Sitting of 17 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing

  1377
  Order 63 has been complied with, viz.:— Middlesborough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Corbridge Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats) Bill; Southwestern and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  South Shields Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP E).
  Sir ALEXANDER H. BROWNreported from the Committee on Group E of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past One of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 4).
  Mr. RUSSELL REAreported from the Committee on Group No. 4 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the completion of the authorised pier and works of the Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Company; and for other purposes." [Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords.]
  Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.

  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Wiveliscombe; Llandudno Junction; Croydon; Shipley (two); Paddington; Windhill; Torquay; Lewes;
  1378
  Saltaire; Leamington; Camden Town; Bristol; Bath; Madeley; Ramsbottom; and Heywood (three); to lie upon the Table.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Liverpool and Bootle, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Bethnal Green; Aston Newtown; Sheffield (two); Aston Cross; Bristol; Kingswood; and Windsor; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE).
  Petition from Crewe, for withdrawal; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871 (YORKSHIRE COLLEGE, LEEDS).
  Copy presented, of Application received from the Yorkshire College, Leeds, for the Establishment of a University in Leeds, which was referred by His Majesty in Council for the Consideration and Report of a Committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council; together with a copy of the draft of the Charter applied for [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LEAD POISONING IN EARTHENWARE AND CHINA WORKS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 11th March; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 103.]
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 603 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Public Records (Admiralty).—Copy of Eleventh Schedule containing a list and Particulars of Classes of Documents which have been removed from the Office of the

  1379
  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].
  2. Public Records (Court of Exchequer).—Copy of Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents which formerly were or ought to have been in the Office of First Fruits and Tenths in the late Court of Exchequer, and which are now in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  6.

  7.

  8.

  Country.

  Number of gallons at proof strength of tested spirits cleared for Home consumption year ended 30th day of September, 1903

  Number of liquid gallons of untested spirits cleared for Home consumption year ended 30th day of September, 1903

  Net amount already paid over, or to be paid over, to local authorities on account of Spirit Duties year ended 30th day of September, 1903

  Number of barrels of beer brewed year ended 30th day of September, 1903

  Number of barrels exported, destroyed, etc., on which the Duty has been remitted.

  Net number of barrels liable for Local Taxation Account.

  Net amount paid over, or to be paid over, to local authorities on account of Beer Duty year ended 30th day of September, 1903.

  Total amount paid over, or to be paid over, to local authorities on account of Duty on spirits and beer year ended 30th day of September, 1903.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  England

  …

  …

  Ireland

  …

  …

  Scotland

  …

  …

  —(Mr. Nannetti.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Reappointment of Select Committee on Municipal Trading.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to again appoint a Joint Select Committee on Municipal Trading this session in order to complete the work of the Committees of 1900 and 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I shall be very glad to see the reappointment

  CHANNEL ISLANDS (CROWN RIGHTS).
  Return ordered, "of Revenues drawn from the Crown Rights in the Channel Islands in each year during the past five years, distinguishing for each Island separately the Amounts received from Tithes, from Fines on Transfer of Property, from Seigneurial Dues, and from other sources; and stating the Cost of Collection, the several Payments made for Local Purposes, and the Net Amount paid into the Exchequer (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 351, of Session 1899)."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT.
  Return ordered, "in the following form:—
  of this Committee; but the necessary steps depend upon the state of business in the House.

  Amendment of the Pharmacy Act.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to introduce this session a Bill to amend the Pharmacy Act; and, if not, whether the Government will afford facilities for the Second Reading of the Pharmacy Bill privately introduced this session.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) A Bill on this subject will be introduced in another place after Easter.

  Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport Education Schemes.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the fact that sanction has been given to the scheme of the London County Council, he will now sanction the schemes proposed under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902 by the municipalities of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) No, Sir. The local authorities of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport desire to confine the membership of their Education Committees (except as regard two women in each case) strictly to their respective councils, and the Board of Education have raised no objection to this arrangement. The Board have, however, asked the councils to retain the powers of co-opting two or three persons in case at some future time they should be of opinion that without such co-option they would be unable to provide from their own body persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the needs of the schools in their areas. It is obvious that the conditions of London are essentially different from those of the municipalities in question.

  Pay of Post Office Adult Night Messengers in Scotland.
  MR. BLACK: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the rate of pay allowed to adult night messengers in Scotland, especially in view of the hours in which their duties are performed; and, if so, whether he will take steps to increase their pay, and with a view to their further encouragement allow them good conduct stripes for each five years' approved service.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) My attention has not been called specially to the rate of pay allowed to adult night telegraph messengers in Scotland; but I find, from Returns which were taken in July last, that the pay is quite as high as that given in other parts of the United Kingdom, and I see no reason, therefore, for increasing it. Good conduct stripes are not given to telegraph messengers, even if they be adults, and I am not prepared to make any exception to this rule.

  Irish Postal Servants and Volunteer Service.
  DR. RUTHERFOORD HARRIS: To ask the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the reply sent to a telegraphist in the Post Office service in Ireland, describing that official as an agitator because he had suggested an improvement in the conditions of service of himself and others in connection with the Volunteer service; and, if so, will ho say whether his sanction was given to the terms of that reply; and will he cause inquiries to be made to ascertain whether the suggestions made by this telegraphist can be adopted in the interests of recruiting.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member, but if he will furnish me with particulars I will have inquiry made into the matter.

  Position of British East African Protectorates.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before the Votes for Uganda, British East Africa, and Somaliland are taken, he will present to the House a statement of the position of the four African Protectorates, similar to that in [Cd. 1635], Africa, No. 9, 1903, brought up to the latest possible date.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) A statement of the position of the four African Protectorates, in continuation of Africa, No. 9, 1903, will be presented in due course, but the final accounts of receipts and expenditure for the past financial year will not be available before July.

  British Officers on the Staff of the Inspector-General of Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the names of the British officers who have been selected for duty on the staff of General di Giorgis, Inspector-General of the Macedonian Gendarmerie, and when it is expected that they will join their French and Italian colleagues at Salonica, Monastir, and Florina.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The names cannot be stated until the Inspector-General has decided the exact number

  1383
  that will be required. It is hoped that this may be done within a few days when the scheme has been finally settled, and the General is ready to start from Constantinople.

  Overcrowding on the North London Railway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the third-class carriages of trains on the North London Railway are frequently so overcrowded that passengers are compelled to stand; and will he communicate with the railway company on the subject with a view to the provision of more accommodation on this line.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have communicated with the railway company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and in reply they say that the instructions to their staff are to prevent overcrowding, but that it is impossible at all times to prevent passengers forcing their way into full compartments. It is added that it is only in certain of the morning and evening trains that crowding occurs.

  Lighthouses and Lightships and Wireless Telegraphy.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to diminishing the danger of life at sea, he is taking measures for the connection of all the lighthouses and lightships on the British and Irish coasts by wireless telegraphy.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Arrangements are being made by the Trinity House for the fitting up of wireless telegraphic apparatus on certain of their lightships on the east coast by way of experiment. The matter is being pushed forward, and an agreement for the use of patent rights has been drawn up, and is now being considered by the various Departments interested. Permission has been granted to Lloyds to establish a wireless telegraphic station at the Fastnet. I am unable to say at present to what extent the system will be applied to other light stations, many of which are already connected by cable with the shore.

  Outbreak of Anthrax at Levenshulme.
  MR. CRIPPS: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been directed to the circumstances attending a recent outbreak of anthrax at Levenshulme, which resulted in the death of the owner of the affected animal, and the serious illness of the butcher by whom it was: dressed; and what steps, if any, have been, or can be, taken to prevent any such occurrence in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The lamentable circumstances to which my hon. friend refers were brought under our notice, and a special inquiry was at once instituted with respect to them. The serious results, not only to animal but to human life which attend the slaughter in the ordinary way, and the dressing of the carcases of animals infected with anthrax, are well known to us, and we have distributed upwards of 360,000 copies of a leaflet calling attention to the danger. We have also addressed circular letters on the subject to the various local authorities. We propose now to issue a further special notice to stockowners cautioning them against the dressing of the carcases of animals which have died suddenly until the cause of death has been ascertained. This notice will be issued to local authorities for posting on walls, and for direct distribution to farmers and others concerned.

  Local Authorities Loans—Terms of Repayment.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that local authorities are now authorised to borrow money for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, to be repaid during a period of eighty years, but that the Public Works Loan Commissioners are not able to lend money for such purposes unless it be repaid within fifty years, he will introduce legislation to remedy this inconsistency.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am not prepared to propose legislation for extending the maximum period of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

  Spread of Plague in Central India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that there were 3,721 deaths from plague in Central India last January as compared with 92 in January, 1903, will he state what steps are being taken to check the spread of the disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) All possible care is taken to prevent the spread of plague throughout India. Speaking generally, the State Medical Officers of the Native States forming the Central India Agency apply in the territories of their respective States the preventive and remedial measures which are employed in British India. These comprise (1) the provision of hospitals and medical aid for the sufferers; (2) disenfection of infected houses; (3) evacuation of infected quarters in towns and villages; (4) refuge camps for the uninfected; (5) inspection posts and observation huts at railway stations and on main routes; (6) inoculation where desired. The Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 is in force in the Indore Residency Bazaars, and in the Cantonments of Mhow, Nee much, and Nowgong, and sanitary rules made under it are enforced in those localities.

  University Examinations at Allahabad—Danger of Plague.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the outbreak of plague at Allahabad, will arrangements be made for the approaching University Examinations to be held elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I have no doubt that the Government of the United Provinces will take all possible measures to secure the safety of the candidates appearing at the examinations of the Allahabad University.

  Pupils in Irish Model Schools.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the number of pupils receiving instruction in the Irish model schools in 1903–4, and the amount spent on these schools out of public funds during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not at present practicable to give this
  1386
  information for the period stated. During the calendar year 1903, there were 6,584 pupils in average attendance at the model schools. The net cost to the Vote for Public Education of the model schools for the same year was £29,463. This includes the cost of matrons, doctors, servants, allowances for rent, and cost of pupil teachers, but does not include the cost of maintenance of the buildings by the Board of Works.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Recommendations of Viceregal Report.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho intends to introduce legislation this session to give effect to the remainder of the recommendations contained in the Viceregal Report in connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Such of the recommendations as do not involve legislation have been given effect to. I cannot, at present, undertake to fix a date for the introduction of the latter.

  Grants for Erection and Enlargement of Irish Technical Schools.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any restriction has been imposed by Parliament on the Irish Department of Agriculture against giving grants for building purposes; and, if not, whether he can state that grants for the erection or enlargement of technical schools will be made upon existing conditions, viz., that one-half of the cost shall be contributed out of local rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No such restrictions have been imposed. In reply to the latter part of the Question, the Department has no funds available for making grants for the purposes mentioned.

  Salaries of Irish National Teachers.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that first class teachers who were in receipt of full class salary at the time of grading as well as during the three previous years (the average incomes of which were taken as the basis for fixing the present salaries),

  1387
  and whose schools have now and had during those years the necessary average attendance for first division of first grade, have been placed in the second division of first grade simply because their consolidated incomes (exclusive of capitation grant) fell between the maximum income of the second division of first grade and the minimum income of the first division of first grade, he will say whether teachers so placed, although having the same satisfactory reports as those teachers who at time of grading were in receipt of the prescribed income for the first division of first grade, must now obtain for three consecutive years the report noted excellent before they can be promoted to the first division of first grade or before they can receive such an increase of salary as will bring their income to the prescribed minimum of that grade; and whether teachers placed, by the accident of salary, in the first division of first grade can qualify for increments of salary by obtaining reports lower than excellent.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Commissioners that on the introduction of the present system of consolidated payments of teachers' salaries they allowed to each teacher his average income from State sources for the three years ended 31st March, 1900; or, if this arrangement operated inequitably, such a sum as in the judgment of the Commissioners was warranted by the circumstances of the particular case. The grade in which each teacher was then recognised was determined by the amount of his average income. The promotion of a teacher to a higher grade than that in which he was placed in view of his income was subject to the requirements of Rule 195 (g), (h), (i), (j), of the Commissioners' Code. This rule provides that promotion from a lower to a higher grade and from the second to the first section of the highest grade depends on (1) training; (2) position in school; (3) ability and general attainments; (4) good service; (5) seniority; (6) average attendance. I Excellent or very good reports in respect of a school must have been received from the inspectors for three years subsequently to the 1st April, 1900, in order to warrant the promotion of a teacher from second division of first grade to first section of that grade, and he must have been recommended for such promotion by the senior Inspector of his circuit. Increments
  1388
  of salary within the limits of the scale of salaries provided for each grade are awarded on satisfactory evidence of "good service" within the triennial period in respect of which the increment is granted; but the Commissioners do not require so high a standard of excellence to warrant the award of an increment of continued good service salary as they do to merit the selection of a teacher for grade promotion.

  Licensing Prosecutions—Right of Appeal.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Mrs. Hays at Portumna, county Galway, on 1st February, for a breach of the licensing law and to the small fine inflicted, which precluded the possibility of an appeal; and, if so, whether he will introduce legislation which will provide for a right of appeal in such cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Legislation is not necessary. It was open to the defendant to appeal against the conviction under Section 52 of the Licensing Act, 1872.

  Batson Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what was the nature of the order which Mr. Justice Ross made on the 9th inst., in the matter of the Batson Estate in the county of Galway; and whether the Estates Commissioners will inquire into the circumstances of the case with a view to the purchase of the estate by them for the purpose of resale to the tenants, in view of the fact that they alone are prepared to make an offer for the purchase of the whole estate, and that the offer which they are prepared to make comprises an offer of £1,000 more for the grazing land than that which has been made by the mother of the owner who proposes to purchase the grazing land only.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I stated on Monday last† that as a condition of the agreement entered into with the lessee of the grazing land to which reference is specially made, she undertook
  † See page 986.

  1389
  to purchase the same. This agreement was made a year before the passing of the Act of 1903, and the Land Judge has decided that it cannot under the circum-stances be disturbed. In respect of the other grazing lands on the estate, the Court directed the Receiver to prepare a scheme under which they will be distributed among the tenants in such a manner as to provide them all with substantial holdings.

  Sale of Irish Estates in the Land Judge's Court.
  MR. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what course do the Estate Commission propose to adopt in cases where estates are for sale in the Land Judge's Court, where estates consisting partly of small uneconomic holding and partly of considerable grazing tracts, and where it is intimated to them that the tenants of tenanted portion are willing to buy the untenanted portion.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not possible to give a general answer to this Question. Each estate and each individual holding must be dealt with on its own merits, having due regard to the entire circumstances.

  Repayment of Advances made to Gold Coast Colony.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Gold Coast Colony has repaid any part of the advances made to it in 1898–9 of £29,441 for telegraph construction, and in 1900–1901 of £400,000 for the Ashanti war, or any part of £97,768 still due on account of advances made for the Ashanti War in 1895–6, and when he expects that any such repayments will be made; whether he will present to the House a statement of the revenue and expenditure and trade of the Gold Coast since 1895–6, and of Lagos und North and South Nigeria since Nigeria was taken over from the Royal Niger Company, of the same kind as that relating to the Protectorates on the East Coast of Africa (Cd. 1635, Africa, No. 9, 1903), before the Votes for the Gold Coast and North Nigeria are taken.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The Gold Coast has not yet repaid any
  1390
  part of the advances referred to, and it is not expected that any such repayments will be made until the state of the money market makes it possible to issue the further Railway Loan, and so set free the balances which have been applied to railway construction pending the issue of the loan. A statement of the revenue and expenditure and the trade of the Gold Coast and of Lagos and Northern and Southern Nigeria will be presented as desired.

  Advances to Gold Coast, Lagos, and Niger Coast Protectorates.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what advances have been made or sanctioned to the Gold Coast, Lagos, and Niger Coast Protectorate, for the construction of railways and harbours under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899; at what rate of interest; and will the whole amounts sanctioned by that Act be required by these colonies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) No advance has been made or sanctioned, or is now likely to be made, to the Gold Coast or to the Niger Coast Protectorate, under the Colonial Loans Act, 1899. To Lagos the whole amount sanctioned by the Act has been advanced, viz.: £792,400, at 3¼ per cent.

  Nigeria Currency—Government Premium.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that British trade, both in Northern and Southern Nigeria, is hampered by a premium of 1 per cent, levied by the Government on all silver coin imported into these colonies; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Mint deliver silver coin free into Gambia, Sierra Leone, Gold Coast, and Lagos, it will grant the same facilities to Nigeria; and, if not, for what reasons.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) In the Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, and Lagos, a bank is established which is responsible for the disposal of redundant silver coin and which is permitted, in view of that responsibility, to import silver coin from the Mint, free of freight and other charges, and to charge

  1391
  a premium up to the amount of 1 per cent, on the nominal value of silver coin which it supplies to its customers. In Nigeria there is at present no such bank, and the responsibility for the disposal of redundant silver coin rests on the local Government, which charges the premium of 1 per cent, on the nominal value of silver coin obtained from the Mint for importation into Nigeria in order to safeguard itself against the expense of repatriating redundant coin. In these circumstances I am unable to admit that British trade is hampered by the charge in question or to hold out any expectation that the charge will be remitted.

  Archbishopric of Cyprus.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the result of the intervention of the High Commissioner of Cyprus in the dispute between the rival candidates for the Archbishopric of that Island; and whether His Majesty's letters patent have been, or will be, issued to the Bishop nominated by the Synod for the Metropolitan See.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am not yet in a position to state whether the High Commissioner's offer of his good offices in the dispute has resulted in any improvement in the prospect of an early settlement; but I will inquire. There will be no delay in taking such action as may be necessary on the part of His Majesty's Government for the confirmation of the new Archbishop when duly elected.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Supply and Transport Service.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the services of supply and transport under the control of the third Military Member of Council are to be directed as two separate and distinct departments, neither of which is to be directed by an officer of the Army Service Corps.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AVAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The organisation of these departments is not complete and I am therefore
  1392
  unable at the present time to give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

  Royal Engineers.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to publish the Report of Lord Esher's Committee of March, 1902, upon the sub division of work in the Royal Engineers.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As the House has been informed on a previous occasion, this inquiry was departmental, and it was not decided to publish the Report. I am not aware of any reason at the present time of departing from this decision.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Has the recommendation of the Report been carried out?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must ask for notice.

  Ballincollig Powder Mills.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Royal Gunpowder Mills, Ballincollig, which were purchased some years ago by an English company, Curtis and Harvey, were closed last year and all work suspended and the work transferred to England; can he state if it is the intention of the present owners to reopen the mills; and, if not, would the War Office authorities consider the advisability of opening up negotiations with Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, with a view of buying out their interest, and working the mills under Government supervision and direction.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Nothing is known at the War Office of the purchase mentioned or of the intention of the alleged owners. It is not proposed that the War Department should purchase these mills.

  Mediterranean Fleet.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to reduce the period of a

  1393
  three years commission for ships and men on the Mediterranean station.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The answer is in the negative.

  Unemployed Kaffirs.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of Kaffirs at present in what are termed the unemployed shelters in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony; and whether he can give the number of the occupants of these unemployed shelters on the first of each month for the last six months.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): No, Sir. I have not the information, but will make inquiry on the subject.

  Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the sanction of His Majesty's Government must first be obtained before the issuing of the Proclamation by the Governor legalising the importation of Chinese indentured labour into the Transvaal; and, if so, for how long a period it is proposed to withhold such sanction.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The sanction of His Majesty's Government is not constitutionally or legally necessary. I cannot at present say when the Governor will be in a position to issue the Proclamation in question.
  MAJOR SEELY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in point of fact the sanction of the Government will be given before this Proclamation is issued?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I have said, Sir, it is not necessary.
  MAJOR SEELY: Am I to understand that in point of fact the Proclamation will be issued without further reference to His Majesty's Government,
  1394
  or is the House to understand that the Proclamation may be issued by the Governor without reference to this country or to the Government?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not bound to answer. The Question can be put down if the answer to it is not included in the answer already given.
  MAJOR SEELY: Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to answer?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I do not refuse to answer, but I ask that proper notice should be given of the Question, as I have already had experience of the difficulty of answering off-hand hypothetical Questions.
  MAJOR SEELY: I purpose, and deem it important, to put down this Question.

  White Labour in Gold Mines.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a small Commission to obtain information as to the use of white labour in gold mines elsewhere than in the Transvaal; and, if not, if he will take steps to obtain this information by some other means.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I am not prepared to appoint such a Commission nor to take other steps to obtain this information, which I have reason to believe will not be relevant to the problem under consideration in the Transvaal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did Lord Milner tell you that?

  Johannesburg Street Regulations against Coloured Persons.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commissioner of Police in Johannesburg has issued a notice prohibiting coloured persons from using the sidewalks; whether this prohibition applies to British Indians in the Transvaal; and whether the regulation; has been sanctioned by Lord Milner.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I have no information as to any such recent notice. By the

  1395
  law of the Transvaal no coloured persons are allowed to walk on the sidepaths in the towns; but I understand from Lord Milner that the Transvaal police are under instructions not to interfere with respectably dressed and properly conducted Asiatics making use of sidepaths.
  MR. BUCHANANasked if this applied to British Indian subjects.
  *MR. LYTTELTONwas understood to answer, "Yes."
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: These are sons of the Empire.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Equal rights for all races.

  Jameson Raid Indemnity.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state who has advised that no claim can be made to the indemnity for the Jameson Raid which the Chartered Company of British South Africa undertook to pay to the late South African Republic, now represented by His Majesty's Government.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: His Majesty's Government received their advice from the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. PIRIE: Was the decision based on the supposed non-liability of the Chartered Company, or on the basis of this country taking over the assets of the late South African Republic?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: That Question should be put to the Attorney-General.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of producing this valuable opinion?
  MR. SOARES: Are there any Papers that can be laid?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.

