Sitting of 12 July 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Tyrone (East Tyrone), in the room of Patrick Charles Doogan, esquire, deceased.— (Captain Donclan.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill, Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Sutton District Water Bill, read the third time, and passed.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill [Lords]; Wolstanton United Urban District Council Gas Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Charing Cross, West End, and City Electricity Supply Bill (by order); City of London Electric Lighting Bill (by order); West London Electric Undertakers' Association Bill (by order). Orders for Second Reading read and discharged; Bills withdrawn.
London Electric Supply Corporation Bill (by order); South Metropolitan Electric Light and Power Bill (by order). Orders for Second Reading read and discharged; Bills withdrawn.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill. Ordered, That in the case of the South Wales Electrical Tower Distribution Company Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, and 215 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.
London Southern Tramways Bill. Order [6th March], that the Bill be committed, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Paisley Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill. Order [10th July] for
1028
Second Reading upon Wednesday next, read, and discharged.
Bill referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill. Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP I).
Mr. TOULMIN reported from the Committee on Group I of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at a quarter before Twelve of the Clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to, Amendments to—London and North Western Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, etc.) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Education Board Provisional Orders-Confirmation (Devon, etc.) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Wirral Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill [Lords]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords]; Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [Lords]; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway. Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Ritz Hotel, Limited, Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Portsmouth Water Bill [Lords]. Ro-ported with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Edensor; Horsley; Lillingstone Lovell; Little Hadham; and, Nottingham; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Broughton; Halifax; and, Ticken-hall; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petition from Bucklow, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Cadder; and, Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Leith; and, Stirling; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; From Guild-ford (two); Kirkdale; and, South Nottingham; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNTENANTED LANDS (IRELAND).
  Return [presented 3rd July] to be printed. [No. 250.]
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Paper [presented 11th July] to be printed. [No. 251.]
  IRSIH FISHING-BOAT BUILDING.
  Return [presented 11th July] to be printed. [No. 252.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Technical Schools, Schools of Art, and other Schools and Classes for further Education (from 1st August 1906 to 31st July 1907) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th May; Mr. Goddard]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 253.]
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Copy presented, of Appendix to Report of the Committee appointed to investigate and advise the First Commissioner of Works with regard to the improvement of the Ventilation of the House of Commons [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Crown Office Rules, Copy of Crown Office Rules, 1906 [by Act].
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, " of all the Inspectors now in the service of the Local Government Board, showing in respect of each, (1) his name; (2) date of original appointment; (3) age on appointment; (4) whether he obtained the appointment by competitive examination, or by nomination and examination; (5) if nomination, name of nominator; (6) occupation previous to appointment; (7) experience of local government previous to appointment; (8) present salary; (9) travelling and other expenses in List financial year; (10) amount of pension, if any, to which in normal course he will, become entitled." (Mr. Ginnell.)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, " setting forth the name, age, length of service, and official position, of all salaried Officials in the various Government Departments in Ireland, who have been appointed (a) by nomination without examination; (b) by nomination with limited competition; (c) by nomination with qualifying examination." (Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Naval Shipbuilding.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of battleships and cruisers, respectively, of over 5,000 tons, under construction for the Royal Navy

  Years.

  Battleships.

  Cruisers.

  Dockyards.

  Contractors.

  Dockyards.

  Contractors.

  Number.

  Number.

  Number.

  Number.

  1900

  8

  7

  4

  12

  1901

  10

  6

  8

  15

  1902

  7

  5

  9

  13

  1903

  6

  6

  8

  14

  1904

  7

  5

  7

  8

  1905

  4

  4

  7

  9

  1906

  4

  2

  4

  7

  Income Tax Arrears.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the clearing up of arrears of income-tax by officers of Inland Revenue is confined to those districts in which the collection of income tax is undertaken by the Department, or whether surveyors of taxes have also to deal with schedules of persons in default from whom payment has been demanded by parochial collectors; and whether they are enjoined by their instructions to request payment from persons named by the parochial collector as in arrear; and, if not, when the instruction was cancelled.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) When the duties have not been collected within the prescribed time the instructions of the collector require him to report such persons as are in arrear to the surveyor, who is then required to issue notices to the defaulters in a prescribed form demanding that payment should be made to the collector. Surveyors are not
  in the Royal Dockyards and private yards, respectively, on the 1st April 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Number of battleships and cruisers, respectively, of over 5,000 tons, under construction for the Royal Navy in the Royal Dockyards and private yards, respectively, on the 1st April 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906:—
  enjoined by their instructions to request payment from persons named by the parochial collector as in arrear, nor is payment to a surveyor permitted.

  Income Tax Assessments.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will obtain from each surveyor of taxes an estimate of the percentage of assessments for the past five years which have had to be corrected before and also after issue of notice to pay; and will he furnish the result of such information in tabular form.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No. Any such estimate would be valueless unless based on a close examination of the records of assessments, and any such examination would occupy the time of the surveyors for several weeks, to the serious detriment of the work of the current year, without serving any purpose of public utility commensurate with the labour involved.

  Income Tax Collection.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a list of the places in which the collection of schedules D and E income-tax has been transferred from parochial collectors to collectors of inland revenue, the date of transfer in each case, and the saving effected in poundage previously paid to parochial collectors; will he state what success has attended the change; and why it has not been extended so as to embrace the whole of England and Wales.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Inland Revenue Department's own officers collect the duty on all assessments made by the special Commissioners, and the whole of the income-tax under schedules D and E in many of the large towns where the appointment of collectors of taxes has devolved upon the Department, including Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Bristol, Bolton, Derby, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham, Newcastle, Oldham, Warrington, Wolverhampton, Cardiff, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southampton, and Sunderland. It would mean a considerable expenditure of time to verify the exact dates from which the several arrangements run, and the exact financial effect of each. The arrangement for collection of schedules D and E works well in the larger provincial centres, but would not be suitable for general adoption.

  Australian Mail Contract.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can state the conditions of the tenders which have been invited for the Australian mail contract when the present contract ceases; and whether the present system of two contracts, one by the Australian Government and one by the British Government, is to continue.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The tender forms and conditions of service have already been published; and I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with copies of them. The Imperial Government proposes to continue the present system under which it provides a fortnightly mail service to and from Australia, leaving it to the Commonwealth Government to make its own arrangements for the intervening weeks.

  Loughrea Police.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many policemen are at present quartered in the town hall, Loughrea; is he aware that the building, which preceded the present town hall, known as the Loughrea Linen Hall, was the property of the people of the town and used by them as a market house, and demolished by the father of the present Lord Clanricarde, on a pledge to build a capacious hall for the benefit of his tenants in the town and district; is he aware that, though the building has been in existence for over thirty years, the present Lord Clanricarde refuses to allow either the Town Commissioners or the townspeople to have any connection with the town hall; and having regard to the fact that the town hall at the present time is being used as a place of shelter for the police and at times hired out by the agent for itinerant shows, while the Town Commissioners require it urgently in the interest of the townspeople, whether he will add a new clause to the Town Tenants Bill, enabling the Town Commissioners of Loughrea to come into possession of their own town hall, either as a yearly tenant or purchaser.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that sixty policemen are at present quartered in the building known as the town hall, at Loughrea. This building appears to be the property of Lord Clanricarde, but I have no information whatever as to the circumstances under which it was erected. The meetings of the town commissioners and of their successors, the urban district council, have, I am informed, been held elsewhere than in the town hall for many years past. The hon. Member's suggestion that the Government should introduce into a Bill, and indeed, a private Member's Bill, altering the general law, such a clause as is suggested, dealing with a particular building, does not appear to be practicable.

  Dublin Corporation and the Irish Language.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  1035
  aware that the Corporation of Dublin have passed a resolution deciding to place the name of the corporation in Irish only on all the rolling stock belonging to the council; and what steps he proposes to take to compel compliance with the law.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) No official information on this subject has reached me, and it would be altogether premature now to consider any course that may be taken in the future.

  Untenanted Lands in Westmeath.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there are in Westmeath more than 60,000 acres of untenanted land; and whether, in view of the need for its distribution, the number of persons who must emigrate if not provided with land, and the danger of the land being permanently disposed of otherwise under the Act which contemplated its distribution, he will ask the Estates Commissioners to institute an inexpensive preliminary inquiry as to whether this land would be sold to them voluntarily; and, if so, at what price.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that there are some 80,000 acres of untenanted land in county Westmeath. I would willingly call the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the position of the county, but I believe them to be already possessed of the facts and of the need for action. I have already stated that the Commissioners intend to inquire from the owners of all untenanted land, which may be suitable for distribution, whether they are prepared to sell. The Commission to be appointed to deal with congestion will also take the condition of the untenanted land in the county into their consideration.

  Deficiency of Officers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the present deficiency, if any, of officers in the Royal Engineers, the Royal Artillery, the Household Cavalry, the Cavalry of the Line, the Brigade of Guards, the Infantry of the Line, the Militia Artillery, the Infantry Militia, the Imperial Yeomanry, and the Volunteer Force.
  1036
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The present deficiency of officers is as follows:—

  Royal Engineers

  11

  Royal Artillery

  nil

  Household Cavalry

  2

  Cavalry of the Line

  42

  Brigade of Guards

  12

  Infantry of the Line

  146

  Militia Artillery

  144

  Militia Infantry

  919

  Imperial Yeomanry (combatant)

  347

  Volunteers (combatant)

  2,773

  Vaccination.
  MR. BRANCH: To ask the Secretary of state for War whether, in view of the effect upon the health of Alfred Handscombe (late an employee at the Small Arms Factory, Enfield), through vaccination being enforced upon him, he will consent to a similar modification of the rule as agreed to by educational authorities and as recommended to the magistrates by the Home Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The action taken by the Education Department in the case of teachers, and the case of Alfred Handscombe, do not appear to afford any sound grounds for an alteration of the decision not to admit men to the ordinance factories unless they consent to be vaccinated. I may point out that the Home Office letter is merely explanatory of the law in regard to vaccination generally.

  Lothians Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. CROMBIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has boon called to the appointment of Lord Binning to the command of the Lothians and Berwickshire Imperial Yeomanry; whether Lord Binning has been a supernumerary to that regiment for a period of fifteen years in excess of that allowed by the Yeomanry regulations, and, being an officer of the Regular Forces on half-pay, is not eligible for the command of a Yeomanry regiment; and, if so, whether he will state why Lord Binning has been appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Lord Binning was appointed to this

  1037
  Yeomanry regiment under the old regulations, which permitted the holding of a double commission, and was therefore eligible for the command. The appointment was made, following the usual practice on the recommendation of the General Officer commanding-in-chief in Scotland. His advice was given after close consideration of the whole of the circumstances.

  Courts Martial.
  MR. LEA: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will forbid any general court martial abroad during time of peace trying British soldiers for murder, and arrange that such cases shall be handed over to the civil authorities, as is the present custom in Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The Army Act provides that a soldier shall not be tried by court martial for murder in any place within His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom, other than Gibraltar, unless such person at the time he committed the offence was on active service, or such place is more than 100 miles from any city or town where he could be tried by a competent civil court. I am not prepared to issue any instructions affecting the provisions of the Act in this respect.

  Executions of British Soldiers.
  MR. LEA: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he wilt issue an order to the Army that, in future, in time of peace, no British soldier condemned to death shall be executed in public, and that no soldiers shall be forced to witness such executions, thus making the Military authorities conform to the same practice as prevails with our civil authorities at home.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The points raised in the Question are now receiving careful consideration. Personally, I am in sympathy with the suggestion, but I must make careful inquiry, especially in India, before any conclusion can be come to on this grave matter.

  Singapore Docks.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the case of the
  1038
  Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, arbitration was resorted to at the suggestion of the Straits Government; whether any attempt was made to come to terms for a price, either before or after expropriation had been resolved upon, and, if so, with what result; did the company make any offer to the Government to dispose of their interests, and, if so, what were the terms of the offer; what have been the detailed costs of the arbitration, in fees to arbitrators and umpire and in other incidental expenses, respectively; who will pay the award and the costs of; arbitration; will the Colonial Office furnish any correspondence or other papers in relation to these subjects; and is he aware that the award represents double the price of the shares at the time when notice of expropriation was given.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) It was the view of the late Secretary of State that the sum to be paid should be determined by mutual agreement, or, failing that, by arbitration. After notice of expropriation had been given, an offer was made by the Governor of $240 per share, being rather above the market quotation prior to the notice. The company asked for $700 and there appeared to be no prospect of reducing this wide difference by further negotiations. It will not be possible to state the cost of the arbitration until the accounts have been received and paid. The award and costs will be paid in the first instance by the Government of the Straits Settlements, and will be a charge on the undertaking acquired. The Secretary of State will consider the question of laying Papers on the subject. The award represents more than three times the price of the shares at the time stated in the last part of the Question.

  Discharges from Barlinnie Gaol.
  MR. WOOD: To ask the Secretary for Scotland is he aware that the new method of discharging prisoners from Barlinnie prison on the termination of their sentences is causing considerable annoyance in certain districts of Glasgow; and if he will give instructions to discontinue the new practice.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) No representations on this subject, other than

  1039
  those made by the hon. Member, have reached me. I am communicating with the Prison Commissioners so that steps may be taken to arrange with the local authorities for the removal of any just cause of annoyance.

  Foreign Postage Bates.
  MR. H. BEAUMONT: To ask the Postmaster-General how the Post Office authorities justify the passing of 15-gram letters with their published regulations to the effect that the postage to be prepaid on letters for all foreign countries and for British Possessions not mentioned in the list appearing in the Post Office Guide is 2½d. per half-ounce.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The tolerance extended to letters exceeding half an ounce, but not exceeding 15 grammes, is not authorised by the published regulations, which are strictly in accordance with the statutory authority; but the concession is of long standing, and for that reason, as I have already announced in this House, I do not propose to withdraw it. When the new rates agreed upon by the Postal Congress at Rome come into force next year, the Question will disappear; for the one ounce, which will then come into force here as the unit of weight, will exceed the 20 grammes, which will be the unit of weight in countries having the metric system.

  School Fire Drills.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether time occupied in fire drill may be counted in the minimum time required for a school attendance under the regulations for public elementary schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Lough.) I think it is undesirable to lay down definite rulings of general application, irrespective of local circumstances, in matters of the kind referred to in the Question. I can imagine circumstances in which occasional practice in the rapid clearing of children out of a school building, with a little practice in the handling of fire apparatus by the elder boys, might be a very proper thing to sanction as part of the school programme, while it is equally
  1040
  clear that in many cases such an occupation would be absurd, and in most cases only to be sanctioned occasionally.

  School Code.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether under the terms of Article 38 (iv.), Code for Public Elementary Schools, it is intended that scholars in higher elementary schools shall be prepared for particular trades or generally for industrial life; and at what date the evening schools regulations will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Lough.) The hon. Member's Question as to the purpose of higher elementary schools is not one which can be answered properly in a sentence. It is important to have considerable latitude to suit differing circumstances. The Consultative Committee of the Board of Education have recently given special consideration to this Question, and I am hoping to issue in a few days, directly I receive it from the printers, a very valuable Report which they have compiled upon the problem in question. The evening school regulations will be in the hands of Members in two or three days.

  Faulkner Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have now concluded the purchase of the Faulkner estate, Spring-hill, Queen's County; if the purchase embraces the whole area of the estate in this county; if Mr. William Reilly's larger holding in Springhill is also included; and, if not, will he explain why.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform mo that they have made an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of the estate referred to, but they have not yet been informed whether or not their offer has been accepted. The offer embraces the whole estate in the county, with the exception of the holding of William Reilly, No. 16, Springfield. The superior landlord has rights of quarrying over the whole of this holding, and under the circumstances the Commissioners did not consider it desirable to include the holding in the estate.

  Tenants' Improvements.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland is the test case about to be raised relating to the sale of a tenant's improvements to himself a zone case; and, if so, can he give the name of it, and say when it will be heard.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have, in a case arising in Lord Kilmaine's estate, referred for decision to the Judicial Commissioner the question whether they are entitled to refuse to advance the full amount agreed upon, though secured on the land and buildings, on the ground that the agreed price is inequitable to the tenant purchaser, inasmuch as it includes the price of buildings belonging to him and not claimed by the landlord. The case in question does not come within the zones. The question has only now been referred to the Judge, and it is not yet known when it will appear in the Judge's list for argument.

  Captain Sandes' Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether agreements to purchase have been signed by the tenants on the estate of Captain Sandes, Garrymore, Mount-mellick, Queen's County; can he say what provision has been made for the evicted tenants on the property; and will the Estates Commissioners see that the claims of the evicted tenants to purchase their old holdings are satisfactorily settled before sanctioning the sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the lodgment of any purchase agreements in respect of the estate referred to. The claims of all evicted tenants will be duly inquired into and considered in the event of the estate being dealt with by the Commissioners.

  Drumcoo Evicted Tenant.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mrs. Ellen M'Guire, who is the only representative of her father who was evicted
  1042
  from his farm in the townland of Drumcoo, county Fermanagh, which he held under Captain Arthur H. M. Hamilton-Jones; will the applicant be restored; or what steps are being taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce): The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have recently received from Mrs. M'Guire an application for reinstatement, and that they will have the case inquired into by an inspector in due course.

  Irish Historical Manuscripts.
  MR. CLANCYTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will undertake to see that the printing of the manuscripts relating to Ireland on which the Historical Manuscripts Commission and the English Record Office are now engaged is done in Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The printing of the publications of the Historical Manuscripts Commission and of the English Record Office is offered to tender in all parts of the United Kingdom. Recently the contract for certain of them, which relate mainly to English subjects, has been secured by a Dublin firm. It would hardly be to the advantage of Irish printers if the rule were established that the printing of such works must be executed in that part of the United Kingdom to which the subject matter relates.

  Moynehall Evicted Tenant.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Frank Reilly, who was evicted by his landlord, Mr. John Fay, of Moynehall, Cavan, in 1886, from his farm in Coolkill; will he say whether this evicted farm is held by a grabber, and what steps, if any, are being taken to secure this evicted tenant's restoration to his old home.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received the application in question, and have referred it to one of their inspectors for inquiry. The holding is stated to be in the landlord's possession.

  Mullycastle Evicted Tenant.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Mr. Michael M'Evoy, who was evicted from his farm in Mullycastle, county Cavan, on 2nd April, 1886, by Mr. John Fay, of Moynehall, Cavan, for non - payment of rent; is he aware that this evicted farm is on the landlord's hands; and will he say what steps have or are being taken in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received from Michael M'Evoy an application for reinstatement in his former holding, which is stated to be in the landlord's hands. The case has been referred to an inspector for inquiry.

  Upper Inny Drainage Board.
  MR, GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state who are the members of the Upper Inny Drainage Board, so far as relates to Westmeath; when and how have they been appointed; what are the constitution and powers of the Board; is the Board now operative; what are its liabilities in respect of outlay already incurred; what is the date of the latest official engineering report; when tenants suffer from their farms and bogs being flooded, and the landlords expecting to sell their estates refuse to take action, will the Board of Works have the necessary drainage carried out; and in cases of sale how will charges for the drainage be dealt with in relation to tenanted land and in relation to untenanted land.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have ascertained from the Board of Works that information as to the names of the members of the Drainage Board, so far as relates to Westmeath, when and how they have been appointed, what are the liabilities of the Drainage Board in respect of outlay already incurred, and the date of the latest official engineering report, can only be obtained by referring to the Drainage Board. As regards the inquiry whether the Board of Works will have the necessary drainage carried out, the Board of Works inform me that they
  1044
  have no power to carry out drainage works. If a drainage board which has been constituted should neglect to maintain the works, the Board of Works may, on the representation of owners or occupiers in the district, who suffer from such neglect, intervene, and if they are unable to induce the Drainage Board to act, they may, with Treasury permission carry out maintenance works themselves at the cost of the ratepayers in the district. The manner in which charges will be dealt with in cases of sale depends on the circumstances of each case and the Statutes applicable to it. The Question does not admit of a summary Answer, but it may be stated in general that capital charges are redeemed out of the purchase money, and the annual maintenance charges are paid by the purchasers. The constitution and powers of the Drainage Board can be seen by reference to the Drainage Acts, 26 and 27 Vic, c. 88, and 31 and 32 Vic, c. 158. The Board is now operative.

  Short Weight at Aldershot Canteen.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that packets of tobacco and groceries sold to soldiers at the canteen at Aldershot are frequently short in weight; and, seeing that any request for tobacco and groceries to be weighed in the presence of the purchaser is refused, will he cause inquiry to be made on the subject, with a view to remove all ground for complaint of short weight.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No complaints of this nature have reached the War Office. The administration of canteens is a local matter. If my hon. friend can supply any specific instances of the matter to which he alludes, inquiries shall be made.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. BELLAIES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state how many battleships were originally designated to take part in the recent naval manœuvres, how many were unable to take part in the

  1045
  manœuvres or parted company from other ships in this fleet owing to engine-room troubles or other causes; whether the numbers given include the " Montagu," which grounded at Lundy Island, the " Ramillies," which was rammed by the " Resolution," the "Goliath," "Canopus," "Ocean," and " New Zealand; " and whether any other battleships besides the " Victorious " were captured through accidents to their engine equipment.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Until the umpires' reports have been received it is not considered desirable to furnish any information about the manœuvres.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can briefly inform the House what are the principal lessons as regards the defence of the United Kingdom, and the oversea food routes, to be deduced from the recent naval manœuvres. Has not the result of the manœuvres boon to knock the " blue-water " school into a cocked hat?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Until the report of the umpires has been received no reply can be given to the Question.

  Cruisers in the Levant.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many battleships and how many armoured cruisers were in the Levant in connection with the recent diplomatic difficulties with Turkey.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There were five battleships and seven armoured cruisers in the Levant at the time referred to.

  Wei-hai-Wei.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if any money already allocated by Parliament for Wei-hai-Wei still remains unexpended; and, if so, to what purpose such sum will be voted.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The aggregate amount included in the Navy
  1046
  Votes in respect to Wei-hai-Wei for the current financial year is, £9,900, of which it may be assumed that rather more than one quarter has already been expended. This amount is spread over Votes 2, 3, 8, Sections 1, 2 and 3, 10 and 11.

  Execution of an Indian Native.
  MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a Report from India of the circumstances connected with the execution of a native, who had appealed to the Governor-General; and what action he intends to take with respect to the official who is responsible for this execution.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): When this subject was first raised by a Question in the name of the hon. Member for Tyneside, I expressed my incredulity, and in some particulars incredulity was justified. Udoy Patny was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet for murder. The right of appeal is of exceptional liberality in India. First, the capital sentence was confirmed by the High Court of Calcutta. Next, the prisoner had right of appeal to the High Court; whether he exercised this right I do not know. The date of the execution was fixed by the Sessions Judge for May 21st. The prisoner now appealed for mercy to the Lieutenant-Governor, who, in the exercise of the powers vested in him, declined on May 12th to interfere. The prisoner then made an oral statement to the superintendent of the gaol, appealing to the Government of India. The superintendent informed the Local Government of the fact by telegram on Sunday the 13th. On the 15th the record of the ease and the notification of the appeal were despatched to the Government of India by registered letter marked " immediate." Owing to some error this letter which should have been delivered on the 19th, did not come into the hands of the Government of India until 10 o'clock on the morning of Monday, the 21st. The Government of India telegraphed staying the execution, if it had not been already carried out, not because they thought that the case deserved clemency —for the record satisfied them of the guilt of the accused—but because they were under the impression that a petition

  1047
  for mercy was on its way to them, and they did not realise that the telegram from the gaoler was all that the prisoner had to say. The convict had already been executed at 7 o'clock that morning. The Local Government admit in a communication to the Government of India that mistakes were made. They overlooked the fact that May 20th was a Sunday and therefore there might be delay. The superintendent of the Sylhet Gaol told them that he had fixed the 21st for the execution, but they gave him no orders to postpone. Let me say that if a prisoner, after petitioning the Local Government, further petitions the Government of India, and if such petition, in the opinion of the Local Government, contains nothing likely to influence the judgment of the Government of India in the prisoner's favour, the Local Government is bound, under the regulations of 1885 to forward it to the Government of India, but is not bound to postpone the execution beyond the date already fixed. In the present case the verbal petition to the Government of India added nothing to the petition to the Local Government which had already been rejected, and the Lieutenant-Governor's action was therefore strictly in accordance with the regulation to which I have just referred. Whatever may be the right construction of the rule, it was to be expected in my opinion that the Local Government, having forwarded the petition would make it part of the same operation to take care that the object in forwarding it should not be made futile by taking no steps to suspend the execution. I must remind the House that the Government of India have had no doubt upon a review of the record that the conviction and the sentence passed by the Sessions Judge and confirmed by the High Court of Calcutta were entirely just. There have been admitted faults in procedure, and I regret to say that in my view these proceedings fall short of the high and exact standard of official duty that the Indian Civil Service has for so many generations so notably maintained.
  MR. BYLES: Does not all this point to the abandonment of the judicial policy of taking away human life?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Indian Public Works Department.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will give the names of the colleges or other institutions, at which the eleven candidates who were appointed last month, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, to the permanent staff of the Indian Public Works Department, severally received their scientific or engineering education.
  MR.MORLEY: Two had been educated at Trinity College, Dublin; one each at the following Universities:— Cambridge. London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, the Royal Irish University, the University of Wales; and one each at the Royal College of Science and the Central Technical College, Kensington.

  Chinese Crime in South Africa.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the public interest will allow him to inform, the House what military steps are being taken by the Government for the defence of the white community in South Africa.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The military aspects of the native disturbances in South Africa are receiving the careful attention both of the general officer commanding in South Africa and of the Secretary of State for War, and there is no statement which could usefully be made of the forces which would be mobilised to meet any of the various contingencies which require examination at the present time.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has the regular garrison been increased?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No increase has been made.

  South African Tariff.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the increase in the South African preferential tariff from two and a half to three percent, was adopted in the Legislative Council of the Transvaal by a majority consisting solely of the official members,

  1049
  and against the unanimous vote of the elected members; has the Colonial Office any control over these official members; will it support the views and wishes of the people of the Transvaal, as represented by their elected members, and advise His Majesty to disallow the vote; can this increased tariff take effect without the concurrences of the Orange River Colony; if not, has that Colony given its assent, and in what form and by whose authority; and is the Colonial Office in any sense responsible.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The new Customs Convention must be ratified by the legislature of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony independently. The Secretary of state understands that it has been so ratified, but has received no detailed report of the proceedings. In view of the impending constitutional changes which will enable what has been done to be reconsidered by elected representatives, the Secretary of state as at present advised does not think it necessary to go further into the question.

  Transvaal Imports.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give a Return with figures showing the value of the present imports into the Transvaal, their increase since the war, the amount of Customs duty raised thereon, and the probable increase in the burden of taxation arising from the now tariff; and the estimated amount of the reduction of railway rates.
  MR. CHURCHILL: A Return of the character desired by the hon. Member will be laid before the House.

  Convictions of Natives in the Transvaal.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of state for the Colonies if he will state the number of convictions for crimes, outrages, and misdemeanours had against natives in the Transvaal from January 1st to July 1st, 1900; and will he define the character of the offences in the same way as has been done in regard to Chinese offences.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State will ask Lord Selborne to have such a Return prepared without delay.

  Nigerian Railways.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been arrived at by the Government in regard to railway extension in Nigeria; and, if so, whether he is able to make any announcement on the subject.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The matter is receiving attention, but I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

  Kaffirs' Wages.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what wore the wages paid to Kaffirs in the mines of the Witwatersrand for the years 1898, 1901–2, 1902–3, 1903–4, and 1904–5, respectively.
  MR. CHURCHILL: According to the Report of the Government Mining Engineer the monthly average rate paid to natives in 1898 was 47s. 1d.; for the statistical year 1901–2 it was 26s. 8d.; for 1902–3, 38s. 6d.; for 1903–4, 48s. 10d.; for 1904–5, 52s.; for the last six months of 1905, 51s. 5d.

