT (Hudd'rsf'd

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mr. William Jones and

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Mr. Brynmor Jones.

  AYES

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Lundon, W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Buyley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Bell. Richard

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Black, Alexander William

  Gilhooly, James

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Brigg, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Burns, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Caldwell, James

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John [Armagh, S.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Reddy, M.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harrington, Timothy

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crean, Eugene

  Huyne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Riekett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rigg, Richard

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Delany, William

  Leng, Sir John

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Duffy, William J.

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Flower, Ernest

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Forster, Henry William

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R, Wellesley

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Percy, Earl

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Powell, Sir Franc's Sharp

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gordon, Hn. J. H. (Elgin & Nrn

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon. Sir H.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Purvis, Robert

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Randies. John S.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Camb

  Rankin, Sir James

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Benwick, George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Bond, Edward

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Brassey, Albert

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

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

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hoult, Joseph

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Bull, William James

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faver'hm

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormshirk)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Keswick, William

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Knowles, Lees

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Callings. Right Hon. Jesse

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Lawson, John Grant

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Valentia, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Webb, Col. William George

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

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

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Doughty, George

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Widehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Murray, Rt Hn. A Graham(Bute

  Mr. George Ormsby-Gore

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  and Mr. Stock.

  SCHOOL BOARD ELECTORATE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid this was a Bill to extend the School
  1206
  Board franchise in Scotland. At present, there was a curious anomaly, under which hundreds of electors who could vote for a Member of Parliament or a County Councillor, could not vote at a School Board election. Obviously a School Board election was far more interesting to parents than even a County Council election; and all the

  1207
  Bill said was that all persons entitled to vote at a County Council election should be entitled to vote at a School Board election. If the voter were qualified to vote at a County Council election surely the ought to be qualified to vote at a School Board election. It was to remove that anomaly that the Bill was brought in, and he hoped the House would pass the Second Reading. He begged to move.
  SIR FREDRICK BANBURYsaid he was surprised that the hon. Member should have moved the Second Reading of the Bill at such a late hour, because the lion. Member himself shad always laid t down as one of the first principles to be observed in this House that no Bill should be taken at ten minutes to midnight; and that all Bills required proper consideration. He had heard the hon. Member on more occasions than one move to report Progress because a Bill could not be considered in the time that remained. The ground on which, as far as he could gather, the hon. Member moved the second reading was that people in Scotland were more interested in School Board elections than in elections for Parliament or the County Councils. He, however, failed to see why electors in Scotland should have a greater interest in School Board elections than in Parliamentary elections. Did the hon. Member contend that a School Board election was more important than a Parliamentary election?
  MR. CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL said that the electors ought to be qualified to vote at both elections.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY SIR FREDERICK BANBURY said that at the present moment they were
  1208
  not qualified by law to vote at School Board elections; and the hon. Member thought they should, because School Board elections were more important than Parliamentary elections. He ventured to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. An hon. Member had just given interesting figures which showed that 87 per cent, of the electors voted at Parliamentary elections, and only 30 per cent, at School Board elections. That showed that the electors in Scotland did not agree with the hon. Gentleman that School Board elections were more important than Parliamentary elections. It seemed to him that because a certain number of persons were qualified to vote at County Council elections that was no reason why they should be qualified to vote at School Board elections. A man who was only rated at £4 would not contribute very much to the expenditure of the School Board; and the old principle that taxation and representation should go together should be applied. Human nature being such as it was, a man who contributed only a little, would not be anxious that the expenditure should be kept down.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SATURDAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee—
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.