  Recruitment of Chinese Labour for the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the
  1396
  Treasury whether he can state approximately when the Ordinance for the introduction of indentured Chinese labour into the Transvaal will be put into actual operation; and whether the recruitment of coolies in China for service under the Ordinance can be stopped until the Ordinance is in actual operation.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: An approximate date cannot at present be given. His Majesty's Government cannot interfere with preliminary steps taken in China to engage labourers; but binding indentures of service cannot be made until the necessary conditions, precedent to the coming into operation of the Ordinance, have been fulfilled.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Cannot the recruitment be stopped until the Ordinance is in actual operation?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: We cannot interfere with the preliminary steps taken in China.

  Lagos Railway—Coal Supplies.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the price charged for coal supplied to the Lagos Railway in 1903 by the Crown Agents; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the price and quality of this coal have been adversely criticised in the Lagos Government Railway Report, he will consider the advisability of instructing the Crown Agents to adopt a system of open tender by advertisement for the supply and transport of all coal required by Crown Colonies and Protectorates.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: No coal was supplied for the Lagos Railway by the Crown Agents in 1903, but all the coal used was purchased locally.

  Transvaal Duties.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the terms of the agreement between the Portuguese East African Territory and the South African Colonies as to Customs duties; and also state if there is any

  1397
  difference in duties levied oh goods coming into the Transvaal by way of Delagoa Bay and by way of Cape Colony and Natal, and, if so, what is the nature of the difference.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member no doubt refers to the Agreement for a modus vivendi made between the High Commissioner for South Africa and the Governor-General for Mozambique on 28th December, 1901, by Article XI. of which it is provided that goods entering the Transvaal in transit from Lorenço Marques shall have equal treatment with and pay no higher duties than the same class of goods sent in transit from Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth, and Capetown. It preserves the provisions of the Treaty of 11th December, 1875, between Portugal and the South African Republic, and allows the importation free of duty into the Transvaal of any goods excepting spirits, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the Portuguese Province of Mozambique.

  Colonial Opinion on Preferential Duties.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state whether any resolutions from any Colonial Board of Trade, Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers' Association, or Agricultural Society, or from any Colonial Legislative Assembly, against preferential duties has been received at the Colonial Office; also whether any resolutions from Colonial Legislatures in favour of preferential relations between the Colonies and England were received by the Government prior to 1903, if so, from what country, who was the Colonial Minister at the time, and what reply was made by him to such resolution or resolutions; also, will he state whether any resolution or resolutions in favour of preferential relations have been passed by any Canadian Legislature or Legislatures during the years 1903 and 1904.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: So far as can be traced in the books of the Colonial Office no resolution against preferential duties has been received in recent years, nor any resolution of a Colonial Legislature
  1398
  in favour of preferential relations, prior to 1903. If such resolutions have been passed by any Colonial or Provincial Legislature, they do not appear to have been communicated to His Majesty's Government.

  Venezuelan Tariffs.
  MR. SOARES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of Venezuela now imposes a 30 per cent. differential surtax on importations from the West Indian Colonies; into Venezuela contrary to the provisions; contained in Article IV. of the Treaty of 1825; whether frequent representations have been made by the Trinidad Chamber of Commerce to the Colonial Office on the matter; and whether, if the negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Venezuela should be abortive, His Majesty's Government are prepared to retaliate against the Govern of Venezuela by the imposition of duties on importations from Venezuela into the United Kingdom.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative; as regards the third His Majesty's Government have not thought it necessary to consider the course which they would adopt in the event suggested.
  MR. SOARES: When do the Government propose to consider the question?
  *MR. LYTTELTON: When the event occurs.

  British Indians in Cape Colony.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Bombay Chamber of Commerce has protested against the Cape Colony Immigration Act of last year, on the ground that British Indians should have the same rights enjoyed by all other subjects of His Majesty of going to and residing in any part of the King's dominions entirely unrestricted by legislation, and, if so, will he state what action in response to this protest has

  1399
  been taken by the Government of India or by His Majesty's Ministers.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am aware of the protest from the Bombay Chamber of Commerce referred to in the Question. The Cape Colony Immigration Act was passed by the Legislature of a self-governing colony, and closely resembles legislation which is in force in other British colonies. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government did not consider it possible to take any action of the kind suggested in the Question.

  The Tibet Mission.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India has an order been sent to the Government of India directing hostilities to be undertaken in Tibet; and, if so, was the order absolute or contingent on events; what was the date of such order, if any, and when will a copy thereof be laid upon the Table of the House; has the consent of the Tibetan Government now been asked for to the entry of a Mission, with an armed escort and guns, into Tibetan territory.
  MR. BRODRICK: No order directing hostilities to be undertaken in Tibet has been sent to the Government of India, but Colonel Younghusband has been instructed to defend the Mission should it be attacked. Having regard to the persistent failure of the Tibetan Government to negotiate, His Majesty's Government did not make the advance of the Mission dependent on their consent.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then does my right hon. friend say that to send an armed expedition into that country is not a hostile act?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a debatable matter of opinion.

  General Sir Ian Hamilton.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why Sir Ian Hamilton, late Quartermaster-General in England, has been appointed representative of the Indian Army with
  1400
  the Japanese Army, seeing that he is not an Indian officer; and was the Indian Council, by whom he is paid, consulted with reference to his appointment.
  MR. BRODRICK: Sir Ian Hamilton, besides being an officer of great ability and distinction, has long experience in India, where he satisfactorily held several staff appointments. As he is already in Japan, his services were immediately available, and the Indian Government and the Council of India, who were consulted, agreed to the selection. Two officers of the Indian Army will join him.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Was the Indian Council consulted before he was sent? Why was not an Indian officer chosen?
  MR. BRODRICK: Both the Indian Government and the Indian Council were consulted, and they agreed to the arrangement.

  Scotch Herring Exports to Russia.
  *MR. MACONOCHIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that 60,000 barrels of Norwegian herrings were lately imported into Archangel duty free; and, if so, whether Scotch herrings will be entitled to similar favourable treatment under the most-favoured-nation clause of our commercial treaties with Russia.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): No, Sir; but the Vice-Consul at Archangel will be instructed to report on the matter.

  Jubaland
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the further Papers concerning Jubaland, promised by the Foreign Office last session, are yet ready; and when they will be published.
  EARL PERCY: I am not aware that any pledge was given, nor do I understand to what Papers the hon. Member refers.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The late Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the course of a debate, stated that Papers would be laid at the end of last session. I shall be happy to give the noble Lord the reference.
  EARL PERCY: Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate with me on the subject.

  Merchandise Marks Act.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the injury done to British trade in the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool and other bodies by the use of the words "Made in Germany" upon imported goods, in accordance with the regulations under the 16th Section of The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and in view of the Report of the Select Committee of 1897 that the object would be substantially gained and British trade enterprise improved by substituting for the specification of the country of origin the words "Made Abroad," he will direct the regulations to be amended in this sense.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am advised that I have no power to amend the regulation I in the sense desired, as statutory authority would be required to do so.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will my right hon. friend introduce a Bill for that purpose?
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think there is any need for me to introduce a Bill; the Board of Trade should do it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will facilities be given for a Bill introduced by the hon. Member himself in order to repeal the Act.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That rests with the Leader of the House.
  MR. LOUGH: Were these words not purposely inserted in the Merchandise Marks Act?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Not by me.

  Chancery Fund and Converted Annuities.
  MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state whether the final instalments of the Chancery Fund Annuities of £2,943,370 a year and of the Converted Annuities of £684,000 a year fall to be i paid in the financial year 1904–5 or in 1905–6; and whether it is proposed to follow the Budget precedent of 1899 in anticipating the falling in of these annuities I by a proportionate reduction of the Sinking Fund contribution for redemption of the National Debt.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancery Funds Annuity was readjusted last year and its amount is now £2,324,516. The final instalment is payable in July, 1906. The final instalment of the Converted Annuities is payable in February, 1906. I have no announcement to make at this stage as to financial arrangements for the future.

  Sugar Refineries—Cost of Supervision.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the cost of supervising sugar refineries in bond is borne by the owners of the refineries or by the State; if the former, what is the amount charged, and how is the money collected; and if the latter, what the estimated cost will be for the years ending the 31st March, 1904, and the 31st March, 1905.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of supervising sugar refineries is borne by the Crown, but refiners are required to bear the overtime expenses of officers who attend, at their request, to control deliveries of sugar, etc., either before 6 a.m. or after 6 p.m. The estimated cost of supervision for the period from the 1st September last (when the refineries were placed under bond) till the 31st instant is £9,000, and for the year ending 31st March, 1905, £16,020.

  Income-Tax Abatement.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is compulsory for companies and others, who deduct income-tax from payments made by them, to furnish in all cases the certificate of deduction which the Income-Tax Commissioners require to

  1403
  be produced by persons claiming abatements; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of making such certificates obligatory whenever the person from whose income the tax has been deducted desires to obtain such a certificate.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: There is no statutory obligation on companies or others to furnish certificates of deduction of income-tax; and if it were common to refuse such certificates, or to put taxpayers to expense in obtaining them, it would, I think, be necessary to impose such obligation by law. But the Board of Inland Revenue doubt whether in practice there is much need for legislation in that sense. Most companies issue with their dividend warrants a counterfoil containing a certificate of deduction of income-tax; and where a certificate is wanting its absence can very often be supplied by other evidence which the Commissioners will accept as establishing the fact of deduction of income-tax.

  Foreign Labour in Scotch Collieries.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of Mr. R. Smellie, at the Miners' Conference on Friday, the 11th instant, that in Lanarkshire there were over 2,000 foreign workmen employed, who were brought into this country, and not being able to speak a word of the language, and never having seen a coal mine before a safety lamp was put in their hands, were sent to work in fiery mines; if these men are sent to a work in groups in contravention of General Rule 39; and whether he will take steps to prevent the introduction of these unskilled men into the mines in view of the danger to the lives of the miners.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I can only repeat what I have said in answer to a Question on the same subject on the 19th of last month,† and to previous Questions, that, after careful inquiry on several occasions, no evidence has been forthcoming to show that these foreigners are a cause of danger to the other
  † See (4) Debates, cxxx., 446.
  1404
  miners employed in the same mines. No complaint has reached me that men are being employed in contravention of General Rule 39, but I will make inquiry of the Mines Inspectors on the point.

  Loch Ness Mails.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the steamers carrying the mails have ceased to call at Abriachan Pier on Loch Ness; and whether, in view of the effect of this upon the postal arrangements in that district, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, steps in the matter.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): I understand that Abriachan Pier on Loch Ness can no longer be used with safety, and the steamer by which the mails for Abriachan have hitherto been conveyed has therefore ceased to call. Under these circumstances, it has been necessary to send the mails by postmen instead of by steamer, with the result that while the delivery at Abriachan is made earlier, the outward service is not so good as before. Until the pier is repaired, I am sorry there will be no alternative but to continue the present arrangement.

  South Wales Education Schemes.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the fact that sanction has been given to the scheme of the London County Council, he will now sanction the schemes proposed under Section 17 of the Education Act of 1902 by the municipalities of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): No, Sir. The local authorities of Swansea, Cardiff, and Newport desire to confine the membership of their Education Committees (except as regards two women in each case) strictly to their respective councils, and the Board of Education have raised no objection to this arrangement. The Board have, however, asked the councils to retain the power of co-opting two or three

  1405
  persons in case at some future time they should be of opinion that without such co-option they would be unable to provide from their own body persons of experience in education and persons acquainted with the needs of the schools in their areas. It is obvious that the conditions of London are essentially different from those of the municipalities in question.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether the provision insisted on is or is not in the London scheme?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: We have not thought it necessary to ask the County Council of London to retain this limited power of co-option, as the case in which it is necessary is not likely to arise.

  Belfast Deputy Coroner.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a summons was issued by order of the Registrar of Deaths against the Deputy Coroner of Belfast, and listed for hearing on 23rd February last, it was then adjourned till the 8th of the present month, when it was finally withdrawn; and, if so, whether he can state under what circumstances the summons was issued and for what reason, and by whoso authority it was withdrawn; and if he has any objection to laying upon the Table the correspondence between the registrar and coroner in this case.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): In this case the inquest was held on the 30th January, and the certificate of the finding of the coroner's jury should have been sent forward to the local registrar at latest on the 4th February. It was not, however, sent until the 6th February. The Registrar-General directed a summons to be issued under the 29th Section of the 43 & 44, Cap. 13, against the Deputy-Coroner, who was absent through illness. The Deputy explained that the omission was due to his absence in Loudon where he had been required to give important evidence at a Home Office Inquiry respecting regulations for docks. He undertook to be more careful in future, and the prosecution was, at
  1406
  the suggestion of the Under-Secretary, dropped.
  MR. SLOAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to laying the correspondence on the Table.
  MR. ATKINSON: It is too trifling.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Was not the objection in regard to this trifling matter made by a professional colleague?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Kiladysert Creek.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the request of the Kiladysert District Council that the Kiladysert Creek should be improved and rendered navigable; and whether, as this matter has been pressed on the attention of the Government many times, he will see that something practical is now done to meet the difficulty complained of.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Department, to which I undertook to refer this proposal, will consider the question of making a contribution towards the cost of the works of improvement if the county council will instruct the county surveyor to prepare rough plans and estimates.

  Land Commission Appeals.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several appeals have been lodged by tenants with the Head Land Commission for close on two years in connection with judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Land Commission on the Dunsandle Estate, near Loughrea; and whether he will explain the circumstances which made such a delay possible.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are thirteen appeals pending from this estate, of which eleven wore lodged twelve months age and the remaining two recently. A sitting for the hearing of appeals will be held at Galway on the 31st May.
  MR. CLANCY:Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out

  1407
  any hope that in future general arrangements will be made for expediting the hearing of these appeals all over Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe that everything possible is being done.
  AN HON. MEMBER: You have said that over and over again.

  Charitable Loan Fund Societies.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL,I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any legislation in regard to the Charitable Loan Fund Societies (Ireland); and, if so, when.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am prepared to introduce the Bill of last session provided I receive an assurance that it will be treated as a non-contentious measure.

  Royal Irish Constabulary and the United Irish League.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are stationed outside the house in which the Lismore branch of the United Irish League holds its meetings during the time such meetings are proceeding; and, if so, will he state by whose direction this is done and for what purpose; and whether he will direct that this practice should be discontinued in view of the peacefulness of the district.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police on duty in the vicinity of the house at which these meetings are held is the ordinary street patrol sent out to enforce the licensing laws.
  MR. O'SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice is continually going on?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the practice of the police, when
  1408
  patrolling the streets, to station themselves close to where these meetings are being held?
  MR. WYNDHAM: My information is that the police are not stationed against a particular house.
  MR. SHEEHAN: They actually take the names of persons attending these meetings.

  Longford Mail Arrangements.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the limited mail delivery of letters at Longford Station at 9.13 a.m. and 5.5 p.m. is usually a heavy mail; and that the hand-cart on which the postmen are invited to drag the bags to the station is over 6 cwt. in weight; and, if so, whether he will direct that these two mail deliveries be included in the new contract just entered into.
  Lord STANLEY: The average weight of the mails at 9.13 a.m. is about 84 lbs., and at 5.5 p.m. about 56 lbs., while the hand-cart weighs 3 cwt. Under these circumstances I do not consider that it is necessary to convey these mails by horse and car.

  Jury Packing in Ireland.
  Mr. THOMAS O'DONNELLI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given private notice, viz., whether his attention has been tailed to the statement of Chief Baron Pallas at the Cork Assizes on an occasion when jurors were ordered to stand aside, to the effect that they could go home for the rest of the Assizes, as it was of no use keeping them there when they were never allowed by the Crown to serve, and whether, after that protest by so eminent a Judge, the unconstitutional practice of ordering Nationalist jurors to stand aside by the Crown for political reasons will be discontinued.
  Mr. WYNDHAMreplied that he did not think the words of the Judge could be correctly described as a protest. In any case, he had no announcement to make on

  1409
  the exercise by the Crown of the right of ordering jurors to stand aside.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Would not the national festival of St. Patrick be a convenient opportunity for discontinuing the practice?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Steamship Communication with East Africa.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to carry out the recommendation of the Steamship Subsidies Committee, that a subsidy for establishing direct British communication with East Africa should be favourably considered, in view of special Imperial considerations and the handicapping of British trade in that quarter by foreign subsidised steamship lines.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In principle the Government approve the policy of aiding further means of steamship communication with East Africa. We propose to appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the details of the question.

  Out-Door Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill.
  MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Out-Door Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill now on the Paper; and whether, in the event of the progress of the Bill being impeded, he will later on in the session give facilities for its various stages.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask whether the blocking has not arisen from the action of the hon. Member in appropriating another Member's Bill against the general practice on both sides.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not feel at all qualified to enter into any con troversy which may have arisen as between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. friend, or as to the patent right which may exist in regard to their measures;
  1410
  but with regard to the Bill in itself and on its merits, the President of the Local Government Board has already in a previous session explicitly announced an approval of the measure. It passed last session, I believe after midnight, without opposition, and I do not see any reason why it should have a more troubled course in the present session. I can hardly be expected to answer the last part of the Question, though I would remind my hon. I friend of the difficulties—I have often had i occasion to point them out to the House—of giving special privileges to private Bills.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Will I the Government be prepared to introduce the Bill into the House of Lords as a Government measure, as that is the only chance it can have of passing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no right to speak for what the House of Lords is likely to do with this or any other measure, but I should have thought that if it passed in this House it might have a happier fate than last year.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: It has been twice thrown out by the House of Lords.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill might have as much chance of being thrown out if introduced there as if introduced here.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Not if it were a Government measure.

  Committee on National Expenditure.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to; ask the First Lord of the Treasury has any decision been arrived at by His Majesty's Government for giving the House an opportunity to discuss the advisability of giving effect to the recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure, that an Estimates Committee should be appointed each session for examination of and report upon one Class of the Estimates; and has the form of a Motion on which such a discussion may take place been now considered and decided.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I have no satisfactory answer to give to my hon. friend. I hoped to have some

  1411
  conversation with the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the subject, and entirely through my own fault no opportunity has yet arisen.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that this Committee was appointed on his own initiative to provide machinery, supplementary and complementary, to his own Supply Rule and the new Rules of Procedure.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now entering into argument.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: With great respect, Sir, I claim to finish by asking whether, having regard to the fact I have stated, the right hon. Gentleman will assign some day before which he may possibly find some opportunity of consulting with the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no reason to believe that any opportunity for conversation such as the right hon. Gentleman could give me will be postponed to a late date. I must take exception to the argument which appeared to underlie the statements of the hon. Member, that we are specially bound to spare a day for the discussion of the Report of this Committee because of our initiation. If the Government acceded to the request to investigate, this does not lay upon us any special responsibility to find time to discuss the Report of the Committee. I believe I am not wrong in saying that the recommendations which my hon. friend is so anxious to discuss were carried in the Committee itself by a single Vote.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Will my right hon. friend endeavour to secure an opportunity for the consultation with the right hon. Gentleman after Questions; this afternoon"
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must say my hon. friend is trespassing on the individual liberties of both sides of the House when he endeavours to prescribe to us the precise hour at which we should come into consultation.

  The Education Rate.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the difficulties which are attending the enforcement of the education rate in England; whether any such difficulties have ever been experienced in Scotland; and, if not, whether the Government will now take steps to assimilate the law in England to the law in Scotland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As one of the chief objections felt by Nonconformists to the English Bill of 1902 arose out of the fact that, in their opinion, the rates are devoted to teaching denominational religion, and as that is the habitual practice in Scotland——
  AN HON. MEMBER: Public control.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a second objection. The first objection is that the rates are used to give denominational teaching. That is the Scottish system, which is objected to in England, and therefore I presume no peace would be attained by introducing the Scottish system into this country.
  MR. BLACK: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Nonconformists an opportunity of considering the question and think the matter over for himself?
  DR. MACNAMARA: Under the Scottish system is education not entirely under public control?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, there are a great many differences between the Scottish and English systems. But I was making allusion to one difference which is relevant to the Question of the hon. Member, not to other differences which are irrelevant.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Is it not the fact that the objection of Nonconformists is to paying for the cost of education not under public control?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that is an objection.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Is it not the main objection?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, I think it is not the main objection. The hon. Member has told us so. He is a passive resister. The reason that passive resistance is popular among the hon. Gentleman's friends is that they have a conscientions objection to the teaching of denominational religion with which they disagree.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman again whether it is not the fact that Nonconformists object to paying rates because there is not complete public control.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That may be the only objection of the hon. Gentleman, and in that case he is willing to support any plan for allowing the ratepayers of the country to teach denominational religion in board schools; but in that he is not in harmony with the great body of Nonconformist opinion.
  *MR. ALFRED DAVIESrose again.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I cannot allow an education debate.

  Expense of Parliamentary Elections.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proportion of the expense of Parliamentary elections which is incurred through the charges of returning officers and their assistants; and whether with the view of facilitating the return of manual labourers and other persons of moderate means to serve in this House, the Government will, before the ensuing general election, take steps to place these charges on public funds.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government do not propose to deal with any subject connected with our electoral system during the course of the present Parliament, but I do not answer as to what we may decide to do in the next two or three years.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether that answer includes the question of redistribution?
  MR. BLACK: Is the decision due to want of time before the general election?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know to what want of time the hon. Gentleman alludes.

  Parliamentary Arrangements-Hour of Meeting.
  MR. DISRAELI: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of recent events, whether he is prepared to view favourably the House reverting to its former convenient hour of meeting, and the abolition of the dinner interval.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are, of course, objections to any conceivable plan of allotting Parliamentary time; but if my hon. friend will cast his mind back to the objection felt to the old system he will agree, I think, that the new system, whatever may be the objections to it, is far preferable. I do not mean to go further than to say that we ought to have an important block of time for the discussion of public affairs in the afternoon, an interval for dinner, and afterwards the opportunity for further debate on new Motions. I do not believe the House will ever abandon that system, whether we meet a little earlier or later.