  Indians in the Transvaal.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Her late Majesty protested on any occasion to the Government of the Transvaal Republic against the use of the word " native " to include Her Majesty's Indian subjects; and whether that protest was ever withdrawn?
  MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government in the negotiations which terminated in the arbitration at Bloem-fonteim in 1895 refused to admit that the word " native " in the London Convention covered Indians. In view, however, of the circumstances of the case, they agreed to legislation by the South African Republic in derogation of the strict interpretation of the Convention.

  Chinese Coolie Contracts.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the recent outbreaks of crime among Chinese

  1051
  coolies in South Africa, and with the object of stopping their further importation, the Government will, in consideration of the cancellation of any existing contracts, offer to any person shown to be a loser thereby a sum of money not exceeding the loss actually sustained.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the statements of policy already made to the House, which, as my hon. friend cannot fail to recognise, exclude the possibility of adopting his suggestion.
  MR. LUPTON: Is the Government going to maintain much longer the condition of Chinese slavery in the Transvaal?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Recruitment of Kaffir Labour.
  MR. VERNEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether with a view of substituting as far as possible Kaffir for Chinese labour in South Africa, the Government will immediately take all means available for the recruiting of Kaffirs by responsible persons and agencies?
  MR. CHURCHILL: As I have already explained to the House in answer to Questions of a similar character, His Majesty's Government are inclined to assist all legitimate means of recruiting natives, subject to the essential condition that the interests and good treatment of the natives themselves are effectually secured.

  Coolie Import Licenses.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a record has been kept of the names of the firms or persons to whom the 16,000 licenses were issued in November last for the importation of Chinese coolies into the Transvaal; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state for whom the last two shiploads of coolies were brought to the Rand, and for whom the remaining 8,000 licences were issued.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The information is not in possession of the Colonial Office, but I will ask for it.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action has been taken by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to prevent further importations of Chinese labourers into South Africa; and whether a date has been fixed for cancelling the licenses remaining unused which were granted by the late Cabinet during their last week's term of office.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I would remind the hon. Member of the action taken by the Secretary of State, in fixing a time-limit for the further importations, as stated by me in this House on the 5th instant, †

  The Disturbances in Natal.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the total destruction of native life, and the number of kraals destroyed by military operations in Natal, since the recent outbreak of hostilities.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot add anything to my reply to a similar Question of July 5th.‡ Papers containing the information in the possession of the Colonial Office will be laid shortly. Meanwhile the Secretary of State has received the following telegram from Sir H. McCallum which the House may wish to hear. "July 11th. McKenzie's severe blows have had excellent effect; resistance practically over; rebels for the most part cowed and in hiding. Encouragement being given to surrenders and to wounded coming in for medical attendance. General proclamation is to be issued reassuring natives, and pointing out folly of armed rebellion. Barker has cleared Noodsberg, capturing thirty-three rebels and many cattle. General situation much clearer' than for some time past."

  Transvaal Gaol Population.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what was the number of white men, Kaffirs, and Chinese, respectively, confined in the gaols of the Transvaal on May 31st last; and what proportion the number of
  † See Col. 211, 212.
  ‡ See Col. 214.

  1053
  prisoners bore in each case to the total number of the white men, Kaffirs, and Chinese then residing in the Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have not the figures for Kaffirs and white men, but I will make inquiry by mail as to the numbers and proportion.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that on Saturday night last a house on the Rand district of the Transvaal, occupied by a white man with his wife and children, was attacked by Chinese and Kaffirs; that the inmates were robbed; that the woman was outraged, dragged across the veldt, and again outraged; and, if so, can he say whether any of the perpetrators of these alleged crimes have been arrested.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, but I will make inquiry.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether, in view of the serious increase in the number of outrages, the Government intended to do anything for the protection of the white population.
  MR. CHURCHILLasked for notice of the Question.

  Alleged Chinese School at Johannesburg.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of his Department has been called to a recent police court case at Johannesburg wherein certain persons were charged with keeping an alleged school for Chinamen at Teiffenberg's Buildings; whether the evidence of Sergeant Adams has been cabled home; and what was the result of the judicial inquiry.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will furnish me with the information on which he bases his Question, inquiry shall be made.

  Abyssinia.
  SIR. CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any preliminary agreement between France and Great Britain as to the Abyssinian Railway has been
  1054
  reached; and, if so, whether the consent of the Emperor of Ethiopia has been, obtained, or is expected.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether he is in a position to state the nature of the undertakings given on behalf of this country in the agreement between Great Britain, France, and Italy concerning Abyssinia; and what advantages to British commerce he has endeavoured to obtain from this agreement.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): An agreement between Great Britain, France, and Italy has now been provisionally initialled. Steps have been taken to communicate it to the Emperor Menelek, and it will not be signed or published till His Majesty has expressed his views.

  Prosecutions of Europeans in Egypt.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will say upon what evidence the assertion of unusual political unrest in Egypt at the present time is based; and whether he will furnish a Return showing the number of prosecutions and convictions for offences of violence against members of the Army of Occupation and European civilians, respectively, together with nationalities and localities during the last five years, including as far as possible the present year.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot, undertake to have such a Return prepared. The statements I have made are based upon confidential reports received from His Majesty's representative at Cairo extending over several months.

  The Denshawi Trial.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state under what section of the Native Penal Code or the Special Decree of 1895 the sentence of flogging was passed in the Denshawi cases.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: By Article 5 of the Decree of 1895 the Special Tribunal has full power to inflict whatever punishment is considered necessary

  1055
  without reference to the ordinary penal code. A translation of the Decree including this Article will be included in the Papers which have been promised.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Does the Decree give power to inflict the punishment of flogging?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Tribunal is given full discretion in the matter of punishment without regard to the code.
  MR. BELLOC: Have the Special Tribunal power to inflict any punishment they please; torture, for instance?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will lay the translation of the Decree on the table and the House will see what its wording actual is. If it is their desire to discuss the terms of the Decree, any question in regard to it can lie raised afterwards.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs whether the request for trial by the Special Tribunal under the Decree of 1895 has to be made by Lord Cromer and the General Office Commanding the Army of Occupation jointly, and, if so, was this done in the recent case at Denshawi; whether, seeing that the officers in question had obtained no authoritative permission to shoot pigeons at Denshawi, they were committing an illegal act and liable as trespassers; and whether, as, even if permission had been granted, they were acting solely as private individuals, and not in the exercise of their regular functions, he will explain why the Decree of 1895 was applied.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Lord Cromer, on receipt of an application from the General Officer Commanding, requested the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to summon the Special Tribunal provided for by the Decree of 1895. It has not been suggested that the officers were guilty of trespass. The Special Tribunal was instituted to take the place of courts-martial; to insure that cases of this nature should be tried by competent judges acquainted with the country, customs, and language of the people; and, at the same time, to prevent any possible miscarriage of justice, by giving greater
  1056
  security to the accused than they would have had if tried by courts-martial.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a previous case, in which the officers or soldiers were not acting in their military capacity, it was held that the Decree did not apply?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware that any case of that kind has arisen.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these officers were acting as private individuals?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have said they were in uniform. The officers of an Army of Occupation in uniform cannot be considered as private individuals.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Were they committing an illegal act in uniform?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No, sir; they were not committing an illegal act.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the President of the Special Tribunal, Boutros Pacha Ghali, had ever qualified in law and had ever sat as a judge in a criminal case before; if so, when and where; whether at the trial the questions were put by the members of the Court to the witnesses, instead of by counsel; and whether this is in accordance with the native code of; criminal procedure.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Boutros Pacha was for many year's Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. I am not aware whether he has previously officiated as a judge in a criminal case, but he is Acting Minister of Justice in the absence of the latter, and as such necessarily presided over the Court. At the trial, after each witness had been heard, counsel for the defence were invited by the Court to put any questions they pleased. This is in accordance with the code of criminal procedure in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he hopes to be able to lay before the House

  1057
  official papers concerning the recent trials and executions at Denshawi, Egypt.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: As soon as possible, and at any rate before the end of the session. I hope in a fortnight.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all the proceedings of the special tribunal under the Decree of 1895 are required to be taken in accordance with the Egyptian penal code; whether, in accordance with the provisions of such code, the prisoners at the preliminary investigation at Denshawi were confronted with the witnesses for the prosecution; whether the preliminary examination was conducted by an examining magistrate; whether the Parquet was represented thereat, and the evidence taken in the presence of the prisoners; whether the prisoners were represented by counsel who were afforded opportunities of examining directly the witnesses for the prosecution, or how otherwise; whether the body of Captain Bull, the injuries occasioned to his fellow officers, and these received by the woman shot and other villagers were examined by medical men other than these who gave evidence for the prosecution; if so, who carried out the examination on behalf of the prisoners; whether, seeing that the Egyptian code of criminal procedure requires that the prosecution in all criminal trials shall be represented by a member of the Parquet, he will say why this course was departed from in this instance; and whether he will explain why the native advocate, Ibrahim Bey Helbowi, was appointed to prosecute in this case, in view of the general practice and the interests of the accused.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Article 4 of the Decree of 1895 lays down that the Tribunal shall follow the rules of procedure as provided for by the native criminal code, in so far as they are compatible with the necessity of expediting the proceedings. I am not aware of the reasons for appointing Helbowi Bey to conduct the prosecution. I have no information as to the other points, which will doubtless appear in the account of the evidence given at the trial.

  Death Duties.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer seeing there is no outdoor staff charged specially with preventing the evasion of death duties, if he will say how queries relating to affidavits sent from the head offices are dealt with; whether they are referred to the solicitors who prepared the account, or to the executor or administrator of the estate; if not, to whom are they referred.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): By Section 7 (8) of the Finance Act, 1894, " the value of any property for the purpose of estate duty shall be ascertained by the Commissioners in such manner and by such means as they think fit." Queries issued in pursuance of these powers are addressed to these persons who, according to the circumstances, may seem to be the best qualified to answer them.

  Factory Inspectors.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if his attention has been directed to the statement in the Factory Inspectors' Report, just issued, that Mr. J. H. Warren and Mr. T. O. Edwards, factory inspectors, each travelled nearly 16,000 miles in 1905, or about sixty miles for each working day, while many other inspectors travelled distances almost as great; and, if so, whether he will make such an increase in the staff as will enable the inspectors to devote more time to inspection and less to travel.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have had the Report to which my hon. friend refers before me. In parts of the country which are not industrial in character and where factories and workshops are comparatively few and scattered, it is not possible to avoid a large amount of travelling on the part of the inspectors. I am, however, quite in agreement with my hon. friend in thinking that time spent in travelling should be reduced to a minimum. Certain changes in this direction have recently been made, and further readjustment will follow the

  1059
  increase in the staff which I am about to propose.

  Leckhampton Eight of Way Dispute.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any petition or petitions praying for the complete or partial remission of the sentences passed by Mr. Justice Lawrence at the recent Gloucester assizes upon Barrett and others for rioting on Good Friday last at Leckhampton Hill, Cheltenham; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. SEAKS: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Leckhampton Hill case, which arose out of a demonstration in defence of public rights; is he aware that Mr. Barrett, among others, was sentenced to four months hard labour, although police and other witnesses testified to his character and respectability, and to the fact that the general tone of his speech was to persuade the people not to do damage; that he took no part in and was not present at the riot; is he aware that Barrett's speech, urging the people not to do damage, was construed to be an incitement to riot; and will he investigate the case and reconsider the sentences passed by the judge on Barrett and the other prisoners.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have received no petition in this case, though my attention has been drawn to it informally by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, but the newspaper report with which he has kindly furnished me is the only information I as yet possess. I can only say that if I receive any petition shewing grounds for believing either that any of the convictions are wrong, or that the sentences are unnecessarily severe, it will be my duty carefully to consider all the reasons alleged, and to consult the judge, and make any inquiries that may be necessary before deciding what advice I should tender to the King.

  Quack Medicines.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the remarks made by
  1060
  Mr. Coroner Troutbeck, at an inquest held at Wandsworth on the 9th instant, to the effect that the deceased was in a state of health to fall an easy prey to quackery, and that quacks were allowed to practice and make fortunes out of poor people who were suffering from mortal diseases; and will he say whether he intends to take any steps to prevent the public from being victimised by such persons.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. My attention had not been called to the Coroner's remarks. I fear I cannot add anything to the reply on this subject which 1 gave to the Question asked by the hon. Member on March 12th last.†
  MR. MYER: When will the right hon. Gentleman be aroused to a sense of his duty.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  German Gipsies at Hull.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the condition of the bands of gipsies now at Hull; whether he has received information that such bands will not be allowed either to go on to the United States or to return to Germany, whence they are said to have come; and whether, if the instructions under the Aliens Act are not sufficiently stringent to keep out such immigrants, he will consider the question of revising them.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The German gipsies now at Hull form part of these who landed in Scotland in March, April, and May. When it became apparant that the traffic was being organised so that these aliens should escape inspection I took steps, as announced to this House on May 10th,‡ to secure that any further arrivals by the steamship line which was carrying them should be subjected to inspection. Those steps were successful in preventing any further arrivals. I think the American law would certainly prevent these gipsies from landing in the United States. As regards Germany, I understand that the main difficulty is due
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 921.
  ‡ (See (4) Debates, clvi., 921.

  1061
  to the lack of passage money. The Aliens Act gives me no power in the matter except as regards any individuals who may be brought before a Court in circumstances rendering them liable to expulsion under the Act.

  Case of Miss Chesshire.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will refer the case of the apprehension and detention of Miss Alice Louisa Chesshire, on December 14th, 1905, as a suspected lunatic, to the Metropolitan Police Commission of Inquiry now sitting to investigate and report upon.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The police in the execution of their duty apprehended this lady who was found by them wandering in the streets unable to give any account of herself. She was subsequently certified to be insane and removed to Cane Hill Asylum. The case does not appear to come within the scope of the inquiry by the Royal Commission.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the case of Miss Alice Louisa Chesshire, who, on the night of December 14th, 1905, was taken by the police to the St. Giles' Workhouse as a suspected lunatic, and on admission was searched by the workhouse porter; and whether he will consider the advisability of issuing an instructional order to boards of guardians requiring that in all cases where it is necessary that women should be searched it shall be done by a woman and not by a man.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have made inquiry on this subject, and am informed that upon the admission of the patient to the workhouse her pockets were searched by the matron of the Tottenham Court Road Police Station, by whom she was accompanied, and that she was taken at once to the Female Lunatic Ward. I am further informed that in no instance has the workhouse porter searched a female lunatic or other female on admission. It devolves on the matron of the workhouse to cause females to be searched on
  1062
  admission, and I understand that at the St. Giles' Workhouse this duty is performed by a female officer under the matron's supervision.

  Vaccination Fees.
  MR. J. JOHNSON: I beg-to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has taken any stops in the direction of reducing the high fees paid for vaccination; if so, what steps; and, if nothing definite has been done, will he say when the grievance complained of by the local authorities is likely to be redressed.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have not at present definitely decided what shall be done in this matter. I am, however, giving attention to it, and I will come to a decision on the subject as early as may be practicable.

  Motor Car Speeds
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government. Board if he can state how many applications from local authorities to limit the speed of motor cars within certain limits and at certain places under the Motor Car Act, 1903, Clause 9, he has received since taking office, and bow many he has agreed to and how many he has refused.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Two such applications have been received. With regard to one of them a local inquiry is about to be held, and with regard to the other I am awaiting some further particulars for which I have asked. I may add that there were three cases of the kind referred to in which the application had been received before the change of Government took place, but which were not ready for decision at that time. In each of these cases I have decided to issue a restricting order with respect to the more important of the roads to which the application relates.

  Australian Mail Contract.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is able to communicate to the House the terms of the new mail contract with Australia; and whether the arrangement comprises an all-British service.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): No new contract has yet been concluded by His Majesty's Government for the fortnightly mail services which it provides to and from Australia. A service is provided in the alternate weeks by the Australian Government; but I have no information as to any arrangements which that Government may have made for carrying on the service after the termination in January, 1908, of its existing contract with the Orient Steam Navigation Company.

  St. John's School, Wakefield
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the children are being sent home from St. John's School, Wakefield, because the parents refuse to pay school fees: and that where parents insist upon free places the local education committee compel children to attend a school nearly a mile away from their homes; and whether the managers of St. John's School, which is rate aided and State-supported, can refuse free places or charge fees; and, if so, will he consider an Amendment to the Education Bill making all places in a primary school under the local authority free.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,): The Board of Education have no information of the incident referred to in the Question, and I am not aware of any complaint in regard to school fees in Wakefield. No fees may be charged in a public elementary school unless sanctioned by the local authority; and in other ways the conditions in regard to the charge of fees are very strict. It is the duty of the local authority to provide a sufficient number of places in public elementary schools without charge of fee, for the needs of the area; and no parent can be called upon to pay a fee for his child in a public elementary school if there is no room for him in any other school within reach without payment of fee. If any Wakefield parent appeals to the Board of Education I will see that the case is carefully investigated.

  Dog Licence Exemptions.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South
  1064
  Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that the words in the Dogs Bill, requiring that the consent of the Petty Sessions Court in England and the Sheriff in Scotland must be obtained before a certificate will be given to persons such as farmers, crofters, and shepherds, who have long enjoyed exemption on the ground that dogs were a necessity of their lives, will affect such persons prejudicially; and whether he will introduce Amendments to continue the exemption these persons have hitherto enjoyed.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: In pursuance of Section 22 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878, a certificate of exemption from licence duty can be obtained by farmers or shepherds for dogs kept and used solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm or in the exercise of the calling or occupation of a shepherd. This enactment will still remain in force. It is not proposed to alter in any way the grounds on which exemption is granted, but only to provide a more efficient and Convenient means of deciding doubtful cases No personal appearance before the Court will be necessary except in opposed cases, and then only if the Court considers such appearance to be necessary for the proper consideration of the application.

  Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been directed to the fact that the cost of upkeep of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, added to the rental value of the area which they cover, amounts to a very large sum of money; and whether he will consider the advisability of making that expenditure of more value to the taxpayers by adding to the staff the few men necessary to enable the gardens to be opened on Sunday mornings without adding to the hours of Sunday labour.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: My noble friend has given further consideration to the representations made by my hon. friend on this subject, but he regrets that he does not see his way to modify

  1065
  the conclusion at which he previously arrived. I may add that the additional expenditure entailed by the earlier opening of the gardens as proposed would not be less than £600 a year.

  Deptford Cattle Market.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that, owing to the closing of the Deptford Foreign Cattle Market to the cattle and sheep of all countries, except these from the United States and Canada, a large number of tanners, fellmongers, slaughtermen, drovers, carmen, and clerks, earning wages of upwards of £4,000 per week, have been put out of work; and whether the Board of Agriculture will relax the present prohibitory regulation and allow cattle and sheep to be imported for immediate slaughter from all countries which have been officially declared to be free of foot-and-mouth disease for twelve months.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I have no means of saying whether or not the estimate in the first part of my hon. friend's Question is correct, but I may point out that the effect of the prohibition of the landing at Deptford of animals brought from the Continent has been more than counterbalanced by the increase which has taken place in the North American trade since the year 1892, when the prohibition came into force. For the reasons indicated in the reply which I gave to my hon. friend on the 2nd instant, † it is not possible for the Board, consistently with their statutory obligations, to adopt the course he suggests.

  North Tadworth Farm, Epsom.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if his attention has been directed to the fact that on February 16th last Mr. William Hodson and his family were evicted from North Tadworth Farm, Epsom, after a tenancy of twenty-eight years, during which he had established a fruit-growing and jam-making industry, employing many people, as the sequel to litigation concerning his right to protect his plantations by shooting rabbits under
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 1380.
  1066
  a special clause in his lease; and whether he can promise legislation, either by affording time for the Land Tenure Bill or otherwise, in order to prevent farmers being deprived of their livelihood in the interests of sport.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The circumstances to which my hon. friend refers were brought personally to the notice of my noble friend by Mr. Hodson himself, but I understand that they are likely to form the subject of further legal proceedings, and I cannot therefore express any opinion respecting them. The representations made by Mr. Hodson will be borne in mind when the Land Tenure Bill again comes forward for consideration.

  Ecclesiastical Commission Estate in Durham.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for East Bristol, as Church Estates Commissioner, the number of licences owned by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the county of Durham.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The number, so far as is known, is 69.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Is the number greater this year than last?
  MR.CHARLES HOBHOUSE: That is a Question difficult to answer. Leases are continually falling in.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Is it the policy of the Commissioners to reduce the number of licences on their property?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Yes, that has always been their policy.

  Liskeard Training Schools.
  MR. CATHCARTWASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that practically no advantage has been taken of the offer made by the Congested Districts Board to assist boys at the training school for the mercantile marine at Liskeard, he will approach the Admiralty with the object of obtaining for the Highlands and Islands one of the obsolete cruisers about

  1067
  to be sold as a training ship for the mercantile marine.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): There are no funds available for the maintenance of a vessel engaged in the purpose contemplated by the hon. Member, and expenditure on this object is also outside the powers of the Congested Districts Board. It would not therefore serve any useful purpose to approach the Admiralty.

  Uneconomic Holdings in Ireland.
  MR.GINNELL: I "beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will the inquiry for which a Royal Commission is to be appointed be an inquiry into uneconomic agricultural holdings whether isolated or not, or will it be restricted to congestion, as defined by existing statutes; and will it be also an inquiry into untenanted land as the material from which the present uneconomic condition of Ireland has to be relieved.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND: (Mr. BRYCE,): The inquiry will relate to congestion generally, and will not be limited to the districts now scheduled under the Act as congested. It will include the question of obtaining untenanted land as a means of relieving congestion and creating economic holdings.

  Estates Commissioners' Regulations.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the name of the author of there portions of the regulations issued to the Estates Commissioners under the late Government which these Commissioners afterwards declared to have been invalid, unreasonable, vague, and subversive of the law; is the author of these regulations still in the service of the present Government in the same department, without any diminution of salary or restriction of power; and, if so, what is his salary, and why is he retained.
  MR. BRYCE: The regulations in question were issued by the late Government, and I do not know who was particularly responsible for suggesting any part of them. Even if I did know, it would be entirely against the rules of the public service to attribute responsi-
  1068
  bility to any persons other than the Minister of the Crown.
  MR. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to deny that Sir Antony Macdonnell is the author?
  MR. BRYCE: I do deny it.

  Drumraney Outrage.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received particulars of an attack upon the farmhouse of John Cassells, at Drumraney, Westmeath by men with firearms, when many shots were fired into the dwelling, and the farmer's two sons had a narrow escape of being killed; whether he has any information as to the cause of this attack; and whether the police have any clue to the perpetrators.
  MR. BRYCE: It was reported to the police that on the night of June 26th one shot was fired through a window of Cassells' house, but from the direction in which the shot was fired it would not appear that personal injury was intended, and it is, I am informed, not the case that Cassells' sons had a narrow escape. Whether more than one person was concerned in the matter is not known, nor is the cause known. The police have not yet succeeded in bringing the offender to justice, but are pursuing their inquiries in the case.

  Carroll v. Cryan.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the solicitor acting on behalf of Edward Carroll has stated that he replied to all the letters received from Constable Cryan or his solicitor; and, under the circumstances, whether he will see that Constable Cryan is not allowed to evade his legal liability and that he be called upon to pay his part of the damages obtained against him in the High Court for an assault upon Edward Carroll on March 17th, 1905.
  MR. BRYCE: As I imformed the hon. Member on March 1st,† Constable Cryan wrote to the plaintiffs solicitor offering
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 1270.

  1069
  to pay his share, namely, £50, of the damages by instalments, but the offer was refused. Having regard to the constable's circumstances, the offer appears to the Inspector-General to be a reasonable one. The constable does not appear to be seeking to evade his legal liability.

  Waterford Evicted Tenants.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Guiry, inspector of Estates Commissioners, met some evicted tenants of the estate of J. G. Beresford, near Stradbally, county Waterford, on the 2nd instant; that Mr. Beresford has long since lodged an application with the Estates Commissioners for the sale of certain lands at or near Stradbally, under the Land Act of 1903, and asking to have them declared an estate: and that Mr. Beresford ordered the inspector to desist from inspecting portions of his estate consisting of evicted farms and untenanted land; and whether, in view of the necessity of facilities being given to the inspectors of the Estates Commissioners to inspect lands on estates which it is proposed to sell, he will say what steps the Estates Commissioners now propose to take in this case.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the applications of the evicted tenants on Mr. Beresford's estate were referred to an inspector for inquiry. His report, however, has not yet been received, and in the meantime the Commissioners have no information as to what happened at his inspection. Upon the receipt of the report the Commissioners will deal with the matter. It is the fact that purchase agreements in respect of portion of the estate have been lodged with the Commissioners, but in the ordinary course the case will not, in order of priority, be reached this year.

  Dromod Police Hut.
  MR. MCKEAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being taken, or are about to be taken, towards the removal of the police hut at Dromod; whether he is aware that the sergeant in charge of the hut has a farm of land some miles away where lie spends the greater part of his time,
  1070
  and that the police attached to the station have no duties to perform; and whether he will, under such circumstances, direct the hut to be removed at once.
  MR.BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the police hut in question, through originally provided as a protection post, has for the past ten years been used as a permanent police station with a district attached, and the police employed there perform all the ordinary duties appertaining to a police station. The continuance of this station is considered necessary, the two nearest stations being each five miles distant. The sergeant in charge of the station has a farm in the adjoining county, at which it is understood he spends his annual leave of absence, but the Inspector-General is not aware that he goes there at other times. Inquiry, however, will be made into the matter.

  Cootehill Evicted Tenant.
  MR. MCKEAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of Andrew Beggan, an evicted tenant on the estate of Captain E. P. Smith, Bellamont Forest, Cootehill, county Cavan, which estate has been sold under the Land Act, 1903, the first instalment of the purchase money having been paid; whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any action for the purpose of having Beggan reinstated, and, if so, what these stops are, and whether they promise to be successful and, if they have taken no steps in the matter, will he explain why they have not done so.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an originating application for the sale of Captain Smith's estate is before them, but they have not yet sanctioned the advances, and therefore none of the purchase money has been paid. It is stated in the Schedule of Tenancies that the landlord has offered to reinstate Andrew Beggan, but no purchase agreement has been lodged in his case. The Commissioners have directed their inspector to enquire into Beggan's case, but have not yet received his report.

  Roo Estate, Gort.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware

  1071
  that the Estates Commissioners received a petition some weeks ago from the Roo tenants, near Gort, county Galway, which pointed out that all the holdings of the tenants ranged from £3 to £5 a year, and stated that a number of large grazing farms, belonging to Mr. Walter Shaw Taylor, Ardrahan, were lying alongside of their small holdings; whether he is aware that negotiations are going on at present between Mr. Taylor and the Estates Commissioners for the sale of some untenanted land, with a view of enlarging the holdings of the tenants on the Taylor estate; and whether, in view of the facts cited in the petition of the Roo annuitant tenants, he will instruct the Estates Commissioners not to sanction the purchase of small bits of the worst part of Mr. Taylor's untenanted lands, but insist on buying as much land as will make all the adjoining small holdings economic.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have received the petition referred to. They inform mo that Mr. Shaw Taylor has expressed his willingness to accept their offer to purchase under Section 6, certain untenanted lands in the locality mentioned, and a scheme for the enlargement of small holdings on the estate is now being prepared. The Commissioners found that a portion of the untenanted land at first offered by the vendor was not suitable for division among the tenants, but at the Commissioners' request the vendor has now consented to sell additional land which is most suitable for the purpose in view, and he is retaining in his own hands the untenanted land which the Commissioners considered unsuitable, as well as a small portion of good land.