  Russian Cruiser at Suez.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for South Leeds I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any official information showing that the Russian cruiser "Dimitri Danskoi" has been making use of Suez as a naval base for belligerent operations, and that, after repairing and fitting out at that port, notwithstanding the protests of the authorities, she is now engaged in stopping and searching British and other steamers in the Mediterranean; and, if so, does he propose to take any steps to stop these or similar operations in future.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite admit the great importance of the Question put to me, but I must be allowed time to collect the facts to enable me to give a complete answer.

  The Vote of Censure.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will afford a day for bringing forward the Motion in regard to the Labour Ordinance for the Transvaal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes a vote of censure on His Majesty's Government in connection with the course adopted in regard to yellow labour in the Transvaal. I will not too closely inquire whether I might not plead against that the fact that there have been, a few weeks ago, two days spent in discussing a Vote of censure in relation to this subject, but as we are as desirous as the right hon. Gentleman can be to bring this matter to an issue, and as we think we have nothing to gain by delaying an exposition of the reasons which have induced us to adopt the policy we have pursued, I shall ask the House to take advantage of the very first opportunity it is in the power of the Government to give and to take the Motion upon next Monday.
  MAJOR SEELY: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to undertake that the Proclamation which will make the Ordinance operative shall not be permitted to issue until the discussion has taken place.
  [No answer was returned.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Lewis Vernon Harcourt, esquire, for North East Lancashire (Rossendale Division).
NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government Act, 1888," presented by Mr. Spear; supported by Mr. Duke, Mr. Herbert Robertson, and Mr. Mildmay; to be read a second time upon Monday, 11th April, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897," presented by Mr. Spear; supported by Mr. Duke, Mr. Schwann, Mr. Lindsay Hogg, Mr. Melville, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Mildmay, and Mr. Allen; to be read a second time upon Monday, 11th April, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

  THE LATE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the House will agree with me that we ought not to enter on business this afternoon without making some reference to the melancholy event that occurred this morning—the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. The Duke, of Cambridge was not merely a distinguished member of the Royal Family; he was not merely the oldest member of the Royal Family in this country, a con temporary of our late Queen; but he was a man who devoted by far the larger portion, I may say the whole portion, of his active life to the earnest service of this country. He served his country in the field, he served his country in the high office of Commander-in-Chief; and, though I suppose it would be too much to hope that at any time of our political history questions connected with the War Office should be outside the pale of controversy, there is one thing in which every man will agree—namely, that the Duke of Cambridge devoted to this great office his whole time, his whole energy, his whole strength, and that he was intimately and profoundly acquainted with every question that affected the British Army, and that throughout his whole career he possessed the confidence of both officers and men. I am sure the House will feel with me that a great figure has disappeared from among us, and that not merely of a member of the Royal Family, but of a zealous and devoted servant of the State, and that it would not be fitting that we should pass the melancholy occasion by with out some expression, even though that expression be informal in character, of our sorrow for the event and of our deep sympathy with the illustrious family of which he was a member.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has taken a course which will meet the feeling of every Member of the House. I have nothing to add to what the First Lord of the Treasury has said of the Duke of Cambridge. It so happens that I perhaps have had a longer relationship with him in the administration of public affairs than almost any other Member of the

  1417
  House; and therefore I can bear testimony to the fact that the picture which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn has not been too highly coloured. The Duke of Cambridge was devoted, with an intensity of devotion beyond description, to the Army of which he was the Commander-in-Chief for many years. I may, perhaps, refer to the fact that it was while I was Secretary of State that he came to the conclusion that he ought to relinquish the high position he held. I can bear witness to the extreme reluctance and almost anguish which he felt in severing that connection, and, at the same time, to his loyal acceptance of the necessity of its being severed, as he felt advancing years telling upon him. I feel sure that during the few years that have passed since he retired from active life he has enjoyed the recollection of all the years of close association with the Army in which his life had been passed. Sir, the Duke of Cambridge was not only a conspicuous figure in the public life and society of this country, but he was the true friend of all his friends. He had a personal charm which drew to him every one with whom he came in contact, and both in that sense —in the sense of the personal feeling of affection which he created in all who knew him—and also as a notable and loyal, faithful and energetic public servant, he deserves, I think, all the eulogy which the right hon. Gentleman has passed upon him. I would associate myself, and those on this side of the House, with the expression which he has given to our regret and to our sympathy with the Royal house in the loss it has sustained.

  SUPPLY [4TH ALLOTTED DAY] [10TH MARCH, AFTERNOON SITTING].
  Resolution Reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 227,000, 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, 1905."
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that they had discussed the Army Estimates in Committee under somewhat difficult circumstances; but at any rate they had tried to enforce on the Government that there must be a considerable reduction in the expenditure on the Army in the near future. That reduction might be secured by the abolition of the linked battalion system and the abominable Army Corps scheme—leaving the defence of the country more to the Auxiliary Forces. He was willing to take any pledge from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that he would reduce the number of men during the current year. He hoped that the new system about to be introduced at the War Office would include economy as well as efficiency. To a certain extent the recommendations of the Reconstitution Committee had been accepted by the Secretary of State for War as representing the Government; but on all the points accepted there was not any sign of economy, which was an absolute necessity, as was patent to everybody. It was a self-evident fact that we could not go on spending the enormous sums we now were. He knew that the Secretary of State for War agreed on this point with the Army reformers with whom he had worked so long and whose opinions he still shared, that the linked battalion system and the Army Corps should be done away with, so as to get a cheaper as well as a more efficient Army than we had at the present moment. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had great difficulty in actually carrying out his ideas in consequence of the opposition of some Gentlemen who sat on the same Bench with him; but what was wanted was a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that he would get the upper hand in this controversy and that he would do his best to carry out economic reforms. He did not wish to press any such largo reduction as he had put down on the Paper; and would be content with a reduction of 5,000 men. Not only was the good of the country at stake in this economy, but the interests of the Army itself and its popularity. He knew that some reduction had already been made on the present Estimates, but in his opinion these were not as large as they might have been, and something more should be done in

  1419
  the interests of economy. Moreover, that reduction was not real; because expenditure would speedily jump up by leaps and bounds in consequence of the necessary alterations in the armament of the Artillery. He moved the reduction of the number of men by 5,000.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out 227,000, and insert 222,000, instead thereof."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  Question proposed—"That 227,000 stand part of the said Resolution."
  *MR. PEELsaid he did not propose to follow the particular line of reasoning on which the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division had embarked. He rather desired to draw attention to the more general question and elicit from from the Secretary of State for War a definite statement as to the attitude the Government were going to take up in regard to the scheme drawn up by the War Office Reconstitution Committee.
  Mr. SPEAKERsaid it would not be in order for the hon. Member to deal with that question now. The only question before the House was the question of men.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsubmitted on a point of order that some portions of the Report bore so closely on the number of men that it could hardly be excluded.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid if the hon. Member dealt with the number of men he would be in order, but what he proposed to do was to call on the Government for a general statement of the attitude they intended to take up.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that one of the particular parts of the Report which bore closely on the number of men was that which stated that the linked battalion system must be got rid of.
  MR. SPEAKER: On that point I will not stop the hon. Member.
  *MR. PEELsaid the question of the linked battalion system bore a very
  1420
  close relation to the question before the House, and the question was also, as he conceived, connected with the question of the reorganisation of the Army, because it bore upon the composition of the Army Corps and the relation of the Army Corps to the War Office. There were, in fact, so many parts of the Report that definitely related to the Vote before the House that there would be no difficulty in keeping within the terms of Mr. Speaker's ruling. When this subject was discussed before on Vote A some statements were made by the Secretary of State for War, who, amongst other things, told the House that with the Report of the Committee he had the greatest sympathy and that, although he could not pledge himself to any particular line of action, that portion of the Report had his entire sympathy, and he hoped the recommendations would be adopted en bloc. Circumstances had happened since then which had made those deeply interested in this matter very anxious, and he pressed the right hon. Gentleman to state what had been done and what he was doing in respect of this question. It would be a great thing for the House if the right hon. Gentleman could allay the natural anxiety which was being felt by the House as to the degree of energy which the Government were putting into this portion of the Report, by stating what had been done already and what it was intended to do in the future to carry out these recommendations. The Report which had been drawn up had received the support of a consensus of the best military opinion. It was an open secret that the general provisions and principles laid down in that Report embodied not only the best military opinion, but also the best civilian opinion, on this subject, which in many respects brought a rather wider criticism to bear on these military questions. Nobody suggested that any blame rested on the Government because they were asked to modify their previous scheme. All that was asked was whether in the face of the knowledge acquired through the War Office Commission the Government were going to modify their scheme. All the suggestions made by the Commission were intended to hang together, and the Government had

  1421
  shown their earnestness in the reforms by creating the Army Council, and abolishing the office of Commander-in-Chief, but if, having gone so far, the Government were going to turn away from the other recommendations, then the whole thing fell to the ground. The scheme was a coherent scheme and intended to hang together, and it was impossible if it was intended to be of any benefit to the Army that some portion of the scheme should be picked out, without other portions of it being applied. The country appreciated the fact that there was great necessity for a drastic change in the Army schemes of Army reorganisation, and, from the point of view of the Government and the Party, he could imagine nothing that would have a worse effect than that an idea should get abroad that the Government, having accepted one portion of the scheme, should falter and show some trepidation and some tendency to turn their backs on the rest of the scheme, which it was absolutely necessary to carry out as a whole if it were to benefit our Army. There was a large body of opinion, both in and outside the House, which was determined to thrust, as far as possible, on the Government the principle of this scheme. That body of opinion was not confined to one section of the House alone. Various sections had united to press this demand on the Government. All that body of opinion was centred on the adoption of the recommendations of this Report, and if the right hon. Gentleman, who had been very kindly dealt with on the presentation because of the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman himself was fully in favour of the Estimates, was pressed now it was because of the feeling that the right hon. Gentleman himself was fully in favour of these reforms. He wished if possible to strengthen the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in the Government, in order that he might be able to do what he thought right. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would state clearly and explicitly what had been done since they last discussed this subject, and what definite hopes he could hold out to them for the future that he was going to lay broad and strong the foundations of reform in the Army on the principles set forth so clearly in the Report.
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid all were agreed that the country ought to be properly insured for defence. If it was necessary to keep 75,000 men in India then a like number of men must be retained in this country to maintain them. These men must be grouped in Battalions or in Depots. His own belief was that the present system of Battalions was the cheapest by which a force could be maintained abroad, and a sufficient Regular force maintained at home. The Militia, was the stand-by of the country; but if it were to be equal to a foreign army it would cost more than the troops in England at present. His opinion was that the Militia and Volunteers were the great potential Reserve of the country; and that the present system could not be much improved, except as to recruiting. It succeeded thoroughly during the South African war in sending out men and stores. He believed that the failures in the early part of that war were caused, as the Prime Minister stated, because they under-rated their enemy; but he did not agree with his right hon. friend as to what precisely they did under-rate. It was not a question merely of underrating the Boers as armed civilians; it was that this country did not appreciate the extraordinary effect produced by the rifle with its magazine and smokeless power, which led one to believe that there were twenty men where there was only one and enabled the man who fired not to be seen, and to the mobility the Boers derived from their ponies which enabled them to anticipate turning movements. When the British troops got out to a country of long horizons they found themselves exposed to a new phase of war; That was the origin of the failures in the early part of the war; and the House might depend on it that history would yet show that the sweeping condemnation of the Army in this country was a mistake. The same thing had happened before. In 1866 the Austrians did not appreciate the effect of the breech-loader in war, and the result was that they were wiped out in seven weeks. Yet, as allies of Russia, they had seen the weapon in 1864. The only country in which that effect was appreciated was England. Without

  1423
  depreciating the effects which had been produced by the late war, he hoped that the lessons learned would be applied to the Navy as well as to the Army. When a fleet possessed some chemical or mechanical appliance which its adversary had not it might be in a position of great superiority. They ought to be most careful in watching the Fleet in order that it might be free from the difficulties which confronted the Army at the beginning of the late war. He would sincerely and respectfully urge on the Government not to commit themselves to any change in the strength of the Regular Forces without very careful consideration.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that the hon. Member for South Manchester began his speech by stating that the War Office scheme was one and indivisible and he concluded by pointing out to the Secretary of State for War that his Party was sub-divided into at least three sections on the subject. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken devoted his remarks to showing that the hon. Member for South Manchester was entirely wrong. It was not for him to reconcile such divergent opinions or to bring them together. But it was a noticeable sign of the times that the Government were reduced to threatening to drive the Secretary of State for War out of political existence, if he was not prepared to accept unconditionally the Report of the Reconstitution Committee. The Secretary of State for War, speaking in the City on the preceding day, said that he had to speak for seven days in the House of Commons, with the result that he was only able to devote two hours to his office work. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended that as a remonstrance against the principle of discussing the Estimates, but it was clear that all the office work for eight or ten months led up to the discussion in this House, and the more complete that discussion was, the more satisfactory it should be to the Secretary of State. He entirely deprecated the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. The Army Estimates now amounted to £30,000,000
  1424
  sterling, and they ought to be overhauled every few years from top to bottom and ransacked in order to see where economies could be effected. There was a third part to the Report of the Reconstitution Committee. It had been printed and was in the possession of the Secretary of State for War and other War Office officials. That part was germane, almost vital, to the discussion of the whole scheme, and the House of Commons should be given an opportunity of discussing it. It was quite improper to hang up such an important part of the Report and not submit it to the House of Commons, whose financial sanction was necessary for the carrying out of the whole scheme. The Secretary for State said that so unscientific and inadequate had been the system, that, if the Defence Committee sat day in and day out for six months, it would not be able to make up the leeway. But to what was that leeway due? The Party opposite had been in power for ten years, and during that period one scheme after another was thrown at their heads. The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in office were responsible for the affairs of the War Office.
  MR. SPEAKER: That hardly bears on the question of the number of men. The administration of the War Office will arise on another Vote.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he would not pursue the theme any further. He would take up the point laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that they had never considered whether the Army as now constituted was competent to do the work the nation required of it. That affected the number of men. The hon. Gentleman moved the reduction of the Vote by 5,000 men. Had he moved to reduce it by 10,000 men he would still have been justified, and if that Motion were carried greater economy would ensue and the Army would be equally efficient. As to Reserves, there were on the Vote 70,000, or nominally about 10,000 less than before the war, but in reality the number was much smaller. The large Militia Reserve which existed before the war, but which had now entirely disappeared, made the total Reserves, not

  1425
  80,000, but 115,000, so that the Reserves, the cheapest and most efficient part of the Home Army, had dwindled by about 45,000 men. Under the scheme of the late Secretary of State the Reserves were to have been increased and with the continuance of the three years' service the number would eventually have been obtained and that would have made up for the disappearance of the Militia Reserve. But the short service system was to be discontinued, and the Reserves would drop again to about 70,000. The right hon. Gentleman held the theory that the Reserves could never be put into the first fighting line.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)was understood to say that he had never made so positive a statement as that.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the theory of the Continental armies was that when the troops were mobilised the recruits who had had only nine or twelve months service should be left at the depot, their place being taken by the older soldiers who had been called up from the Reserve. He understood the Secretary of State's view to be that the Reserve was an addition to the existing battalions of the line and not a substitute for the younger trained soldiers of the line battalions. That was a very important distinction, and one upon which the composition of the Army at the outbreak of hostilities would largely depend. The House was entitled to a clear and definite statement of the official views of the Government as to the future composition of the Reserve. In South Africa the Reserve, though looked upon at first with suspicion, proved to be the backbone of the force as long as it lasted, but the Artillery and Cavalry Reserve gave out very early in the campaign. The most difficult forces to create were the Cavalry and Artillery, and he desired to know what steps were being taken to increase the Reserves of both those forces. His last point was with reference to the garrison battalions which, originally numbering eight, had been reduced to five, of which four were stationed in South Africa. These were exceedingly expensive battalions to maintain, costing
  1426
  about £20,000 per battalion more than any other Infantry, and requiring a great deal of transport in consequence of the short service. The provision of men available for these battalions had evidently not come up to the expectations of the War Office, and he desired to know whether these men, who came back to the colours comparatively late in life, and who were not fit for much else than garrison purposes, were to be continued as an integral part of the Army system. He hoped they were not, as the battalions were not only exceedingly difficult to recruit, but they passed no men to the Reserve.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that as this Vote was the only one upon which any reduction could be effected it ought not to be allowed to pass until the House knew exactly where the Government stood. Moreover, if the present opportunity were allowed to pass without the intentions of the Government being ascertained, it would be impossible to do anything in the matter for another year. Since this Vote was discussed last year there had been an increase in certain troops to which he could not do more than allude, because although they were in relief of this Vote they were paid out of Civil Service Estimates. There were 21,000 troops apart from the military police maintained at a cost of £2,250,000 a year, who were not under the control of he War Office at all, but whose services used to be performed by troops charged on this Vote. Therefore these 21,000 troops had to be added to the numbers on the Vote under discussion and their cost to the money on the next Vote to ascertain the actual expenditure on the Army at home. Altogether it would be found that the Army cost a much larger sum than the Fleet. The Indian Army was an essential part of the Army, and if the Naval, Indian, and Colonial expenditure were added to the expenditure under this Vote, and to the military expenditure on the Civil Service Estimates, the total would amount to the gigantic sum of £97,000,000 for the coming year, including the Military Works expenditure for the present and not for the coming financial year, the amount of which was not yet known. The land forces of the Crown were infinitely more costly than the naval forces, and this

  1427
  was the only Vote on which a reduction could be discussed or any prospect obtained, even for next year, of a substantial reduction of military expenditure. The Government were in a most peculiar position on this question. It was not the slightest use barking or growling at the Secretary of State; he was the wrong man; it was the Government as a Government who were pledged on this question, and they were committed in the most extraordinary fashion. In 1901 they proposed, and after debate carried, a Resolution in favour of the existing military system of which they were now understood entirely to disapprove; they had, in fact, come round to the views of those who criticised and voted against that Resolution. And yet the men the House was now asked to vote were the men required for that condemned system. The Resolution carried in 1901 was as follows—
  "That it is expedient that six Army Corps be organised in the United Kingdom with the requisite staff and buildings."
  He could not on this Vote discuss the question of the buildings. It was understood that the Secretary of State approved of the War Office Report in which the Army Corps system was condemned, and a new system substituted, but the House had not yet been able to obtain from the Government a clear and definite statement of their position on: the matter. Without going in detail into what had been said on previous occasions, the situation was this: — The late Secretary for War laid the six Army Corps scheme before the House and stated that it had the approval of the Commander-in-Chief. At the time he ventured to express the opinion that it was not Lord Roberts' scheme, but that it was the scheme of the then Secretary of State for War. They now knew that that statement was quite true, for they had seen by the evidence given before the War Commission by Lord Roberts that he only gave his assent to a scheme which he had not seen in detail. They knew now that it was the scheme of the Secretary of State for India. That scheme had since been condemned and a new one had been "assumed," under which it was stated they would be able to reduce the number
  1428
  of men. The Committee said that they "assumed" that the linked battalion system would disappear and the result would be a large reduction on this Vote. The Secretary of State for War had stated that he would make an announcement during the session, and added that he had not changed his view. Undoubtedly they saw a change in the attitude of the Government, but from past experience they had reason to be profoundly suspicious, and they had had no further explanation except from the Secretary of State for War as to the precise attitude the Government were going to take up. He implored the House not to part with this Vote until they had received something like a definite pledge from the Government that they really meant to reduce the number of troops in the Army at home. Last year it was the opinion of the Government that the Army Corps system was expedient, but it was the opinion of the Government now that it was not expedient. Only the Secretary of State for War appeared to have got a definite view upon this question, and Lord Lansdowne maintained the opposite view. Surely they ought not to part with this Vote until they had something more definite than the pledges made by the Secretary of State for War, who did not sufficiently represent the collective opinion of the Cabinet.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid the speeches which had been made showed that there was a good deal of divergence of opinion upon this question on the other side of the House. Only the other day the Leader of the Opposition expressed an entirely different view upon this question to that held by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick. On this point there seemed to be no unanimity at all amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. There was very considerable feeling that the Report of the Committee should be carried into effect almost in its entirety, and the Service Members had approved generally of the Committee's Report. When they remembered that the Service Members represented a considerable section of opinion on both sides of the House, he did not chink am explanation was necessary from the Secretary of State for War

  1429
  as to what the views of the Government were. He thought some notice should be taken of what had transpired during the debate. On the 10th of March the Secretary of State for War rather complained of the tone of the debate, for he said hon. Members had been discussing tailoring, bottled stout, buttons, and things of that kind, and when the Leader of the Opposition found fault with him for saying that, the right hon. Gentleman said he meant that when the Speaker was in the Chair the debate should be conducted on a higher level, because the Committee stage was the proper place to discuss such questions as buttons and bottled stout. Unfortunately the result was that they never got any information about those details at all. He wished to know if the War Office had considered the advisability of getting a large supply of recruits from the Colonies and other parts of the British Empire. The right hon. Baronet opposite had referred to troops which were not upon this Vote, but he understood that they were coloured troops. He had always tried to impress upon the War Office the necessity of trying to induce more men to enlist from Canada and Australia and the rest of our colonies, and he thought they ought to give them greater facilities for enlistment. Some time ago at Malta an effort was made to get the services of the Maltese who formed the Garrison Artillery in order to send them out to India. During the war the garrison battery of Maltese Artillery was sent to Egypt and did very good service there. He thought greater efforts might be made in this direction, for the Inspector General's Recruiting Report was not very satisfactory reading, and if better opportunities were given to the Colonies he thought they would get more recruits. He thought the pay was sure to be increased. It was a fact that on some foreign stations the pay was more than it was at home. Then there was the question of the impossibility of gelling copies of the authorised regulations and book. He understood that the Cavalry regulations had been out of print two years and it was also impossible to obtain a copy of the Service Manual. The Manual of Military Law and other books were out of date and could not be got. He did not wish to go through the whole list of them, but he thought something ought to be done to supply the necessary
  1430
  books and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give this matter his attention. Then there was the question of the drill grounds for the men.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The drill grounds are provided for under another Vote.
  CAPTAIN JESSELsaid he also wished to refer to the supply of Cavalry drafts for India and he wished to know how that was being managed. He wished to know if recruits for the Cavalry were being enlisted in any numbers for particular regiments. There had been considerable dissatisfaction because the pledges which had been given some years ago in this respect had not been fulfilled. They were told some time ago that a certain number of men would be allowed to be enlisted permanently in a particular regiment. It was easily to be understood that it would be impossible to allow too many men to enlist for a particular regiment; a promise was given that only a limited number of men should at any time be transferred. He noticed that the other day a lot of men were transferred. The whole system wanted looking into and he wished to know how far the pledge given some time ago by the Secretary of State for War had been fulfilled.
  *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that he, in common with some of his hon. friends, had some difficulty with regard to this Note of men. It was impossible to vote for the men conscientiously without knowing under which system, the old or the new, they were going to be employed. They were giving the Government a blank cheque for these Estimates. Ho and his hon. friends did so willingly on the understanding that the system which they had opposed was to be radically changed, and particularly, they all hoped and believed that the Army Corps scheme was gone. If that was not so, then, of course, they were being beguiled into giving a Vote on these Estimates on an understanding which did not really exist. When he spoke on the question of the reforms the other night he said that he thought they were on the eve of being granted, and that the least those who had advocated

  1431
  Army reform could do under these circumstances was to give the Government all the encouragement and support they could in completing these changes which had been foreshadowed in the Report of the Committee. He was not so confident now as he was then. Several things had happened in the meantime. The Prime Minister had spoken on the subject, and what he said had caused an amount of misgiving in his own mind, and in the minds of a good many of his friends. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government was not bound by the second part of the Report of the Committee either in whole or in part, and further that he did not agree with or associate himself with some of the criticisms which had been made. That statement might mean much or little. It might mean a general renunciation on the part of the Government as concerned any reform or any Committee, or it might mean that the Government differed from the Committee's Report on certain details, or it might mean that they differed with some of the principles which had been laid down by that Committee. He could quite understand that the Government would hesitate to commit themselves straight off the reel to the whole of the details of these great reforms, but that was a very different thing from differing from the broad principles which had been laid down. He should think that the country, and he was sure that this House and the Army, would be glad of a definite pronouncement on this question here and now if possible. The prompt action which was taken with regard to Part I. of the Report met with the general approval of the whole country. But there had been delay, or, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had said, there had been a change in the attitude of the Government on these Reports. That delay was causing confusion and giving rise to all kinds of remarks and suspicions which, to say the least of it, were extremely unfortunate. Rumours had been heard —and they had appeared in the Press— of Cabinet dissensions on this subject, and it was understood that there was a struggle going on over the dismembered bones of the skeleton Army Corps. These rumours might have a certain
  1432
  basis in fact, as the Army Corps themselves had, but at the same time he thought that the quicker they were set at rest the better it would be for the House, the Army, and the country at large. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean said a day or two ago that those Members of the House who had made so strong an attack on the Army Corps system would, if that system was continued, be bound to continue the fight. He agreed, and he was quite sure that a great many hon. friends on the Government side of the House agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. Their criticisms of the system were derided at the time they were made, but they had been confirmed in the most unmistakeable manner by every authority who had spoken on the subject since, and by all the information and evidence collected on the subject. If their case was strong then, he did not think it was less strong now, and he wished to make it perfectly clear that they would oppose that system now as they opposed it then.
  What they wanted to know was whether this Army Corps system held the field or not. If it did hold the field, then in his judgment the road to progress and to reform was very seriously obstructed, and he thought a great many other Members would do their very best to remove that obstruction out of the path. Their votes, therefore, on this subject ought to be profoundly modified by what was going to be done in regard to the six Army Corps scheme and the Report of the Committee generally. The opportunities for expressing their opinions on the subject were fast passing away, but before they were altogether gone he should like to know what the policy of the Government was in order that he might take the action that seemed to him best to put the six Army Corps finally out of their pain. They had believed the scheme, rightly or wrongly, to be dead and buried, and any attempt to exhume that corpse would be violently resisted on those Benches. He could not believe that the Government, having taken the great plunge on Part I. of the Committee's Report of reconstituting the whole system of the War Office, would hesitate long in taking a second plunge with regard to Part II. Any

  1433
  attempt to patch up a system with bits of the old system and bits of a new would be quite fatal. The now scheme hung together as a whole on broad principles, and as such he believed it would be adopted. In the Secretary of State for War they had an ardent and earnest Army reformer, and their desire was not to hamper him in any way. They desired that he should 'nave a fair field and no favour in dealing with the great question of Army reform. The right hon. Gentle man had advantages which his predecessor did not possess. He did not wish to cast any personal blame on the present Secretary of State for India. They would willingly draw a veil over the scheme which he brought forward. What had since transpired —the evidence collected by the Royal Commission on the War, the very strong Reports that had been formulated since, and the policy which had only lately been laid down by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet with regard to the defences of this country—had profoundly affected the entire question, and therefore it was open to all hon. Members, oven to those who were committed to the six Army Corps up the hilt, to retreat from that position now in the light which they at present possessed. He hoped that before the debate ended the Secretary of State for War or the Prime Minister would be able to tell the House as clearly as possible what the attitude of the Government was with regard to Part II. of the Committee's Report, because on that attitude their votes to-day and in the future on these Estimates to, a very large extent, would depend.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he was not going to deal with the technical questions which had been referred to. It would be presumptuous of him to speak in the presence of experts on those matters. He wanted to say a word upon economy, which was common ground for all civilians and military men. There was not the least doubt among all Parties in this House that the combined Army and Navy Estimates bad reached a point the country could not afford to pay. It was only by additional taxation, which was already more than sufficiently high, that we should be able to continue bearing this burden, and he thought there
  1434
  should be some mitigation of it. With reference to men, he had looked up the Estimates to see where the increases had taken place. Comparing the Estimates for this year with those for 1895–6, he found that the total number of men on the home establishment in the earlier year was 116,000 as against 134,000 now. That was a substantial increase. The total number for the Colonies was 36,000 in 1895–6 as against 72,000 now. That was exactly double. These figures showed where the additional men were to be found. It was in reference to the Colonies mainly that the measure of the additional men might be taken. In the Paper showing the distribution of the men, some of the increases were very significant. He found that at Malta the men had increased from 9,400 in 1895–6 to 11,503 now. He supposed there were reasons for that in connection with policy. In the Bermudas the number had been doubled. In Mauritius the increase had been from 978 to 3.605. At Hong-Kong, including Wei-hai-Wei, the increase was from 3,435 to 7,793. They knew the cause of that. It was the escapade—he could call it nothing else—of the Government in connection with Port Arthur and Wei-hai-Wei. And lastly he found that in South Africa there had been an increase from 3,679 to 21,576. The consequence was that, roughly speaking, there had been an increase from £l8,000,000 to £29,000,000; and that increase fell on the people of this country. Now, there were two observations he wished to make on that point. First, it was due to politics. Ho did not wish to discuss now whether the course of the Government four or five years ago was right or wrong His opinion was as strong as ever it was. But these increases wore dependent on policy. It was perfectly certain that the measure of our increased activity in colonial and foreign affairs was to be found accurately recorded in these-Estimates. It was well that the people of this country should know that there was a heavy pecuniary sacrifice which came with the acquisition of tropical and semi-tropical territory. It had now become popular knowledge that the self-governing Colonies contributed very little to the Navy; but it had not been pointed out as clearly that, in addition to bearing practically the whole burden of the, Navy, the people of this country spent large sums of money without any

  1435
  assistance from the self-governing Colonies on military maintenance for the Crown Colonies of the British Empire, of which the self-governing Colonies enjoyed the advantage. Moreover, exceptional expenditure like that caused by the South African War fell wholly upon this country. These were things which made any reflecting man consider very gravely Estimates of this kind. Whether economy could be effected by some bettor understanding between ourselves and our self-governing Colonies, or whether it could lie done by adopting the Report which had been placed before the country, it was right that the Government should give the country relief from these enormous Estimates.
  Mr. ARNOLD-FOSTERsaid there had been a difficulty in obtaining the cavalry training books owing to the fact that for some time past a new cavalry book had been under preparation, and the old book was out of print. The promise given sumo time ago by the representative of his Department in the House of Lords with regard to cavalry recruiting had been carried out. A certain number of men had been allowed to enlist in the regiment of their choice. But the attestation papers contained a reasonable provision that if an emergency arose the men might be transferred. That emergency did arise during the war. He was strongly of opinion that it was most undesirable to transfer men against their will except for some grave necessity. During the last few years they had tried several systems with regard to the Cavalry, and quite recently a further change was made which was necessary in the circumstances of the day, but which in itself was to his mind most undesirable. That was a change from tire plan of uniting three regiments of cavalry to linking regiments of cavalry in pairs. So long as that system continued grievances must arise, but he agreed that it was most desirable that the necessity should cease to exist. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and other hon. Members had spoken on the question of economy, He had said in the course of these debates that he sympathised with that view. He would go further and say that so entirely did he share that view that certainly he should be responsible for making no proposal to that House for the
  1436
  reorganization of the Army which would not convey the promise, of a very substantial reduction upon the Army Estimates. He hoped hon. Members would not press the association of numbers with cost. He thought the question of numbers was to be judged by an entirely different standard. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that many of the increases in the past ten years, which he had quoted, wore due to policy. That was by no means the case with regard to several of the increases. Several of them were due to military considerations and to new military dangers which did not exist ten years ago. He was one of those who shared the opinion that the solution of these difficulties was to be found, not so much in the reduction of men, as in the reduction of men on the active list; that, if they could accumulate a larger Reserve and maintain a smaller force at home, they would have done nothing to weaken the defence of the Empire, but would have made it possible to effect real and substantial economy in the cost of our military establishment.
  Some hon. Members had asked him questions about the Report of Lord Esher's Committee. He did not know that he could go much further than he had gone on previous occasions, and he thought the great bulk of opinion in the country would support him in the line he had taken. That line was that it was not an unreasonable thing to ask, before they pledged themselves to carry out the Report, that the Government should have an opportunity of examining it, and that they should not, as his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Stepney had expressed it, commit themselves verbatim et literatim to the details of the Report. He did not understand now what was the ground for the view that there had been any change of attitude on the part of the Government in regard to this matter. He ventured to think that the utterances had been perfectly consistent throughout; but he would like to point out, for the satisfaction of hon. Members who had expressed this view, that if they wanted a pledge of the bonâ fides of the Government in this matter he could give it to them. He had been asked about Part I. and Part II. of the Report. He should be very slow to say that he accepted all Part II. It was a very dangerous thing to accept anything without examination. He might

  1437
  inform hon. Members that in the first draft of the Report, as it reached him, there was a recommendation which was entirely altered in the second draft. The whole question of mobilisation was then assigned by the Committee to a totally different branch of the War Office from that to which it was now assigned. It was not unreasonable, therefore, that the Government should have the same opportunity of reconsideration as was afforded, obviously, to the members of the Committee. There was another reason why he did not desire to pledge himself at this stage entirely to the Report. There were portions of the Report which were not recommendations for action. There were what he might call the critical portions of the Report, and with one part of the Report he confessed he did not altogether associate himself. He believed that the criticisms of the civil branch of the War Office were unnecessary to the value of the Report, and to his mind they were, to say the least, exaggerated. He had the highest opinion of the Civil Service. He had been brought up under circumstances which had brought him into close contact with the Civil Service of the country for a longer period than most hon. Members had sat in that House, and during late years he had had a much more intimate acquaintance with Civil servants. That being so, he was very slow to commit himself to what he considered to be a too general censure of any branch of the Civil Service, and especially the particular members of the Civil Service who were, he thought, censured in a portion of this Report. He wished to put that fact on record, as he had already communicated his view to those whom it principally concerned. If he wore to say that he accepted verbatim et, literatim this Report, he would be committing himself, which he did not desire to do, to the acceptance of these censures. He had not the slightest doubt that in the financial branch of the War Office, as much as, possibly more, possibly less, than in other branches, there was need for change. He quite understood that. He intended to make those changes; but there was nothing in that to prevent him from entertaining the view he did as to the bonâ fides and the admirable services rendered by those who had hitherto discharged duties referred to.
  1438
  Let him give the House some earnest that he was a believer in the genera value of this Report, and that he was desirous of carrying it out. They had appointed their Council. They had appointed their Inspector-General of the Forces. They had appointed their Directors, whose functions were all described in the second part of the Report, and he had already appointed a Committee to inquire into the whole question of the distribution of the forces. Hon. Members pressed him—and he was bound to say, in this matter, he thought unduly pressed him—to make a pronouncement which might he precisely satisfactory to them with regard to the Army Corps question. They knew that he attached no value to the particular name or organisation of the Army Corps. It was an organisation which had never been completed, but he honestly believed that some of his critics, who wore usually well informed on many subjects in regard to the Army, had greatly exaggerated the importance of this matter. He did not think some of his critics could tell him what was the real difference between the Army Corps system so called and the District Divisions which were not yet formed. They were voted for alike in the Estimates now before the House. When he went to the War Office the first inquiry he made was, what the difference represented in money; and really the sum was so small that, if they knew it, he did not think hon. Members would put this in the forefront of their objections. As he had stated, he had already appointed a strong Committee to inquire into the details of how they could best carry out the recommendations for the redistribution of the districts in this country made in the Report; but he was sure no hon. Member would desire him, speaking on behalf of the War Office, to pledge himself in regard to the result of that Committee's work until it was completed. It was purely a military question.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he wished to ask if the right hon. Gentleman could say when the Committee was likely to report.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the Report had not been published a fortnight. He had already appointed a Committee, his Chief of Staff only entered

  1439
  upon his work at the beginning of this week, and he must really ask the hon. Member to give him a little time.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he only asked when.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was not a member of the Committee and he could not tell the hon. Member. There was, however, no desire to delay the matter. He had already given effect to the recommendations with regard to the formation of a finance branch, and he had appointed two of the principal officers in that branch and was about to appoint the third. He was sure that that was exactly what the House desired him to do. It was quite impossible to carry out the recommendations of this Committee unless they created the initial machinery, and he had done that with regard to the Council, the Directors, the Inspector-General of the Forces, and now with regard to finance. They had also adopted another recommendation of the Committee. They had already decentralised the office of the Military Secretary. The office of the Military Secretary in the old form had ceased to exist. The Military Secretary now at the War Office had other and less important functions; and a vast amount of the work which formerly passed through the hands of the Military Secretary had, in accordance with the recommendations of the Report, been devolved, for the purpose of decentralisation, to officers in connection with the Army Corps districts or with the Army in the other parts of the United Kingdom not in the Army Corps districts. And, finally, he had commenced with his Army Council a serious and careful examination of the whole of the Report. He supposed there was no hon. Member who would suggest that a body such as the Army Council should pledge themselves to the vast amount of detail which was contained in the Report before they had even read it; and he thought he was doing what any prudent and sensible man charged with the administration of any great office would do, in taking the very first opportunity that had occurred of going through the whole of this Report as rapidly as they could—not with any idea of criticising it, not with any idea of neglecting or setting aside its recommendations, but with the
  1440
  idea of satisfying themselves, how far and in what way they could adopt the Report with the best advantage to the service. He did not know whether that was any earnest to his hon. friends of the Government's sincerity in this matter, but to him it seemed that they had gone the full length that wise, prudent, and sensible men would go.
  The hon. and learned Member opposite had spoken of the question of colonial contributions. He thought the hon. and learned Member was right, and that the feeling of this country was growing, and would grow, in the direction he indicated. He believed that, unless there was some greater willingness on the part of the Colonies to share these great burdens, there would be a closer and closer examination by the people of this country of the wisdom of the policy which compelled them always to bear the lion's share. He did not think it was the case that any action that House or the Government might take was likely to change the situation materially. He believed it could only be by the slow growth of public opinion in the Colonies, which might perhapstend in the direction of showing that they had dangers, and that those who had dangers must take their share in guarding against them. Or it might be—he should not be surprised if they had to recognise it—the growth of public opinion in this country, in the direction of giving expression to the view that we could not for all time carry this burden on our shoulders. The hon. and learned Member suggested that something the Government could do would bring this better state of things about. He was not quite sure that he was right there. If he thought so, he should gladly avail himself of any suggestion which would show how it might be done. He did think, however, that the influence of members of the Government as a whole, of individual Members of the House, might very well be exercised in making this matter clear to the Colonies, but he was not clear that any Executive action on their part was at all likely to bring a satisfactory solution to this very difficult problem. He had said all that any Minister could say who had to undertake such a difficult piece of work

  1441
  as that which was imposed upon him, and he hoped that hon. Members would extend their confidence to him. Further he frankly could not go.
  MR. BLACKsaid he had just listened to the declaration of policy by the Secretary of State for War with considerable astonishment. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that with regard to the Army Corps question he attached no value to name or organisation. The Prime Minister, speaking in March, 1901, made a very different statement. That right hon. Gentleman told them that the essence of the scheme then put forward was that the Army Corps with which they had to deal should be Army Corps in reality as well as in name, with a proper complement of general officers and staff; a proper complement of cavalry, 'of artillery and of military units. Two months later the First Lord again referred to the scheme and emphasised the necessity of organising the Army. He (Mr. Black) ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite was the policy of 1901 still the policy of the Government notwithstanding what the present Secretary of State for War had just stated, or were they to have two voices, not only as regarded different Ministers but of the same Minister acting in different capacities? He really thought the House was entitled to some distinct declaration of the Government. Was it the statement of the Secretary of State for War, who attached no value to the name or organisation of the Army Corps, or the absolutely opposite statement of the Prime Minister which they were to accept? He desired to associate himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Dumfries both with regard to the number of men and the cost of the Army, and he was not sure that this was a matter with which the Government could not deal. The Secretary of State for War had told them that no action on the part of the Government could possibly influence this question, but what did they find with regard to the distribution of troops abroad. During the last ten years there had been the enormous increase of £10,000,000 sterling. He ventured to submit that the distribution of our troops in various parts of t he world was worse than useless, and was by no means a source of help to the Empire. Taking South Africa, for
  1442
  instance, with its garrison of 21,000 men, if we were able to give self-government to that country we could reduce that number to the 3,000 men we had there in 1894–5. That question of retaining the larger number of men was a question of policy and was dependent upon the present Government, but he ventured to submit that the small bodies of troops that we had in other parts of the world were absolutely useless and were a danger instead of a help to the maintenance of this Empire. Let the House observe the distribution. He would not deal with India, and the number of men in South. Africa was admittedly a matter of policy, but if the Government could give those Colonies self-government that garrison would be able to be cut down to 3,000 men. But in Bermuda there were 3,100 men: in Halifax, 1,780; in Jamaica, 1,750; in Barbados, 1,550; in St. Helena, 500; in Mauritius. 3,600; in Sierra Leone, 2,600; in Egypt, 5,600; in Hong-Kong, 7,800; in Straits Settlement, 2,700; in Ceylon, 1,800; in Gibraltar, 5,500; and in Malta, 11,500. Was it to be supposed that, if a hostile country, possessed of an army organisation, obtained command of the seas, these small bodies of men at the different garrisons (with the exception of Malta) would be of any possible use in repelling the invading forces. The question he ventured to submit, to the Government was whether it was worth while to maintain those scattered bodies all over the world for an absolutely useless object. Could anyone suggest that a good object would be obtained by such a policy? Taking the 72,000 men scattered all over the world at a cost of £200 per man they had a cost of £14,000,000, and when they added £6,000,000 for the cost of training men at home to take the place of those abroad under the linked battalion scheme, they had a total cost of £20,000,000 for this particular class. He desired to suggest the desirability of considering whether for £20,000,000 it was worth while our having 60,000 or 70,000 men scattered all over the globe.
  Another matter to which he desired to call attention was one that pressed very heavily upon both branches of the service. It was the desirability of attracting to His Majesty's commission more representative men of the nation as a whole. One would, even at an increased cost, like to see the same class of men take a commission in