  Post Office Contracts in Ireland.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, with reference to his intention to appoint inspectors of Post Office contracts, whether he will take care that an Irishman resident in Ireland will be appointed as inspector of contracts made in that country.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: An inspector, to exercise general supervision over Post Office clothing, and other similar contracts has been appointed; but any inspection or enquiries ordinarily
  1072
  required in Ireland could probably usually be entrusted to officers on the Irish Post office establishment.

  Welsh Disestablishment.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in reference to the introduction of the promised Bill to put an end to the Established Church in Wales, he proposes to follow the precedent in the Irish case; and if it is his intention to submit Resolutions to the House similar to these moved by Mr. Gladstone, in April 1868, in anticipation of the Report of the Royal Commission then inquiring into the condition of the Irish Church.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): No, sir. As at present advised, I see no necessity for submitting Resolutions to the House in anticipation of the Report of the Royal Commission.

  South African Constitutions.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister at about what date does he expect to be able to make an announcement as to the new constitution of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not possible to name a date until after the return of Sir West Ridgeway's Committee.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the Report of Sir West Ridgeway's Committee be laid on the Table before August 4th?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not seen the Report yet.

  Ecclesiastical Discipline.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will give an early day for the discussion of the Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline; and if an opportunity for discussing the Report will in any case be afforded the House of Commons before letters of business are issued to the Convocations or action of any kind taken.
  MR. CATHCART WASONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman

  1073
  was aware that Scottish affairs had not received one day of the time of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend need be under no apprehension on that account. With regard to the first paragraph of the Question, I am afraid that in the existing state of public business it is scarcely possible to find an early day, and I would remind the hon. Member that the subject could hardly be discussed with advantage before the evidence is in the hands of Members. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, I cannot give any positive assurance.
  MR. PAULasked the Attorney-General whether he had soon the recommendation of the Commissioners on Ecclesiastical Discipline that the two Convocations should meet together and discuss a certain specified subject and whether the clerical representatives of the separate and independent provinces of Canterbury and York were legally entitled to sit or vote together.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SIR JOHN WALTON,): My hon. friend has asked me a Question on a somewhat recondite subject, but, giving such attention as I have been able to the matter, I have come to the conclusion that there is no constitutional argument against the Convocations of the two provinces sitting together. I find that right down to the thirteenth century they frequently sat together, but that the latest occasion on which they adopted that practice was in the year 1268. So that, assuming that letters of business were issued to the two provinces, I see no reason why they should not, at all events, debate the subjects referred to them together; but, possibly, it might be well, though the subjects were debated by the two Houses, representing the whole Church, to vote separately. I am led to make that suggestion because the clergy have a somewhat larger representation in the Convocation for the Province of York than the clergy have in the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury. Therefore, while their deliberations might be joint, it would, perhaps, be as well that their decision should be separate.

  Foreign Office Vote.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that of the six and a half hours devoted to the Foreign Office Vote nearly a quarter of the time was consumed by one speech, to that many subjects of importance could not be brought forward, he will consider whether he can give a day for the further discussion of this Vote upon the Report stage.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Foreign Affairs intends to present Papers dealing with Egyptian affairs and, when these are laid, I will consider what time can be found to discuss them if required.
  MR. REESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that only one branch of British policy was discussed in the short time left to the Committee by the hon. Member for South Monaghan.
  Sin H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Gentleman had better address his expostulation to the Member for South Monaghan.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.— (Mr. Vivian.)

  POLICE AND SANITARY COMMITTEE.
  Special Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 254.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No 254.]

  SUPPLY [16TH ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That a sum, not exceeding £559,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the War Office and Army

1075
Accounts Department, which will come in course of payment during the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1907."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee that I should at once make a full statement. What I have to lay before the Committee is nothing else than the proposals of the Cabinet regarding the reorganisation of the forces of the King. This debate has been anticipated with a lively interest. It has given rise to a vast amount of ingenious and intelligent anticipation. These anticipations have not been confined to the Press. My two right hon. predecessors have exercised themselves upon the subject. I much regret personally that my right hon. friend, Mr. Brodrick, is not to-day present in the House for the purposes of this discussion. He has mobilised his forces against me. He has brought his artillery to bear upon my artillery. He has pronounced my scheme, although he had not yet come in sight of it, as in part a national calamity, and in part a national crime. I cannot discuss Mr. Brodrick's letter in his absence; but I will make this observation—it is not always a safe thing to use your artillery against an enemy whose position you have not yet ascertained. You are apt to disclose your own position and to use up your ammunition in vain. But Mr. Brodrick is not the only ex-Minister who has entered the lists. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon has been more cautious. But in his case, too, there have been symptoms of feverish activity which have urged him to rush into print, if not into war. Well, what I have to say may, perhaps, make a good many of the criticisms that have been made seem beside the point. But there are other things on which, I think, we are all agreed. One of them is this—I do not care in what part of the House he sits, but I believe there is hardly a Member who is not profoundly convinced that the state of our national forces is highly unsatisfactory. Whether you come to the matter from the point of view of cost, or from the point of view of organisation, there is much to be done, resolute effort to be made, before things can be brought to a satisfactory condition. The Government has both of these considerations to bear in mind— cost and efficiency. As it has been
1076
suggested that I, for one, have been driven into a desire to reduce the Army Estimates and to put a check on the extravagance which has been been growing up, I desire, most emphatically, to associate myself with the proposition of the necessity for check and reduction. It was the Duke of Wellington who used to say that no greater harm could be done to the British Army than to associate it in the public mind with extravagance. I am sure that that is not only true, but that it is the view of many of the most thoughtful soldiers to-day, who hold very strongly that before you can restore public confidence in the Army you must make the people feel that they are getting value for their money. Then there are other considerations bearing upon this question of the growth and cost and burden of armaments. I do not repeat the solemn warning which was given to the House recently by my right hon, friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not repeat the equally solemn warning that was given by an ox-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord St. Aldwyn, in another place not long ago, and corroborated by Lord Goschen. I think we all feel that with the income-tax at a shilling, and the public finances in the state in which they are, it is time, at least, that the situation should be closely and carefully surveyed. Then there is another consideration. The democracies of the world, however they may he divided on other points, are at one in making manifest at this moment their desire that the crushing burdens of armaments which press upon them should be lightened. We in this great, rich, and powerful country have the opportunity of taking our share in that movement. We mean to give the lead.
But it is not merely the point of view of economy that has rendered it necessary that the situation of the Army should be closely reviewed. It is essential also from the point of view of organisation and efficiency. Since I came to the War Office I have been struck with this—that while never before, perhaps, in the history of our country, have we had finer soldiers or better officers than those thoughtful new men who have matured since the trial of the great war in South Africa, still we suffer from the disorganisation and the want of intelligent principle in the arrangement of our forces, which put

1077
every attempt to make things better to naught. You have evidences of that at every turn. We have had many schemes of Army reorganisation in the past; but it has generally been the alternation of an Army without a scheme or a scheme without an Army; and the time seems to have come, in the opinion of soldiers and the public, for an attempt, a resolute attempt, to be made to turn schemes of Army reorganisation into realities.
Since I have been at the War Office I have been approached by many of the modern type of officers to whom I have referred, who have said to me—" No soldier but would like more money and more men. But we recognise that the nation demands retrenchment, and we know the grounds upon which it is held to be necessary. We do not dispute those grounds; we are prepared to agree with them. But this much we say to you—use the power, if you can obtain it from this new Parliament, full of vigour and ideas, to reorganise the Army in such a fashion that it shall be fit for the only purpose for which an army is needed—the purpose of war. We hate war. Would that the day had come when the curse of war might be averted from us, when it was no longer necessary to prepare forces for our defence. But till that day comes it is our duty to see that every penny spent on the Army is spent on fighting efficiency." That is the view of the Army. That is the view of the Army Council. That is the view of many soldiers of every shade of politics—some of them in this House—who have come to me and said—" Do not lose this great opportunity for asking Parliament to reorganise us—it may be in a drastic and searching fashion —but to reorganise us in such a way that we shall be fit for war."
That is the keynote of the attempt at! Army reform of my colleagues and myself which I have to-day to lay before the House of Commons. Some time ago I made a speech in introducing the Army Estimates, in which I laid down ' certain principles, which I said were engaging my attention and the attention of my advisers and which seemed to be reasonable. We had a great deal of discussion on them, and some of them form the foundation of what I have to say to-day. I am not going to restate at length those principles or to repeat what I then said. I asked for time to consider them. The House has been generous to
1078
me. It has not pressed me to hurry over my difficult and delicate task. I have had time to think; and today I wish to use the period of the debate which I shall occupy for the purpose of ' stating the concrete proposals in which these principles have resulted as distinguished from the grounds on which those principles were based. I shall only summarise very shortly what I have already laid down. But before I do so let me make one observation.
I concur entirely in the view that we owe in approaching this task a great deal to the work that has been done. The Committee of Imperial Defence has, to my mind, been a most valuable institution in bringing out certain broad principles. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, did the nation a service when he devised an instrument which should bring Admiralty policy and War Office policy into contact with the general policy of the Empire. It is largely due to the discussions which have taken place in that body, and to the light which has been obtained by surveying things not merely in isolation but as a whole that it is possible to get some coherent view, be it right or wrong, of the problem that lies in front of us. One other thing I wish to say. I have stated that while soldiers generally would naturally like more men and more money, the wisest of them see the necessity of a stern attempt at reduction. On that hypothesis, on the hypothesis that economy is necessary, on the hypothesis that those who insist on economy are ready to extend to them also the boon of reorganisation—reorganisation on the basis that war and war only is the thing for which an army ought to exist —I have been able, if I may so say, to enter into a covenant with the influential representatives of the Army. They have put their best strength into the propositions which I have to lay before the Committee, which propositions would have been of very little value if they had been my own propositions only, but are propositions which have been accepted and endorsed by the Cabinet after they have been worked out to the last point by the highest skilled experts who are at present responsible for the work of the General Staff, for the work of the Adjutant-General's Department, and for the work of the Quartermaster - General and the Ordnance

1079
Departments of the War Office. I cannot f express my obligations too deeply to my colleagues of the Army Council for assisting me in the way they have done to work out the scheme of reorganisation which I have to present, and—on the hypothesis that reductions are right—the whole-hearted concurrence they have expressed in a proposal which, just because it is their own, I believe will result in the increase of the efficiency for fighting purposes of the British Army by 50 per cent. I cannot but express my thanks to those young officers who have thrown their energies and their minds into this question. These proposals result in a large reduction of men and of money; and yet, by the reorganisation of the Army as a whole, the result is produced in a form in which, if we have had to pare down, we have also used our materials in building up and completing the structure so that at last it is homogeneous.
But economy and efficiency are not incompatible things. Look at the great industrial concerns, the railways and big manufacturing establishments—how are they made to pay their dividends? Why, by going through every item of their accounts, and asking why and for what reason has this money been spent, and what justification there is for every item. We have been living laborious days at the War Office during the last few months. I am afraid the eight hours movement shows no signs of reaching that great Department, and, more than that, we have put the Army lately on a very frugal and somewhat niggardly administration; but the result has been that we have been able to go through the Army piece by piece, and bit by bit, inquiring why that bit is there, whether it is sound, whether there is any excess, aye, and what is equally important, whether there is any deficiency. We have applied to the Army the same procedure that an accountant would apply in investigating the affairs of a business; we have gone through it bit by bit, and asked in what condition that bit is, and what justification there is for the money spent upon it. We have put as regards every officer and man, and every pound spent, the determining question:—What does that officer, that man, that money mean, tested by the standard of efficiency for war?
1080
When I last spoke in this House, on March 8th last,† I laid down certain broad principles. The first question which I then discussed and to which I sought to find an answer was what was the purpose for which the British Army exists; and the answer was a very simple one. It was for war overseas. No doubt you have to provide for home defence, but the primary task which rests on the British Army is to maintain the defence of an Empire which extends over 12,000,000 of square miles and embraces a population of 400,000,000 of people. Therefore it is no use making comparisons between the army of Great Britain and the armies of France and Germany. They fight for the defence of their own frontiers. They have to maintain great land forces and to maintain them under an organisation which does not require to proceed much oversea, but which is adapted to resist attack and to make counter-attacks within a comparatively restricted area. The British Army exists for a totally different purpose, and there is no ground for comparing them. If you wish to make a comparison you must compare the British Army and Navy with the armies and navies of other Powers, and then I think you need be under no apprehension as to the result of the comparison. The first purpose for which we want any army is for oversea war. The Fleet defends our coast. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London in a most instructive and powerful speech last summer laid down the doctrine that the Navy was adequate to protect these coasts, except against raids, which could not, in his opinion, exceed 10,000 men, and were only to be feared at certain points I do not think with my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Central Sheffield that anything has occurred in the recent manœuvres to shake our confidence in that principle. The doctrine was the result of the most careful and scientific consideration to which the late Government devoted itself, with the assistance of the most skilled experts, and it is a doctrine which, I believe, remains unshaken to-day; it is the foundation of our policy, and such raids must be met with good mobolisation schemes.
† See (4)Debates, cliii., 655,et seq..

1081
Then I come to the second proposition. If it be true that the Fleet is adequate, and far more than adequate, with its tremendous strength of to-day, to defend our shores, then our expeditionary force ought to be moulded for oversea warfare, and that being so, it is bound to be a finer and more costly force than that of a nation which keeps an army merely to defend itself within its own frontiers. It cannot rest upon conscription, for it requires regularly trained men for a large part of its work, giving their whole time to their duties; and consequently no conscription can be sufficient to maintain it On the other hand, it is a force that need not be large as continental forces are large. Compared from the point of view of oversea work, our available forces are enormously larger than those of the Continent. "What nation is there on the Continent that could mobolise and send oversea anything like the troops we sent to South Africa? Our business is to maintain an expeditionary force just as large as to form a reserve which may enable us swiftly and resolutely to reinforce the outposts of our forces, which are the outposts of the Empire, and which acts as its police.
When you come to the necessity for expansion—we all know it may arise, but it can arise only upon great occasions—in such a case, when we are involved in such a war that the whole soul of the people has to be thrown into the task of their defence, we may assume that the people will be ready to bear their share of the burden, and if they have been prepared beforehand to organise themselves on a voluntary basis, they will be ready to respond with a strength and a might which no conscription can get out of them. But it is not only the people of this country. The South African war showed that the Empire was one and could fight as one, just as the nation could fight. Therefore you have behind the reserves of your own people the reserves of the Empire, so long as you do not alienate them— and so long as you do not gall them by fiscal restrictions—and make them feel that being within the Empire is a burden on their freedom rather than a help to it. So long as these conditions remain fulfilled, experience shows that we may rely in a supreme emergency on the whole strength of the Empire.
1082
Therefore I, for one, am not the least troubled by the alarmist cry of not finding any Reserves behind the Regular forces of the Crown unless you resort to compulsory service—conscription. The people of this country will not be dragooned into giving Military service. Lord Cardwell used to say that, so far from being a nation of shopkeepers, the British were the most fighting nation on earth. I think that the interest of our people is more profound, more real and spontaneous probably, than that of any other nation in the world. The keenness and willingness of our people to give up time to volunteering and to the study of military organisation is one of the striking features we have to deal with. It may be said indeed that the true conception of our system is that of a triangle with a sharp point of the finest tempered metal extended and resting on a broad base of metal which may be soft and yet will harden under blows.
There is another purpose which one has to bear in mind, and this is the fourth proposition which I wish to submit for consideration. It is not merely to produce an expeditionary force that we have to keep troops at home. We have to maintain for the sake of our distant possessions forces abroad which have to be fed largely from home; therefore you must maintain sufficient troops at home to keep alive and feed the troops you have got abroad. These fix the limit below which you cannot diminish your forces at home. You cannot make four except out of quantities equivalent to two and two. Therefore you must keep sufficient troops at home.
Then I come to the limit of possible reduction, and that is my fifth proposition, that it is determined by what we have to maintain abroad. In India, for example, at the present time we have a large force paid for by the Indian Government, but maintained by us because it is a British force in India. We have eleven horse, forty-two field, and three Howitzer batteries, twenty-two garrison artillery companies and six heavy batteries, nine regiments of cavalry, and fifty-two battalions of the Line, equal to a strength on Feburary 1st last of 79,446 men. We are under an obligation to keep that force up. The size of that force was determined at the time of the Mutiny. It is there, not really to resist aggression on

1083
the part of the Great Powers; it is equally there for the purpose of preserving order in India. Whether it is too large or too small, it is at any rate a force whose size was fixed at that time and the standard has never been departed from. It was, however, allowed to fall below its level until at the time of the Pendjeh incident it was brought up to its former strength. The question whether or not the circumstances of the time make it possible to reduce the force is a question outside the scope of a War Minister's authority. How does the War Minister stand in face of that obligation? One of the most brilliant of our military critics wrote lately that the War Minister was thought to be planning for war, when all that he was thinking of was to maintain and to relieve the military policemen occupied in looking after a distant frontier.
In these circumstances it is plain that if you are going to effect reductions the first thing you must look to is the state of the forces abroad. Can they be reduced? Your first reductions must be there. These are what you have to keep up. No juggling, no reverting from Cardwellian principles to other principles will help you. All the other schemes produced go to pieces before the experts and actuaries whose business it is to calculate how many drafts it will be needful to produce. As I have said, four cannot be reduced to a less equivalent than two and two when exposed to the ruthless criticism of the actuary. Nor does it do you any good to reduce establishments. If you reduce establishments you hamper yourselves in providing drafts, and you cannot reduce these without ruining the battalions. Your aim must be to do what Mr. Cardwell aimed at—to keep the number of battalions abroad and at home as near as possible equal. It is very difficult, but the nearer you approach equality the further you get away from the other difficulty in the Cardwell system, whore, owing to the excess of units abroad, you have to put a certain number of battalions on short tour.
Now I come to another great principle which I touched upon when I spoke before on this important subject. At that time I began to realise—and my advisers now realise the fact most fully—the possibility of following the example of foreign nations in making use of the Militia principle.
1084
I do not mean the Militia principle in. the technical sense of the word. I agree that there are certain combatant services which can only be performed by highly trained men. Much of the artillery work, for example, can only be performed by men of the highest training; but there is other work which can be done by men who have a limited military training and can take an engagement to go on mobilisation, who are fitted to perform services of a semi-civilian order to be found in every army— such work as Army service work, the provision of ammunition columns, and the Army medical work. A great deal of this can be obtained on a Militia basis. Yet somehow or other w e seem to have gone on the footing throughout, almost without a break in the history of our attempts at reorganisation of the Army, of assuming that that kind of work must be performed by Regulars. I can only say that we have added enormously to the cost of the Army in that way; and one source of economy which I hope to lay before the Committee, is got by the substitution in this work for the Regulars, of men who have received a partial military training in time of peace, and who are capable of taking up this kind of service on mobilisation. They are intermediate between the Regulars and the Volunteers, and they are, in the opinion of my advisers, and also judging by the experience of the foreign nations that employ them, to be got just as readily as the Regulars. They are so cheap that you can get a larger number of them for the same money or less. There are plenty of them, and they are easy to find; it is only a question of organising them.
My last proposition relates to another great source of economy besides that of the Militia principle It has reference to the aim which should be before you as to the nature of your organisation. It must be organisation for war in a time of peace as well as on the outbreak of a war: that is to say, it does not do to pursue the haphazard policy of the past. When the South African war broke out we had at haphazard to mobilise our forces. If you take the forces which are available in the United Kingdom at the present time— Regulars, Reservists, Yeomanry, and Militia—and ask yourselves what

1085
mobilisation you can get together, you find that the force is about330,000 in personnel. But you could not under the existing organisation for mobilising get more than 100,000 men, or two army corps. I have gone through the subject with the experts and actuaries, and the thing breaks down, not because the units are not there, but because there is no organisation for war which would enable us at every point to make complete arrangements for mobilisation. If we cannot mobilise for an over-sea purpose it is not because we have not the men, but because we have not the war organisation which exists in peace and a thoroughgoing plan adapted to the circumstances.
Our proposals are founded on these eight propositions. They promise certain reductions. I may at once say that I propose in the name of my colleagues that the number of British soldiers shall be 20,000 fewer Regulars than exist at the present date. I am able to say in the name of the Army Council that, considering the Army as organised through the number of men we shall be able to get under the Militia principle, we should be able to mobilise in war and keep prepared in time of peace a force which contrasts with the old force as three army corps to two. This is got by rigidly adhering to the policy of writing oft everything that is useless for war purposes, by applying strictly the principle of organisation for war, by maintaining that organisation so that it shall exist in time of peace not merely on paper but in reality; so that you can mobilise your force faster almost than you can get transport to take it away. I will tell you what reductions we propose to make in the battalions abroad. When you have got the minimum below which you cannot reduce, you may as well take what you have at home and put it on the best organisation you can for the purposes of war. It costs nothing to do it, and with economy you can get a stronger force. What we have done is to go through the Army as it stands to-day unit by unit, man by man, item by item. What we have brought out is the great waste, the great extravagance, the great amount of inefficiency caused by the' absence of the machinery necessary to i make mobilisation possible.
I will state at once what is the nature of the force which we propose
1086
to make it possible to organise not , only for war, but to organise so as to be to some extent a slumbering force ready to be awakened out of the Reserves in time of peace. It is a force: which is not organised in army corps, because army corps are, in the unanimous opinion of the experts, an inconvenient form in which to keep our troops. What one wants is something real and tangible; something that does exist there in time of peace; something of which the battalions and the cavalry and the guns and the men are there and available in time of war, and have to be brought from a very short distance. The best organisation for that purpose, in the unanimous opinion of the experts—and throughout I have relied on the opinion of the experts; I have been guided by soldiers at every turn, for I myself am a mere civilian and man of business—what we have thought best for the purpose, after four months close consideration, is an organisation, not in army corps, and not in small divisions such as exist now, of which we could have nine out of the materials we have to keep at home for maintaining our drafts abroad, but six big divisions—I am talking of infantry— organised on a pattern to correspond with our forces in India. We think it important to make our Army here accord as nearly and as closely as possible with the organisation in India, in case—which Heaven forbid!—our forces should have to act together in some great emergency in defence of the Indian frontier upon Indian plains. Therefore the force at which we aim is a force of six big divisions, with the proper equipment of cavalry, which according to the latest war establishment calculations, would be four cavalry brigades for that force. We have more cavalry than that, and I do not cut off a single unit of cavalry. Cavalry is a very valuable and important arm, and we propose to keep our cavalry. Six big divisions of infantry with four cavalry brigades and full artillery would equal three army corps, or nine of the old-fashioned divisions, and represent a total of 150,000 men. These would consist of 50,000 Regulars serving with the colours, 70,000 Reservists, and 30,000 people who are employed and trained on Militia line — that is to say, giving only part of their time for war training

1087
and part for peace, but who are under an engagement to come out on mobilisation. This number falls short of what we are bound to keep in this country for the maintenance of the force we have abroad. We have considered in the Defence Committee to what extent the force abroad could under existing circumstances be reduced. There are troubles in Egypt; things are not wholly clear or settled in South Africa; there are difficulties in various parts of the Empire; and yet, after survey, the Defence Committee is quite clear, and we are quite clear, that we can reduce seven battalions abroad and three battalions at home. The Committee may remember that in the course of the war there were a number of battalions added to the existing regiments so as to improve our strength; these battalions, I think, numbered sixteen or seventeen; but they were reduced, and to-day there are fourteen line battalions which did not exist ten years ago. Of these battalions we are in a position immediately to cut down eight; whether we can cut down some more afterwards depends on considerations of general policy, but I wish in this matter to go cautiously. The Government does not wish to undertake anything they cannot perform and perform with absolute safety. Therefore, we see our way to reduce eight out of the fourteen battalions, and I think in that proposition we are doing nothing extravagant and nothing that will come as a surprise to light hon. Gentlemen opposite. Having reduced these eight battalions, we shall still have to support troops abroad with drafts to an extent which requires a force considerably larger than the regular force which I have indicated. Therefore, when I say we propose to organise a force of six big divisions, amounting to 150,000 men, including Militia men, I am really not increasing the troops which we have had up to the present time available for such a purpose, but I am diminishing them, and by reorganisation I am able to produce a larger amount of units available for organisation.
Why is this? Now I come to a mystery, a great mystery, the mystery of the existing condition of our artillery system. Let us see how that stands. Mr. Brodrick, in his letter, said our proposals as
1088
regards the artillery portended a national calamity. That seems to me to show what I came to suspect in the course of the searching investigation which I have had to make into this matter, that the late Government never knew how they stood as regards artillery. You gave the nation new field guns and new horse artillery guns. They are excellent guns. The reports I have on all hands are most satisfactory as to their efficiency. But there is one thing which it does not seem to have occurred to you to give us, and that was men to mobilise them. Would the Committee believe it, out of ninety-three batteries of field artillery which we have at home at the present time, if today we were called upon to mobilise them —there is no secrecy about these figures, I daresay the general staffs of foreign nations have already found them out— you could only mobilise forty-two. Only forty-two out of ninety-three. All these guns would have been delivered complete by the end of the financial year, but your programme of ninety-three complete field artillery batteries, of which we have heard so much, has only resulted in this, that if we went to war at the present time we could only by using our last man put forty-two of them into the field. Why was this? It seems to have been forgotten that the new guns were quick-firing guns, and used a great deal more ammunition than the old-fashioned fifteen-pounders; and the result of requiring more ammunition, of course, is that your ammunition columns have to be longer than is the case at the present time, and require many more men to mobilise. These batteries would have required at the lowest estimate 10,000 more men than you had available for the purpose. I you had provided these 10,000 men upon the Regular basis it would have cos. you something like £600,000 a year, which was not proposed as part of the artillery reconstruction scheme of the Government. We poor innocents on this side of the House did not know what was going on and the result was that we in our innocence were under the comfortable delusion that we possessed an artillery equipment which would mobilise something approaching ninety-three field batteries of field artillery. The dilemma is either that a mistake was made, or else that His Majesty's late advisers thought

1089
the only field force that they required was a field force equivalent to four of these big divisions of which I have spoken, for four was the utmost amount which the artillery they had available would mobilise, and in that case they certainly cannot object to the very modest reduction which I have proposed in point of view of personnel.
My criticisms are grave criticisms, and they are criticisms which I am going to make good in detail; but lest the Committee should say that " after all, .it is only a civilian who is speaking, and the Government must have had experts at their back," let me say that my statements and the figures I give are founded on the most minute investigation made by our General Staff and in the Adjutant-General's Department, and that the figures have been tested and examined at every turn, so that I do not think myself—and I have been accustomed to criticise various kinds of business in the course of other avocations—that there is the least doubt about them.
First of all, assuming that the position is as I have said, how do we stand at the present time? At the present time you have got about 17,000 Regulars to mobilise for your artillery, and 3,000 besides who are unfit, for you do not send men abroad who are under a year's service, or under twenty years of age. Even taking men; who are quite unfit, who have served only: six months, and who are not up to the standard, the position of matters was that. I with your 17,000 Regulars after mobilising; forty-two butteries of field artillery, you would have to use up the last man who was available for ammunition columns; not one other man could have been got, and the remaining fifty-three batteries, therefore, would have been broken up altogether and could not have been used for any purpose. How is that to be got over? I found myself confronted with this very formidable thing, and at first I was appalled at the prospect of having to spend money in creating new additions to the regular force of artillery; but on reflection, and looking about, I made more discoveries. It is a most valuable thing, a survey of the Army as a whole. It is not only the things you are deficient in you find out, but the things that have been uselessly applied to other purposes, and which you can make available to the
1090
end of filling up gaps. I found that, in accordance with principles which had been sanctioned by my predecessors, the theory of our coast defence had been reviewed with the result that a reduction was necessitated of over 300 guns. They had either become obsolete or were not adapted to modern theories of defence. That was the work of the Navy, of the War Office, and of the Defence Committee in conjunction; and as the outcome of it, I found that I had a very large number of Militia-garrison Artillery who wore released from any useful duty, and a somewhat large number of Regulars, approaching 2,000 in addition. That was a very great comfort to me, because I felt I might be able to put the Regular artillery into such a position as to deliver the nation from a national calamity. There were these garrison artillerymen, amounting to somewhere between 13,000 and 14,000. We consulted the Commanding Officers of regiments, and the suggestion that we should use them for this purpose came originally from one of them, Colonel Blake, of the Northumberland Militia— whom I must thank for the great help he has given us, and the many suggestions he has made about this work— and from other Militia artillery colonels, who very reluctantly, seeing the change that has come over their force, have come to the conclusion that it is better that it should assume a new role than that it should disappear altogether. We get therefore these 13,000 or 14,000 men, who do not cost us a penny more than at the present time, and we propose to utilise their services for making up that defect in the machine, in the organisation of our field force as a whole, which prevents it from working at the present time. We should be able to get the 10,000 men that are necessary for the ammunition columns, and to get in addition that support which, I need not say, is wholly non-existent at the present time. In that way not only shall we be able to mobilise a very much larger force of artillery than is the case at present, but we shall save a good deal of money on the transaction. Instead of increasing the cost, strange as it may seem, we assume—I do not wish to be too sanguine about it—we shall be saving £300,000 a year on what we spend at present.