  1443
  the Army as entered the ranks of other professions. That could be done at a comparatively small cost. If £500,000 were added to the Estimate, that in itself would secure a fuller representation of the class of men which they wished to see accept His Majesty's commission. A great many more suitable men would join but for the drawback that it was not a profession which men could embrace without having supplementary means. The time had arrived when all officers, especially those of the lower grade, should have their pay so supplemented that a man entering the Army, and gaining a commission, would be self-supporting, as he would be in ether professions. In conclusion, he urged the Government to give them a more distinct statement upon these matters than they had yet had from any Member on the Ministerial Bench, and he asked the present Secretary of State for India to favour them with his views before the debate came to a conclusion.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he could not help feeling a little disappointed with the speech of the Secretary for War, on account of the very scant matter which it contained. No one wanted to "hustle" the right hon. Gentleman or to compel him to commit himself to intricate proposals which he had not enjoyed an opportunity of properly examining. At the same time, the House should not go to sleep on the question of the Army. The House had devoted a great deal of time to the consideration of the question last year, and naturally was anxious that that labour should not be wasted. He thought his right hon. friend would admit that the conduct of Members on the Government side of the House had been extremely good during the seven days in which the Estimates had been discussed. No one had attempted to make Party capital out of the Commissioners' Report or to assail the Government for considerable errors in administration, though ample opportunities were provided in the Estimates, which had been presented to the House in such a muddle. In three successive years he had listened to a final and absolute reform and reorganisation of the Army. What was the position to-day? The number of men
  1444
  showed a reduction. Policy did not dictate this reduction; it was grim necessity. The number of men had been reduced because the men never existed; and the reduction in cost was very small and illusory. It was pretty well known that the cost of the Army was going to increase next year. The cost of the Army was bound to increase in the future, There was the increase of pay, the increased numbers in the Reserve, the increased expenditure on artillery—for the latter of which the right hon. Gentleman had graciously conceded to India the privilege of paving this year's instalment, but next year's would have to be paid by this country. Therefore, from the point of view of economy, the position of the Army was profoundly unsatisfactory. The cost was far greater than the taxpayers would stand, and he was confident that the House would not rest during the next live years until they had effected a reduction of at least £5,000,000 on the present normal cost.
  Nobody would suggest that the War Office should accept off-hand all the intricate proposals contained in the Reconstitution Committee's Report. He would be sorry to undertake to support all those proposals himself, but he believed there was an overwhelming consensus of opinion that on the whole that Report would form a far better basis than the existing system for any future work in the direction of Army reform. After all, that Report had been brought before the House in a peculiar way. He suggested that the Secretary of State for War both saw and approved of the Report before it was issued to the public. Further, the Committee was appointed by the Prime Minister, who had closely associated himself with its proceedings, and he suggested that the Prime Minister also saw and approved of the general terms of the Report before it was published. He really did not think the Late Secretary of State ought to regard it as censuring him in particular, for in the scheme he proposed he had the support of the whole Cabinet, and the most particular and special support of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister was prepared to sanction a Report which

  1445
  reflected upon himself, surely the late Secretary of State for War had no cause to consider that he was affected by it. It would be unfair not to recognise the many substantial reforms, not only in the condition of the soldier but also in other matters of War Office administration which had been effected by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not so much of his Army administration as its cost that he had had to complain. At the beginning of his career at the War Office the right hon. Gentleman was induced to embark upon a scheme which demanded more men than the recruiting resources of the country could supply, and more money than it would be prudent or thrifty for this House to vote, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consider that in future debates they desired in any way to reflect upon him, or to censure him, personally, for a course of action in which he had the support of the entire Conservative Party. But this new Report appeared to be hanging fire. Everybody knew how keen the Secretary of State for War was on carrying out the Report, and he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of giving such vague assurances, would much prefer to state definitely and frankly what he intended to do—and certainly the House would rather he made such a statement. They believed that the new proposals had been considered on their merits so far as the policy of their adoption by the Government was concerned. The details of their application might be relegated to another Committee.
  The acceptance of the principle of the Report by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War had been sealed by the dismissal of the high officers, whose removal from the War Office was considered an indispensable preliminary to carrying out the other recommendations. The House did not particularly want to know what internal alterations were to be made in the War Office, nor was it a matter of first-class importance how the duties of high officials were to be rearranged. Those wore doubtless intricate and important matters requiring much careful thought, upon which the House of Commons was incompetent to
  1446
  express an opinion, and which after all could be settled by the Army Councilor by the Secretary of State, sitting in his room, pen in hand. But there were other problems which could not be so settled, and it was about those that the House desired to be informed. Were the Government going to keep the same number of battalions in the future as in the past? At what strength were they going to be kept I How were the necessary recruits to be supplied? For what period of service were men to be enlisted? These were the matters on which the House required information. The Report contained a calm assumption that the linked battalion system was to be abandoned. How was it to be replaced? It could not be denied that if the same number of battalions were required at home as abroad, the best system was that which had hitherto obtained. But the same number was not required at home, and it was absurd to keep battalions which were not wanted. The altering of the positions of high officers was not Army reform. What the House wanted to know were the intentions of the Government with regard to the period of service, the conditions of enlistment, the rosters, and the methods by which battalions were moved about the British Empire. When was the debate on the new scheme to take place? Would the right hon Gentleman make, between Easter and Whitsuntide, his statement showing precisely the parts of the Report the Government intended to adopt and the parts they intended to ignore? Until information was given on these matters it was extremely difficult to know how to vote on this Resolution. It was idle to suppose that what had already been done and the vague assurances which had been given constituted any real, definite, or practical measure of Army reform, and he appealed to the Financial Secretary to make a much more definite statement than the House had yet heard.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he had heard the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman about colonial contributions with some apprehension. He had always been opposed to the policy adopted of late years by which the Government of this country had gone cap in hand asking the Colonies to contribute

  1447
  towards the Navy. He did not think that was either good policy or good finance, because the amount of money they got from the Colonies was of no account and was not worth the, friction it caused. He should be very jealons of any similar policy being adopted by the heads of the military system of this country. Did the right hon. Gentleman want to get money or men out of the Colonies? In his opinion either of those policies would be a mistake. If the Colonies began contributing use would be made of their first contribution to press them for more, and at the same time they would have before them the fact that every 6d. of military expenditure upon the Army in India was borne by India. Even the sending of a distinguished soldier to Japan had been placed upon the finances of India. He hoped the Colonies would be slow to accede to any demands for either money or men for the Imperial Army. A self-governing colony should be absolutely responsible for the whole of its military defence. The Secretary for War appeared to be unusually susceptible when he was told that he had not absolutely said the same thing to-day as he had stated before. He did not desire to accentuate those differences, but he observed in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman approached this question a change, and he appeared to have adopted the very wise and prudent advice given by the Leader of the Opposition, when he pointed out the rapidity with which this Report had been put together by Lord Esher's Committee, and the rapidity with which the Government announced that they had accepted that Report. Now the right hon. Gentleman appealed to the House to give the War Office and the Government time to consider the very important reforms he was going to propose. He was sure the House was quite willing that the Secretary for War should have ample time to consider his proposal. The right hon. Gentleman had also taken the advice of the Leader of the Opposition in reference to repudiating the indiscriminate criticisms of the Report in regard to the Civil Departments of the War Office. This was a large branch of the Civil Service, and no one could read those statements without regretting their character,
  1448
  knowing the very small foundation on which they rested.
  With regard to Part II. of the Report, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that the officers referred to had been appointed. They had been told that, in substance, the Government adopted the proposals of the Committee in regard to the finance of Part II., and that they had appointed the three principal officers recommended in that branch of the Report. They had also been told that the recommendation, in regard to the change in the functions discharged by the Military Secretary, had been adopted, but nothing had been said as to that branch of Part I., which they were informed had been adopted as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman did not say how far they had adopted the recommendations contained in Part I., with regard to giving a permanent staff and secretary to the Defence Committee in the future. They had in these Estimates a sum of £4,000 for an Imperial Defence Committee. As this was an important branch of Part I., he thought they ought to have some statement as to how far they intended to carry out the recommendations of Lord Esher's Committee by establishing what was a very dangerous official, viz., a permanent secretary to the Defence Committee, to hold office for five years and for subsequent terms of five years, whilst all his colleagues were to serve only for two years. This permanent secretary was to be constantly there to give advice to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War. They had not had any assurance as to whether the Government proposed to adopt that important part of Part I. With regard to distribution, the right hon. Gentleman said he had appointed a Committee to reconsider this subject. They were going to have another Committee to consider this vexed question of the distribution of the British Army. He thought it would have been much better if the Secretary of State for War, when these Estimates came before the House, had made a clean breast of the intentions of the Government with regard to the Esher Committee's Report, so far as they bore upon these Estimates. If

  1449
  the right hon. Gentleman had taken the House into his confidence and stated that these Estimates would be subject to large alterations upon certain lines, in view of the recommendations of the Report, a good deal of discussion would have been spared. With regard to the character of the Estimates, they were unreal, and this Vote for men was not a true Vote, because they were asking for 10,000 men more than they were being asked to pay for. That was not treating the House in a constitutional manner. The right hon. Gentleman had told them frankly that he was asking for no money for those 10,000 men. That was not a right method to adopt in laying Estimates before the House of Commons. The Estimates now being asked for did not represent either the men or the money, or the individuals or officers who were to receive those salaries. They were not being asked for the right number or the right amount of money, and it was very likely that the money they were voting would be diverted to purposes which were not specified in the Estimates now before the House. That was outrageous procedure, and it ought to be resisted by every means in their power.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that hon. Gentlemen opposite were a little difficult to please. The six Army Corps, as far as his limited intelligence would allow him to understand the Secretary of State for War, were practically abandoned.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Are they?
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid the right hon. Gentleman would answer for himself. This year the Estimates were lower than last year, and yet hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway were not satisfied. They wanted a Commission to report; they got a Commission, and now they did not like the Report. The hon. Member for Stepney said they did not desire to hustle or hamper the Secretary of State for War, but, if that was so, they took a very peculiar way to show their feelings on the subject of Army reform. It seemed to him, reading between the lines of the speech of the Secretary of State for War two nights ago, and particularly of the speech he gave this afternoon, that he for
  1450
  one had given up the idea of the six Army Corps. That being so, he failed to see what good purpose would be served by hon. Members who, so to speak, were now setting up an "Aunt Sally" for the pleasure of knocking it down. He had a little sympathy with the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Lichfield division to reduce the number of men by 5,000. He did not think that, under certain circumstances, the hon. Member was far wrong. It was admitted that what we wanted in this country was a smaller and a cheaper Army, and the only way to bring that about was by decreasing the number with the colours and increasing the number in the Reserve. If we reduced the number with the colours we ought to be pretty sure that we had something behind them. He did not think that at the present moment we had. Until we got the Auxiliary Forces up to their strength he did not see how we could reduce the number with the colours by 5,000, or any other number. He should have liked to hear more detailed information as to the Auxiliary Forces in general and the Militia in particular. The right hon. Gentleman had deplored the state of the Militia. A force which was 40 per cent, below strength, and which had no guns, transport, and staff, was, as the right hon. Gentleman said a few years ago, nothing but a patent and recognised fraud. The Volunteers were also considerably reduced, and not in a very much better position than the Militia. The Secretary of State for War appeared to be satisfied with the Yeomanry. It was fashionable to put money on a particular horse which was popular in the country, it would be well, therefore, not to say too much about the Yeomanry. He thought the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting was of a most unsatisfactory and unfortunate character. He did not quite understand why it should be so. The proposal last year, to improve the conditions of men with the colours and to increase their pay was all very well, and when it was made he thought it was a long step in the right direction. But unfortunately it appeared, if he might so say, to have gone out at the touch-hole, for they had not got the men. They were increasing the pay, but men did not enlist. The recruits he had seen were very decidedly of an unsatisfactory character. They were told that of the number who offered themselves for

  1451
  enlistment, 49 per cent, were rejected on account of physique. They could not come up even to the miserable standard insisted upon by the War Office. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to get his Indian reliefs. What Lord Wolseley said the other day was right so far as it went. He stated that we would not get the men required unless we paid them the average wages of the British artisan. But to do so would largely increase the expense of the Army, and until we cut down the number of men with the colours, he himself did not see how we could increase the pay. He suggested that with the view of getting a better class of men the pay should be increased, that more attention should be given to the question of dress, that the men should be better fed, and that provision should be made for their employment after they had served a certain number of years in the ranks. He thought the Secretary of State for War might now state definitely, once and for all, what he was going to do about the Army Corps.
  MR. PRIESTLEYsaid the prospect of a great Army scheme, which should be in the direction of greater economy, had been held out as a reason why Members should not exercise their votes in favour of economy. But as one who took the good of the service and the question of economy seriously into consideration, he had come to the conclusion that the only opportunity afforded Members of giving effect to their views was on occasions like the present, when they could vote in favour of reductions. Accordingly, he had not the slighest hesitation in supporting the reduction proposed. In fact, he did so with exceptional pleasure, because he thought the size of our Army should be reduced; and he hoped at the same time it would be associatad with greater efficiency.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid the Secretary for War, in carrying out Army reform on right lines, would have his whole-hearted and warm support. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman was at the War Office was a guarantee that reform would he carried through; and that if it could not be done he would not occupy
  1452
  his office. There was also an additional guarantee that reform would be carried out by the presence of the hon. Member for the Macclesfield Division as Financial Secretary to the Department. He would not ask for any further pledges on this question, but he felt sure that if, after raising the hopes of the country to so high a pitch, the Government disappointed the country, the Government would fall. He for one would deeply regret to find the Government meeting with such a fate. The speech of the hon. Member for the Chelmsford Division was a striking illustration of the fact that the differences on that side of the House with regard to Army reform were not so great as might, appear, it seemed likely that the action the Secretary for War wished to take would meet with the general approval of Members of the House. It was necessary to see that the day of the paper Army was gone for ever. When they took credit for a man he must actually be there, and he must not be a boy. What was wanted was that the money should be well spent. They must not be young men and old guns, but new guns and old men. What was wanted was real decentralisation, so as to prevent what he had called attention to last year, the issue of an Order which caused the resignation of many Volunteers without its having been seen by any person responsible for it. He wanted a definite answer to the question whether, under the new scheme, the department of the Auxiliary Forces in the War Office would be an independent department—reporting direct to the Army Council, or whether it would be under the Adjutant-General as heretofore. The Secretary for War had said that he wished to take up the question of the Auxiliary Force; in a sympathetic spirit; but if so he must treat them in a different way from that in which they had been treated in the past. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman was determined to do that if he possibly could; and, if so, the right hon. Gentleman would have his most hearty support. He made no reservation of any kind, and had complete confidence in the Secretary for War.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he did not think sufficient attention had been paid to the very remarkable speech

  1453
  of the Secretary for War. Everybody must have been struck with the difference between the tone of that speech in regard to the Report of the War Office Reconstitution Committee, and that delivered a week or two ago. The Government were evidently flying a flag of distress in regard to the Report of that Committee, which had been put into operation in such hot haste, and the whole proceeding of the Government was, he contended, unconstitutional. The right hon. Gentleman had made three announcements. First, he said that he disagreed with much of the Report—and his tone in that respect was very emphatic. In the next place the right hon. Gentleman said that the Civil Department of the War Office had been treated very harshly in the Report. And in the third place, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would have to appoint a Committee either to translate the Report or assist him in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. That showed that the Government was rapidly falling into the difficulty which had been anticipated on that side of the House, by their haste in considering the Report of this Committee. In what position were they in? They had only got Parts I. and II. of the Report. The third part was evidently in print, but had not yet been presented to the House. The whole Report should have been presented to the House, and time given for its consideration. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government seemed to have no consideration for the opinion of the House of Commons. Instead of that the House of Commons was treated to piecemeal sections of this Report. The Government had got no mandate for reorganising the Army, and yet they were proceeding to do so on a most complete basis. The Government seemed to him to be in the position of an old, hardened criminal, who was caught once more in the act, and who was hauled up before a Judge and jury. The judge said, "Have you anything to say before sentence is pronounced?" and the criminal replied, "I admit I am guilty; but I will reform and become a preacher and lecturer on the subject." The House did not want the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman as to the reorganisation of the Army,
  1454
  but the submission of the Report of this Reconstitution Committee, and full time to consider it before new Estimates were taken. The Secretary for War, of course, was in a great difficulty from the indecent haste of the Government. A complete statement ought to be made to the House by the Government as to what they were going to do in regard to the reduction of the number and cost of the Army.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to ask a Question. The eight major-generals seemed to have allocated to them, if he rightly understood the Report, a function entirely destructive of the financial control of the House and every other controlling body in the State.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that a good deal of latitude was allowed in discussing the Report, but the hon. Gentleman was passing beyond the proper scope of the debate. The question before the House was purely a question of the administration of the Army.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he hoped some sort of information would be vouchsafed as to the functions of the eight major-generals.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAWENPORT,)said that the questions which had been raised with regard to the number of the battalions which were to exist, and the period of service with the colours and with the Reserve were matters of detail, though he admitted their importance.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether the hon. Gentleman thought he would be aide to make a statement before Whitsuntide as to the policy which should he adopted this session; or, if not, when he would be able to make it.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he should most certainly say this session. He hoped the hon. Member would not press that too far. There was absolute y no desire to keep back from the House any information which the Government had and which could properly be given to the House in on order to delay the consideration of this very important Report.

  1455
  He submitted that these questions of the reorganisation of the Army could not be properly dealt with in the House until they had been dealt with and fully considered by the Army Council. When they had been so considered his right hon. friend would be in a position to make a statement upon the subject. He acknowledged the forbearance of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially of his hon. friends below the Gangway. Some of his hon. friends had voted for the reduction of the Army Estimates because they objected to the policy on which they were framed. He quite appreciated that, from his hon. friend's point of view, it might be possible to contend that the policy on which the Estimates wore framed was not a right policy. He would ask them, however, to have faith in the Government, and he would emphasise the fact that the presence of his right hon. friend at the War Office was a guarantee that the principles which his right hon. friend had put forward would receive full consideration. While not in a position to reply on questions of policy, he was concerned in obtaining the Vote without any unreasonable delay, and he would ask the House to proceed to a division after a discussion extending over seven days. The Estimates presented to the House were only sufficient to maintain the Army under existing conditions. Whether or not it might be possible to obtain more economic results in the future was a question which was engaging the hourly consideration of his right hon. friend They on that Bench were greatly encouraged by the action adopted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, with, perhaps, the one exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman did not condemn the Report of the Esher Committee; he pulverised it and denounced it and all its works. He belittled the recommendations in the Report and said the Committee were endeavouring to create a new heaven and a new earth. The right hon. Gentleman said why hustle, why hurry; but the right hon. Gentleman's attitude was absolutely contrary to that adopted by hon. Members opposite generally. He would ask hon. Members to consider that the Estimates represented in the plainest and simplest form the amount of money required to keep the existing machinery running. It
  1456
  was admitted that the existing machinery was unsatisfactory, and that new machinery should be introduced, and a Committee of proved experience and assiduity had been appointed to recommend what that new machinery should be. In the meantime, it was necessary to provide money to keep the existing machinery running, and the amount asked for was the lowest possible that would suffice for that purpose.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was greatly surprised at the speech of the hon. Member, which had totally misrepresented the attitude of the Opposition with reference to the Report. He had not heard any word in condemnation of the fact of the Committee having been appointed and of their recommendations taken broadly. But it was a very different thing to condemn the way in which the Government had thrown that Report at their heads and taken steps of the most far-reaching importance without saying anything to the House as to the cost of the changes, or whether they related one to the other, or whether they were all part of a whole which was going to destroy the supposed existing system of Army Corps. He thought they were justified in feeling aggrieved, not at the Report of the Committee, but at the way in which the Government had treated the House of Commons in the matter. So far as the first part of the Report went, he thought it was a good one. He was glad to see the War Office taking earnest steps to carry it out; but he thought they ought to have taken the opinion of the House before they took irrevocable steps. Speaking not as a military man, but simply as a man of business, the first part of the Report seemed to him, for the first time, to set the fabric of the War Office on a businesslike basis. He should heartily support the carrying out of the framework of dividing the responsibility; preventing over-lapping, and making the various departments dovetail one with the other. Part II. of the Report contained a recommendation which seemed to him very dangerous indeed—he referred to the total abolition of the civilian financial control over the expenditure of the Army. About an hour ago the Secretary for War told them that he had actually made three appointments, which presupposed the approval of the recommendations of the Committee with regard

  1457
  to finance. If those recommendations were accepted as they stood they would be practically handing the money, without any effective control, to the military chiefs of the departments. It might be possible in the course of years to train a new kind of public servant who would be part soldier and part accountant; but in his limited experience he had never come across that kind of gentleman yet. As a rule, the best soldiers had no knowledge whatever of accounts; and the War Office accounts would be in a bad state if they were transferred from a civilian to a military department. The system might require mending but that was no reason for sweeping away what was admittedly a capable financial department.
  MR. SPEAKER: A discussion on the financial arrangements of the War Office will not be in order.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he understood that the attitude of the Government to wards the Report of the Reconstitution Committee had been the chief subject of discussion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question as to the likelihood of the Government adopting a new scheme was discussed, and that involved to a certain extent the question as to how far the Government were prepared to adopt the Report of the Committee. But the organisation of the Army generally is not open to discussion.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he would accept Mr. Speaker's ruling. He would, however, enter a caveat against what had been said by the Financial Secretary to the War Office that they, on that side of the House, had taken an uncompromising attitude towards the Report of the Committee. That was not the case. They had taken up a discriminating attitude, and he ventured to express the hope that no irrevocable step would be taken until the House of Commons had an opportunity of discussing the financial Department of the War Office. In conclusion, he would only say that the number of men asked for would not be obtained during the current year. The
  reduction of 5,000 men which had been moved, would bring the Vote more in accordance with what it ought to be, and he therefore would support it.
  MR. MALCOLMsaid that he associated himself with those who were heart and soul in favour of the Report; but what he wanted to know was the intention of the Government with regard to that Report. The Financial Secretary had asked what they wished the Government to do. They wished the Government to make up its mind as to what it intended to do on this vital point. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for personal appreciation of the work the Army reformers had done in the previous year in the criticism of Army reform, but regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not expressed that opinion when those criticisms were made, when It might have possibly resulted in further criticisms which it would be difficult now to appreciate. The Secretary of State pledge that on the earliest opportunity he would make a full statement on the Report.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that his pledge related to Army reorganisation and not to the Committee's Report.
  MR. MALCOLMsaid he understood that the statement was to be made on the Report, but if it was made on the reorganisation of the Army that would be a good deal. He desired to impress most strongly on the right hon. Gentleman that the Government must not imagine, because these Estimates had been allowed to go through easily, that those who had pressed for economy and reorganisation were now less in earnest, than before, on this question of reform. There was a good deal of pressure both in and out of Parliament which could be brought to bear to assist the right hon. Gentleman in making this reform if, as he understood, there were internal difficulties which prevented the right hon. Gentleman carrying out his ideas.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 59.)