1091
It would have taken a very large sum to supply material on a Regular basis.
The Committee may naturally ask, "Are you sure that these Militiamen will do their work? " and my answer is, " Yes, the General Staff are perfectly sure," and I will say why. We believe we can get the class of men we require to assume this new role, and the officers will be content to train them and to make them efficient field artillery Militia, to train them with a view to their ultimately doing the work of the ammunition column part of the organisation of artillery, and going through training which will enable many of them to become skilled gunners and a Reserve for the Artillery if necessary. But we shall go very strongly for this, that every man shall show justification for the money spent upon him; and therefore, if these garrison Militiamen do not take service we shall be bound to say, " We have no more use for you in maintaining the war organisation of the Army, and we shall spend the money on others who will be willing to take your place," and we think we know where we can put our hands on them. But we have no reason to anticipate there will be any large deficiency in the number willing to assume this new role,and we know if we give them proper training we shall get sufficient men for the ammunition columns. The training of Reserves to maintain the artillery in the field has also to be considered. We are quite clear that for non-commissioned officers, for servers, for layers, for bombardiers, you require a highly trained class of men, not to be obtained from the Militia service; but, like Admiral Fisher's ship, we shall have a nucleus crew which will be supplemented upon mobilisation from the Militia, and in this way we hope on mobilisation to form effective reserve batteries.
Let us see how it will work. What will be the strength of the new artillery establishment, and what will be the war establishment? What is the artillery strength of the Great Powers of Europe at this moment? My right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, who has studied these matters closely, knows that a tremendous controversy is raging in France and Germany as to the right
1092
number of guns for a battery—the controversies we have had hero upon religious teaching have been hardly more keen than that abroad upon the number of guns there should be in a battery. That controversy arises out of the fact that the new quick-firing guns consume an enormous quantity of ammunition, and for this reason they cannot be put into the field in such large numbers as in the days of the old slow-firing guns. The result is that France, which has a very fine artillery establishment, has a war establishment of 3·5 guns to every 1,000 bayonets and sabres. Japan has a war establishment of 4·5, and Germany a proportion of 5·5 But Germany is just introducing a new quick-firing gun, and we do not know what the proportion may ultimately be. Great Britain has the proportion of five quick-firing guns to 1,000 bayonets and sabres, and we do not propose to reduce that. Although the gun is a new quick-firing gun we want to be perfectly safe in this all-important arm, and therefore, though it is a more rapid gun, we propose to maintain the live-gun proportion to every 1,000 bayonets or sabres. Starting with this, let us see what the establishment will be in peace and war, respectively. The Committee knows it is always possible to show a considerable saving if in time of peace you resolutely put everything possible into the reserve, so that you are enabled to call up every man at the right time, and so maintain the higher establishment under which you mobilise for war. This is a principle that leads to economy, and it has hitherto partly been applied to the artillery. The General Staff propose to apply it thoroughly, saving money by keeping the batteries on a reserve basis in time of peace. Every nation on the Continent does that. In France the war establishment is five officers on the basis of a four-gun battery; in other ranks a war establishment of 169 and a peace establishment of 129. In Germany they have organised batteries on three scales in time of peace. In an army corps kept on the western frontier there is a six-gun establishment, but that is only one. Germany keeps batteries in time of peace on a three-fold establishment—a higher establishment of four guns, and six on mobilisation, with 127 men to five officers; a medium

1093
establishment of 115 men, and a lower of 102 men, officers being the same, and horses in proportion. Now I come to our own ease. We propose to follow the same principle, to keep our six-gun batteries on a four-gun establishment in time of peace, and we likewise propose to have five officers to 117 men—rather more than France—and sixty horses; France has sixty-one. We propose to keep to ninety-nine batteries, eighty-one on a four-gun basis—I will tell the Committee why we come to this conclusion— and eighteen more on a two-gun basis for quite a different purpose. The artillery establishment for a six-division force such as I have described would be sixty-three batteries, and, with the Militia ammunition column s we shall be easily able completely to mobilise that and provide all the drafts required. But in order to help ourselves and to provide, above all, for the training of Militiamen we propose to keep in reserve the remaining thirty-six batteries. We shall bring home six batteries of field artillery from South Africa, which are useless there, and arm them with new guns.
I think, having regard to the importance of artillery, to which the Powers are more and more awakening, to which the General Staff are awake, and of which the Army Council is convinced, we ought to encourage the artillery in every way we can consistently. We propose to take the old field guns and, making a new departure, issue them to the Volunteers, who will then have an opportunity of organising themselves into a sort of national artillery reserve. I do not imagine that with such weapons they could take the field against quick-firing guns, but I think this will enable Volunteers to put themselves into a very useful position. These old 15-pounders could be converted at a reasonable cost into quick-firers and made a useful gun; I do not say for the Regular Army, but a good gun, good as some Powers possess, and they will serve the purpose of giving Volunteers the training by which they may become a sort of reserve of national artillery. We take thirty-six batteries of new quick-firing guns for a specific purpose. We want to train 20,000 men of the Militia artillery with these guns; and we propose instead of bringing the people to the guns to take the guns to the
1094
people. Just now the practice is to bring the Northumberland and the Fife Militia for training to Portsmouth. We propose to give the men training nearer their homes, and we shall do this with a little inconvenience and as much elasticity as possible; we do not intend that there shall be a uniform cast-iron rule, to enable them to go through the mill for the ammunition column. Of the thirty-six batteries, eighteen will be on a four-gun basis and eighteen on a two-gun basis. The two-gun basis is better for training; you can train more men, arrangements can be made in such a fashion that you pass more men quickly through the mil1. There are reasons, however, why we must keep eighteen batteries on the four-gun basis; we must provide drafts for abroad. Therefore, from the point of view of training, of supplying drafts, of efficiency and of economy, we take the course I have suggested, we use up the garrison artillery, increase the number of mobilisable batteries to sixty-three, put thirty-six more in the Reserve, with eighteen on a four-gun, eighteen on a two-gun basis, and, increasing the organisation by 50 per cent., we have £300,000 a year less expenditure. I have only to add that in India and the Colonies we propose to keep the batteries on the six-gun war establishment. We think that will be wiser, because we cannot get reserves out quickly enough in case of emergency. Therefore, in India and the Colonies nothing will be done.
There are at the present time of Horse-Artillery in the country fourteen batteries. We do not propose to touch the Horse Artillery. We wish to put it on a four-gun basis in time of peace, and so save a good deal of money, and we have made certain rearrangements at the depots which will result in substantial economy. But we leave the horse Artillery untouched. The proper footing on a war establishment for the force I have described of six divisions is by agreement on all hands ten batteries. There would be a battery for each of the four cavalry brigades, that is the original establishment, and six batteries in addition for the corps— one for each division. So we should use ten batteries and keep four surplus batteries, partly for the purpose of

1095
training and finding drafts, and partly as a reserve of Horse Artillery. The Horse Artillery, is of course, a highly skilled arm and has to be manned almost, if not quite, entirely by Regulars, and therefore the Militia principle of which I have spoken does not apply to them. But I think the savings we have made on the Artillery generally are so substantial that I am not only justified, but I think it is right that I should keep up this arm, which is extremely difficult to train, and which it is impossible to improvise at short notice. Now I think I have put before the Committee the important features of our artillery proposals. I think I am justified in saying that their result is very different from the result anticipated by intelligent calculators who predicted that we were going to ruin the national artillery and put things on a very much worse basis than they were before.
Having got my artillery, I now return to the expeditionary force, which I could not complete up to six divisions—I think four divisions were all that could be mobilised—in the absence of proper artillery at the present time. I will give the Committee the figures which compose the expeditionary force. Speaking from memory—I will give the exact figures presently—they are something over 154,000 men, of whom some 30,000 will be on a Militia basis, 50,000 Regulars with the Colours, and 70,000 Regular reservists. ' Well, we have for that at home seventy-one battalions of the Line. You must have these battalions, because you have to keep up, after taking off the eight battalions I have described, seventy-seven battalions abroad. There being seventy-one battalions that have to be kept up, in constructing my expeditionary force I have left myself a margin. There may come a time of profound peace or, better still, the nations may resolve to reduce their armaments on a large scale. In that case, and with a view to that possibility, at all events, our object has been to produce a force which you could con tract or expand, and to make it so that in is proportions it could respond accordingly. Therefore we think it right not to organise the expeditionary force up ' to the full limit of the troops we are compelled to keep at home, but to leave ourselves a margin so that, without interfering with the expeditionary force which we
1096
have constructed, you could make in the future, if it were possible to do so in view of things which go far beyond my department, a reduction without impairing the efficiency for war of your field force. Therefore, I say, instead of the whole of my seventy-one battalions of the Line which I have to keep at home, I take only sixty-six of these battalions for the purpose of constructing the expeditionary force. I use in addition six battalions of the Guards—I am coming to the Guards a little later—making seventy-two battalions of infantry altogether. That gives me five battalions of the Line and a certain number of battations of the Guards surplus. I have four brigades of cavalry on the proper cavalry equipment, that is twelve regiments; and as we have fifteen regiments available—I think one has just gone to Egypt, so the number is fourteen at present—there is a margin of cavalry in case of necessity. There has been no reduction of cavalry. The artillery I have described; it consists of sixty-three batteries of field and ten batteries of horse, with the surplus which I have described. I should say that in addition to that, as hon. Gentlemen who know the organisation of the Army are aware, there is a certain reserve of guns over and above the guns in these batteries always kept in case of guns getting worn out or destroyed in operations. All these we have preserved.
How, then, is it possible for us to get a much larger mobilisation and yet save a great deal of money on it? Before this time the units were there and more units were kept up. We are taking off eight battalions of the Line and two battalions of the Guards. The reason for that I will come to presently. We are taking off, besides, a large number of Regulars who were employed for purposes which, in the opinion of the General Staff, could be amply discharged as they are discharged on the Continent, on a Militia basis. That has enabled us to make a reduction approaching 20,000 Regular soldiers and at the same time mobilise a far larger force. Why? The units were there before, more units than I have left after these reductions. But they could not be mobilised, partly for want of artillery and partly because there were deficiencies in other points,

1097
and it has been so expensive to make things up that the proper provision has not been made. This provision of a Militia basis, which it is easy to keep up, has enabled us to reduce the Regulars in the Army service work, transport, and supply. A great deal of the work done in the field can be done well by Pickford's drivers—men who are trained as well as Pickford's drivers and would be also possible combatants—in connection with ammunition columns, the Army Medical Service, and a number of other services which it would be easy for me to go into if I were not in a hurry.
But I have so much ground to to cover that I will proceed at once to the further details of the organisation of the new force. For this purpose it will probably be for the convenience of right hon. Gentlemen opposite if I give them a spare copy of the table and certain notes which I have; prepared, which show what the composition of the force is. In that way we shall get much more easily to an understanding of the composition; of the new force. If the right hon. Gentlemen will look at the statement on page 3, which is signed by Sir Frederick Stopford, who is responsible, with his experts, for working out this plan, he will find the composition of the force as it has been approved by the Army Council. First of all the total number is 5,546 officers and 154,074 men of all ranks. Those who are on the non-Regular basis— that is to say, who do not require continuous military training, are a certain number of those who are put down as cavalry. By cavalry I mean mounted troops, speaking more accurately. The purpose of the Government, as I have said more than once, has been to go through every department of the Army and ask each man, " What are you here for? Do you justify the money that is spent upon you? " If he cannot answer he goes off ruthlessly. If he can make out a case of efficiency for war he remains. We have applied that method to the Regulars, and we also propose to apply it to the Auxiliary Forces, with such modifications as are requisite. For instance there is an admirable force which, I am glad to say, we have been able to turn to good uses, the Yeomanry. We put to them the question, " Can you furnish us with
1098
what we want? " We do not want them as mounted infantry, because mounted infantry are to be only a small force on a Regular footing, and I think it is the general opinion that mounted troops pull back the cavalry when sent into action with them. It is as divisional troops with the division that we propose to ask the Yeomanry to act, and they are very willing to provide us with 3,240 men at least. We are not driven to refer to the Yeomanry for that purpose, because, as I have said, we have three brigades of cavalry surplus; but still we should like to use the Yeomanry for this purpose. We want to encourage the best Yeomanry to make this part of the Regular Army on mobilisation; and we hope to use 3,240 mounted men, who will be supplied by the Yeomanry, and who will go with the division and act as divisional troops, hold positions, and perform various other services which mounted men who are fairly trained as rifle shots can do with great advantage. Then in the second column of non Regulars there are 10,337 artillerymen. These are the ammunition columns, of which I have spoken. Then there are engineer services, railway work, telegraph work, and so on, men whom we get in the same fashion. Infantry is left blank for the reasons I will give presently. Army Service Corps, 10,000; Royal Army Medical Corps, Veterinary Department, Ordnance, 30,857 men in all, to be put upon the non-Regular basis.
That is the force. Suppose you send it out in its entirety; and suppose you are engaged in a great war, I should be asked, What provision have you made for wastage? My answer is, We have calculated pretty accurately the wastage, and it is appallingly large. The wastage in an average great war is not far short of 80 per cent, per annum. You cannot calculate it at less. For six months you have to calculate for a wastage of 40 per cent., that is to say, of some 56,000 men. And the way we supply that wastage is this, partly out of the surplus people whom we have got and partly out of certain people whom we train on a non-Regular basis, but largely out of infantry, in whose aid we requisition certain existing Militia, with modifications which I shall have, to describe. We have, of course, a considerable number

1099
Infantry of the Line over in the surplus battalions. We also have a surplus of reservists and of young men who, in the first six months of a war, will have matured. These form not only the nucleus, but the greater part. We shal want 9,000 more during the first six months. It is proposed to ask the Militia to furnish them in their units so that we can make them available, not in their battalions at all events in no smaller unit than their company. I will come to that in due course; but I think I have now explained provisionally the composition of the expeditionary force.
The reductions in cost in the case of Army reorganisation come, I need not say, from a reduction of the personnel of the Regulars, just as in the Navy they come from the reduction of ships. We get our reduction in this way. We get approaching 9,000 men by reducing ten battalions of infantry of different kinds. We get a reduction of Regulars who are employed for garrison artillery purposes which are now obsolete—those 300 guns of which I spoke which are coming off our coast defences because our coast defences are organised on quite other principles. There is a reduction there of nearly 2,000 Regulars. Then there are large reductions in the artillery consequent upon supplementing them upon a non-Regular basis and a reorganisation of depots and other matters, amounting to a reduction of about 3,850 men. Then there are a lot of miscellaneous reductions. We have scrutinised everything in every corner, and we have found men redundant—too many engineers here, too many Army Service men there, and with a number of minor items which I need not go into now, except to say that they include the Wei-hai-Wei Regiment, and we get, roughly speaking, about 20,000 men.
I want to say something to the Committee on which I lay great emphasis. The Committee is urging economy, and I think I have shown them the prospect of good reductions. I do not want to estimate these things in money at this moment for a reason, beyond saying this, that you will see, if I am not very much mistaken, a very handsome and substantial reduction in the next Estimates.
1100
But you will not reap the full fruit, and some of you may be disappointed with the amount, and I will tell you why. Whatever we do there is one thing which I am sure the Committee would not wish. I hate to be the instrument to disband fine battalions of men. I hate, and the Government hate, and we all hate to disturb existing arrangements, and we feel that to every extent that we can, whether we disband soldiers of the line or discharge workmen from factories because munitions of war have not to be made to so great an extent, or whether we reduce staff, we ought to do it as gently as possible so as not to allow the individual to suffer more than we possibly can help. Therefore we propose to act on the policy of making these reductions gradually. Fortunately we are in a, very happy position. I never before had occasion to bless the three years enlistment system which was introduced some years ago and abolished by the late Government. It was a system which failed wholly of its purpose. It was introduced to get over certain difficulties at the time, and the result of it has been to produce a very large Reserve. But that Reserve has been produced by a constant exodus out of the battalions, men coming out because their three years term is over and because they do not want to re-engage, with the result that, while the reserves are large, enormous, at the present time, the battalions have been far under strength. That comes in as the very gift of Providence, so to speak, because it enables me to absorb, fit any rate, a considerable number of the men of the disbanded battalions who may choose to go into them. We do not know who will care to go in and who will not. These things are very difficult to gauge, but we want to help the soldiers in every way we can out of the difficult position in which we are putting thorn. We do not propose to send any man out into the street if we can possibly avoid it, and we think we can provide for all the men and officers by absorption if we only take a little time. We have worked out schemes for that purpose with all the care we can, and I hope the result will be that the, blow, if it falls, as it does fall, on battalions which it has taken many years to bring up to their present, in many cases, admirable

1101
condition, is a blow which will be softened by the merciful measures we are taking. It, of course, retards to a certain extent the immediate fruits of your economy, but, if you give us some months in which to make every man his offer, you will get something very, handsome and substantial, and the rest will lie, not in nubibus,but at a distance of time that you can see and where you can put your hand on the full fruits. So much for the economy side of these reductions.
Now I come to what, I am sure, the Committee await a little anxiously to Know: What are the infantry reductions that we propose to make? Which are the ten battalions? I will take first the case of the Guards. Our proposal is to reduce the ten battalions of the Guards by two. The Guards up to 1897 consisted of seven battalions. Three battalions were added, one in 1897, the 3rd Coldstream, and the others in 1899, the 3rd Scots. And when those were instituted Lord Lansdowne, who was then War Minister, stated that—
" it is proposed that of the nine battalions to which the establishment of the Guards will be raised by the creation of two new battalions, three shall be employed on garrison duty in the Mediterranean,"
with a view to relieving the strain on the short-tour battalions. That never came about. The purpose for which these battalions were called into existence was never fulfilled, and the result has been that the Guards have been used for another purpose. They have been used for the purpose of forming a brigade, one of the most admirable brigades in the British Army, at Aldershot. The first question that will be put to me is, " Why do you not reduce something else than 'the Guards? " I answer that question by saying because the first consideration is not only efficiency, but efficiency tempered by justice. It would not have been fair, it would not have been possible, to make the whole of the reduction in the infantry of the Line The infantry of the Line are, after all, the battalions which do foreign service work and which feed battalions abroad, and thus for every battalion that I struck out of the infantry of the Line I should have destroyed two battalions—that battalion and the battalion it fed abroad.
1102
Consequently I could not reduce, under the present condition of affairs abroad, more battalions of the infantry of the Line, The next question which I came to was this: Did I require these two battalions of the Guards for my expeditionary force, and my answer £was clearly I did not. I require only six battalions of the Guards; I had ten I propose, therefore, to reduce two. I could not justify them for the purpose of the expeditionary force, because the expeditionary force requires so many battalions of the Line, and I could not; reduce those battalions of the Line still lower. Nor could I justify, that being so, the proposition to continue spending £120,000 a year upon those two battalions. I find my occupation, in many respects, a hard one. It requires a; ruthless determination in pursuing a; purpose without looking to the right or to the left, but I must look to the interests of the whole before looking to the interests of the part, and I solemnly say this to the Committee—that unless I am free to pursue these things in that way I can neither reorganise the Army on the basis of efficiency for war nor get down the cost of it to an amount which this House and the country will tolerate It is better for the Army, it is better for the Guards themselves, that the Guards should bear their just share of reduction, and that they should be dealt with in this way.
I want to say a word about the Aldershot Brigade. I have seen that brigade and learned to admire it, and I should rather not have seen it parted. But, with our reorganisation of the Guards, we shall be able to put Aldershot in just as good a position as it was before. We propose on mobilisation to have two brigades of Guards at Aldershot in the future instead of one, as at the present time. Only one of those brigades will be constantly at Aldershot in peace, and it will be a brigade which trains with two battalions of Guards and two battalions of the Line —a mixed brigade. There are many very distinguished infantry commanders who maintain that a mixed brigade is a more efficient force in war than a brigade of battalions of the Line alone. I see my right hon. friend (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney)

1103
shaking his head. He is a military expert, and I am not; but I will tell him what was said to me just two days ago by a very distinguished general who had gone through the full experience of the thing. He said—
" The old seasoned Linesman, although he may not in some respects be as fine as a picked man of the Guards, is a man with a good deal of experience, and he can teach the Guardsman, when he goes abroad, some things that the Guardsman does not know. I have commanded a mixed brigade, with the result that I think one of the most perfect combinations you could have is Guardsmen and Linesmen in equal proportion."
Acting upon that advice and on other opinions, we have so arranged that I do not think the Aldershot training brigade will suffer much in the future by the system of two battalions of Guards and two of the Line. Every battalion of the Guards will, in the organisation we are working out, go through the mill at Aldershot every fourth year. Moreover, in the Aldershot command, which, in the future, will consist of two of these big divisions, in the second division there will be, on mobilisation, a brigade of Guards organised in peace for the outbreak of war, but not continuously stationed at Aldershot Peace like the mixed brigade which I have just described. I believe that the new organisation will be looked at with a not unfriendly eye by a good many people in the Guards, who feel that the keeping of four battalions at Aldershot constantly imposed a strain which was too heavy to bear. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon put some questions designed to bring out figures on the subject of the Guards Reserve. I know nothing more absolutely misleading than the calculation which the right hon. Gentleman made which showed that the Guardsman with the average cost of the reservist worked out at a very cheap rate. The figure adopted was £29 odd, I think. Questions have also been addressed to me the purpose of which is to bring out that the cost of a linesman is very much greater. The comparison is quite misleading. If you take the linesman on the seven and five years enlistment system, taking into consideration that India pays part of the cost of the Reserve, because India pays the cost of the battalion when it is in
1104
service which produces a part of the Reserve, you will find that the average cost of the linesman is very little if at all I different from that of the Guardsman on three years service. The Guardsman is an expensive man, his cost is necessarily rather high. The result is that, looking at the matter from the point of view of efficiency and economy, it is not possible for us to defend the maintenance of the Guards at the strength of battalions to which they were raised since 1897, and the justification of which seems to us to have disappeared. But when you come to what we are to do with them, I am glad to say we shall be able to proceed in such a fashion as, I think, will not injure them any more than can be avoided. We propose to begin with the reduction of the 3rd Scots Guards, taking time for the absorption of the men. Nobody will be deprived of his pay as the process goes on. We shall then proceed with the reduction of the 3rd Coldstream Guards, but there will necessarily be an interval before the reduction takes place. Do not let there be any mistake about this. There is no doubt in our minds about reducing the battalion. Transivit in rem judicatam;we made up our minds that the thing has got to be done; but there will necessarily be an interval of time, and in that interval we propose to ask the Coldstream Guards—their third battalion—to undertake an honourable and important task, that of relieving a battalion in Egypt. They are a fine battalion, and it is only the necessities which arise from the consideration of the organisation of the Army as a whole that has laid upon us the painful task of reducing them also.
I pass from that to the eight battalions of infantry of the Line which we are going to reduce. At the present time this is our position. There are in India fifty-two battalions, there are in the Colonies thirty-two, and at home seventy-two—that is to say, there are twelve more battalions at present abroad than there are at home. If eight battalions are to be reduced, we have worked out with the Defence Committee that this is the proper course to pursue—and this is entirely approved by the Committee and by the Army and Navy authorities—to-bring away three battalions from South.

1105
Africa, replacing them by one cavalry regiment—therwant mounted troops there —and, if necessary, another cavalry regiment. That will leave ten battalions in Africa, but not at full strength. We propose, in order to make the ten that remain effective, to use the substance of one of the three battalions to be brought home to be disbanded for strengthening up the other battalions in Africa. There will be ten battalions of infantry instead of thirteen weak battalions, their strength being brought up to 840. There will be an additional cavalry regiment, and another, if necessary, available to go out. In the opinion of my military advisers, that puts South Africa in a better position than at present, because it provides it with a more mobile force. In the next place we propose to make reductions in Malta. The establishment of the battalions there is at present seven, and in the opinion of the Defence Committee it ought not to be more than five. Malta has become more and more of naval and less and less of military importance. It is of use only as a station for troops, and it is not a healthy place. We have decided that one battalion shall come away from Gibraltar, which again is more a naval than a military station, and one will come from Ceylon, where it is not wanted. The result of the whole is that we have to reduce the battalions, which means that we have to bring home battalions from abroad, and select the battalions, which must be of course linked at home, which we can reduce.
Now we had to consider what principle we should go on, whether to select battalions from regiments, junior, on sentimental grounds, or to I select them from those regiments for which we had been unable to obtain the necessary recruits and bring them up to the establishment. We decided unanimously to go for numerical efficiency and not sentimental considerations — that we should reduce the battalions inefficient in point of I strength—and that being so, we had to determine which. This is the decision of the Government: The third and fourth battalions of the Northumberland Fusiliers, the third and fourth battalions of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment,
1106
the third and fourth battalions of the Lancashire Fusiliers, and the third and fourth battalions of the Manchester Regiment. All these regiments are very largely short.
The terms of enlistment are very important, and we have given close consideration to that. As the Committee I knows, Mr. Cardwell originally proposed in the short service scheme as it first stood, that the terms should be six years with the colours and six with the reserve. Afterwards it became seven and five. Then there was the unfortunate three years experiment, with nine, from which a jump had to be made to the other end nine and three, to increase the men with the colours. That is too large, in our opinion, and after very great consideration the Adjutant-General, to whom I cannot express my obligations sufficiently deeply for the immense amount of work; he has thrown into this part of my proposals, has presented me with these recommendations, which are adopted by the Army Council and the Government. The terms of enlistment for the infantry of the Line will be, as a general rule, seven and five, with the extra year. The Guards will remain three and nine; they do not go abroad. The cavalry will be seven and live, with the extra year necessary; no change. The field and horse artillery, instead of being three and nine, will be six and six. The garrison artillery will be eight and I four. What we want is to get highly-trained Reserve men. I have stated that we propose to reduce the Irish Guards, which was a battalion of colossal proportions, from 920 rank and file to 820. The cavalry we do not touch, nor do we I touch the Household Cavalry. The Infantry of the Line establishment, 805 non-commissioned officers and men, can be well reduced to 775, but one cannot go below that, otherwise one would not get the drafts; and even then that is above the average actual strength at the present moment. The result of the whole process is that, whereas we have now 156' battalions of the Line, of which fifty-two are in India, thirty-two in the colonies, and seventy-two at home, we shall have fifty-two in India, twenty-five only in the colonies, and seventy-one at home, making 148 in all. That is

1107
where I get my reduction. With regard to the Reserve, which is very large, we propose this year to close the entrance to Section D.
I have put before the Committee the full effect of the reductions, and I want to pass on to another topic which intimately concerns the soldier, We have gone with great care in the last few months into the question of how we I can find some employment for the soldier in a more systematic fashion after he leaves his profession, and how we can best teach him a trade, and generally improve his material position. I do not I think we can lay too much stress on the proposition that it is important that we should get quality as well as quantity. The reductions will enable us to put forward a higher standard of quality than, we have hitherto been able to enforce, and we hope, to accompany that by an effort to make the social condition of the soldier better than it is at the moment. For that purpose Sir E. Ward undertook to I preside over a committee which has sat' unremittingly on the whole question, and that committee has presented a Report which has been laid on the Table, and will be printed and issued in a few days. It contains a vast amount, of material and a number of propositions, many of which, at any rate, we hope to be able to carry into effect. It will require a good deal of work, and Sir E. Ward and his colleagues propose to take it in hand as soon as the Report is laid.
Then there is another point of vital importance, the health of the Army. There have been some reproaches in the papers that we have been saying nothing about sanitary reform in the Army and the improvement of our medical system. It is not a subject; which, connected intimately as I am through family ties with medicine and science, I am likely to have neglected, and I am glad to say I have had working for me in this direction Sir Alfred Keogh, Surgeon-General, and the head of the Medical Department of the Army, than whom there is no more skilled man anywhere. He has provided a scheme which is already partly in operation, and I propose to deal with the health of the Army in this fashion. It is ' all part of our organisation for war, which I am going to detail in a few words. We
1108
propose, on the outbreak of war, to treat the Army on the basis of looking after the health of the unit as one thing, and the health of the base and lines of communication as another thing. The chief sources of disease are contact with infection, imperfect disposal of excreta,and impure water supply. All those things are being separately dealt with. Small things in themselves, they multiply the evils to enormous dimensions when dealing with great bodies of troops. First of all, field army conditions are quite different from those of the base and line of communications, and therefore it is necessary that there should be systematic teaching, not only of medical officers, but of the combatant officers, in order to enable them to apply the best results of medical science to the preservation of the health of their units. Our medical training we propose very largely to improve. We have already taken the decision to make the instruction of officers include health matters and medical matters as far as they bear on the health of their companies, as well as other matters. We propose to give instruction not only to the officers but to the men. The Medical Department has prepared a manual of instruction for the soldier, and henceforth it is to be the duty of the company officer not only to read and understand that manual himself, but also to see that his men read and understand it. We have also provided a medical school at Aldershot which is now training our medical officers. When we organise for war it is intended that the unit of organisation I shall consist of one medical officer, one non-commissioned officer, and four men; of the Army Medical Corps, who will have to look after the water supply and other such services; and one commissioned officer who will supervise the sanitary police duties. These men will be trained at the new school of hygiene at Aldershot. A line of communication will be organised for the preservation of health and the prevention of disease on something like the organisation of a civil community. It is intended to form sanitary sections who will not have to attend to the sick, but to look after the health of the troops and the prevention of disease. There will also be a general sanitary commission who, working at

1109
the base, will provide for requirements as they crop up. In that work the combatant officer and the medical officer will be brought together. We think they cannot be in too close a communication. Of course, for skilled medical work, we look to the trained medical officer. But there is a great deal of other medical service which can only be attended to by the authority of the combatant officer. We have learned a great deal in this matter from the Japanese; but we have learned a great deal more from the studies of our own people themselves. They have worked out the problem of how to purify water by a new system of filtration. We have arranged at Aldershot for a regular sanitary campaign on lines as it would be carried out in war. The water there will be declared impure— which is a great farce, as Aldershot is excellently supplied with water—and the water will be brought from a new source of supply in order to see how our organisation would work out in war. I believe we shall have as good a medical service as any in the world, if not better, and have it with something in the way of economy. We are able to reduce the provision of hospital accommodation in war from 10 to 7 per cent., which is a substantial economy.
I have now said what I have got to say on the subject of the Regular Forces. I will deal shortly with the subject of the Auxiliary Forces, for I am ashamed of having engaged the attention of the Committee so long. His Majesty's Government have deemed it to be their duty to put to the Auxiliary Forces precisely the same question as they have put to the Regular Army. That is —" What purpose do you serve in war? " But before I enter upon this branch of my subject, I want the Committee to understand the difficulties which confront the reformer right through the whole organisation of the Army. There has been a want of plan, a want of method; and things have grown up like mushrooms haphazardly, you do not know how or why. It is not only in regard to the Regulars that great wastage has taken place; it has taken place also in the Auxiliaries, and. you come across it even in departments where you least expect it. One would have thought that
1110
in regard to the food supply of the Regular Army things would be closely looked into. About two months ago I found a contract for the supply of meat in which it was said that the meat must be home bred. I know that I am now touching on a dangerous topic, in which members from Ireland take a great interest. Well, I thought the condition about home-bred a little awkward, so I myself struck it out and put in " home-killed " instead. That has been in operation for two months Two results have ensued from it. One was a comfort not to the home-breeder but to myself. That was that we have saved a farthing on every ration, or £50,000 a year, which is a neat little economy to effect on a meat contract on free-trade principles. The other result was that I discovered from my experts that the Army got very little home-bred meat, that the meat they got came not from Ireland, or from anywhere at home, but from Australia, Canada, the Argentine and other countries, whence it was brought to the port of Liverpool, slaughtered there in very large quantities, and sold as home-bred meat. I have therefore the best evidence for believing that the change has not really been to the detriment of the constituencies of hon. members from Ireland; and at the same time we have saved £50,000 a year. That is only a simple illustration of the little reforms you can carry out. The Exchequer has a right to demand full value for the money it spends on the Army. Remember that the cost of the Regular soldier has risen from £49 3s. in the Estimates of 1896–7 to £66 18s. in the Estimates of 1906–7; £13 of that increase is due to additional pay. There has been a very large increase also in the cost of the Auxiliary Forces. The Militia, which in the ten years has fallen from 113,000 men to 90,000, costs £480,000 a year more. The Yeomanry has increased in numbers from 9,600 to 25,000, at an enhanced cost of £420,000 a year. The Yeomanry are a very useful and valuable force, but we must put to them the question—What service can you render us in time of war? The Volunteers have gone up in cost in the ten years to £6 10s. per man. To them likewise we lave to put the question, What services san you render us in time of war? I am

1111
sure the Committee will pity the War Minister when he comes to deal with the financial side of the problem which faces him. . There are automatic increases of expenditure of large amount arising out of things done in years past with which he has had nothing to do; and at the same time he is face to face with the duty of keeping down the Estimates. Still, it can be done, but in endeavouring to cope with that task I think he is entitled to ask for indulgence and consideration if he can not accomplish everything as quickly as ' may be desired.
With these few preliminary observations, which I think are necessary to justify my position in regard to the Militia, I put to the force the question, What purpose do you fulfil in war at the present time? The Militia in old days were raised by ballot, which was compulsory— except in cases where the ballot was suspended—and were for service at home. Even if the ballot were made compulsory everywhere the Militia to-day would not be under any obligation to take part in operations beyond the seas; and if the force is to remain on that basis I could not conscientiously advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue to spend upon them the money he is spending at the present time. The Militia must have a new function assigned to them in the organisation of the Army as a whole. They must either fall hack into Volunteer work, in which case they would not be paid any more than the Volunteers are paid; or else they must lake upon themselves the same obligation as the Regular soldier, and that is to be ready to serve abroad in time of war. In time of peace they stay at home. But in time of war they can be of no use to us unless they form an efficient first line of support to the Regular Army in the field. It is, therefore, clear that we must ask the Militia to form a first line of drafts for the Regular Army in the field, and therefore to accept the obligation of going abroad in time of war. There are two schools of thought with regard to the Militia. One, which is represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, says the Militiaman is but an imperfect conception of what a short-service soldier ought to be. Therefore, make him a real short-service soldier. The other
1112
school says what you should do with our old constitutional force is to extend them enormously, so that they shall be not merely a support to but an expansion of the Regular Army. This school looks to the Lords - Lieutenant to give a now life to the Militia. The Lords-Lieutenant cannot discharge that function. For such a purpose they are as dead as the dodo. I believe new life can be given to them, and that new functions may be assigned to them if they are surrounded by representatives of the more democratic and vigorous elements of the country, who may help them to discharge administrative duties connected with the Army. I do not propose, nor do we desire, to destroy the constitutional position of the Militia at the present time. You can keep them a county force and yet make a great step forward. Mr. Cardwell's great idea was, behind the two Regular battalions, the two territorialised battalions, to have a third Militia battalion. Behind that he wished to have depôt battalions which would be available on the outbreak of war, looked after by officers probably who were retired, but who would be called; back on the outbreak of war. Into those; depôt battalions all surplus elements could go, but between that and the second Regular battalion he desired to place the Militia battalion of the county. Well, the policy of the Government is to carry out Mr. Cardwell's principle, to make a closer connection between the Militia battalions and the Regular battalions than exists at present. The Militia have to elect between going into the condition of Volunteers and coming nearer to the Regular forces. What we are anxious to do is to take the Militia battalions and make them battalions of the Regular Army, to give its officers as nearly as possible Army rank, to place it in a better position as regards training, to raise its strength, and generally to make it much more efficient. We propose to take the 124 battalions of Militia we have now, to review them, to lop off weak battalions and to consolidate them, so as to make more efficient battalions, and to put behind every Regular battalion of the home Army a third or Militia battalion. In some cases there may be more than one Militia battalion, two, or even

1113
three, where the Militia are strong, which will put a first line of Reserve behind the Regular Army. The men will go abroad in units not lower than companies, and often in battalions, with their own officers, so that they may have the feeling that they are going out with their own officers to the regiments to which they are affiliated. I know there are many of the Militia who demur from that, and wish the force to be rather an extension than a reserve for the Army; but, on the other hand, the Army take very strongly the view that the average Militia battalion is not fit, and cannot be made fit, to be put into the field against the Regular troops of the Continent. It is felt that the first fighting line must be filled by the trained battalions of the Regular army. As the Militia become fit they can take the place of companies cut up in the Regular regiments to which they are affiliated. That will ensure the Regular Army taking an interest in their Militia battalions. Further than that we cannot go. It is impossible for this Government to spend money unless they can justify the expenditure. We hope gradually to get the Militia into shape. Valuable experiments have been made lately in Militia training, and we are making experiments ourselves which may lead to modifications in the mode of training the Militia, so as to make them better suited to the exigencies of different districts. It is upon that principle we propose to act. Of course that will be a gradual process, and we hope in that fashion to get the Militia into shape. Valuable experiments have been made lately in Militia training. We are making experiments which may lead to amplifications in the mode of training the Militia so that we may get hold of them more effectually and in a fashion that better suits the exigencies of different districts. The Militia Artillery must disappear as garrison artillery and in a now capacity be drawn nearer to the Regular field artillery.
Now I come to the Volunteers. The same question exactly we put to the Volunteers. We say, "What useful function do you fulfil — because you are costing the country £1,700,000 a year, money we do not grudge if you are
1114
fulfilling a necessary function." Now the Volunteers have definite functions which they ought to fulfil, and which to a large extent they do fulfil. If the nation went to war the Regular troops would go out of the garrison forts, which would then have to be defended by the Volunteers. The Volunteers are also required to repel possible raids to the extent of about 10,000 men. I think such raids very unlikely, because I believe the raiders would never go back alive. There may, however, be some Power which would be enterprising enough to lose 10,000 men in order to destroy the Elswick works or Woolwich Arsenal. They will find it very difficult, but still possible, and provision has to be made accordingly, and that is the second function which Volunteers have to fulfil. There is a third function which the Volunteers may have to fulfil, and that is to be a sort of second Reserve for the Regular Army. We propose to take the Volunteers and organise them for these three functions. For the first two—namely, the defence of the naval fortresses and the repelling of raids—it is estimated by the general staff that 140,000 infantry Volunteers, 9,000 garrison Volunteers, and 8,000 mounted men from the Yeomanry will be required. But at the present time everything is in a state of confusion. The Volunteers who have to defend the naval fortresses are often brought very great distances. The regions in which naval fortresses exist do not produce the kind of Volunteer who is wanted to defend them. We propose to survey the whole of Great Britain to determine the functions which the Volunteers should have to perform in each district and county, and to say to them, " What we requisition you for is this particular kind of service—you, men of Hampshire and the Southern counties, you have to defend the great southern Naval forts." In the Eastern counties there are unguarded portions of the coast, and we may say to the men in those districts, " You must produce in each district Volunteers of the type required for the defence of the coast." In other counties we may say, " We want you as infantry of the line or as mounted men." To other places we may say, " We should like you to take the field guns and train yourselves as a reserve of Volunteer artillery'." In that way we

1115
hope to get value for our money out of the Volunteers. I have talked a good deal to Volunteer commanding officers on this very important subject and they have said to me, almost with one voice, "Do not have any hesitation in making this demand upon us. We Volunteers have been longing, for years past, to have real functions and to be freed from sham. Make one national Army, not regular and auxiliary forces, but one entire force." Speaking from such information as I have been able to get, I do not entertain much doubt that the Volunteers will respond to what we ask of them, and will say, " We are only too glad to find ourselves with real functions."
It will be observed that the working out of all this requires great care and minute local knowledge. How are you to get the Volunteers and the number of Militiamen required for these special services of which I have spoken? You cannot get them through the War Office. The War Office has broken down as a means of reorganising the Volunteers. The result is that battalions grow up haphazard. We must have county associations of some kind or sort. I start with the principle that unless you give some kind of Home Rule to the Volunteers you will not get efficient service.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDWill you allow us to raise Volunteers in Ireland?
MR. HALDANE: I have that point on my note, and I will come to it, but I cannot do everything all at once. My hon. friend will remind me if I forget it.
We find that we are constantly maltreating the Volunteers for want of local knowledge, and we feel it to be absolutely essential that they should have some power of organisation in the counties and of controlling their own affairs. If that be so, it seems to us that the best way is to form some kind of association in the counties. It is rather an intricate subject, and I felt that it was a subject which opened up large questions indeed. You have to look not only at the question of the Volunteers, but also at the rifle ranges. It is easy to get rifle ranges if you have owners of land inter-
1116
ested in the subject and who will give you rifle ranges because it is part of the organisation in which they are interested. Rifle ranges, rifle corps, cadet corps, and other things will come within the purview of the county association organised for the purpose of looking after the affairs of the Auxiliary Forces in each county. So impressed was I with the difficulty of the matter that I asked a committee to assemble, under the presidency of one who has already rendered great services to the Army by his work in reorganising it—I refer to Lord Esher. He has presided over a committee about which there have been all sorts of rumours. Indeed, it has enjoyed a greater reputation for mystery than any committee for a long time. But its procedure has been perfectly simple, and on the question of the county associations they have undertaken the laborious task of advising the War Office as to the best means of carrying this object out. Their present view is that you can do a great deal by bringing in a number of representatives of the new county and borough councils, representatives of the commanding officers of the Auxiliary Forces, and representatives of the general officer commanding the Regular troops in the district; and then there are the county people themselves. I should like to see a new life infused in our counties. I should like to see the county people getting something to do. I am making no reproach against them. Function after function has been taken from them, but there is now a new chance of their doing a great and useful work for the State. I should like to see the Lords-Lieutenant and perhaps the Deputy-Lieutenants earning their uniform. The Government is not committed to any details, but the Esher Committee is making recommendations, and still want to investigate the subject. The whole matter will be held over until the autumn, when proposals will be prepared which can come forward in the shape of Bills for next session. Meanwhile, some time must necessarily elapse, though for the purposes of administration as distinguished from command and training the Auxiliary Forces require Home Rule of this kind. Command and training must be inevitably under the control of persons who command the forces of the Crown.

1117
I need only say that the Yeomanry form the cavalry of the territorial force, and we shall ask of them to furnish a detachment of the field force. We do not propose to increase by a penny the expenditure on the Auxiliary Forces, which has already grown to protentous dimensions, and I hope that there is room for economy. But we want to get out of the three or four millions spent on the Auxiliary Forces something very substantial in this form which will enable us to diminish the cost of the Regulars, something to bring the Army nearer to the people, to make the people more content with the Army than they are at the present time.
One word before I conclude this subject about the expansion of the Regular forces. This has been a subject of great discussion elsewhere. We may need expansion, but I do not believe that compulsion would be of the slightest avail for the purpose. I believe in the giving of local encouragement by every means in our power to the people, the giving to their associations an interest, not n aggression, not in the spirit of militarism, but in the defence of their homes, of their country, and of the Empire of which they form a part. Put within their hands the means of that defence, explain to the people what we want of them, and they will come to your side and you will not have much difficulty in getting the resources you require freely and generously offered to you. But for that purpose let them train themselves and organise themselves. It is, therefore, to my mind essential that they should be given the opportunity of organising themselves for possible war in a fashion that may lead rather to the expansion of quantity than the raising of a high quality in peace time. I should like to see every man interesting himself in possible contingencies and taking up military training, but not in such a fashion that he would be called upon to interfere with his business or set aside his engagements. If you leave our people alone, whether they belong to the working classes, the middle classes, or the upper classes, you will have a spirit shown among them which is perfectly ready of its own initiative to undertake in sufficient numbers the training that is necessary to
1118
make the art of war an art which is not unknown to them. So that if war broke out you give them an opportunity of training upon a higher scale and turning themselves into a reservoir out of which you can feed the Regular Army in time of need and also strengthen the defensive power of the Empire as a whole.
I now come to the end of my task. I have dealt very lightly with the latter portion of my subject. We are still in a state of consideration about the Auxiliary forces; but about the Regular Army and the Militia our principles and propositions are clear. About the things that remain, and which I have laid down in general principles, we are equally clear, though about them the Government reserves a considerable latitude for consideration. But I want to hear more from the Esher Committee about the problems they are considering, and I want the Auxiliary Forces to consider these things. Our scheme deals with a national Army as a whole. It is a linked chain, each link of which is necessary to the chain as a whole. To organise the National Army for war and not for show or sham, to put it on a business footing by bringing the civilian and the soldier into co-operation for a common purpose—that is our aim and object. We are under no illusion about the difficulty of the work. It may take a generation to realise this purpose, but I am certain that the way that is most likely to lead to its realisation is for the nation to agree on common principles and on a common policy. Here the agreement should be as harmonious and as complete as the policy which prevailed in respect of the Navy. We do not want one Government coming in to overturn the work of another. I would rather that the accomplishment of the great task took place by a process of evolut on. No doubt the beginning is most difficult. I have to-day offered medicine to the patient which I fear may seem a bitter medicine when he takes it, but the recovery of his health, as, well as of the health of the Army, can only come from a closer contact with the nation. The nation has had an extravagant, costly, standing force separate from the people. It ought to be rat her that of the people themselves, the nation—yes, the Empire—because I believe our

1119
organisation fits in with the organisation of the English-speaking people of the Empire as a whole—the Empire organised, not for aggression, but for its own defence in cases of great emergency. These plans are the mere beginning. We hope to settle and work upon them without delay. The task is gigantic, and whether we shall succeed or whether we shall fail, we know not. The future will not disclose its secrets; but my colleagues and I believe that in these plans we have laid, with the assistance of our experts, the foundations of a structure which will largely diminish the cost of the Army while going hand in hand with greatly increased strength. Such a structure cannot be put together quickly. Perhaps a long time is necessary for its completion: but, if the plan be true, as we firmly believe it to be true, the completion of the edifice can be secured in the end. What is wanted for the completion of that edifice is the exercise and the output of an activity which must be unhasting as it is also unresting.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERcomplimented the right hon. Gentleman on his extraordinarily clear and detailed speech. Earlier in the session he had assured the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition would do nothing and say nothing to embarrass him in the difficult task he had undertaken; and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this undertaking had been strictly observed. He was surprised, however, that the Prime Minister should ask the Committee to dispose of this complicated question at one sitting, especially in view of the fact that nineteen days were devoted to the question of the Army last year. He was sure he would be doing a grave injustice to the importance of the right hon. Gentleman's speech if he suggested that nineteen days would be too large an allowance of time for the proper discussion .of the proposals which had just been laid before the Committee. He did not suppose there was any hon. Member of the House, not even among those who had made a special study of Army matters, who would attempt to deal with all the details of the scheme now. He rejoiced in the economy which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to effect, but he
1120
regretted the means by which it was to be brought about. If the right hon Gentleman could say that the risks to which the country was exposed were less than they had been, then the time would have come to diminish the means of coping with those risks. But nothing that had been said in the House during the last few months had led them to form any idea of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman was going to compensate for the reduction in the Army by creating a new Army and a new organisation which was going to guarantee us against any loss which might come in consequence of that reduction. He was delighted to hear it, but be would suggest for the guidance of his hon. friends that it was better to be on with the new love before they were off with the old—that they had better make the new Army before they destroyed any part of the army which it was to replace. If they were going to make a new auxiliary army they had much better make it before they destroyed any part of the Regular Army of the country. He admitted that the reduction was not a large one, but there was an important omission in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It was this. There had been an infinite number of discussions in public of the military problem, and there had not been a dissenting voice with regard to the proposition that the great need of the country was some power of expanding the Army in time of war. Not only had the right hon. Gentleman given no intelligible idea of how that expansion was to take place, but he had proved to demonstration that the power of expansion that we already possessed was to be gravely curtailed. When the South African war broke out in 1899 it was impossible to mobilise the infantry regiments from their own reserves. Under what system was that? That was under the seven years' system. Battalion after battalion went out short of their established figures, because they had to leave behind men who were unfit to go, and were unable to replace them from the reserves of the regiment. Now they were going to put the whole Army on a seven years' system of enlistment and concurrently to reduce the units by no less than ten. There were, however, some units in 1899 which were easily mobilised and had a large

1121
remaining force of Reserves. These were the regiments of the Brigade of Guards. The right hon. Gentleman said the Guards were expensive. But if they took the test of war they would find on putting 1,000 Guardsmen in the field that each man had cost £29, whereas each Linesman ready to take the field cost £46 6s. These two figures represented what the country got in fighting value for its expenditure upon the Guards and the rest of the Army respectively. Yet in the name of economy they were asked to accept a reduction in the Brigade of Guards. The Committee could not have a better object lesson as to the advantage of short service enlistment than the figures he had given. He thought it was a great misfortune that two battalions of the Guards had been singled out for destruction. He thought the reason given for this change was the weakest that could be given, namely, that under the present linked battalion system they could not give up the Line battalions, and that therefore they were compelled to sacrifice the Guards. It was, however, a much wider question than that of the Guards.
It was a question of the whole Army. How were we going to find a great force in time of war, such a force as would be required for the purposes of mobilisation, when we limited ourselves to seven years enlistment? The right hon. Gentleman was also going to cut down the Royal Artillery. If they cut down at all then should begin with the worst and not with the best; with the dearest and not with the cheapest. In the case of the Guards they were begining with the cheapest; and in beginning with them and with the Artillery they were also beginning with the best. The right hon. Gentleman had twitted him and his predecessor with want of knowledge with regard to the Royal Artillery and the need for providing it with a Reserve. He did not recognise the point of the taunt which the right hon. Gentleman had directed against him. It was perfectly true that the Royal Artillery had grown a great deal faster than their reserves, and the introduction of the new gun had increased the demand upon the personnel, of the batteries. Ten years ago, moreover, public
1122
opinion compelled the addition of no less than seventy-eight batteries of horse and field Artillery. These batteries could not be raised in a hurry, and even now they had not got their full reserve. The Artillery was unable to mobilise on account of the inadequacy of the numbers for the ammunition train and the subsidiary services. During the late war, long before the mobilisation was complete, the whole of the personnel was exhausted for the purpose of forming ammunition trains and the adjuncts to the batteries. He had himself published the facts with regard to all the batteries in a book which appeared five years ago. It was hardly likely, therefore, that he should be unaware of the need. To remedy that defect had been the perpetual care of the War Office ever since; and with that object they had kept the three and nine years basis of enlistment for the Royal Artillery. That system would give a very large but still an inadequate Reserve. But the moment they put the Artillery upon a six years' basis they would greatly aggravate the difficulty.
Arrangements were made by the late Government which the right hon. Gentleman had for the moment suspended for obtaining a most valuable reinforcement for the Artillery from the Volunteers. The officers commanding two of the most important Volunteer Artillery Corps had actually offered to make it a condition of entry that their men should join the First Class Army Reserve and thus be available for the ammunition columns, etc He had himself for years preached the doctrine of utilising the Garrison Militia to supplement the Royal Artillery, and his proposals, which were carefully worked out, and contemplated beginning with the north of Ireland batteries, had no doubt been found at the War Office by the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt large use might be made of the Militia; the right hon. Gentleman had said that he hoped that they would be able to amalgamate the Militia Artillery with the Royal Artillery in times of war; but in suggesting this, the right hon. Gentleman had not touched the great Militia problem. He must have a Militia before he could utilise it. He

1123
admitted that it was dying, but he had not said how he proposed to keep it alive. By what conjuring trick was he going to get men instead of boys to go into the Militia, and how was he going to prevent these boys from going into the Regular Army without injuring recruiting for the Army? Was he quite confident that this Militia artillery would agree to undertake in war work which was absolutely different from that which they had undertaken in time of peace? Unless the Militia was really capable of being utilised in time of war the scheme failed absolutely. But how was it to be done?
The savings indicated by the right hon. Gentleman were much less important than the answer to the question, " Where is the great force for expanding the Army in time of war to come from?" The Militia was not producing trained men or trained officers, and all this paraphernalia of county councils and the like would not do what the people of all other countries found they could do only by the sacrifice of time, effort, and money. He would remind the Committee that in 1904 35,000 men entered the Militia and .38,000 went out of it. Of the 35,000 recruits 22,000 deserted or went into the Line, and 12,000 were under eighteen years of age, and, therefore, ineligible for the Line. Out of the Militia as it stood it was impossible to form a fighting force capable of reinforcing the Army in time of war, and therefore the Militia part of the scheme failed. The right hon. Gentleman had been very sketchy as to the shadowy Army which he was to evolve, and the proposals should be cautiously supported until it was known what they were. He hoped that no new soldiers would be accepted unless they were, at least, the numerical and fighting equivalent of the soldiers whom they displaced. Both the Militia and the Volunteers contained valuable material, but it was well known that the officers of both forces were not efficiently trained. It should be a sine qua non of the acceptability of this scheme that no single man should be taken from the Militia or Volunteers unless it could be proved that he would be better trained and commanded by better officers than at present.
1124
The right hon. Gentleman had not made a single allusion to the over-whelmingly important question of officers. It could not be a matter of forgetfulness. If he had a plan for finding 2,000 or 3,000 trained officers, where was it? The right hon. Gentleman hoped to make a great change in the Volunteers; and if he could adopt the force in each county to the military need of that county, he would have achieved a great triumph; but he had not said how he would proceed. A little time ago the right hon. Gentleman quoted in support of his theories what happened in France. It was strange that the Secretary of State speaking on his official responsibility, should, in order to enforce a great change in our Army organisation, choose the particular example of General Chanzy's citizen army. That was the great historical example of the breakdown of an ill-trained and ill-officered force. Prince Frederick Charles reported that he had captured in ten days 20,000 unwounded prisoners, many guns, all their ammunition wagons, and all their positions; and General Chanzy said that they fled at the first shot, and could not be induced to defend any position, simply because they were not properly trained and officered. Nowadays the waste of war was enormous—the right hon. Gentleman had put it at 80 per cent, How was the wastage to be replaced? They should be able to apply the same test that the right hon. Gentleman had applied, and they also would ask " What will be the value of these things in war? " What did this whole series, of proposals come down to? We were to have 150,000 men of whom 30,000 were to be irregulars, Militia and so forth. The right hon. Gentleman himself had given some idea of the figures in regard to waste of war, and they had a terrible significance. The waste of war might be 50, 60, or 70 per cent, every year; the right hon. Gentleman himself had given the figure at 80 per cent. How were we going to replace that force in the field, especially as we had to deal with this large number of persons who did not belong to the Regular force? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have the idea that he was going to take into the force a large number of persons under a short engagement, but there