  AYES.

  Aird, Sir John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Baird, John G. Alexander

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Groves, James Grimble

  Randles, John S.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Buntinck, Lord Henry C.

  Hamilton Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bhownagree, Sir M. M.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Bigwood, James

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Bond, Edward

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Helder, Augustus

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Butcher, John George

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cavendish, V. G W.(Derbyshire)

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.(Worc.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chapman, Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Spear, John Ward

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. MTaggart

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kerr, John

  Stock, James Henry

  Colling, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Knowles, Lees

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxtetn

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Tuff, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffield

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Dyne

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriessh.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Foster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin&Nairn)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  1460

  1461

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ashton. Thomas Gair

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Reid. Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Roche, John

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Russell, T. W.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Beaumont, Went worth C. B.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shackleton, David James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kitson, Sir James

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Caldwell, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leng, Sir John

  Slack, John Bamford

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R. Northants

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cromble, John William

  M'Kean, John

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D.(Chatham

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Murnaghan, George

  Toulmin, George

  Delany, William

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Mara, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersfd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Parrott, William

  Young, Samuel

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Partington, Oswald

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Haldane, Rt Hon. Richard B.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Hammond, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harcourt Lewis V.(Rossendale)

  Price, Robert John

  Mr. Warner and Mr. Black.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Priestley, Arthur

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Reddy, M.

  Motion made, and Question put, "That tins House doth agree with the committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 60.)

  AYES.

  Aird, Sir John

  Bignold, Arthur

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Bigwood, James

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bend, Edward

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Dalkeith, Karl of

  Baird, John (George Alexander

  Caldwell, James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balcarres, Lord

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow

  Dalziel, James Henry

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Davies, M. Vanghan-(Cardigan)

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Denny, Colonel

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen,

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlets

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hartley, Sir George O. T.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J.A.(Worc.

  Dickson-Pounder, Sir John P.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Chapman, Edward

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Emmott, Alfred

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Russell, T. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N. R

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Sir John

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S,

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Seety, Maj. J.E. B.(Isle of Wight)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sharps, William Edward T.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Fyler John Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Gordon, Hn. J.H.(Elgin&Nairn)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Soares, Earnest J.

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Spear, John Ward

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. Somerset)

  Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  M'Crae, George

  Stanley Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stirling-Maxwell Sir John M.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stock, James Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Maxwell, W. J.H. (Dumfriesshire

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gretton, John

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Tennant, Harold John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morpeth Viscount

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nder

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tuff, Charles

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nowdegate, Francis A. N.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(Sheffield

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Helder, Augustus

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hermon-Hodge Sir Robert T.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,, Brightside

  Pemberton, John S. G.

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

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Percy, Earl

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Price, Robert John

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pym, C. Guy

  Woodhouse, Sir J T.(Huddersf'd

  Jacoby, lames Alfred

  Randles, John S.

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

  Jebb, Sir Hit-hard Claverhouse

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jeffreys, lit. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Rea, Russell

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton

  Reid James (Greenock)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Joicey, Sir lames

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge)

  Kenyan, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Kerr, John

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Barry, E. (Cork, S)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Black, Alexander William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Delany, William

  1464

  1465

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Norton Capt. Cecil William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Fenwick Charles

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

  Slack, John Bamford

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Hammond, John

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Toulmin, George

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Mara, James

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parrott, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Reddy, M.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roche, John

  Young, Samuel

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  TELLERS OF THE NOES—

  Murnaghan, George

  Sheehan, Daniel, Daniel

  Mr. Labouchere and Sir

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Thomas Esmonde.

  SUPPLY [10TH MARCH, EVENING SITTING].
  Resolution reported.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  "That a sum not exceeding £9,746,000, 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, 1905."
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he could, without prejudice to the public service, state the names of the members of the new Departmental Committee, the appointment of which he had announced earlier in the afternoon.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas afraid he had been misunderstood. The Committee was not a Departmental Committee in the usual sense of the term; it was purely a Committee appointed by the Army Council to inquire into a very detailed subject.
  MR. WHITLEYhoped that, as this Vote was closured in Committee, after a very short discussion confined to matters of policy, the right hon. Gentleman would not object to one or two Questions being asked. On page 28 of the Estimates there was a curious item of £40,000 as an "additional sum for
  1466
  subordinates employed in connection with the force in North China." Twelve months ago he entered a protest against the manner in which these items came in, apparently without end, years after the conclusion of operations, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now be able to give an assurance that the last instalment on account of the Chinese War had been paid. The House ought to have a statement as to the total cost of that expedition, and, if it had not all been paid, how much remained to come into account. Another matter to which he desired to call attention was the increasing amount asked for in connection with military prisons. He would have thought there might be a reduction rather than an increase under that head. During the recent war many unfortunate soldiers were condemned to long terms of imprisonment for what were undoubtedly serious offences when on active service, but remembering the youth of many of the men, and the privations they had under gone before they gave way to sleep while on duty, he thought the time had come when the right hon. Gentleman might very well consider the advisability of remitting the remainder of those sentences. To spend £28,000 on keeping in prison the men we had enlisted was a somewhat extravagant way of getting rid of public money, and he could not help thinking there was room for substantial reduction.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the question of Army chaplains had frequently been before the House in former years, and, but for the closure, he would have referred to the grievances of Presbyterian

  1467
  soldiers, when the Vote was in Committee recently. Between 1892 and 1895 the War Office adopted the wise practice of making no difference, whatever outside the United Kingdom, between the various divisions of the Presbyterian Church, but since that date no further appointments had been made outside the Established Church. There was really little ecclesiastical jealousy between the two great bodies. They had divided India into spheres, and had acted together most harmoniously. The same might be said with regard to the Colonies and elsewhere. At Gibraltar there was one Presbyterian Church; the minister was a United Free Church minister, and he had been appointed chaplain to the Presbyterian soldiers of the garrison. That was the practice they desired to see adopted elsewhere. He understood there would shortly be an opportunity of reconsidering the Presbyterian chaplaincy at Malta, when he hoped this point would be borne in mind. Both the Free Church and the Established Church had standing committees to look after this matter, and, previous to 1895, Secretaries of State had consulted those committees from time to time. That was a wise course, but it had not been followed by the present Government. During the recent war the Free Churches were very active in doing everything they could to meet the spiritual needs of Presbyterian soldiers; they sent out chaplains at their own charge, and the only Presbyterian chaplain killed on active service was one of these Free Church chaplains. There was no question that the Free Church was fully entitled to equal treatment with the Established Church, at any rate outside the United Kingdom, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to reintroduce the policy which guided some of his predecessors at the War Office. Referring to the arrangements made within the limits of Scotland, the hon. Member said that at the present moment there was not a single commissioned Presbyterian chaplain at any of the depots. In reply to a Question the other day the right hon. Gentleman stated that the allocation of chaplains depended on the number of soldiers. What was complained o1 in Scotland was that the ministers who conducted the services
  1468
  were chosen exclusively from the Established Church. The only acting Presbyterian chaplain in Scotland on the Army List was a gentleman now in Edinburgh, and in past years he had had his work done for him by other ministers. With regard to the announcement in the Gazette the other day of the appointment of a garrison chaplain in Edinburgh, he wanted to know what the emoluments were. The position of things ought to be inquired into and overhauled with the view to absolute equality of treatment being given to the ministers of the United Free Church and the Established Church.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid he was sorry to gather from the hon. Member's remarks that he rather objected to the appointment of a garrison chaplain in Edinburgh. This was the revival of an ancient office, dating back to the sixteenth century, and he was sure it was a revival which was likely to cause an immense amount of satisfaction not only in Edinburgh but throughout Scotland. There were no emoluments. It was a position of honour.
  MR. BUCHANANasked if the clergyman holding the appointment would be made a commissioned chaplain.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid the position of commissioned chaplains was this. Commissions were granted in relation to the number of soldiers of various denominations throughout the Army. It had been held that, of the proportion of chaplains due to the Presbyterian body, it was better to appoint them at places—say, for example, at Malta—where the soldiers could not get ministers of their own from other sources, rather than in Edinburgh where naturally there would be Presbyterian ministers able to give their services. He should be glad to hear any views which the hon. Member had to express on that matter. The hon. Member had suggested that all the religious communities should be put

  1469
  on absolute equality. So far as could be equality would be secured for them.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid there was an immense sum spent on generals many of whom were, he believed, unnecessary. The proportion of generals in the British Army was very much greater than in any other Army in the world. The Secretary of State for War stated that he had reduced the number of generals. He found that while there were fewer major-generals there were more brigadier-generals than before. He understood that was what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he stated that the number of generals had been reduced. Many of the offices now held by generals might very well be held by colonels who were temporarily brigadiers. There was no doubt that the British Army was over-generaled, and that a considerable reduction ought to take place. He hoped the House would get some pledge from the right hon. Gentleman on this subject. He instanced Gibraltar, which had three generals, as one of the places where a reduction might be made. In view of the reduction which had been made in the British garrison in Egypt it seemed absurd that a major-general should be in command there, especially as there were plenty of English officers in that part of Africa who were quite capable of commanding a small force. All the political work was done by Lord Cromer, and, therefore, it was not necessary to have an important military man there because there were what might be called Foreign Office or Civil duties to perform. No reduction could be more properly made than in what was really the ornamental part of the Army. They were all grateful to the Secretary of State for War for the statement he made that he would be no party to any scheme which did not effect economy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to carry that out, and that he would have the support of his colleagues.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL (By ORDER.)
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSON: said that this Bill was intended to enable the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to run a line of steamers from the Ports of Goole and Hull to certain foreign ports. This was not the first Bill which one company or another had passed through Parliament and put into operation of a similar kind, and no doubt he was asking Parliament to do with respect to this Bill what had not been done with regard to previous ones. His reason for doing so was that ho thought Parliament might properly consider the question whether more careful provison should not be provided to require companies to set oat their rates at the ports, as he thought in each case there was a tendency to go a little further than any Bill went before. He was justified in saying that, in general, the practice of railway companies to extend their operations to the management of large fleets of mercantile steamers was only made where the railway company owned the port from which steamers were to run, and so had practical control of the traffic from the port. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway were not the owners of either the ports of Hull or Goole, they had termini at those places but there were other lines of steamers already running in connection with either other railway companies or canal companies. Therefore it was quite right that Parliament should be invited to consider whether some condition should not be prescribed in order to prevent the railway company purposely or, as was more probable, inadvertently carrying out this important branch of business in such a manner as to favour foreign producers as against English producers. His object, in his Motion, was to do something to give British producers a better opportunity than they now had of finding out what really the charges of the railway company were. These Bills had usually a reciprocal

  1471
  function to enable foreign producers to bring their goods into this country and British producers to send their goods to foreign countries, but, according to the preamble, this Bill had, for its object, to facilitate the carriage of goods between Continental ports and our railways, rather than the transmission of goods from this country to foreign ports. It was hardly necessary to say that large interests in this country had looked with great suspicion for a long time on the use companies made of the power given to them in the way of favouring foreign trade as against English trade. No doubt the representative of the Board of Trade would say that this question had been disposed of by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, which contained provisions to compel the railway companies to divide up their traffic rate and to enable traders, on application to the companies, to see how the charges were apportioned. But in support of his Motion he would point out that many representative bodies connected with trade had asked for an authoritative inquiry to ascertain whether the provisions of that Act were effectual, or whether they should be amended. If an inquiry of that kind were offered by the Board of Trade he would not press his Motion, because that would enable the Board of Trade to do for all Traders what he asked to be done in this particular case. No doubt it was true to a certain extent that this Instruction would put the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway in a disadvantageous position with regard to other railway companies having lines of steamers, but it was desirable to watch the general interest when there was a growing system of railway companies extending their management to great lines of steamships. He had no desire to do anything of which the company might have reason to complain; he grounded his action upon the view that this Bill carried the system rather further than it had been carried before, and it was time to intervene and ask the House only to allow the Bill to pass on the terms of the Instruction. This information which traders sought should be entered in the books of the company so that ail who desired could refer to them and not as at present, under the Act of 1888, only after several days notice
  1472
  by a person interested. He failed to see how the railway company could be injured by people who desired to use their railway referring to their traffic rates. It was surely to the interest of the railways to increase, improve, and develop their traffic in this country, and, therefore, to give the information sought. Information on application did not meet the case as was shown by a letter which had been received from the managers of the Caledonian Railway which burked the question altogether.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked if it was in order for the hon. Member to discuss the general effect of the Act of 1888.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member had raised a doubt in his mind as to the validity of the Instruction, because it appeared to be a general Instruction for the purpose of dealing with a matter not peculiar to the railway in question, but with alterations of the law. The hon. Member was now showing what was done by public Act. If the hon. Member wished to amend the public Act he must do that by a public Bill.
  *SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he had endeavoured to distinguish this case from others by stating that this system of railway companies starting great lines for sea traffic was a comparatively recent one, and that this had been the first opportunity of considering what ought to be done to increase the stringency of the law.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the statute of 1888 to which the hon. Member had referred, and which he apparently wished to amend, contemplated the very case the hon. Gentleman had in view. He would not stop the hon. Gentleman on the point of order, but would merely say the practice of attempting to alter public Acts by private Bills was a most objectionable practice.
  *SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he had perhaps in his endeavour to make his point clear pressed his case at too great a length. He hoped, however, he had made the position clear to the House. He begged to move.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the peculiarity of the case was that this railway was the only one which, not having the port in its own control, proposed to extend its trade in this direction. The only point he wished to mention was that an Instruction of this character was brought before the Parliamentary Committee on Agriculture, and it was universally admitted to be for the benefit of the agriculturists. He thought there was no objection to the clause, and there could be no injury done by it to the railway; he seconded the Instruction.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill, that they insert provisions in the Bill requiring the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, in respect of any through rates for the carriage of merchandise between foreign countries and places in the United Kingdom which the company make or charge or to which they are party, to set out in their public rate-books at the ports of Goole and Hull, and any ports which may be hereafter established between those places, how much of each such rate is justly and reasonably appropriated by them, or is paid, payable, or agreed to be paid to or by them for (i.) land carriage abroad, and dock, harbour, and shipping charges abroad, (ii.) conveyance by sea, and (iii.) dock, harbour, and shipping charges at the British port, (iv.) conveyance by railway, either by goods or passenger trains, including any terminal and cartage charges, and cartage in the United Kingdom." —(Sir William Tomlinson).
  MR. FIELDENdesired, as a director of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, to explain to the House the position the company took up with regard to this Instruction. They had not considered whether the Act of 1888 required amendment or not. All they thought was that no case had been made for any special action by this House in respect of this particular Bill. The matter had
  1474
  been referred to a Committee upstairs which had full power to inquire into all questions relating to this proposal, and the hon. Baronet who moved the Instruction might, if he pleased, give evidence before that Committee. He submitted that the Committee was a more competent tribunal to deal with this question than the House. Following what he understood to be the usual practice where Members were directly interested in a particular question before the House, he should abstain from voting on the Motion.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsupported the instruction, observing that the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, a body that had taken a great interest in the matter of railway reform, had considered it and thought it should be passed. In their opinion, judging by the practice o other railways, preferential rates would be charged, in one way or another, on foreign goods to the disadvantage of the home manufacturers. Every endeavour was made to get these through rates analysed, but the railway companies put all kinds of difficulties in their way. The Liverpool Chamber therefore thought it would be a good thing if, in this particular case, a change was made, and the information set out in the rate-book, so that the trader could see exactly how the rate was made up and whether in respect of any component part of it he was placed at a disadvantage compared with other people.
  MR. BLACKsaid it had been found, in the past, very difficult, on the part of traders, to obtain this information from railway companies, and he himself had expected to hear from the hon. Member for Middleton some valid reasons why the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company should not be subjected to these conditions. Was there any real inconvenience to the company in their being called upon to do what was asked? He submitted that there was not. He ventured to say that this question, if it left the House, would not be threshed out by the Committee upstairs, which was a narrow tribunal which would be apt to be bamboozled by the hon. Member and his friends. The

  1475
  House, in his opinion, was a far better tribunal to deal with the matter, and under the circumstances he hoped they would pass the Instruction.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,)said on behalf of the Board of Trade he opposed the Instruction. It was very undesirable that an amendment of the general railway law should be introduced into a private Bill, for there was no doubt whatever from the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Preston that his object was, indirectly, to affect the general railway law if not to deal with this particular railway company. I he hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that the House was a better tribunal to deal with the question than a Committee upstairs. He did not agree with him. This was an extremely complicated subject, and he did not think anyone was really competent to come to a decision that would be of any value, without a complete examination of the subject, and such an examination was obviously impossible under the conditions that presented themselves in the House that night. On behalf of the Board of Trade ho objected to the Instruction on principle, as it would, in their opinion, have no practical result. The Instruction proposed that a railway company should be bound to divide its rate under five heads. At this very moment every railway company was bound to divide its rates under three heads, and dividing them in the way necessary under the general Act would prevent complaint just as much as dividing them in the way suggested by his hon. friend, even if it were practicable to divide them in that way. But as a matter of fact it was not practicable. All his hon. friend's Instruction added to the existing Instruction was that they should give the separate dock charges on both sides of the Channel.
  *SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid he did not ask that foreign dock charges
  should be separated from the other foreign charges.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that showed how extremely complicated the question was. By the Railway Act of 1888, a railway company was bound to give the information to anybody interested within a week of receiving the application. His hon. friend implied that the railway companies did not carry out that Instruction. He ventured to say to him and any other Member of the House that if they would give an instance where a railway company did not comply with the Act, the Board of Trade would be only too glad to take it up and see that the law of the land was properly carried out. He heard it constantly asserted in the House that the railway interest there was very strong. His experience, he was bound to say, was exactly the opposite. Ho did not think he was exaggerating the view of a certain number of hon. Members when he said that, whenever they saw a railway Bill down on the Paper, they asked each other, "Do you know anything about it?" and if the reply was "No" they said "Let us throw a brick at it." The Board of Trade would do nothing to assist railway companies to give the foreigners a preference. But they thought it their duty to protect the railway companies from legislation which would have no practical effect and which would only cause inconvenience and expense.
  *MR. MACONOCHIEsaid that this was a subject on which he had some experience, and which was of vital interest to the country. British traders were handicapped by low rates for imports from abroad, and heavy rates for exports.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 79: Noes, 103. (Division List No. 61.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Caldwell, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Cameron, Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Black, Alexander William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Spear, John Ward

  Gardner, Ernest

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R(Northants

  Gretton, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stock, James Henry

  Hammond, John

  Morrison James Archibald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Tuff, Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Weir, James Galloway

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

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

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Parrott, William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hoult, Joseph

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks.)

  Howard, John(Kent Faversham

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

  Roche, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Sir William Tomlinson and

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Warner.

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Percy, Earl

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin&Nairn)

  Randles, John S.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Burns, John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kerr, John

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kitson, Sir James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Toulmin, George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph(Monm'th)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N. R

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Walton, John Lawson, Leeds, S.