1125
was nothing novel in that. It had been the practice for years, especially in regard to the Army Medical Department, the Post Office and the Army Service Corps. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken in great detail about the Royal Artillery, which he proposed to reduce by 3,800 men, but his proposals required very careful examination, and there should be further explanation of his method of making up the number of trained artillerists from the ammunition column. France, the right hon. Gentleman had said, had reduced her number of guns That was an entire delusion. What she had done was to increase the number of her infantry. Did the right hon. Gentleman when he reduced the guns,propose to add to the infantry?
MR. HALDANE: They have reduced the number of guns in the battery.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that was so, but the matter was considered by the War Office, and it was asked whether we should do the same. France, he repeated, had recently added to the number of their infantry. Let that be as it might, however, they at this point came to a very specious statement which had been made and to which he asked the Committee to pay attention. He did not ask them to hear his eloquence, but to listen to his facts, and for this latter proposal he regretted that the Committee was not fuller than it was at that moment. Many hon. Members having heard the statement of the Minister for War had left the House, no doubt under the impression produced by that statement that we were well provided with artillery.
MR. HALDANE: We are not just now.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that was so. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that there would be five guns to every 1,000 men, but the Indian Army had no provision of field artillery, and there were something like 340,000 men at home absolutely unprovided with artillery. Yet he said the value of artillery was becoming more and more recognised. A certain number of guns were going to be given to the Volunteers, but the Secretary of State declared
1126
that these 15 - pounders could not be made part of the equipment of an efficient fighting force. When the men were taken away to some other body to serve under totally different conditions the Auxiliary Forces would be left exactly where they were. It was with surprise he heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he had the authority of his military advisers for the reduction of the units of the Royal Artillery. Every trained man was required for the Artillery.
The right hon. Gentleman had gone into much detail not at all relevant to the organisation of the Army, and it was to be hoped he would on a future occasion explain why instead of reducing strength, he was destroying units. He might get his drafts with the greatest ease if he would dispense with the unfortunate linked battalion system. Any reduction at the present time which was not accompanied by the replacing of what was taken away by something just as good was a mistake. When the right hon. Gentleman had time to answer the questions he would ask for a little more detailed information in regard to the great go-as-you-please Army of which they had heard. He wanted also to know how the Militia was to be kept out of the Line. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the Line was bleeding the Militia, and he wanted to know how the right hon. Gentleman was going to stop the bleeding, and how the Army itself was going to live if the life blood of the Militia no longer passed into its veins. Who were to be the officers of the county council Army, what authority would they possess? What training were they to receive, and were the men for this new Army to be taken from the Militia or the Volunteers, or from both? The right hon. Gentleman might stamp his foot and command a new host to come forth, but it would not come. Everyone knew that he would only get the same Army again. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee which he was going to destroy, the Militia or the Volunteers. He wanted some better reason for the changes he proposed than had yet been given. It was all very well to say that the great question of disarmament should be placed before everything else,

1127
but he thought the right hon. Gentleman said a very dangerous thing when he said we were going to take the lead. Was it wise on our part—we, the smallest military force in the world—to set that example when there were so many more powerful countries with much more to gain by such an agreement? We could not play at soldiering. Training, sacrifice, and effort were the price of victory in war. The soldiers of Japan were trained under their officers for three years, and French and German soldiers were trained under their officers for two years. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that, if we put into the field officers who had never been trained, to lead men who had never been trained, we should escape the penalties that other nations who had made that mistake had had to pay?
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he was well aware that in spite of the long and interesting speech of his right hon. friend, even now the Committee were not in the possession of many facts which were absolutely material to any judgment of the proposals which he had put before the House. The right hon. Member for Croydon in his speech pointed out one or two deficiencies in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and those deficiencies might, easily be supplemented by questions which would show hon. Members who were interested in this subject how little they really knew of the proposals of the Secretary of State—too little to form a judgment upon them. It seemed essential in any case that, if business at the present period of the session prevented the possibility of a debate now, before the Estimates were put into their final shape and before any of the suggestions which had been adumbrated by the right, hon. Gentleman were acted upon, they should have some further opportunity of debating this question. It would be worth it even if the opportunity took the form of repealing the only Resolution on the books of this House, namely, the Brodrick proposals. Since the Cardwell scheme the House of Commons had never given any other judgment on the military affairs of the country. Upon this occasion the Secretary of State had told the Committee that
1128
Bills would be required for the creation of the territorial Army on the county system that was at present in the air. The right hon. Gentleman had told them nothing to-day to enable them to pass a judgment upon his proposals. They might express doubts, but they could not pass judgment on his scheme to-day. It might be a long way off. It was quite possible that the new Esher Committee might be less near complete agreement than was currently reported, and that by October next complete agreement might not have been reached. In that case it was most important that they should have a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing the subject which was not the subject of a Bill. Another question raised on the last words of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was one of the most interesting, but he did not think they ought to pursue all the questions that might arise in debate, and he should hesitate to pursue the question on this occasion, except to say that the truth in his opinion lay between the two sides. He agreed absolutely with the last speaker that the trained force was the essential force. But the whole question depended on whether it was necessary that we should tie ourselves to the old tradition that governed the scheme before the Committee; or whether it was not possible to work out a plan in the circumstances of the country to substitute for the Regular Army of long-service highly-trained men at home, an Army in which the rank and file would be composed of men raised in part from the Militia and in part from the Volunteers. The Secretary of State had gone on the old plan because he had the seventy-one battalions at home tied round his neck, and he could not otherwise get a sufficiently large Reserve for his purpose. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House with this great speech, but he (Sir Charles Dilke) found in his scheme very little saving of money and no permanent saving. The men could be put back in a moment of panic. They had seen considerable increases of battalions at different times, The men were not always raised, but the money was raised. And the men the right hon. Gentleman was cutting off were not there. They had

1129
not been raised; the recruiting had not given the entire number of men. We had an empire of the seas, and our enmity was feared and our alliance was sought after by other Powers on account of our position and naval strength. Whether the Navy could be decreased was a detail as compared with this main fact. He, like many others, had supported the proposals which the Board of Admiralty had made from time to time, but if they had differed at all upon policy it was that of three or four years ahead rather than that of the actual moment, and they had always been united in the desire to retain that naval pre-eminence upon which our position in the world in a military sense depended. Our Army was secondary, except so far as India went. No one had admitted that more frankly than the late Prime Minister. That being so, how did the respective finance in regard to the Army and the Navy stand? The expenditure on Army and Navy together was vastly larger than people commonly supposed, because they forgot the expenditure of India and that included in the Civil Service Estimates and on loan money. They compared things which were not comparable, because the loan money and the Estimates varied from year to year. The expenditure of the Empire upon its Navy when it reached its highest figure in the Estimates of 1904–5, was over £42,000,000 sterling. It had fallen, through the efforts of the late Government, by £9,500,000 a year. On the I Army there had been no such decrease, I and while at the topmost point the Empire was perhaps spending upon the Army £60,000,000 a year, in the present year the. expenditure would not be less than £58,000,000, or £2,000,000 less, as against a decrease of £9,500,000 in the Navy. That looked wrong on the face of it, and it made a case for one of those large reductions in land military expenditure which could not be accomplished by any of the parings of his right hon. friend. It could only be accomplished by a complete change of military system, and those who had advocated sweeping reforms for years past had always stated there was no room for large economy on the present system. If they required large economy on the land forces they must be prepared to
1130
secure it by separating the Indian Army from the Home Army. The Indian Government had said over and over again that the present linked battalion system did not suit India, and that they would undertake the training of their own men in their own depots here, and produce a better article at a lower price. His right hon. friend did not point as regarded Infantry to cheaper cost, but he did as regarded Artillery. Why was it not applicable to the Infantry also? The Secretary of State for War had explained on a previous occasion to those who had not followed this question closely what cadres meant, They meant something in which the recruits were trained in time of peace, and into which were put the reservists in time of war. His right hon. friend supplemented the Regular force as regarded the artillery by bringing in a large Militia, or semi-Militia element, but as regarded the Infantry he looked forward to a system of which they had not yet grasped the plan, which would take Militia battalions, as they understood them, either as whole battalions or as separate companies attached to the Regular forces in the field. That was a plan wholly different from that which the Secretary of State proposed with regard to artillery. His right hon. Friend returned to a uniform system of seven years with the colours and five years with the reserve. That system, which was here called a short-service system, was by far the longest system in the world, and, therefore, by far the most costly. It was that which led to the curious fact that Guards were cheap, although there was a difference of opinion between the two right hon. Gentlemen as to the cost of the Guardsman as compared with the linesman. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said the cost was half and the Secretary of State for War said it was the same. It was the Guardsmen who of the Infantry uniformly behaved well in the South African War. He was favourable to his right hon. friend's proposals on the whole with regard to the artillery, and he did not oppose his proposals with regard to the Guards, but it was a curious fact that the two forces, the reduction of which had been discussed to-day, were the two forces which, by universal admission

1131
maintained the highest traditions of the British Army in South Africa. The conduct of the artillery as a force was uniformly magnificent, and the Guards, though perhaps less brilliant than the artillery, did their work without any of those humiliating surrenders by which the course of almost every other branch was marked. His right hon. friend to-day, in talking of his scheme under these new terms of service, spoke of the Cardwell system as being six years. That was not the case except in India. He had told his right hon. friend and the War Office so before. It was a question of fact, as could be confirmed by Hansard. Mr. Card-well's declaration on February 16th, 1871, was that he was going to continue to try the four years system, and that he hoped to reduce it to three, except in the case of India, where it was six years with the colours and six years with the reserve. Mr. Cardwell's declaration was that the service of the Regular infantry should be as short as would make an efficient soldier, and that was the principle they maintained now, and it was the true Cardwell system. On the whole the system which existed at present and the system which was proposed by his right hon. friend both yielded an average actual service longer even than the service before the time of Mr. Cardwell, and in this scheme they seemed to have got rid of almost every vestige of short service. It was a long service army which his right hon. friend created, and was, therefore, a step away from the modern ideas and from the uniform experience of every other nation in Europe. It was saddling the country for ever with a system of which the very essence was that, while it might give a very excellent article, it must give a very costly one. His right hon. friend had said in the strongest terms that the force abroad determined the minimum force at home. The principle was that our force at home was not determined by our needs, our policy, or our desire, but absolutely and for ever because we felt ourselves bound to keep at home the same number of costly Regular infantry battalions which the circumstances of the Empire forced us to keep abroad. That was the linked-battalion system. His right hon. friend had said that these seventy-one battalions, which he admitted
1132
were very costly, were here by no fault of the authorities. They were here by the fault of a system which was out of date and out of harmony with every other country and necessarily costly in the extreme, and which must prevent large reductions of the force ever being accomplished. The short tour system was the subject of much ridicule when it was invented. The Minister for War had admitted that Malta was an unhealthy station, and yet under the short tour system we were obliged to send the young recruits thither, where they could not be properly trained, and to this we were condemned by the present cast-iron system. Those were the results of the link-battalion system which we had tied round our necks. With regard to the artillery, the Secretary for War had announced a new departure, but for the infantry he had remained the oldes of old-fashioned reactionaries, if he would allow him to say so. He could not pledge himself to detail in regard to the artillery scheme. He agreed with what had been said by the late Secretary of State for War as to our weakness in field artillery as compared with other Powers and as compared with the enormous force they possessed numbering over 1,000,000 men. In proportion to that total we were very imperfectly supplied with field artillery. It should not be forgotten that if we were looking forward to bringing a larger force into the field we could not do so effectively without those highly trained services of artillery and cavalry. That was a doctrine common to all. He thought there had been a little juggling in regard to the figures quoted referring to the French artillery. The French were behind the Germans in the number of recruits they could take and in the number of men they could keep in arms. They were also behind them in the number of men they could put into the field in the event of war, but, nevertheless, they had kept pace with Germany in regard to artillery gun for gun in spite of their inferiority of numbers. The same argument applied to the cavalry in France. He thought that demolished any argument based upon French experience, because the French had not diminished their artillery but on the contrary they had made great

1133
sacrifices to keep it up to its present standard. On the other hand no one depreciated the value of the special field artillery raised upon the Militia system, and he believed it to be an admirable artillery. Many years ago Colonel Birley of Manchester wrote a pamphlet in which he recommended a mixed system of artillery and many of them advocated it. It consisted partly of Regulars and partly of Militia or Volunteers, and the experiment had been tried. For the past four or five years the Army Estimates had contained nine batteries of artillery, three of which had been raised in Lancashire upon this mixed system. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to try not the Lancashire system, but a new system, and from what he had heard it was one which would have his support. It was an experiment in the direction which the late Secretary of State for War would like to see tried. What he felt sure the Committee would be anxious to know was what step was going to be taken to avoid the hiatus between the old system and the new, and how far it was it going to diminish the number of trained field artillerymen or diminish what was more important—the number of trained artillery horses which we possessed at present. They would like to know how far the right hon. Gentleman was going to slacken his efforts before his new experiment became operative. Upon that point he thought there would be a natural anxiety in all parts of the House. It should not be overlooked that changes were taking place in this country which would prevent our obtaining that valuable class of reserve horses which we had been getting hitherto, and on this account it was all the more necessary that we should not reduce our trained horses. The Secretary of State for War had spoken of a great expeditionary force of 160,000 men. If that was the force which the Government thought necessary he thought that the number of horses should be exactly in proportion to the trained force. Personally he had never been one of those who desired to see kept up a large force of Regular infantry at home for expeditionary purposes. He had always wished to see a large force of Regular artillery and cavalry and mounted men kept up, and he thought that view had
1134
the support of and was recommended by the Elgin Commission. Whatever the size of the striking force was placed at, the permanent and costly element in it requiring training should be at the highest point of efficiency. Whatever the force was, having regard to the desire to reinforce it by the territorial army, it should be highly equipped with the professional elements, because we could not improvise such elements as cavalry, mounted infantry, or artillery. He was very anxious about this matter, and also in regard to any hiatus which might occur between the old and the new systems. With regard to the Yeomanry he wished to point out that he took no part in what was very much fought over some time ago. At that time the Yeomanry officers in this House were very much excited about the matter, and they tried to force the late Government to abandon the intention of having two kinds of men in the Yeomanry — one kind who would and another who would not go abroad in time of war. That now seemed to him to be the proposal of the Secretary for War. He took no part in that struggle at the time, but he remembered the excitement that was created and how they were told that the system would ruin the Yeomanry. There was a similar proposal with regard to the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman had said he agreed with the Militia in the dislike they had to having their men picked out for the Militia reserve, and that system had been abolished, He would like to know if the Militia agreed to the proposal by which certain companies were to be specially prepared for foreign service. Then there remained the question put by the late Secretary of State for War as to how we were going to equip the Militia and bring them up to the standard which they were to attain to for that part o£ the system suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. These were questions upon which he thought the Committee had a right to ask, if not to insist, upon having an answer, before the matter was finally decided. There was another matter that was still in the air, and that was the territorial Army of the future, he had no doubt from the language used by the Secretary of State for War at an earlier period of the

1135
session that he expected to meet his critics with regard to the territorial Army scheme, and they pressed him on May 24th to lay before the House of Commons the statement which he had made before the Committee which dealt with questions of the future. He thought the House of Commons had a full right to information upon that point as well as the members of that Committee. The House of Commons was quite as competent to deal with those matters as the Committee, because they knew the counties of the country thoroughly and they knew all about the Volunteers and rifle clubs. Therefore the House ought to be consulted by the Government in the preparation of any territorial Army scheme. They would probably be told that the scheme was only in the air and that the Committee were engaged in considering a scheme which had been submitted to them, but when a sort of arrangement had been come to there was always a tendency to force it down the mouth of the House of Commons, but in his opinion upon such a matter the House of Commons ought to be consulted first. It was admitted that during the war the counties rendered much assistance in South Africa, and no doubt they would be ready to do it again if the emergency arose. It was admitted that the county organisations were admirable in war, and in the provision of rifle ranges the assistance of the counties would also be most valuable. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have in his mind the unfortunate resistance of country gentlemen to manœuvres, but he thought that resistance might be broken down by county organisation. As regarded the administration of the force, strong language had been used in the House of Lords by Lord Portsmouth who seemed to suggest that the recruiting and training of the force ought to be handed over to the county bodies. No doubt the words used by the Secretary for War were intended to correct a mistaken impression which had been given by Lord Portsmouth's speech. He thought the administration of the new Army county by county would be a disaster both in a financial and in a military sense. But before any step in that sense was taken, which must have the effect
1136
of removing the financial control of a large portion of the Army from the House of Commons, he hoped the House would be consulted and would become a party to any arrangement which might be made. The Lords-Lieutenant were spoken of in the original scheme, but they had been let down rather easily by his right hon. friend to-day. No doubt it was odious to select examples, but he might mention two. He lived in Surrey and represented Gloucestershire. He doubted whether Conservatives would be prepared to commit the military affairs of these counties to the Lords-Lieutenant. Lords-Lieutenant did not command implicit confidence on the other side of the House, and on the Ministerial side they did not command any confidence at all. It had been said hat it was necessary to have their patronage because they were the great people in the counties. The Liberal Party would not be inclined to put forward Lords-Lieutenant in any scheme. He believed that in this scheme there had been a suggestion made that grants of public money should be handed over to the county committees in order that they might undertake the administration of the new territorial Army. Against that on principle he unhesitatingly protested in the name of soldiering and in the name of the finance of the Army. It would never be economical in the long run. It was contrary to all sound principles of administration. It would take the territorial Army from the financial control of this House and of the Treasury. He had the strongest opinion on that point, and he expressed it all the more freely because he believed there was nothing settled with regard to it. But for heaven's sake before it was settled he hoped they would be able to express their views in the House of Commons. Let them have an assurance to-night that they would know about the new territorial Army and that they would be able to discuss it in all its details. As far as he understood, there were to be two classes of Volunteers. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the part the Volunteers were to play in the defence of Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Woolwich. Those who were to be efficient for war were to play their part in resisting raids. The right hon.

1137
Gentleman had mentioned the number of men, foot and Yeomanry, who were to take part in these operations in the event of mobilisation. What of the others? This question was a matter on which the House of Commons ought to be consulted. It was a matter on which he believed there would be the greatest difference of opinion. Many Volunteer officers and those who had looked forward to either the Militia or the Volunteers, or both, or a force between these two on the Australian or the Canadian footing, as the home Army of the future, must feel that it was a reactionary step to contemplate the turning of a larger body of the Volunteers into a body called a territorial Army, but in fact no army at all. It would have no training and nothing except the feeble county organisation. The questions asked to-night were questions which ought to be asked, and most of them demanded that an opportunity should be given for their discussion on a future occasion. He was convinced that the plan which had been laid before the Committee was not one which ought to be adopted hastily on this occasion. His suspicions of the territorial Army were increased by the notorious fact that it was "all things to all men." It had been represented to the pure economists in this House as being a great security for economy in the future. They were told that this large territorial Army of the future would be a cheap army. That was what was said to the economists. On the other hand, it was supported by some men with strong military or alarmist views who believed in the necessity of sending 500,000 men to India for the defence of India, a circumstance which, in his opinion, would never arise. These two views of this Army could not both be correct. They were as wide as the poles asunder. Probably both were wrong, but the extreme vagueness of the proposal made it the more essential that this House should keep control of it both in the present and in the future.
MR. GUY BARINGsaid the appreciation of the scheme described by the Secretary of State for War which had just been given by so high an authority as the right hon. Baronet the
1138
Member for the Forest of Dean would perhaps convey to the right hon. Gentleman the unpopularity of his proposals. The right hon. Gentleman had justified his scheme on three grounds. With that which had reference to the linked battalion system he quite agreed. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's reason in regard to the reduction of the Brigade of Guards. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote the Army Council when he made that statement. He quoted a nameless general, but he could not have consulted the Army Council or Sir John French. Thirdly, these two battalions were ruled out' because the right hon. Gentleman had a settled figure of 50,000 Regular soldiers who were to form the force to go abroad if required. He could not see what virtue the right hon. Gentleman found in 50,000. That was a perfectly arbitrary figure. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not been quite fair to the brigade in this way. He had gone round the Army and asked everybody to show justification for their existence, and also what efficiency they could show for war. He might have told the Committee what other troops could do, what this brigade could do, if called upon for war. The right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that the Guards could put three battalions in the field on a war footing, leaving between 600 and 1,000 men behind as reserves. That was an asset of the greatest value, and one which they could not lightly put aside. He spoke as an interested person in this matter, for he had had the honour of serving thirteen years in the Guards. He had seen all the trouble that had been taken in working these battalions up to the pitch to which they had been brought. He had heard with the greatest regret the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that he was going to do away with some of the battalions. He wished to put what he admitted was a minor point before the Committee, namely, the point of view of those who were going to suffer by the change. He had reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was most sympathetic. He had asked the Committee to give him time to carry out the scheme. The time which the Committee would grant really made no practical difference. They must realise that the carrying out of the proposals would entail a great deal of hardship on

1139
the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men concerned. This applied all the more to the battalions of the brigade than to the battalions of the line. The officers, non-commissioned officers and men joined under special enlistment, and there was practically no similar battalion that they could adopt. He understood that the colonel of the Grenadier Guards was willing to take any recommended officers in any of the battalions which were going to be dismissed. At any rate, it could but be a very slow process of absorption, and the result would be that a certain number of men would have their life's work thrown away. He really did not see how the right hon. Gentleman was going to get over the difficulty. It was to be hoped that he had some further plan to indicate. He himself thought that the only plan was not to dismiss the battalions at all.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER, said the Secretary of State for War had in his long and eloquent speech indicated substantial reductions in all branches of the Army. He thought everyone on the Ministerial side of the House would regard the proposed reductions with sincere approval. He thought that even the eager spirits who had spoken on this subject at the commencement of the session would not have cause to complain of the reductions which were now to be made without undue delay. He was amongst those who in this House had for many years advocated a reduction in the personnel of the Army. He believed, as other hon. Members had done, that the present establishment of the Army was unnecessarily large, and that the consequence was a most wasteful condition of things. He had always held the view now common amongst all sections of the House that we must carry out a policy by which we could husband our resources in time of peace and expand them in time of war. He had been long enough in the House to know that schemes for Army reform must be accepted with a considerable amount of precaution. The Minister for War had told the Committee that he proposed a large reduction of the men in the regular Army. Many hon. Members had always had the firm conviction that the only real reduction in
1140
Army expenditure that could be effected was by a reduction of men. It was true that many economies could be effected in various directions, and he was glad to note that his right hon. friend intended to enforce rigorously economies which cumulatively would secure a large saving in expenditure and at the same time add to efficiency. But permanent economy in the expenditure on the Army could only be effected by the reduction of the regular forces of the Crown. The question then arose whether if the infantry of the Line were reduced it would be consistent with the military efficiency of the country and the protection of the Empire. The expenditure on the Army of late years had reached an enormous sum—a much larger sum than many would have believed possible a decade ago. Within the last few years it amounted to £60,000.000, of which £21,000,000 was devoted to the defence of India. Then there had to be added £35,000,000 of expenditure on the Navy, which, taken together, was a prodigious sum for the defensive forces of the Empire,, and largely in excess of the sums paid by foreign nations for their defence. If any one looked at those large figures and took a broad view of the case he must arrive at the conclusion that there were very substantial reasons for the reduction of the expenditure on our defensive forces. The only question was in what way the reduction could be brought about. There were only two ways—one comparatively easy and the other difficult. The Secretary of State for War had taken the easy way. He had said he would knock off a certain number of battalions from the existing establishment but that he would not disturb the existing organisation. But it would not be possible to effect any real or permanent reduction of the infantry o the line so long as the existing system obtained. He did not gather whether there was to be a reduction of two battalions of the Guards or whether one battalion was to be sent to Egypt.
MR. HALDANE: There are to be two battalions extinguished.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERthought it would be impossible to make any material reduction in the Army if in

1141
the days to come they were to maintain one line battalion at home to provide for the wastages of the battalion on a foreign station. The linked battalion system was the obstacle to any real reduction of the military forces of the country. The modern " blue water" school laid it down that we should have an Army for foreign service; that there was no necessity for a large Regular Army for home defence and that home defence must be left in the main to the Navy. As he understood it, the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman did not, by any means, carry out the premises stated by his right hon. friend, because far from there being a small Army at home for draft purposes for foreign service, we should have a larger Army at home consisting of 150,000 men. The question, therefore, arose whether that Army of 150,000 was necessary or the purpose stated. It had been scientifically laid down that in every battalion at home there should be 125 men ready to supply drafts for the battalion abroad. The number of men abroad—in India and the Colonies—was 90,000, and on that basis it would be found that 16,000 would be sufficient to maintain a continuous stream of drafts for the regiments abroad. But under the linked battalion system not 16,000 but 71,000 men would be maintained to furnish the drafts. He did not suggest that there need be any serious diminution in the cadres which would involve a diminution in the number of officers, but he believed that by the depot system being introduced, the supply of drafts for abroad would be efficiently established. He asked his right hon. friend whether he could not see his way to abandon the linked - battalion system. If the right hon. Gentleman did so he would find himself in a position to maintain full efficiency at home and a full stream of drafts for abroad with a great reduction of the Regular infantry in this country. He should like to say one word as to the proposal which his right hon. friend outlined as to the territorial Army. He had advocated in this House a policy on the same lines for many years, because he believed that if we were to have a large and efficient Army, there should be a territorial Army in close touch with those
1142
who lived in the counties. He quite agreed with the caustic remarks of the right hon. baronet about Lords-Lieutenant. He had been brought up to look with respect upon Lords - Lieutenant, but he did not think that they were the proper representatives of the county to take over the administration of the territorial Army. We wanted for that purpose a body which was in close touch with the democratic sentiment of the county. He hoped that upon that body would be placed the Members of Parliament, for the district, because they were brought into close touch with the people in large areas in their counties. They would have intimate association with the sentiment of the county, and would form a nucleus upon which the military government of the county could be built up. He quite agreed with what the right hon. Baronet had said as to the powers which these committees should have, and he did not think that they would be the proper bodies to have the military handling of our Auxiliary Forces. There were, however, many duties which they could perform by which they could improve the territorial Army. They could do a great deal in regard to recruiting, as they were in close touch with many classes of the community who had heretofore kept aloof from the Army. They also might do much in regard to giving access to land for the purpose of manœuvres and rifle ranges, upon which the efficiency of our Auxiliary Forces so largely depended. One more duty which they might usefully perform was that of finding employment for soldiers after they had left the ranks. There always had been this difficulty about the man who joined the Army, which was felt, perhaps, more by his parents than by himself, that when he left it he was thrown upon the casual labour market to make the best he could of his new conditions. To take steps in this direction would tend to raise the standard of the recruit, and measures should be taken to ensure that when he left the Army he should have some employment which would keep him for the rest of his life. He could not conceive any body better suited to perform such a duty than the body which had been suggested. Many men when they left the Army desired to return to

1143
their native county, and if their services could be utilised it would be very desirable. Such a body might bring themselves into close association with the local authorities and industrial organisations, such as railway companies and those who employed a large amount of labour. In conclusion, he would content himself with saying that while he looked cautiously upon this scheme he welcomed the promise of reduction, although he regretted that it took the form of being wedded to the linked battalion system. He regretted that his right hon. friend had not seen his way in that respect to a complete reorganisation of our Army system. The whole scheme was, however, so elaborate and complicated that before it was put into operation a full opportunity for discussion and consideration should be afforded.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid he had listened to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman with disappointment and apprehension, and he appealed to him to pause and reconsider the position he had taken up. From the time the right hon. Gentleman spoke at the beginning of the session Members on the Opposition side had regarded him as one of the few bright sparks of the Liberal Administration. It was true that in that speech they had nothing to go on, but they had every reason to believe that he was desirous of promoting the best interests of the Army, that he had the courage of his opinions, that no Party influence would weigh with him, and that the complex question of the Army could not be placed in better hands. They were also led to believe that as he was new to his office he would weigh carefully every consideration, that he was fully alive to his responsibilities, and above all that no scheme would be evolved until some time had elapsed in which it could be conclusively proved that the scheme before being produced had matured to its fullest extent. All these hopes had been disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman had almost obtained their confidence under false pretences, and they had been labouring under a misapprehension as to the intent and purposes of the War Office. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman had descended into their midst like a bolt
1144
from the blue. Whether the right hon. Gentleman felt that in the midst of the educational strife he had been left out in the cold and desired with the fighting instinct which was indigenous to his race to return to the fray, or whether the scheme was the result of a normal period of production he (Lord Castlereagh) was at a loss to discover. He had no desire to impugn the motives of the right hon. Gentleman, but his scheme was not calculated to benefit the country. It was not economical and would, if carried into effect, do a lasting injury to many who deserved better at the hands of a grateful country. He gave place to no one in his desire to see far-reaching economies effected, but there were limits of economy, and a rich and prosperous country must mean heavy liabilities, and amongst those liabilities was the maintenance of an efficient Army capable of contraction in time of peace and expansion in time of war. The Army was sustaining a heavy loss by the reduction of so many units. He was of opinion that these units constituted an insurance of the country in peace and that they removed those difficulties of organisation which were so apparent in the South African War. During that dark period it was obvious that our peace organisation was not adequate for producing a large number of men at a moment's notice. Were we to return to that state of affairs after a warning so emphatic as the lessons of the South African War had given us? He understood that it was contemplated to convert a certain number of batteries of artillery into Militia artillery. Were they to assume that the Army was so we! equipped with artillery that we could afford to make such alterations in so important a branch of the service? He would not say a word against the Militia. He was an enthusiastic supporter of it, but he maintained that ii was absolutely impossible, in the short time the Militia had at its disposal, for that force to arrive at that standard of efficiency which was absolutely necessary for the soldier belonging to a branch of the Regular Army. The Liberal Government claimed that they had a mandate to effect great economies, but he maintained that that was a mandate to every Government in power, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to

1145
consider whether his proposed reductions were real and lasting economies. It was certain that the life of the Government would not be of long duration. Notwithstanding the admirable policy of the Foreign Minister it was possible that they might be plunged into difficulties abroad, and would it be any consolation to hon. Members opposite, when the present Administration had vanished, to know that although the Government had effected economies the next Unionist Government would be called on to expend all the money saved and a good deal more in order adequately to cope with the difficulties which might at any moment beset us? To cope with these difficulties adequately it was necessary to have behind the Government of the country an efficient force to enforce their claims. These were considerations which he hoped sincerely would weigh with the Government. Certainly this was an opportunity for them to prove that they were not disposed to be swayed in all directions by the various sections of their supporters. He knew there was an opinion in the House in favour of these reductions. One opinion came from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who looked forward to a time when nations would settle their differences by means of international arbitration. He knew that they looked to this country to set an example in that direction by maintaining no Army and no Navy whatsoever. While agreeing that such a state of things would be of inestimable benefit, the world had not yet arrived at that state of education at which it would be possible to carry out ! such an arrangement. Those hon. Members, he felt sure—and he said it with regret—would look upon these reductions with satisfaction, and he had no doubt that they would express the opinion that they were only the forerunners of further reductions—a risk which no Government was justified in running. There was another section of the House equally in favour of the reductions, and who in their clamour for a wholesale reduction of our forces suggested no alternate scheme, though he believed that section was as desirous as anyone in the House that we should maintain our position among the nations of the world. The attitude
1146
of those hon. Gentlemen was one he could not under any circumstances comprehend. An aspect of the question which could not be put in a strong enough light was the effect the reductions would have upon the officers and non-commissioned officers in the various battalions concerned. It must be borne in mind that it was the foremost ambition of every officer and non-commissioned officer to command the battery, regiment, or battalion in which he had given the best years of his life. What would be done with the majority of these officers who had risen from rank to rank to that of major? There was only one course to pursue with regard to them, and that was a polite War Office letter relegating them to half-pay, which meant that men in the prime of life who had served their country, perhaps, on active service, and—what was duller and more arduous—in the daily routine of soldiering at home, would have to give up all idea of attaining an object which to most of them had been a life-long ambition. If this scheme were in any way beneficial to the country he felt sure that no one, and least of all the men most deeply concerned, would venture to say a word against the reduction; but the scheme was simply held out with a view to appeasing the ultra-economical section of the Liberal Party. That economies could be made he admitted, but he was convinced that no large economy with regard to the Army could possibly be effected, and certainly not on the lines of the scheme suggested. If economies of this description were effected, it could only be at the risk of endangering the efficiency and the power of our military force.
COLONEL HERBERTsaid the noble Lord who had just sat down had ascribed to Ministerialists some dangerous notions with regard to the defences of the Empire, but he thought the noble Lord would be good enough to make exceptions in the case of some of them who, like himself, and a former comrade, the Member for Stockton, whom he saw in his place below the gangway, had served Her late Majesty and His present Majesty for a number of years. He had had the honour of rising, in the manner described by the noble Lord, from rank to rank for thirty

1147
years in a regiment of Guards, and the noble Lord would admit that under these circumstances he had the honour and dignity of the Army and the necessities of Imperial defence quite as much at heart as the noble Lord himself. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on having performed the feat, unusual in recent years, of making a statement which did not involve increase of expenditure on military affairs. Even more than that, the right hon. Gentleman had indicated a very important and considerable reduction of that expenditure. He had no intention of crossing swords with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. Baronet the Member for the Chippenham Division of Wiltshire on the vexed question which they inaccurately termed the linked battalion system. On that question he would congratulate the Secretary of State for War upon having decided to advance slowly. The right hon. Gentleman had not been led into a sudden and complete change of system from that which had existed with more or less success—he did not say with complete success—since the days of Mr. Cardwell. The present was no time for making those great experiments which would be involved by such a change as was contemplated by the right hon. Baronet for the creation of a territorial Army on a new system. He was glad that the Secretary of State for War had decided to adhere in general to the system which existed before he took office, and to advance slowly, at the same time applying to what had been described as the bloated condition of armaments that treatment by absorption which was calculated to reduce the figure of our military expenditure. In the interesting statement which the right hon. Gentleman made two months ago, he said the first thing we wanted was absolutely clear thinking about the purposes for which the Army existed, and the principles upon which it was to be organised. No one who listened to the right hon. Gentleman to-day could fail to have been struck by the fact that he must have been doing a good deal of thinking, but there were one or two points on which he would have been glad to have had a little clearer expression. One of those points in particular
1148
was with regard to the liabilities to which all military preparation must be directed and the calculation of assets for the meeting of those liabilities. The right hon. Gentleman had given in round numbers what were considered to be the requirements for India, and for a striking force organised in this country, but he had not touched upon the real key to the question of the numbers of our military force at the present day, the number of troops which it was necessary for us to maintain in the Colonies. They had been told on a former occasion how largely those troops had been increased. They had been given to-day no clear indication as to what was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the probabilities of largely reducing that part of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman had told them it was true that there were certain battalions in South Africa which would come under the operation of the reduction, but he had not given any sort of idea as to what were the views held by the War Office as to the probability of our continuing to maintain so large a force as there was at present in those Colonies. The three parts of our Imperial force, namely, that employed in India, that employed in the Colonies, and the force at home, might be divided roughly into troops of the first line and those of the second line. The troops in India must belong to the first line, and they had to be supported by a certain number of troops of the same class at home to furnish the drafts. The new Colonies they hoped in the future might pass into that happier condition which was shown now in Canada and Australia, where troops of the second line could be employed. Here at home he imagined that the right hon. Gentleman's general idea was to place the defence more in. the hands of the second line of troops. However good that class might be there must be something to constitute a stiffening, and in that respect he thought the Brigade of Guards was an important factor. He should have been glad to have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that if it were necessary to reduce the strength of those battalions he would reduce the numerical force and not the units. He hoped that before the debate was brought

1149
to an end they would have some clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to his intentions on this subject. He could not, for the life of him, understand why it should be better to perform the operation of amputation on two of the regiments rather than to apply the system of absorption to all the regiments, which the right hon. Gentleman himself had described as the proper treatment in the case of bloated armaments. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the question of justice as though it were a question of justice between Guards' battalions and Line battalions. He ventured to say that no such feeling entered into the mind of any soldier, whether he belonged to the Guards or to the Line. The functions of these two branches of the Army were entirely different, and he would express the hope that before this dislocation of two distinguished regiments was finally decided upon, earnest thought might be given to it, and that the House might be furnished with the fullest statement of the conclusions upon which the present proposal had been based. It could not be merely a question of economy, for surely it was not more economical to destroy two battalions in the older regiments than to disband a large battalion of a new regiment with its expensive regimental establishment. He did not wish to say anything which might be interpreted as a want of sympathy with the junior regiment of Irish Guards, but obviously it was better to have three regiments of three battalions each than to have four regiments each with a, different system of organisation. He could not help feeling a sense of regret that the very important statement of the right hon. Gentleman should have been made on the occasion of the War Office Vote. It was unfortunate that the Committee should have been drawn away from the consideration of one of the most important parts of our military system, and from discussing the efficiency of what had been described as the instrument for carrying out the policy of the Government and the brain of the Army. If the War Office was not efficient, then we were paying £500,000 too much for it. It was not possible to consider the effect of the large changes which had been made at the War Office
1150
when all minds were occupied with a fresh statement of policy. As a soldier, he associated himself fully with the congratulations which had been expressed that the Secretary of State for War had entered upon a period of economy in the military service. He knew how little the country got for its large expenditure upon the Army, and they were all anxious to receive better value for their money. He thought by approaching these difficult problems in the way he had done the right hon. Gentleman was taking the surest way for eventually arriving at that consummation which all so much desired —a cheap and efficient Army. He should like to be quite sure that in all the proposals made for reduction the fullest consideration had been paid to their effect upon the whole system. He hoped the spirit of the old regiments would be cherished and preserved, and if that were done he felt sure that officers and men of all ranks would give the best service they could to the State.
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid the time at the disposal of the Committee had been very much curtailed by several extremely long speeches, and the reply of the Secretary of State for War and the speech of the Leader of the Opposition would necessarily cut down the time to an almost unfair limit. With regard to what had been said about the reduction of the Brigade of Guards, he would narrow down his remarks to the regiment in which he had had the honour of serving, namely, the Cold-streams. He thought the battalion of Coldstream Guards should be the very last to be reduced, because it was founded in 1897, whilst the Irish regiment, which was founded in 1900, and formed part of a scheme by which it was intended to raise the battalions of Guards to twelve. There was no demand from Ireland that their should be an Irish regiment^ of Guards, and he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should have departed from the usual precedent when reducing battalions of applying his reduction to the last formed regiments. In the case of non-commissioned officers and men the difficulty was accentuated because the Irish Guards were a younger regiment, and they might be absorbed into the various regiments

1151
from which they had been transferred with greater case than would be the case with the older established regiments. At the present time the Coldstream Guards were thirty-six above their establishment and the battalion could be well maintained. There was no lack of officers and only four probationers, whilst the Grenadiers had sixteen probationers, the Scots Guards fourteen, and the Irish Guards three. He thought it was only right that these facts should be emphasised. He was not now pleading that the right hon. Gentleman ' should reconsider his decision to reduce the Brigade of Guards, although he believed he was wrong in taking that step. The Secretary of State for War said he was absolutely determined upon that point, and no doubt he had consulted his military advisers. When the representatives of the late Government: stated that they had consulted Lord Roberts, they were frequently accused of sheltering themselves behind that great man. Now the right hon. Gentleman told them that he had not taken a single step without consulting the military experts, who believed that the, course he was taking was right. In not disestablishing a younger Guards battalion, he thought it was unfair to the older regiments, and if a battalion of Guards must be reduced, it should not have been the Coldstreams. He would not now enter into the question of the hardship I that might be done to both officers and men, but would content himself for the present with the promise that there should be no hardship. He would like to know how the Government were going to insure to the officers of these battalions which were about to be disbanded their chance of promotion. The Secretary of State for War had produced a very remarkable scheme, but he had seen produced three remarkable schemes, which had not all been received with enthusiasm, and which did not remain as a proof of the ability of any single man to reconstruct the British, Army on a principle satisfactory either for peace or war.
MR. A. L. LEVERsaid he felt he would have accorded to him that courtesy which was always extended to new Members addressing the House for the first time. He was one of
1152
those who deprecated long speeches, and. he believed in the advisability of not speaking at all unless driven to it by some special circumstances. He felt bound to intervene in this debate because he had advocated a reduction of the expenditure upon the Army. He did so more especially during the last election in view of the enormous increase in the cost of the Army under the late Administration. He thought a satisfactory reduction could be made in the expenditure without seriously reducing; the numbers of the Army, and without in any way diminishing its efficiency as an instrument of war. This could be done by pruning and lopping off all superfluities and doing away with the wanton waste that so frequently took place at the War Office. We might economise by ceasing to send Militia battalions from Scotland to the other end of England to be trained, and by discontinuing the sending of officers to India and paying their expenses, when it was known perfectly well that they were only going to remain six, eight, or ten weeks longer. Lord Roberts had stated that the lessons of the late war appeared to have been completely forgotten. The early disasters in that campaign were not due to any paucity in numbers, but to the military authorities having forgotten the lessons of previous campaigns and repeating the self-same blunders committed in earlier campaigns, and to our general unpreparedness for war. Had they taken the advice of Lord Wolseley and mobilised an Army Corps and Cavalry Division on Salisbury Plain in the June of the year when the war broke out they would have been in a better position and would have been able to take the offensive instead of acting on the defensive for so long a period. He wished to say a few words about the Volunteer force. The military system of this country was so interwoven with the Auxiliary Forces and was so dependent upon the numbers and strength and the part they were destined to play in the defence of the Empire in the future that it was a subject which he might very well mention. The question was how the forces of the Crown were to be expanded. Lord Roberts had stated that—
" No military system can be considered satisfactory which does not contain powers of

1153
expansion outride the Regular forces of the Crown."
The Secretary of State for War had declared that we must depend largely on the Auxiliary and Volunteer Forces. Having served himself sixteen or seventeen years as a Volunteer officer, he recognised all the difficulties, and he also recognised that if the Volunteers ceased to exist—as they would have done had they continued to have Ministers for War like Mr. Brodrick—we should be driven to that hated system of conscription which would sap and undermine and demoralise the youth of the nation. Mr. Brodrick gave the Volunteers to understand that they were not wanted and that he considered they were a useless and inefficient force. The result was that both Volunteer officers and men were disheartened, and they left the force in all directions. But bad as the conditions for the Volunteers were under Mr. Brodrick, they became worse under his successor, and the varying terms of service caused many of the men to leave. All this time no adequate provision was made for the training of the men in shooting and no attempt made to provide the necessary rifle ranges. Surely it could not be expected that any commanding officer would produce first class shots if rifle ranges were not provided. If the finances were in that parlous condition it would be better to give up and abandon the week's training in camp, and allocate the money to the provision of rifle ranges. Lord Roberts had stated that the Volunteers were inefficiently trained and officered, and he quite agreed with that statement. Surely the whole responsibility for that rested with the War Office. If they wished to secure efficiency they must take into consideration the avocations of the men in the various districts where the Volunteer battalions existed. It was perfectly certain that men engaged in agricultural districts, and others employed in manufacturing centres, could not go into camp at the same time. There must be greater elasticity and less adhesion to red-tapeism if they were to improve the condition of the Volunteer force. Then, again, he thought greater care should be exercised in the selection of adjutants. Many of these men were
1154
totally unsuited for the position they occupied. They might be admirable soldiers and the best leaders of men, but they might not be able to act as instructors, just as in civil life one found the most scholarly men, men of high degrees, who were absolutely unsuited for the posts of teachers. We wanted specially trained men who could impart knowledge to others. He would add that he personally had always served under the best of adjutants, but others had not been so fortunate. He thought everybody would agree with Lord Roberts that the Volunteers were inefficiently officered. But was that to be wondered at when they considered that the Volunteer officer was not regarded with the honour and respect due to any one holding His Majesty's commission? The officers were very often not very capable, and they did not seem to have any great desire to become so or as efficient as they ought to be. That was simply because there was no incentive. The question arose, " How is all this to be remedied? " There was great difficulty in the matter, he knew, but he would like to see Volunteer officers placed upon an equality with the officers of the Yeomanry and Militia. He might be told that the Volunteers were not under the Army Act. He suggested that the same rules and regulations should be applied to them as to the Militia and the Yeomanry. If the reins of discipline were tightened, and the status improved, he was sure that the Volunteers would respond cordially and willingly. While he recognised the advantages of the territorial arrangement described by the Secretary of State for War, he thought it was an absolute necessity that there should be a General officer in supreme command of the Volunteers, who should be responsible to the Council of War for the training, organisation, and equipment of the force. He would of necessity be an officer of distinction who was sympathetically inclined towards the Volunteers, such an officer, for instance, as General Turner. There would then be a chance of the force being materially improved for the benefit of the country. He appealed to the Secretary of State for War to take these small matters into consideration.
SIR CAENE RASCHcongratulated the Secretary of State for War on the extremely able speech which he had made. He had heard a good many speeches by Secretaries of State for War. Some of them went up like a rocket and a good many of them came down like a stick. He did not think that would the case with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not help thinking that the Government had not chosen the psychological moment to reduce the Army 10 per cent, in view of the recent speech of the Foreign Secretary in reference to Egypt, and looking at the state of unrest which existed in all Mahommedan countries under the British sceptre. If reduction must take place, then he thought there was much less harm in reducing personnel than in reducing cadres. It made no difference whatever if there were cadres behind them, but, as had been said, by reducing the cadres they got rid of the skeleton on which they might put the Reservists when they were brought up. He sympathised with those who had pleaded the cause of the Guards. The Guards were practically the only battalions that could be sent on service at a moment's notice, and the system of enlistment secured for them a big Reserve. The facts stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon in regard to this matter were indisputable. The Foot Guards were 7,000 strong, and the Reserves consisted of 7,000 men. He did not think the Secretary of State for War could as cheaply find 14,000 men, and yet of all the battalions these were the ones which the right hon. Gentleman had taken out for reduction. One word about the gunners. The right hon. Gentleman must know very well that while the infantry soldier could be improvised in a month it took a couple of years to get a good gunner. He did not see how capable artillerymen were to be got from the Militia in time of emergency under the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman. It was through want of trained gunners that the army raised by Gambetta during the Franco-German war did not make a better appearance in the field. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was possible in future that we might
1156
go further in pruning the Navy and in cutting down other battalions. Of course the resources of civilisation were not exhausted. The right hon. Gentleman might scrap the Navy and disband the Army, get the country placed under the protection of Spain or Holland, and hand over the money saved to the Battersea Dogs' Home or the Poplar Guardians, but his new heaven and earth would not last very long.
MR. BRACEsaid that while he listened with admiration to the speech of the Secretary of State for War he felt considerable disappointment. He had expected a much more substantial reduction in the cost of the Army than had been announced. He had listened with great attention to the special pleading on behalf of certain regiments; he pleaded on behalf of the ratepayers of the country, who really were much over-burdened with taxation. As a representative of Labour he could have no hope to see effected those social reforms of which the country was in need unless a substantial reduction was made in the, cost of the Army and Navy. Whatever might be the outcome of the scheme laid before the Committee to-day, the right hon. Gentleman might be sure that nothing could happen which would be worse than had happened under the schemes of his predecessors. The primary function of a standing Army was to sustain a satisfactory peace, and if they could get a fighting machine at a small cost it would be better for the country and the Army itself. He was glad to hear the Government were taking a general survey of the whole question of Army and Naval expenditure. Since 1897 the cost of the Army had been increased by over £10,000,000, and be did not believe that the political situation at all warranted that enormous expenditure. In the same period the expenditure on the Navy had been increased by £11,000,000. He thought the time had come when a progressive Administration should take this question in hand, and with the pressure of popular opinion behind them reduce the cost of the Army at any rate to something like what it was in 1897. The noble Lord had said that the Labour

1157
Members wanted to abolish both the Army and Navy. Nothing of the sort. The Labour Members believed that as long as other nations maintained large Naval and Military forces we must have both an efficient Army and an efficient Navy. But he believed that there was no nation in the world more capable than the United Kingdom to take the lead in bringing about a better understanding between nation and nation so as to secure a reduction of armaments.
MR.A.J.BALFOUR: It is evidently impossible that in a single night's debate we can do more than make a commencement of this discussion, and I am confident that His Majesty's Government will see that this can only be the preliminary to many nights that must be given to this important theme. The present Secretary for War will not desire, and can scarcely hope, to avoid the fate of his predecessors, who had their schemes discussed at great, though not undue length, before any action was taken by the responsible Government. I need only remind the right hon. Gentleman of what was done in 1901, when after many days spent in Supply the scheme of my right hon. friend was embodied in various propositions. I do not know if that, precedent is to be followed, but this I say, that we should not allow the right hon. Gentleman to embody his proposals in actual policy until we have had a far more extended discussion than the present opportunity can afford. In making this appeal for further time, I may be allowed to say a few words on the statement we have heard to-night. Of the ability of that statement there can be no question. We are all agreed that the right hon. Gentleman has added to his Parliamentary reputation by the long and interesting statement he has given of his policy. If he will allow me to offer one modest criticism upon the form of that statement, it would be that I think to a certain extent he ignored the work which his predecessors in office had done, and spoke in terms unduly disparaging of the efforts, the successful efforts, they made to increase the efficiency of the Army. I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman requires any warning from me on the subject, but if he does, I would
1158
remind him that nobody has held the office he holds without having to undergo very unpleasant criticism, without meeting with extraordinary difficulties in this House and in the country, without being made the object of hostile commentary from all the numerous classes of Army reformers, each having his peculiar expedient, and all prepared to unite in opposition to the War Secretary for the time being. That has been the fate of every Secretary for War since I have had the opportunity of observing Parliamentary procedure, and I do not think he can avoid a fate that has overtaken his most distinguished predecessors in office. He made use of s somewhat rash phrase when he said he was going to recast the whole system and make the Army for use and not for show. Was it not so under his predecessors? He may differ in policy, he may be opposed to there in details, but it is not wise for any Secretary of State to say of himself that he means to make the Army an instrument for use and not an instrument for show, implying by that that those who before him carried an enormous burden of responsibility on their shoulders had a different object in view or had showed less capacity or industry in carrying out the object, they had at heart. I ought to say of the right hon. Gentleman that, if he was not wholly charitable to his immediate predecessors, he did me individually full justice, perhaps even more than justice, in his reference to the Committee of Defence. In that reference he gave full recognition to what I was able to do as Chairman of that Committee, with generous meed of approbation. I thank him for it, and only wish he had treated his predecessor in office with the same kindness and generosity.
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, like every Secretary for War, in a very difficult, embarrassing position. No industry or genius will make the task of the reorganisation of our great voluntary Army other than the most difficult task that can fall to any Minister of any country. No foreign Minister for War has a burden comparable to that of the Minister for War in this country, no foreign Minister has the problem he has to solve, no foreign Government has to depend absolutely on a

1159
volunteer Army of which the terms cannot be varied from day to day. An employer can raise or lower the number of his employes as circumstances require, but that is not the position of the Secretary for War. He is the biggest employer in the country, but he cannot change his terms, or if he does he incurs an enormous responsibility. He has difficulties incomparably more complex than the Minister for War in France, Germany, Italy, or Russia, and I have every sympathy for that Minister. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is capable of doing great service in the difficult office which he now fills. I am not sure that he will perform it better by ignoring what has been done before, or by suggesting that the changes he is prepared to make are fundamental and are going to open a new era of military history. I gathered that these were the hopes of the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not gather from his speech that these hopes were likely to be accomplished. He told us he has gone round the whole military system, asking each man in turn the purpose he was going to serve when war breaks out. He has criticised every branch of the Department with a view of eliminating all useless elements. But I did not gather from his statement that there is much that he is going to eliminate, or that he is going to make any very important changes.
I particularly wanted to hear what he was going to say with regard to the Volunteers in this connection. There are 250,000 Volunteers enrolled. A large portion of these have their duties allocated to them. They have to garrison our great seaports and they have to provide force enough to repel any raid the possibility of which we can contemplate. But the total number required for these services is 170,000 men. That leaves at least 70,000 to whom the right hon. Gentleman has put the question as to their value, and I did not gather that he has got as yet any answer. I await that answer with great curiosity. His predecessors were vehemently attacked for saying the number of Volunteers was in excess of the requirements of the country. On that point I do not pronounce any opinion. But the right
1160
hon. Gentleman told us the only Volunteers to whom the Army Council can allocate duties are 170,000. I should like to know what military purpose is to be served by the remaining 70,000, and how they got through that critical examination to which the right hon. Gentleman has subjected every branch of the military forces of this country.
I do not propose to discuss any further the territorial army. I do not wish to add anything to what was said by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He made some very pertinent criticisms, but he felt, as I feel, that until the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to tell us with more clearness and precision what it is that he desires to do, we should perhaps be wasting our time if we were to attempt any detailed comment on the schemes which have been adumbrated but may never come into practical operation. Therefore I will confine myself entirely to his statement in regard to the Regular Army.
The first point on which I would ask the attention of the Committee relates to the artillery. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman to the ears of any casual listener would appear to indicate that he has made the artillery a far more efficient arm than it was left by his predecessors, and has greatly improved the system under which the artillery are to be organised. I do not at all criticise many parts of that speech. I think he was well advised in using the garrison artillery as he suggests. I think that is a most public, wise, and economical scheme. But when he told us that he was going to improve the artillery, he forgot to mention that the difficulty of mobilising the artillery at the present time to the full extent of the balance we possess is largely due to the fact that the number of artillerymen has not yet produced the necessary reserves. Everybody admits that artillerymen must be experts. Does the right hon. Gentleman's plan increase the number of trained experts we shall in the future have at our command? Surely not. He is going to get rid of 3,800 Regular artillery. But that is not all. At present the artillerymen are engaged on the three and nine years' system, under which you rapidly accumulate a reserve. The right hon. Gentleman