  Denny, Colonel

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H.M.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ffrench, Peter

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Colonel Lockwood and

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)

  Colonel Royds.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [4TH ALLOTTED DAY] [10TH MARCH, EVENING SITTING] REPORT.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17th March], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £9,746,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the Pay,
  1478
  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 1905.'"
  Question again proposed.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that when the Sitting was suspended he had been discussing item C. He thought that that item could be considerably reduced when the projected reforms came into operation. In regard to recruiting expenses, some of the Militia regiments belonging to the large counties were overflowing with recruits, and he thought that these should be handed over to districts where the population was less, and the recruiting low. There was another item on which a saving might be made, viz., item O, for the establishment of gymnastic instruction. They had now got to a stage when gymnastics had become a fad. He did not mean ordinary extension motions, but the enormous amount of fancy gymnastics on which he thought a good deal of time of both officers and men was wasted, because they were apt to become merely stage performances. He thought that officers would be better employed at drill than in a three months course of fancy gymnastics. All he wanted to press was that there should be economy wherever it could be practised. The country was in great difficulties, although the Government did not appear to realise it. He believed that the Secretary for War, himself, was in favour of greater economy which would not hurt the Army; and he hoped he would secure the help of his colleagues in that direction. He hoped the Army would be rendered efficient and that the country would get its money's worth instead of paying, as at present, an enormous amount for an Army which was inefficient considering its enormous cost.
  *MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid there was a question which arose on this Vote to which some little reference was made on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, and which he thought was worth a little more lengthened consideration. He referred to the present position of the office of Judge-Advocate-General and to the provision made for the discharge of the important duties which attached to the position. The discussion became opportune by reason of the recent death of Sir John Scott, who had acted as Deputy-Judge-Advocate-General for some years, and whose post was now vacant. It was
  1480
  important, while that vacancy continued, that, if possible, some indication of opinion should be given to the Secretary of State for War with reference, not merely to the selection of a successor to Sir John Scott, but, if he should think it desirable, to the whole reconstitution of the office as it was now occupied. The question was one of considerable constitutional gravity. The general proposition he should invite the House to accept was that the post of Judge-Advocate-General ought to be held by some one who was not merely a Minister of the Crown, responsible to the Crown, but who was also directly responsible to Parliament for the discharge of the duties of the office. The subject had been considered by Committees of that House in 1860, 1868, and 1888, and expressions of opinion had been given with reference to the character of the office, the nature of its duties, and the qualifications of the officer selected to discharge those duties. It was now clear that the Judge-Advocate-General was a Minister of the Crown responsible to the Sovereign for the discharge of the duties attaching to his office, and that he held the office of a Privy Councillor in order that he might give advice personally to the King. He was responsible to no other person, and the advice which he gave was given entirely upon his own responsibility. He was not responsible to anyone connected with the War Office. He advised entirely on his own responsibility, being guided solely by his conscientious view of the duties he had to discharge.
  When one considered the character of the functions which attached to the position, it became of obvious importance that there should be some practical responsibility to Parliament. In the first place, the Judge-Advocate-General was the Minister of Justice in regard to the Army. He was responsible for the constitution of every Court-martial, and he had to decide whether or not a particular case fell within the scope of military law. He regulated the procedure of all courts-martial, and when they had arrived at their decision, he examined the evidence on which a conviction rested and advised the King on the question whether the conviction

  1481
  should be confirmed or quashed. He also considered the sentence attaching to the offence and gave advice as to whether it should be approved or diminished. In the second place, ho was the law officer, in military matters, of the Government, and was constantly called upon to give advice to the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State for War with reference to military duties which touched upon the law. Therefore, in those respects he was in a sense an executive officer combining in his own person quasi-judicial functions. His contention was that an official holding such a position ought not to be left responsible only in an indirect and vague way to that House, and that he ought to acknowledge the same measure of responsibility which was acknowledged by every other Minister of the Crown who gave direct advice to the Sovereign and who was responsible for that advice. That proposition had been affirmed by several Committees of the House which had inquired into the matter. Sir John Mowbray, who had very great experience, expressed before the Committee of 1868 the opinion that it would be a great advantage if the Judge-Advocate-General felt that he was responsible to Parliament for every case that came before him, and that it was desirable that he should be directly responsible to Parliament for the advice he gave. Further, he said that the Judge-Advocate-General ought to remain as a Court of Appeal, and that it was advantageous that there should be an individual holding the position of Judge-Advocate-General who would be entirely independent of the military authorities, and who would take an impartial view of every case. That was the opinion of Sir John Mowbray, who at one time occupied the position himself.
  He would now ask the House to consider how the office was held at present. Sir Francis Jeune was a Judge of the very highest character. He was invited some twelve years ago to accept this position to which no emolument of any sort attached. He had exacting and absorbing duties to discharge in his own judicial office; but with the public spirit which the House would not be slow to recognise, he accepted the highly responsible task of undertaking the discharge of the duties of Judge-Advocate-General
  1482
  in addition to the judicial functions to which in the ordinary course he was obliged to apply his mind. The discharge of those services without any kind of emolument placed the State under the greatest obligation to the eminent Judge who, at the request of a Minister of the Crown, accepted the position of Judge-Advocate-General twelve years ago. He had had the assistance of a most highly qualified and eminent gentleman, Sir John Scott, who for many years acted as Appellate Judge in Egypt and was afterwards a Judge in India. He was a most gifted and qualified person to occupy the position, and the duties of the office were efficiently discharged for some years by the two gentlemen who held the position of Judge-Advocate-General and Deputy-Judge-Advocate-General. But the objection to the present system remained, notwithstanding the fact that the personal qualifications of the two gentlemen mentioned were exceptionally high. Sir John Scott was now dead and a successor would have to be appointed. But when the appointment was made the House would still be face to face with the fact that under the present system, so far from getting direct Parliamentary responsibility, there was no Parliamentary responsibility whatever, except in some indirect way. The Judge-Advocate-General was not a Member of this House or the other House, and he could not be interrogated as to the reasons which actuated him in giving advice. He was not subject to the censure of this House because he received no emolument; and the House could not express any opinion as to his action. Therefore they had to deal with a highly-placed official charged with the administration of justice in the Army who had no direct responsibility to this House. It might perhaps be said that the Government were in some way responsible for the Judge-Advocate-General. He was quite sure that the Prime Minister would repudiate that responsibility, because he was not a member of the Administration. The Secretary for War was not responsible, because the Judge - Advocate-General advised him on his own initiative; and the Secretary of State had no voice in that advice. The Commander-in-Chief was not responsible except to the extent to

  1483
  which he might adopt the legal opinion of the Judge-Advocate-General, who was thus lifted into a sphere beyond all criticism. He was a Judge and a Judge could not be criticised in regard to his judicial duties; and, therefore, it would be exceedingly difficult for this House to call attention to any advice that he might give. He enjoyed a practical immunity from all Parliamentary responsibility and all Parliamentary censure which was possessed at present by no other Minister of the Crown. That was an unique and anomalous position.
  It was a primary rule of the Constitution that every Minister of State who advised the Sovereign should be directly responsible to this House for the advice he gave. That rule was essential for the protection of the Sovereign, and for the efficient administration of all the Departments of the State. The Prime Minister was responsible for the advice he gave, and the Home Secretary, when he advised regarding the administration of justice and the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, was responsible to the Sovereign alone and to tins House. Everywhere, it would be found, without exception, that all Ministers of the Crown having direct access to the Sovereign were directly responsible to this House for the advice they gave. It was only by enforcing that rule that they could maintain the maxim of the Constitution, "The King can do no wrong." They had at present a very great anomaly in connection with the office of Judge-Advocate-General. He would ask the House to look at the matter from a practical point of view. It was a gross anomaly that justice should be administered among a large section of the population under military law without any kind of appeal being possible and without any method by which an injustice, however gross, could be corrected. The matter might pass under the review of the Judge-Advocate-General but he had not heard the evidence and merely considered the notes taken at the trial, and after an independent investigation he came to the conclusion whether the verdict ought to stand or not. He might quash the verdict or might reduce or annul the sentence. That was not the
  1484
  function of a Court of Appeal. Every Court of Appeal acted after hearing the parties, but the function of the Judge-Advocate-General was exercised in the absence of the parties and no new facts were brought before him. Therefore, there was no appeal in the ordinary sense, and if a case of injustice arose there was no remedy. Not being a Member of the House the Judge-Advocate-General could not be called upon to give the reasons for his decision, and if the Secretary of State for War was invited to explain, his answer would be that it was not a matter for his Department and that the Judge-Advocate-General was reponsible to the Sovereign alone. There was no appeal to the civil Courts, as decisions had made it clear that the action of Courts-martial however wrong and however perverted could not be reviewed by them. Therefore all recourse by way of appeal to this House or by way of action in Courts of Law was closed to a large section of the community. This was a grossly anomalous state of things. In the rebellion in Canada, in the Jamaica troubles which led to the trial of Governor Eyre, and even in South Africa, where Lord Kitchener had been most ably advised, questions arose as to the administration of the Courts-martial; questions as to nationality of the accused and whether individuals were to be dealt with by military law or whether they should be handed over to civil tribunals. Yet, although all these nice and delicate questions arose, the action of the Judge-Advocate-General could never form the subject of legitimate discussion in the House, because the person responsible for the decision of these questions was neither himself a Member of Parliament, nor did he receive any emoluments. He reminded the House of a case nearer home, where an officer was tried quite recently for theft of money from the coat of an inferior officer, and the case was retried at the instance of the Judge-Advocate-General He was not for a moment challenging the propriety of the retrial, he thought it was a right step to take, but, supposing he had not directed him to be retried and supposing that in the opinion of the House a retrial ought to have taken place, how could the question have been raised? He doubted whether, under our present system, even

  1485
  the injustice done to Dreyfus by Court-martial could have formed the subject of investigation by the House; he doubted, moreover, if any case, under the administration of the present law, could form the subject of Parliamentary investigation and criticism, while they continued in the office of Judge-Advocate-General a gentleman who, how ever eminent and qualified and distinguished he might be, yet lacked the all-important feature and qualification of Membership of Parliament, receiving an emolument as a Minister of the Crown.
  What was the practical solution? Well, as he had pointed out to the House, the office of Deputy-Judge-Advocate-General was now vacant, and there was a sum of £1,000 a year in the Estimate which was allotted for his remuneration. There were three offices. First, the Judge-Advocate, whose emolument was nil; secondly, the Deputy-Judge-Advocate, whose emolument was £1,000 a year; and in the third place, there was another Deputy-Judge-Advocate with an emolument of £700 a year. It was pretty clear that Sir Francis Jeune was not able to devote, although he sacrificed much private time and leisure, the whole of his time to the discharge of the duties of this office. It was, however, quits possible at this juncture for some rearrangement to be made without increasing the charges upon the State, quite possible for some provision to be made with regard to the discharge of the duties of the office which would meet the point of the criticism he had ventured to make, criticism not his own, but criticism which rested upon the authoritative expression of opinion of several Committees, and which sought to restore the constitutional condition which ought to attach to this office, and every similar office under the Crown, giving the House a control which, as matters stood, was entirely absent. He suggested that it was quite possible to make the present holder of the office a Member of the other House of Parliament and that an emolument could be attached to the office, so that this House would get direct control; without changing the present tenure, it was quite possible to arrange it on such a basis that they might demand explanations from, and visit censure upon, the present
  1486
  occupant of the office, and this would enable him to answer Questions and publicly defend the reasons which had actuated his conduct. Of course, the other solution was that the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to so reorganise the finance of the Department without any additional burden, as to make some more appropriate arrangement.
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid he had taken a great interest in this question for a good many years, and he had made a good many attempts, unfortunately futile, to bring the matter under the consideration of the House. They had a preliminary canter on the subject not long ago, and he made a few observations then; but he was glad they had now a more formal consideration of the whole question, and he congratulated the House upon the fact that it had fallen into the capable hands of the Member for Leeds, who had brought all his legal acumen and learning to bear on the question, which was well worth the consideration of the House. The hon. Member respectfully urged upon the Secretary of State for War to take this golden opportunity of reconsidering the question. He associated himself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds as to the services of Sir John Scott, whose lamented death had placed at the disposal of the Government a considerable sum of money, and which would give them the opportunity of rearranging and reconsidering the whole matter, and, of giving a sympathetic consideration to the important question before them. Of course this was not a part of the question. All he would say was that he had always felt great regret that they had lost touch, grip, and control of very important constitutional business. He looked upon this as a very grave constitutional question, and he thought, in the interests of the soldier, it was of very considerable importance that he should be able to appeal. He also associated himself in every way with the observations made about the Judge-Advocate-General, Sir Francis Jeune. He had considerable sympathy with him. He had been doing this work for a great number of years, and he had been unpaid. He thought

  1487
  he had a great grievance that his services had not been remunerated by the House in a substantial manner. But, as he had already pointed out, they could not discuss Sir Francis Jeune; he was in the serene atmosphere where criticism was impossible. They had lost grip and control of one very important part of their constitutional business. He looked upon the question a good deal in the interests of the private soldier, who was very helpless in the matter. He had no vote and no one directly representative of him in the House: who could bring attention to his grievances. Therefore, he thought he, above all men, needed the protection of the highest Court of Appeal which was open to him, and which had been open to him up to a very few years ago, because, as he ventured to point out to the House the other evening, the punishment for military offences was very much in excess of what was meted out to the ordinary person under the civil law. He, therefore, did think it was unfortunate that the soldier had lost the right of appeal to this House which he used to have, and which he thought he ought to have been allowed to retain. He did not want to labour the question any further. They had had the points put before them with very great ability by his hon. friend; and he only rose for the purpose of urging the Government to take the matter into their very serious consideration, taking the opportunity of the present time, when Sir John Scott's unfortunate death had placed money at their disposal, of considering some means by which they could regain their old constitutional control.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the discussion was now exhausted, except for this interesting and technical point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds. He had no quarrel with him for having introduced the question or for the remarks he had made in support of his views. He associated himself with all that he had said of the learned Judge who had so long undertaken this onerous office without any remuneration for public work carried on during twelve years; and he thought it was a thing upon which they might reflect with some satisfaction,
  1488
  that since Sir Francis Jeune at His Majesty's request had accepted the office, there had been no case, as far as he could remember, brought before the House where his decision had been impugned. He was inclined to agree with the hon. Member as to the substance of his arguments. He was himself very much struck when he first took up his present duties by the apparent anomaly which the constitution of this office at present presented. The hon. Member had pointed out that they were in this situation, that an office, which for many years had been occupied by a person who was responsible and amenable to Parliamentary control, had now been removed entirely outside the scope of Parliamentary authority, in consequence of the fact that it was now held by a Judge of the High Court, who could only be removed from his office by an Address from both Houses to the Crown; and of course he had indicated a way of exit from this dilemma by which the present holder of the office might come under Parliamentary criticism, and, if necessary, Parliamentary censure; but this would not remove the ground of his objection. He thought they were bound, in view of the opportunity which had arisen and to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen had referred, to take into consideration the future of this office, and, though he should deprecate any hasty action in the matter, ho did not think this was any reason why they should not lay down some principle as to their future action, pretty clearly. He would not go to the lengths of the hon. Member in defining the duties of the office in the future, and he thought the hon. Member had gone a little too far, further than was necessary for the purposes of his argument, in pointing out that there was no appeal from the decision of the Judge of the High Court. There was no appeal in many cases from the decision of Judges of the High Court, apart from the Judge-Advocate-General. He supposed there were many cases where the decision of a Judge was absolutely final and where, if there was an appeal, it was certainly not an appeal to this House.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: In every case in which a Judge acts he decides

  1489
  after hearing the parties and arguments, but the Judge-Advocate-General decides without hearing the parties or arguments.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he appreciated the distinction, but lie understood the point the hon. and learned Member alluded to was that they ought to have an appeal to this House. He certainly should not readily consent to any judicial person's acts being made the subject of review in the House. He could not recollect, and probably even the hon. and learned Member could not give him an example, of an attack having been made in the House upon any Members who had formerly held the office, on the ground that they had given an incorrect judicial decision or they had incorrectly used their discretion. He did not desire, and he thought it would be most unfortunate for the Army, that the House should be made a Court of review of decisions. He thought, however, that the office ought to have consideration, with the object of changing at an early opportunity the character of it. He was not quite sure that the change which the hon. Member seemed to think best was really the best or was the only one. He thought he was correct in saying that the procedure which the hon. Member suggested had never been suggested in the Royal Navy, and he did not know that there had been any public censure of the administration of justice in the Courts-martial in the Navy; quite, the contrary. He thought they should consider whether it would not be better to create a judicial officer who would hold the position of Judge-Advocate-General to the Army and who would be the legal adviser of the War Office. Of course, that would give the hon. Member and others the opportunity of criticising any action which was considered to be improper, because criticism would then be directed to the representative of the War Office and not to the actual person who had exercised his discretion to the best of his ability. The office of Judge-Advocate-General, as he understood it, was twofold. They entrusted certain very important powers to the officers of the Army under very strict
  1490
  limitations, and as long as their duties were performed strictly within the terms under which they were confided to those who exercised them, they were content to accept the discretion of the officers; but the Judge-Advocate-General existed to protect the Courts from the illegality of exceeding their statutory powers, and his advice was also important for the protection of the person under trial, and it was most necessary that the liberties of soldiers exposed to this somewhat Draconian code should be strictly safeguarded. These were the duties the Judge-Advocate-General had to fulfil, and he was not by any means convinced that they might not be more effectively fulfilled by a judicial officer whose whole time was given to the duties, rather than by gentlemen of eminence, like those Judge-Advocates who formerly sat in the House of Commons, whose acquaintance with the Army was comparatively limited, and who were compelled to depend upon deputies for nearly all the business they did in the House. If the hon. Member would be content to leave the matter there, realising that he agreed with him on the principle, that he would take counsel as to the application of the principle, and that, while recognising the invaluable services rendered by the present holder of the office, he was of opinion that the tenure and the character of the office might be modified in the future, the discussion would have been advantageous to all parties concerned.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANagreed that this was a very intricate and complicated business, and nothing ought to be done in a hurry. He was responsible for the first appointment of Sir Francis Jeune to the office which he had held with so much advantage to the country and honour to himself. At that time the position had got into a tangle, and there appeared to be no way out of it except to appoint a man of high position and great dignity and ability to fulfil the duties for a time and to give an opportunity for the consideration of the whole matter. But it was never contemplated that this provisional arrangement should go on for twelve years, and it would not have gone on

  1491
  for twelve months even but for the confidence which everyone felt in this distinguished Judge. Rut he was of opinion that some remedy ought now to be applied. The present arrangement was not satisfactory in itself, because it was not seemly that a Judge should also be, in a sense, an Executive officer mixed up with administration. He had heard a great many suggestions made. One was that a third law officer of the Crown should be appointed, who would assist the Government in their legal business, to the relief of the other law officers, and who should be rewarded from that inexhaustible fund represented by the emoluments of the existing law officers. There were many ways in which an arrangement might possibly be made. But the great matter was to have at the head of this office an independent person of sufficient authority and independence to retain the confidence of the Army. He did not think that this independence was increased if they tried to mix up a quasi-judicial office with administrative functions or with a connection with any Department or Government of the day. But the person selected ought not to be an unknown or obscure person. He ought not to be a man destitute of knowledge of law, or wanting in the qualities of tact, discretion, and independence. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to give the whole matter his consideration, and he hoped he would be able to place the arrangements on a better and a permanent footing.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid it was of first-class importance that there should be at the hack of all Court-martial work a civilian of undoubted legal knowledge as the ultimate Court of Appeal by which a soldier's case might be reviewed quite apart from any military prejudice whatever. He strongly urged, however, that nothing would be more unfortunate or disastrous than any arrangement under which the findings of Courts-martial could be made the subject of Party wrangling in this House. Nothing more subversive of the discipline of the soldier, and of the good management of Courts-martial could be conceived than the
  1492
  idea that as, a grievance was alleged, electioneering and wire-pulling considerations should come into play.

  SUPPLY [1ST MARCH].
  Resolution reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  "That 131,100 men and boys be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905, including 20,656 Royal Marines."
  Resolution [this day] from the Committee of Supply read—
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 227,000, 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, 1905."
  Ordered, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster, Mr. Pretyman, and Mr. Bromley Davenport do prepare and bring it in.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  "To provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
  SUPPLY [2ND MARCH.]
  Resolution reported.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,691,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of wages, &c., to officers, seamen and boys, coast guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  SUPPLY [3RD MARCH.]
  Resolution reported.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1904–5.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,634,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1905."
  Resolution read a second time.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that when they were in Committee upon this Vote he asked the hon. Gentleman in charge of it several questions, to which he was not able to give an answer at the time, and he promised to circulate and send to him personally some information on the points he raised. Apparently the hon. Member had overlooked that matter, because he had not yet received the promised explanation. One of the points he inquired about was on page 133 of the Estimates, where he drew attention to a discrepancy in the figures, for it would be found on that page that the pay did not correspond to the number of officers concerned, especially in regard to civil engineers and assistant surveyors. It was rather remarkable that whilst there was a reduction in the numbers there was an increase in the pay of £100. He hoped the Government would explain that point. The totals given in that column did not add up correctly and there must be some discrepancy on that page. There were several other items which were not discussed in Committee because the closure was moved. An explanation had been promised him before the closure was moved in regard to items on page 138 which dealt with the cold meat store at Gibraltar. Last year the amount for this purpose was £15,000, but this year the amount put down was £38,500. This building, he understood, was originally built as an ammunition store, and was found unsuitable, and so it was changed into a cold meat store. He wished to know how it was that this had become such a costly undertaking. On page 140 there was an item
  1494
  for the Haslar Hospital, which had in creased from £20,000 to £22,500. There was another extraordinary increase on page 142 for the accommodation on shore of boys' training establishments. Last year this item was £100,000, but this year it had increased to £450,000. He protested against the practice of putting down comparatively small sums one year and then, without any explanation or authority from the House, after having got in the thin end of the wedge, gradually, year by year, raising the figures to what were really large undertakings. The Admiralty ought to come to the Committee and obtain authority to begin these undertakings, and then the House could give its sanction or not. This Vote was the worst in the whole of the Estimates for this fault. Year after year they went on voting these large sums blindfold, and that was the manner in which the Navy Estimates had been brought up to such an immense sum. On page 143 the Naval Ordinance Stores accommodation had been put down at £57,030, whilst last year it was only £23,600. He understood that this expenditure was to be shared between the Admiralty and the War Office, but was this not done last year? Upon great Votes like these Estimates contained, he thought they ought to have some systematic method of putting them plainly before the House. These were all questions of great importance, and in order to protest against this method of continually raising the Estimates he begged to move a reduction of this Vote by £1,000.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the sum of £1,634,200,' and insert the sum of £1,633,200'"—(Mr. Whitley)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That £1,634,200 stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. BLACKsaid he desired to support the reduction which had been moved by his hon. friend, but he did so on somewhat different grounds. He did so in order to draw attention to the way in which the Admiralty failed to apprehend the real interests of the works they undertook. At the

  1495
  initiation of a local minister in the North-east of Scotland the Admiralty undertook the construction of a Naval Reserve battery in the middle of one of the largest resident fishing populations in the British Isles on the coast of Banffshire. As matters stood at present fishermen were seldom induced to join that branch of the service. The Admiralty apprehended the situation and agreed to place a Naval Reserve battery at that spot and there appeared last year a sum of £3,500 in the Estimates for the erection of a Naval Reserve battery at Buckie. Up to this point the Admiralty took a correct view of the situation, but when they came to negotiate for the ground required which was most suitable for the purpose, they were met by a difficulty because the proprietor declined to part with it. The Admiralty might have put into force their compulsory powers to acquire the ground, or they might have moved their battery some small distance from this locality. The whole idea of this battery was that it might be in the midst of a seafaring population, whom it was desired to attract. But the Admiralty chose a most futile and useless course, for instead of placing this Naval Reserve battery in the middle of a large resident seafaring population, they had gone away for a distance of twenty miles, and placed it in the midst of a small fishing population. At the place originally selected there was a population of 4,000, whilst the population of the place chosen was only some 400 or 500, and therefore, there was little prospect of this battery proving of any great service to the Navy. He hoped they would have some explanation of this error of judgment in not putting into force their compulsory powers. They could not have acted in this matter from motives of economy, because even under compulsory powers £10 per acre would be a very ample allowance. That represented about £2,500 and surely for this it was worth while to have adopted compulsory powers. He hoped they would be given some satisfactory explanation of this matter.
  He also desired to call attention to the position of the new naval base at Rosyth.
  1496
  It was a matter of great importance, when the Admiralty were proposing to lay out a town, that they should, if possible, build a garden city. [An HON. MEMBER Oh, oh!] Did the hon. Member opposite object to garden cities? He thought Rosyth ought to be made as attractive and healthy as possible for the Government employees and others who would have to reside there, and this was a unique opportunity for making it a garden city. They had acquired at this place some 1,200 or 1,300 acres for a new naval base, and it had occurred to many persons that the Government had an opportunity now which he hoped they would net neglect of laying out the town in such a way that it would have boulevards and plenty of open spaces so as to prevent the evil of overcrowding which had occurred at Devonport. He thought some explanation was due to the House in regard to the very large cost of the site at Rosyth. The net rental of the land was £1,200,and they had ascertained that the Government had paid £140,000 for, it or about 100 years purchase. He had inspected the site himself, and he ventured to assert that there was no building value in the site, and the true criterion was what would they get for it if they put up this land for sale and abandoned their idea of making it a naval base. In that case he did not think they would get more than £40,000 for what they had paid £140,000. That indicated very great extravagance, and he had not heard any satisfactory explanation of it. He was not aware that any great progress had been made with the works at Rosyth, and he wished to know when a serious beginning was going to be made. He hoped a satisfactory explanation of those points would be given.
  MR. SPEARthought something ought to be done to secure the use of Dartmoor granite for the Portsmouth extension works, instead of importing granite from Norway. They had been told on good authority that there was granite enough at Dartmoor to build ten Londons. Dartmoor granite was now being sent to build London bridges, and it did seem an injustice to the locality that the Admiralty should be bringing granite all

  1497
  the way from Norway for the extension of these works. In Devonshire there was scarcely any local industry, and recently these granite quarries had been largely developed. Considering that native granite could be supplied as cheaply as any other granite he thougth those who contributed to the taxes of this country were entitled to more consideration. If Dartmoor granite could be supplied as cheaply and without injury to the public service he thought this ought to be done instead of going all the way to Norway for it.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid there were two or three subjects which remained over when they discussed this Vote in Committee which had not been mentioned. With regard to Rosyth, they had been promised information, but they had not been told anything as to the progress of these works, and they had had to fall back for information upon a lecture delivered at the Surveyors' Institute with regard to the Rosyth works. It appeared from the speech delivered by Mr. Binnie that not only had the Government to pay a large sum for the land in the first instance, but they had also to pay a further sum for mineral rights which were not likely to be worked. They had also been informed that there had been some difficulty in regard to buying up the agricultural leases. They had been forced to derive their information from all sorts of stray authorities such as rectors and surveyors, and he thought they had a right to demand full information either in the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty or from the Civil Lord as to what was being done with regard to this dockyard. He understood that things were almost at a standstill now at Rosyth. There were one or two other matters which were left over when the closure was moved. Some of the items had gone up by leaps and bounds. The accommodation of naval cadets at Osborne had increased from £40,000 to £160,000, and at Singapore an item of £23,000 had increased to £57,000. There were other points upon which he would not detain the House, but he trusted that the points which
  1498
  had been mentioned would be dealt with.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he desired to ask a question with regard to the Coastguard stations at West Bay in Dorsetshire. He did not think this was a suitable place at which to spend £4,000, because the population was by no means large. He happened to see the accommodation there some little time ago, and it was not in accordance with the needs of the place. He thought they ought to have some explanation from the hon. Member in regard to the expenditure proposed at this place. With regard to the payment of advances under the Naval Works Acts he noticed that this expenditure had gone up by more than £140,000. Like expenditure under the Military Works Acts this expenditure increased every year, and this was a very unsatisfactory feature in both the Naval and Military Estimates. The capital expenditure was not put down here, and he ventured to think that before they passed this Estimate lightly they ought to have some statement, not only as to what the total expenditure was likely to be, but also as to what it would be next year. They ought to have some indication given as to finality in regard to this expenditure.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. ARTHUR LEE,)said he desired to express his regret to the hon. Member for Halifax for not having been able before this to supply him with the amended copy of page 133, which he promised him during the Committee stage. He was sure the hon. Member would acquit him of any desire to deprive him of that information, but he had only received a proof of the amended copy that afternoon, and ho intended handing it to the hon. Member before the debate took place, had it been possible. The hon. Member would find in the amended copy all the points he had raised cleared up, and when printed it would be laid upon the Table of the House. The hon. Member for Halifax had also referred to the increase in the Estimate from £20,000 last year to £22,500 this year for the adaptation of the Haslar Hospital

  1499
  building. It was always difficult to foresee the exact expenditure that would be required to adapt an old building and bring it up-to-date. It had been found that the floors were not in such a good state as had been expected, and therefore it had been found necessary to renew them. Consequently, an additional expenditure of £2,500 had to be incurred. The hon. Member had also referred to item GG., which related to accommodation on shore of boys' training establishments. He agreed with the hon. Member that some explanation was necessary of the large increase in that item. Last year the amount was £100,000, but that was only to provide for one of the training ships on shore, and it was never intended that that should be the end of the policy of accommodating these boys in barracks on shore. He could defend this policy, very easily, in the first place by pointing out that it was extremely economical to transfer these establishments to the shore. As to the question of hulks, as compared with barracks, the latter were much superior from a sanitary as well as from a financial point of view. He thought that the economies achieved justified the expenditure. It would perhaps interest the House to hear that on working out the cost of maintenance of the structures of these hulks, as compared with barracks on shore, the former cost £7 per boy per annum, whilst the latter cost only 30s. per boy. The total saving effected by these four establishments would amount to about £30,000 a year in actual maintenance and repairs alone. He thought the House would see that that in itself was sufficient to justify the capital expenditure on these barracks, even if the hulks were capable of continuing the work for many years longer. As a matter of fact however, these hulks which it was proposed to replace were not in a satisfactory condition. They were insanitary, and they could not be repaired to carry on the necessary work. Therefore the Admiralty were confronted with the alternative of either preparing new hulks, which would have been a costly business, or of providing barracks on shore. The House was aware that there were many advantages in accommodating the boys on shore. They were able to be better trained, there was more space, and they were able to sleep in beds instead of hammocks, which was a good thing for
  1500
  growing boys. He thought this policy was desirable from every point of view, and he hoped he had been able to indicate that it was an economical policy. It was not proposed at present to build all four of these training establishments. It was only proposed to provide two at present, one at Shotley and the other at Queensferry, because the training ships at those places were in such a parlous condition that it was absolutely necessary to provide other accommodation for the boys. The total sum put down in the Estimate would not be required immediately, but the Admiralty felt that it would be more straightforward to tell the House at once the total extent of this policy, and let them know what was ultimately proposed to be done.
  Reference had been made to two items somewhat similar in their character, the cold meat store at Gibraltar and the ordnance buildings at Singapore. There was no increased cost in these items, although he admitted that this was not clearly shown on the Estimate. The explanation was really very simple. These were services which were being jointly paid for by the Army and Navy. Last year only the Admiralty portion of the Vote was shown. This year the total was shown, but the amount to be provided for on Navy Votes had not increased. Last year it was explained in a footnote that half of the expenditure on the work was chargeable on the Navy Votes and the other half on the Army Votes.
  MR. WHITLEY: Why is the meat store so costly?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the buildings were large, and difficult of construction, and the hon. Member was aware that it was necessary in the case of a fortress like Gibraltar to make larger preparation for the storage of food than at a station in this country.
  The question whether a Reserve Battery should or should not be erected at Buckie had been carefully considered, but the Admiralty found that it was impossible to obtain a site there. The local landowners refused to give a site. The hon. Member

  1501
  for Banffshire would remember that a pledge had been given to him that the whole of the proceedings should be suspended for several weeks, to give him an opportunity of negotiating in the matter. He failed in those negotiations, and the Admiralty failed to persuade the local landowners to part with their property. The only other alternative was to proceed by compulsory powers.
  MR. BLACK: Hear, hear.
  *MR. ARTHUR LEE: The hon. Member said "hear, hear," but he could assure him that the Admiralty, acting on the advice of their legal advisers, decided that it would be most unwise to proceed by compulsory powers in the matter of establishing a firing battery. It was difficult to foresee how far there might be deterioration of surrounding property or what might be the extent of the claims for compensation in the case of a firing battery being established. They had heard of cases in which people living miles away had made claims for compensation on the ground that their nerves were shattered by the sound of the guns.
  MR. BLACK: Will that not apply equally to the site that has been chosen?
  *MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid there was not the same objection at the place selected. The town council had afforded the Admiralty every opportunity for securing a suitable site. He did not say that the site chosen was altogether as good as the other, but it was suitable, and the work would now be proceeded with.
  The question of forming a garden city at Rosyth was fully discussed last year. The hon. Gentleman was told that the Admiralty was sympathetically inclined to the proposal to have a model city in
  1502
  the neighbourhood of Rosyth, but they were not themselves prepared to build a garden city for the accommodation of the workpeople in the dockyard. All they would do was to see whether any land was available for workmen's dwellings after meeting all the requirements of the dockyard, and, if there was, they would encourage the erection of buildings there with due regard to hygienic considerations, space, and so forth. When the time came for building, the Admiralty would be willing to confer with gentlemen who were interested in this idea of a garden city, fn reply to the question as to when the dockyard works would be commenced, all he could say at present was that they would be commenced as soon as the scheme of the proposed dockyard had been fully determined. Hon. Gentlemen must not think that the laving out of a first-class dockyard could be settled in a few days, or even a few months. In the first place it was necessary to make a very elaborate examination of the ground. It was necessary to make most careful borings in order to determine the best sites for docks and other structures, and that work had been pressed on with the utmost vigour during the past year. In addition to that it had been decided to send the superintending engineer to inspect the most modern dockyards on the Continent in order that we should have the advantage of the latest and most scientific ideas on this subject. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no undue delay whatever, and the report that the works had been stopped was absolutely untrue. This was a, matter that must not be gone into headlong and without due consideration. The hon. Member for the Lichfield Division had referred to the item of "Rents" which was made up of a number of small sums, and he was afraid that he could not give him details at present, but he should be

  1503
  very glad to give him, personally, the information he desired. The hon. I Member for East Perthshire asked about the Coastguard item. He had dealt with that matter fully on the last occasion the Vote came up for consideration. He might repeat that the policy now adopted would effect a saving because by building Coastguard stations on loan they would be relieved of the enormous sums which they had to pay for rents of buildings which were in many cases unsuitable. The hon. Member for East Bristol had said that the Coastguard station at West Bay was unnecessary. The hon. Member was entitled to his opinion, but he could only reply that in the opinion of the
  responsible advisers of the Admiralty in this matter, it was a necessary station. The hon. Member also asked a Question as to the repayment of annuities under sub-head Q. It was always unpleasant having to pay one's debts, but it was the fate of solvent "debtors, such as he hoped the Admiralty would always prove to be, to have to pay back the money they borrowed. As these works to which the annuities referred were carried out with the full assent of Parliament it was obvious that the charges must be met.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 52. (Division List No. 62.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Keswick, William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R

  Aubrey- Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. G. H.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Forster Henry William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bigwood, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Bond, Edward

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

  Maxwell, W. J. H.(Dumfriesshire

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gretton, John

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry)

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicholson, William, Graham

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

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Percy, Earl

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Platt Higgins, Frederick

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pym, C. Guy

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hoult, Joseph

  Randles John S.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversham

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Jebb, Sir Richard Clayerhouse

  Ridley, S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Dewar, Sir T. R.(Tower Hamlets)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Digby John K. D. Wingfield.

  Kerr, John

  Rutherford, W. M. (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wilson John (Glasgow)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tuff, Charles

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

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

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Spear, John Ward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stanley Edward Jas. (Somerset)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M Taggart

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und Lyne)

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes-

  Stock, James Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bell, Richard

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Black, Alexander William

  M'Crae, George

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R.(Northants

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Murnaghan, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Cawley, Frederick

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

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

  Toulmin, George

  Crean, Eugene

  O'Mara, James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Reddy, M.

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ffrench Peter

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Roche, John

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hammond, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Whitley and Mr. Buchanan.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Resolution agreed to.

  Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.

The Lord Alington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Victoria University of Yorkshire Bill [H.L.]. The Lord BALFOUR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 4th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Tynemouth Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Matlock and District Gas Bill [H.L.]. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

PETITIONS.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Corporation of Crewe; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  No. 603. Germany (Technical schools for special branches of the metal industries).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
  Return of the areas, population, and valuation of counties, burghs, and parishes in Scotland.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Commander
  1370
  H. P. Smith, one of His Majesty's Superintending Inspectors of Factories, upon the conditions of work in flax and linen mills as affecting the health of the operatives employed therein. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS.
  (Admiralty Departments).—Eleventh 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.
  (Court of Exchequer).—Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which formerly were or ought to have been in the office of First Fruits and Tenths in the late Court of Exchequer, and which are now in the Public Record Office, but are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COLLEGE CHARTER ACT, 1871.
  Application received from the Yorkshire College, Leeds, for the establishment of a University in Leeds, referred by His Majesty in Council for the Consideration and Report of a Committee of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council; together with a draft of the Charter applied for. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 33.)

  THE LATE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I do not think that I shall misinterpret your Lordships' wishes if in a very few words I give expression to the deep regret with which I believe this House has heard of the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge. We in this country are fortunate in

  1371
  that we have in our midst a Royal Family, the members of which make it constantly clear to us by their conduct that it is their desire to avail themselves of every opportunity of taking a useful and honourable part in our public life. Their opportunities are not infrequently restricted. It happens often that a Royal Prince, from the mere fact that be is a Royal Prince, finds that the accident of his birth is an obstacle and a hindrance rather than an assistance to him in realising his natural aspirations. In this respect the Duke of Cambridge was exceptionally fortunate. His opportunity came to him, and he turned it most successfully to account. He chose the profession of a soldier, and for fifty-eight years he followed that profession. He held many prominent appointments; he saw service in the field; but the most remarkable feature in his military career is that for almost forty years he filled the high and distinguished office of Commander-in-Chief of the Army. That office has now ceased to exist, but I venture to say that when we refer to it, and look back to it, we shall invariably connect it with the long and honourable tenure of His late Royal Highness.
  My Lords, during those forty years, as His Royal Highness pointed out when in 1895 he took leave of the Army, many great, and important changes took place. I will not upon this occasion enumerate them, or recapitulate the history of the British Army during the time in which it was under His Royal Highness's command. Two great measures, at any rate, took effect while he held that position—I mean the abolition of purchase and the introduction of short service, changes which have been the bedrock of all subsequent reforms and which, in my opinion, are the bedrock even of those now in progress. But it would be the merest affectation to describe the late Duke of Cambridge as having been a great Army reformer. His best friends would not claim for him that that was his merit, and I do not think that he himself would have put forward any such claim. His bent of mind was eminently conservative. He was content to leave it to others to propose and initiate changes; he regarded it rather as his business to
  1372
  be the watchful guardian of the interests of the Army and to criticise and, if possible, improve any measures which were presented to him for his consideration
  My Lords, I think there are two observations which may be made in regard to the conduct of His Royal Highness. In the first place, his criticism was that of a man who knew and understood the Army as probably no other living soldier did. He was able to fortell how any change would be regarded by every one serving the Crown in the military profession, from the general at one end of the Scale to the last-joined recruit at the other. The other observation I will make of him is this, that if His Royal Highness, as undoubtedly was sometimes the case, accepted changes which he would not himself have proposed, or which may, in some instances, have been distasteful to him, he accepted them after they had once been thoroughly discussed with absolute loyalty, and he was glad to put his great knowledge and experience at the service of those whose business it was to carry those great changes into effect. And so it came to pass that the Duke of Cambridge earned the confidence and goodwill of many successive Secretaries of State and many successive generations of British soldiers.
  In this House His Royal Highness not infrequently took part in our debates, particularly if the subject under discussion was one concerning the affairs of the Army. His speech was, as one might expect from a soldier, simple, and altogether devoid of studied effect, but he spoke to the point with sincerity, and with thorough knowledge of the subject.
  Outside this House the Duke of Cambridge associated himself with all useful and beneficent movements. I suppose no man ever worked harder in that direction than did His late Royal Highness. No charitable enterprise appealed to him for assistance in vain; and if it wore one which was in any way connected with the Army, or with the wives and families and dependents of those who were serving in the Army, it commanded a double measure of his goodwill and encouragement. The life which is now ended was a long life,

  1373
  a useful life, and, if popularity and the knowledge that one's efforts are appreciated be a source of happiness, I take leave to say, a happy life also. He has passed away, leaving, I believe, no single enemy in this world, but a host of friends endeared to him by the kindliness and geniality of his disposition; and if he was generally respected, he was certainly not least respected in this House, of which he was for so many years a conspicuous and distinguished Member. I am told that it would not be usual, or in accordance with precedent, that we should move any formal Resolution of I condolence with those who are mourning his death; but I do believe that it would be the desire of your Lordships, even in some less formal manner, to signify your deep sympathy with His Majesty the King, and with those who are mourning the loss which has fallen upon the Royal Family and the country.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, my noble friends Lord Spencer and Lord Ripon are away from this House to-day, so it has fallen to me quite unexpectedly to echo the graceful and eloquent words which have fallen from the noble Marquess. If I fail to give expression to what is the feeling of all the Members of your Lordships.' House who sit on this side, it will not be from any want of appreciation of His late Royal Highness, but from the fact that I have not had the opportunity of thinking over my remarks. My Lords, I cannot, of course, speak, like the noble Marquess, with full knowledge of the illustrious Duke's services as Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Army; but this I know—that when he laid down that honourable and distinguished position he laid it down with a recognition of his good service from the whole Army, and commanding the affection and regard of the officers and of all who had been brought into contact with him. I think, too, every one of us has the feeling that with His Royal Highness's death a notable link with the past has been severed. I think I am right in supposing that His Royal Highness was absolutely the last male member of his generation of the House of Hanover to survive. That family has had a great share in the history of this country for the last century and a
  1374
  half, and the death of the last male survivor of its past generation brings home to us very strongly the changes which have taken place. I believe that many instances will occur to the minds of your Lordships of kindness and good fellowship shown by His Royal Highness both as a public man and as a private friend. I think the quality in his character which most came home to me, with my small knowledge of His Royal Highness, was his absolute determination never to give in. It seemed to me that he certainly possessed in a high degree that quality of which we, as a nation, are so proud—that we never know when we are beaten. Only last year, when he took the chair at a dinner in commemoration of the golden wedding of my noble friend Lord Cork, in the speech which he made on that occasion he said that, so long as he could struggle to the fore he would always make his public appearance, and especially when it was to give gratification or do a service to a friend. Those, I think, are high qualities. I think you will agree with me that His Royal Highness well lived up to the traditions of the family to which he belonged, and that we all to-day most sincerely mourn his death and are most anxious to fully express our sorrow for it to His Majesty and the Royal Family.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Report of Amendments received.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I wish to say that I do not propose, at this stage, to move the Amendments standing in my name. I think it would be more convenient that I should bring them forward at a later stage.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, this Bill is, verbatim et literatim the same as the one

  1375
  which passed through this House with the general approval of your Lordships last session. Therefore, unless some objection is raised to that course, I move that the Standing Committee be negatived.
  Moved, That the Standing Committee be negatived.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN GARRISON.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether on 1st January, 1904, any regiments in South Africa were still under canvas, and, if so, whether these troops were supplied with bedsteads to keep them off the ground; if so, will he give the names of these regiments; (2) what number of military huts have been supplied for the troops in South Africa; and how many have already been erected.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I must first express my gratitude to the noble Earl for postponing this Question until to-day, so as to enable the information he requires to be obtained from South Africa. On 1st January this year, there were 9,848 troops, that is to say, non-commissioned officers and men, under canvas in South Africa. The units were: the 3rd and 7th Dragoon Guards, 7th Hussars, R and S Batteries of the Royal Horse Artillery, 83rd and 85th Batteries Royal Field Artillery, the 10th and 13th Brigade Divisions Royal Artillery, the 2nd Royal West Surrey Regiment, the 1st Battalion Welsh Regiment, the 4th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps, and 2nd, 4th, and 5th Mounted Infantry, and detachments of the Royal Engineers, Army Service Corps, and Army Veterinary Departments at various stations. That is to say, about one-third of the troops then in South Africa were under canvas. I am informed that the majority of these units had
  1376
  provided themselves with European-pattern tents and marquees; all had beds, field-service or barrack, except a portion of 7th Hussars and the Harrismith units, who had constructed bedsteads of old material. These units have since been supplied with beds. The units at the temporary stations, Kroonstad and Ladybrand, had not bedsteads. The units under canvas had huts or large tents for dining and recreation, wash-houses, etc. As to the number of huts supplied, I am informed that between October, 1901, and April, 1902, 1,094 huts were sent to South Africa, and since then 200 bungalows for married officers have been despatched, Of those huts, about 760 have been erected in the new cantonments, a good deal of new material being used in the process, 186 were used in concentration camps, and thirty, after having been used for temporary purposes, have been sold. This accounts for 976 out of the 1,094 huts sent out. The remainder are standing in temporary hospitals or temporary camps. I may remind your Lordships that barracks are being built as rapidly as possible. We have to build barracks for, I think, some thirty-eight units of different sorts and sizes, and the barracks for all but five will be ready by August. A great many of them are occupied now.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half- past Ten o'clock.