1161
is going to alter that and substitute six years. If you take the two things together—the dismissal of men and the alteration in the terms of service—it is manifest that in a few years we shall have a very much smaller number of Regular artillerymen than we have at present, and than we should have if the right hon. Gentleman had left the present system untouched. I do not think that is a change to which the House ought readily to assent, I should like to have an opportunity of thinking more over it than I have been able to do at present, and I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman's whole scheme before pronouncing a judgment. It is impossible, I think, to suggest that a scheme which by this double process diminishes the Regular artillerymen is one which in the long run is likely to add greatly to the strength of that particular branch of the Service. As everybody admits that the importance of artillery in modern armies is great and growing, I have some misgivings as to the result of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.
I have a more important criticism to make upon the whole theory that appears to underlie the right hon. Gentleman's reduction of Regular units. I lay down no hard and fast rule with regard to the number of Regular units we ought to keep. I am prepared to consider a scheme which would involve a diminution—not a very large one, but still a diminution—in our Regular units provided we see before us a plan by which the Regular Army is to be expanded in times of stress and difficulty by a cheaper and, no doubt, a less efficient force, but a force which in the course of the war might become thoroughly efficient. The right hon. Gentleman has based his whole scheme upon his power of immediately mobilising 154,000 men. All his criticisms of the previous Government were in the direction of saying, " You cannot mobilise 154,000 men. I can. Therefore, my plan is bettor than yours." I think that erroneous. I am quite unable to imagine any situation which would require the instantaneous mobilisation of 154,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman talked as if there was to be an expedition beyond the seas in which 154,000 men were to be straightway embarked and transported off to some
1162
distant theatre of operations. The contingency requiring such an expedition might occur, but it is not very easy to imagine that it would. We might be asked to land 150,000 men on the coast of Europe, but I do not know that I should sacrifice much money or take enormous pains so to organise my force that that could be done straight away and immediately. What is required, so far as I am able to see, is the power of sending continuous reinforcements to India in a great emergency. That does not mean sending 150,000 men straight off in a few weeks to Bombay. You must be able to reinforce your Indian Army, to make up the wastage of war, to add to the strength of that Army, and make it competent to deal with European troops upon the North-west frontier. That does not require the sort of expedition the right hon. Gentleman appeared to contemplate. What does it require? It requires an army of more than 150,000 men—I do not say 500,000, which I should think an extravagant estimate for any war we are ever likely to be engaged in; but what we do require in case of trouble on the Northwest frontier of India is not 150,000 men ready at a moment's notice, but a force of more than that, which as the war proceeds—and such a war would be long— we should be able to put forward in the fighting line in India itself and on the lines of communication. How does the right hon. Gentleman's plan help us to that result? In my opinion it is a retrograde step, and not merely and chiefly because it destroys a certain number of infantry, but because it destroys units, and officers and non-commissioned officers. I understand that the destruction of these ten battalions means that we lose 300 officers, 800 non-commissioned officers, 4,800 men of the Line with the colours, 1,400 Guards with the colours, 3,200 Line Reserve, and 1,400 Guards Reserve, in all 10,800, men besides the officers.
SIR CHARLES DILKEwas understood to say that some of these did not exist at present.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In some of the regiments the right hon. Gentleman may be right. But in the officers you have really what we most require for carrying on such prolonged operations, the only operations I can contemplate for which

1163
this force of 150,000 men would he required at all. Is that a wise or economic proceeding? You will require what is called a striking force to deal with some Continental situation, the defence of Belgium, for instance, or some country which our strategy in the world obliges us to defend, and that you require to be ready at a moment's notice. You require it to be perfectly efficient, fully equipped, and prepared for instantaneous action. But for the prolonged operations that I can alone contemplate in connection with a force like 150,000 men, it seems to me you cannot do a worse service to the country than by depriving yourself of the capability of expansion in time of war and of the officers and noncommissioned officers in which we are notoriously and avowedly weak.
But I would consent, and gladly consent even to that reduction if the right hon. Gentleman had given us a scheme by which he was going to expand the Army in case of national emergency. He has no scheme at all. He has talked about a territorial Army, and talked, with truth, of the difficulties under which the Militia labour. Have we got a Militia now which is capable of supplying that expansion which we desire? Has he been able so to organise a territorial Army that we can count upon it to fill up the gaps caused by the wastage of war, by death and disease, and all the elements which make the power of reinforcement absolutely necessary? He has got no scheme at all. He has hopes, expectations, in some respects I would almost say he has dreams, but as to a scheme which has been tried, which has been shown to be efficient, that he neither has nor pretends to have. The question I ask the Committee is, is not the right hon. Gentleman beginning at the wrong end? Is he not attempting to reduce the Regular units before he has made up the machinery for expanding his Army, instead of devising the machinery for expanding his Army and then reducing his Regular units? Can there be a reply to it? I do not know what it is, unless it be that the right hon. Gentleman feels under some political necessity for the immediate reduction of the Army aid that for that political necessity he is prepared, temporarily at all events, to sacrifice the
1164
efficiency of the Army in the hope that he may be able to devise a scheme which will make up for any destruction of units to which he is forced by the pressure of his friends. It is just like the dishonest—not dishonest, I do not wish to use that word in connection with the right hon. Gentleman—but like the trustee who gambles with trust funds and who then too often finds that, although he had every intention of paying back the funds, he unfortunately is not in a position to do so. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly honest in his expectations and confident in his hopes, but he and all of us know the extraordinary difficulty of this problem, the immense risks which attach to any attempt to make the Militia what we wish them to be, or the Volunteers what we hope they may be. All I ask is that this House shall have the common prudence and common self-control to refuse to assent to reductions in Regular units until they have before them in the clearest specific, practical shape some plan which will give us that expansible power which all who have ever studied the military problem at all deem is the real necessity of this country. When the right hon. Gentleman brings forward that plan in a practical shape, he will not find in me an opponent of the reduction of some of our units. All I would ask him —all I would ask the Committee—to do is to remember that although it is not easy to reduce units, it is easier to reduce units than to find their substitutes, and that the problem before us will not be solved until a scheme is really produced which would satisfy us, not that we have 150,000 men ready to start to-morrow, which would be too much, but that we have an Army, partly Regular, partly on a Militia basis, which is capable of sending more than 100,000 men and would be capable of dealing with any of these difficulties which, however remote, are of a character which we cannot exclude from our view if we are really to be prudent trustees of the fate of the Empire.
MAJOR SEELYsaid he did not propose to detain the Committee, but perhaps as a member of the Committee to which reference had been made, he might be permitted to join with the others who had spoken in expressing the belief that much good might result by the complete territorialisation of the Yeomanry and the

1165
Volunteers, and such other forces as were not included in the Regular Army. Such differences as might exist in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House as to how they could best territorialise the whole Army would depend upon how far they ought to go in the devolution of powers. While sympathising with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean as to the danger of devolution of powers of control by the House and the Treasury, he was convinced of the general desirability of the devolution of many local matters which the War Office had hitherto dealt with. He congratulated the Secretary for War on his courage in reducing not only by numbers but by cadres. It was a mistake, however, for him to suppose that in reducing the Regular Army he would be adding to the number of the unemployed. It was enlistment in the Army that added to the number of unemployed, for the numbers by which the Army was reduced would now learn a useful trade, instead of joining the Army and being thrown back afterwards on the labour market. They had soon to-night a welcome thing—the Army treated apart from Party politics. It would be well if they could for ever take the Army out of the realm of Party politics. He had a scheme for doing that which he would indicate on a more appropriate occasion. It would involve placing the Leader of the Opposition permanently on the Committee of Defence. He gathered from his gesture that he did not relish that proposition. But it was only by making the Committee of Defence a body representing no particular Party that they would ever reduce the Regular Army without Party recriminations.
MR. HALDANE: My hon. and gallant friend has put his finger upon what is essential if the Auxiliary Forces are effectively to be reorganised. So complicated are the details that it is impossible to settle on any centralised system and I am certain that a necessary link in any general scheme of Army reform is the management of local military affairs in the counties, so far as they are administrative, through some kind of local control. Command, of course, must remain in the hands of Regular officers. But administration is a different thing. The whole spirit of our scheme of Army organisation is devolution of administra-
1166
tion. It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that I have not dwelt upon that aspect of things. But I did say that these matters are essentially matters for legislation. It is necessary that a Bill should be introduced; and the proper time to discuss the subject is when we propose to deal with it next session. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of expansion. It is in this connection that it seems to me the one chance of expansion comes. Assuming that you put conscription out of account—and I think there has been to-night a consensus of opinion that it should be put out of account — what remains? It is that the people should organise themselves in accordance with guidance which is to be given to them on the spot. It is true that mobilisation under the General Staff provides for 140,000 infantry for repelling raids and looking after garrison duties. There is a surplus; and that surplus, to my mind, is to be the nucleus of a much larger body which I hope to see grow up, a body in which men will take their part and bear their share of the burden, not because they are dragooned into it, but because it is a duty cast upon them to prepare, in the last emergency, to defend their hearths and their homes; and it comes to this, that if you make the training of the Volunteer Forces more elastic than it is at present, if you try in its arrangement to suit the convenience of people, you have a chance of making good material of that expansion of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and which I am sure you will not get in any other form. It is to quantity and not to quality in time of peace you must look for that expansion. In time of war, rocognising that all probability points to having considerable time to work up that raw material, you have the chance, which no other nation would have under similar conditions, of providing such machinery as will give you a stream of men, if there be sufficient spirit in the people, that will make a substantial addition to your Regular Forces. If such an elastic organisation were obtained at homo, what with the self-governing parts of the King's dominions beyond the seas, where the interests of the Empire are held as dearly at heart as they are here, I say that the Empire has within its borders, on a voluntary basis and without the slightest shadow of compulsion, such potentialities of the expansion of its

1167
military forces as probably no other nation could show, and which I think would deter any other country from seeking to encounter you on land. The Leader of the Opposition said that I ought to take no action on the scheme which I have laid before the House until it was more completely discussed. I feel the force of that argument. But am I to go to the War Office and sit all day doing nothing until such time as Parliament may find an opportunity for fully discussing these things and saying that it has come to conclusions about them? That is impossible. I must act. After all, the real mandate for action does not come from any chance debate on a vote for the reduction of my salary. It comes from the decision at the general election. [" No, no " from the OPPOSITION Benches.] The desire of the public is that without delay as much should be done as is possible to put the Army on a better footing than it is at the present moment. No man has entered on his office with less personal ambition than myself. I look upon myself as purely a civilian man of business brought in to deal with an emergency. I may fail, and if I do, I hope I shall bear it with equanimity. But I am sent here to act, and not to sit still, and I shall do everything in my power to secure that satisfactory condition of the Estimates which 1 hope to see next session. If I sat still and did nothing, what would it cost the country? I feel I am sent hero to act, and not merely to talk, and it is incumbent on me that I should take such stops as I can to carry out the task I have before me.
Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman rather reproached me for speaking of the Army as an Army to be made of use as against an Army which exists for show. I do not ignore the good work that has been done. I am perfectly aware that a great deal of good work was done by my predecessors in improving both the conditions of the soldiers and the spirit of the officers, and that the redress of the abuses found in the Army as the result of the South African War has proceeded apace; but this I do say, that, after scrutiny, I have been unable to discover any coherent plan running through the organisation of the Army. Therefore. I am compelled to say that it is necessary to put it on a footing which will make it something more of a reality than it is at present. I do not say
1168
I shall do it: I do not say I shall not fail; but, having scrutinised it as minutely as I can during the short time I have been in office, I say that the condition of the Army is profoundly unsatisfactory, based, as it is, on no principle which regulates its organisation, and constructed, as it is, in a fashion which presents no plan and no cohesion. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the artillery, and in connection with the artillery he seemed to suggest that the expeditionary force which we propose to provide, and which we are only able to provide on the new basis on which we put the artillery, is too large for an expeditionary force. I think what he said was that you ought not to assume that it is necessarily a good thing to have an expeditionary force as big as six divisions; that it is not necessary to send out six divisions at once. That is true, but there may be occasions on which six divisions will be essential for striking a blow; and if you do not use them, all that means is that you have a large expansion behind the force you have sent out, an expansion you cannot have while the artillery remains in the position in which it is at present. For my part, I quite agree that officers is the point in which the Army is most deficient. We are very short of officers. But how do you better your position in this respect by keeping up the units? If you maintain the units you will be without the officers; but if you reduce the units you will be able to fill up the gaps you have at present. One of the things I look forward to is being able to utilise the officers set free by these reductions for filling up gaps which exist at the present time.
Now I come to the speech of my right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean. He and I will probably never agree about the Cardwell system. Although we may do so when we meet in some other and better world, we shall not in this one. I have never been able to understand his arguments. He talks of getting the men by means of depots, and he seems to assume that depots enable you to get the men out of nothing—out of the blue. The Cardwell system was worked out by two great men — Mr. Cardwell and Mr. Gladstone; and, although I have never been a dogmatist about the

1169
system, the more I look into it and the more I have dismissed it with different exports the more I am impressed with the great idea which underlies it; that in your feeding battalion, mobilised as it becomes on the outbreak of war, you get two functions fulfilled by the same sot of men. In war it becomes a strong unit filled up with Reserves who are trained men and able to convert that unit from a mere feeding capacity into the position of a fighting unit. No other system does that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon wrote a very interesting letter this morning to The Timer. In The Times he said that this expansion that Lord Roberts spoke of would have been got from a short-service system, which—
"would have accumulated a trained Infantry Reserve of no fewer than 140,000 men. This result would have been arrived at without asking for n single additional recruit "
—let the Committee note these words —
" and at a cost loss than that of our present battalions."
I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman meant the one-year system or the two years; but I take two years. The right hon. Gentleman published a Parliamentary Paper in 1904, in which he gives the working out of his scheme, and says the Reserves were to be 90,000. It puzzles mo extremely to see how the right lion. Gentleman works out his figures.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the figures were absolutely correct.
MR. HALDANE: The point is whether the figures as given now can be squared with those in the Parliamentary Paper. I would point out that the whole of the experts are against the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. friend on the question of the possibility of getting these recruits.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there was no difficulty about the matter at all of obtaining recruits between nineteen and twenty years of age.
MR. HALDANE: If the right hon. Gentleman can get recruits necessary between nineteen and twenty-one, he is something of a magician. He spoke of the
1170
cost of the Guards relative to the cost of the Line infantry, and he said —
" Take the figure of £40 6s. 10d., that h the average cost of the Line infantry, taking Reservists and colonists together, and compare that with the cost of the Guards, which is £29 10s. on a similar basis."
But he did not observe that the £46 6s. was taken on a nine years colour service basis, whereas, if you take it upon a seven years basis, you get a considerably lower figure—£40 19s. The matter does not stop there. He has omitted to take into account that India pays the cost of fifty-two battalions and a proportion of contribution to the Reserve. If you take the cost of battalions of the Line while they are with the colours and with the Reserve, you have the enormous advantage that India is paying for the unit that produces your Reserve in the case of fifty-two battalions during the whole period of their services abroad. And it does not stop there. India is also making a contribution, I think, of about £600,000 a year to the cost of producing the drafts which go out there. The two things taken together reduce the cost of the Line soldier with his Reserves to—it is impossible to get absolutely near —something certainly as low as the right hon. Gentleman produced in his figure in the case of the Guardsmen and their Reserve. It shows the utter uselessness and vanity of putting forward such calculations as he has made as things worthy of the consideration of the House of Commons.
I am perfectly aware that it is not possible for me to please everybody in this matter. I have got to do the best I can. I have got to produce a scheme that satisfies my colleagues— [Ironical cheers]—most certainly. Hither-to schemes have been produced for six Army Corps and for short service which did not satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues. That is a thing which I am resolved to avoid. If we produce a scheme I trust it will be a scheme to which the majority of this House will put their backs, because otherwise we shall not do any good with it. Therefore, I am constrained to say that on a matter of this kind it is impossible for me—without going into those wide questions which have been opened up—to try to make compromises on a policy which, after all, whatever its defects and shortcomings,

1171
yet has this merit, that it puts before it a simple object, and, making for that object, it looks neither to the right nor to the left.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid that everything came to those who waited. He had received a message that day from his constituents asking him to support any proposal to increase the comfort of the soldiers, hut that it was most important that the Army should not be reduced. He insisted, therefore, that the reduction in the Army, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, had not been called for by the country. ["Oh oh."] He would call to the recollection of hon. Members opposite, who were always talking about mandates, that there was no mandate for the reduction of the Army. [" Oh, oh."] It was perfectly outrageous that such a proposal should be settled in a seven hours debate, of which the right hon. Gentleman himself had occupied upwards of three hours, and only four or five Members had had the opportunity of placing their views before their constituencies and the country. Therefore, he begged to move that progress be reported and that the Chairman ask leave to sit again.
Motion made, and Question, " That the Chairman do Report Progress; and ask leave to sit again"—(Sir Howard Vincent)—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTOR-OMNIBUS ACCIDENT.
On the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
MR. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government beard whether he had any information as to the accident to a Vanguard motor-omnibus near Crawley, whether an official inquiry would be held, and whether the Department would be represented at the inquest.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD) (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said he had seen with great regret an account in the evening papers of this calamity. The House, he was sure, would be profoundly sorry to know that ten people had been killed and twenty-four injured by this regrettable accident. The Local Government beard were only concerned with the making of regulations as to the use and construction of motorcars, and one of these regulations required that a motor-car should have two independent brakes in good working order and of such efficiency that the application of either would cause two of the wheels to be so held that they were effectually prevented from revolving. He would keep himself informed of the evidence at the inquest and see that the departments concerned were represented thereat. On behalf of the House he offered his condolences with the relatives of the victims.
SIR E. CARSONasked whether the Local Government beard had power to inspect these omnibuses.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the duty of inspection devolved on two or three different authorities.
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to introduce legislation for the better control I of these vehicles.
MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the Report of the Motor Cars Commission would be in the hands of Members very soon; and if it were possible by administrative or legislative action to take precautions against the recurrence of such accidents, he hoped the House would give such action its support.
Adjourned at eight minutes after Eleven o'clock.

EARLDOM OF NORFOLK.
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel further heard in reply on behalf of the claimant, Lord Mowbray: The Attorney-General, K.C., M.P., heard on behalf of the Crown: Committee adjourned to Monday, the 23rd instant.
The Lord Inverclyde sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: South Lincolnshire Water; Watford and Edgware Railway.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Hammersmith, City, and North East London Railway Bill—Message from the Commons of Thursday last to be considered on Tuesday next.
Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn.
Todmorden Corporation Bill. Reportėd with Amendments.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill; Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 26th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to; Bills read 2a accordingly.
Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [H.L.], Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Watford and Edgware Railway Bill. Committed for Tuesday next.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Sutton District Water Bill, South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Midland Railway Bill, Uxbridge Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill. Reported without Amendment.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 26th day of March last, " That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Water Provisional Order Bill; St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill; Poole Corporation Water Bill; Cork City Railways and Works Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Report from

995
the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), E.
Stradbroke, L. Zouche, L. Borthwick, L. Castlemaine, L. Kintore. (E. Kintore) (Chairman); agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10) Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 158.)

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petition in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools; of inhabitants of Firle signing; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for technical schools, schools of art, and other schools and classes for further education (from August 1st, 1906, to July 31st, 1907).
  Further correspondence relating to labour in the Transvaal mines (in continuation of [Cd. 2819] February, 1906.)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION).
  Appendix to Report of the Committee appointed to investigate and advise the First Commissioner of Works with regard to the improvement of the ventilation of the House of Commons.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3666. Portugal (LourenÇo Marques).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Crown Office—Rules, 1906.

  PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901 (ACCOUNT 1905–1906).
  Account showing the money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and the money received, expended, and borrowed, and securities created under the said Act, to March 31st, 1906; together with report of the Chairman of the Pacific Cable Board.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES) (VISITING COMMITTEES).
  Draft Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prison Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the visiting Committees of Bristol and Shepton Mallet Prisons.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order made by the Council of the borough of Accrington, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within the borough.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  GROUND GAME BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order.)
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  LORD SALTOUNmoved to amend Clause 2, which provided that the occupier of moorland and unenclosed land should be entitled to kill ground game at any period of the year otherwise than by shooting, by securing that there should be a close time between April 1st and September 1st. He said that he submitted the Amendment in the interest of preserving bird life at the stage when birds were breeding and were unable to protect themselves. Although he did not think that farmers as a general rule would go out of their way to do damage, there was very little doubt that disturbing birds while they were nesting by walking about the moors might do an infinite amount of harm. He

  997
  had been in correspondence with a number of northern proprietors, and they were all agreed that the Bill required amendment in the way he proposed. Most of them would like to see the month of October included in the close time, but he suggested from April 1st to September 1st in the hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would be able to see his way to accept the Amendment. In the Ground Game Act of 1880 there was a very long close time—he believed nearly six months. This provision was inserted not only for the protection of birds and game, but also to prevent difficulties arising between landlord and tenant. Shooting rents in the north were as five to one compared with grazing rents, so that if a landlord who had a small property and only got 1s. per acre for grazing purposes could get 5s. per acre in shooting rents, the temptation would naturally be for him to clear the ground of sheep and realise his shooting rents. He honestly thought it would be a great mistake to make it possible for ground game to be snared and trapped all the year round. He did not think farmers on the hillside would have any title to complain of the close time suggested in his Amendment, because they would be able to kill rabbits right up to the breeding time. They would be able to kill ground game from September to April, and surely that was sufficient time for their destruction. There were very few persons who wished rabbits and hares to be retained. They were both vermin, and should go. But he did think that for the protection of bird life it was desirable that there should be a close time during the few months in which they were breeding and were unable to protect themselves. For these reasons he moved his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  " In line 3, to leave out the word ' April ' and insert the word 'September.'"—(Lord Saltoun.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREconfessed that he wished it were possible to move the hard heart of his noble friend opposite, so that he might retain the Bill as it stood. He ventured to think there were many reasons why the Bill should be allowed to pass in its present form, and he was much encouraged in that belief by what fell from the noble Marquess the
  998
  Leader of the Opposition at the previous stage when he said, and said with truth, that the farmer should not be left all these months without the advantage of being able to destroy the game which preyed on his crops. He (Lord Burgh-clere) admitted that the close time suggested by the noble Lord was the time during which rabbits and hares bred, but, agreeing as he did with what his noble friend had said as to rabbits and hares being vermin, he thought that rather an argument for permitting them to be trapped and snared during the breeding time. If it were possible to make an appeal to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition or his followers to allow the Bill to pass in its present form, he would be inclined to make it. He did not believe that the Bill, if allowed to come into operation immediately as it was drawn, would do the slightest harm to the grouse moors in Scotland. He recognised to the full the importance of the grouse interest in Scotland not only from the point of view of the landlords, but also from the point of view of the people who lived in the neighbourhood. They were told that under this Bill the tenants would go on the land and disturb the grouse. The tenants had a perfect right to go on the grouse moors at the present moment. They had a right of entry, and he did not see what harm would be done by allowing them to snare and trap—not to shoot—the ground game which destroyed their crops. He had never heard of grouse being caught in a snare.
  LORD SALTOUNsaid it was quite easy when they knew how to do it.
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he was certainly not so clever at snaring as his noble friend. In view of the fact that his noble friend had behind him big battalions and would not listen to any appeal to withdraw the Amendment, he was afraid nothing remained for him but to accept it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down made a kind of appeal to me to allow the Bill to pass in its present shape. Now I am the last person in the world to desire that this Bill should be altered in such a way as to prevent the extirpation

  999
  of animals that I for one regard as mischievous intruders, and I certainly should not suggest to any noble Lords who sit on this side of the House that they should support the Amendment of the noble Lord behind me if that Amendment does not accord with their own convictions.
  I think, however, we have a right to ask one or two questions. In the first place we should like to have a clear and unequivocal statement of the manner in which this point is regarded by His Majesty's Government. In the debate the other evening the noble Lord who on that occasion spoke in behalf of the Government, but who is not in his place to-night (Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), went out of his way to intimate to us that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the Bill did stand in need of some alteration in the direction suggested by the Amendment. I was careful to look afterwards at the exact words he used, and they most clearly and distinctly intimated that in the opinion of noble Lords opposite it was desirable to alter the Bill at this point. So much, then, as to the view of His Majesty's Government, which I hope they will confirm and explain before this discussion closes.
  There is another point which weighs very much with me. This is a Bill intended to meet the wishes of the occupiers of unenclosed lands principally, though not entirely, in Scotland. We do happen to know something of the views of this class of the community. I hold in my hand a Report of the proceedings of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, and I find that in 1905 a Resolution was moved by a gentleman, speaking apparently on behalf of the tenants, as follows:
  " That in order to mitigate the loss to sheep farmers by game, the Ground Game Act, 1880,should be amended so as to admit of rabbits being snared and trapped on moorland and unenclosed land from October 1st to April 1st."
  That view was not expressed for the first time in 1905, because a precisely similar Resolution was carried in 1903 at a meeting of this Chamber of Agriculture. I take it, therefore, that in the view of the tenants they would be sufficiently protected by the privilege of killing rabbits between October 1st and April 1st. My noble friend behind me wishes to do
  1000
  rather more for them than that, because he throws in September. He is, therefore, really offering more than the tenants have asked for. That is how I understand the case to rest, and if it be still the view of His Majesty's Government, who presumably have made it their business to inquire fully into the circumstances of the case, that this clause stands in need of Amendment, and if I am right in believing that the Scottish tenants themselves do not desire that the privilege should be given to them during the whole twelve months of the year, then I must say the proposal of my noble friend seems to me to be a reasonable one, and I am inclined to support him.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I feel that I ought to apologise to the House for intervening in this discussion, for the reason that I have never had an opportunity of even shooting at a grouse in my life. I feel, therefore, somewhat ignorant of the merits of the case; but, on behalf of the Scottish Office and of His Majesty's Government, I am able to repeat the expression of their sympathy and general goodwill towards this Bill. On the other hand, in view of what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, I would venture to advise the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to accept the Amendment. If when this Amendment had been accepted it was found that any real grievance existed in the working of the Act the noble Earl himself could bring in a Bill to amend this one, and I am sure he would receive every support and sympathy from His Majesty's Government. But, in the circumstances, and having regard to what has fallen from noble Lords on the other side of the House, I think it would be well for my noble friend to accept the Amendment.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid it had become quite clear that his noble friend would have to accept the Amendment. But he would like to ask the House, and especially Lord Saltoun, to consider whether they were doing exactly the right thing in accepting the Amendment. The Act of 1880 was passed principally for the purpose of getting rid of anything approaching ill-feeling between landlord and tenant with respect

  1001
  to game, and the Act had certainly been successful in this respect. The landlord and the game tenant had the greatest protection in the goodwill of the occupation tenant. It was owing to that goodwill that no friction existed between the parties. The grievance of the tenant at the present moment was that for a great period of the year he was prevented from trapping the ground game which were doing damage to his crops. What was the shooting tenant going to got by preventing the occupation tenant from trapping ground game all the year round? He could go upon the land for the whole twelve months, and, if he had a grievance, if the goodwill which had hitherto existed were removed, he or his shepherd, by one movement of the foot, could inflict considerable damage on the shooting tenant by destroying the nest of the grouse. That was a state of things which might obtain if they lost the goodwill between landlord and tenant. It was said that the tenants might snare grouse. He had no doubt it was possible to lay snares for grouse, but not the rabbit snare; there was a well-known difference between the two. Again, what could be the object of snaring grouse in the months of May, June and July? What would the men who snared them do with them? For the sake of a mere fancied protection they were going to allow the tenant to have a grievance in that he would see his crops eaten and not be allowed to snare the rabbits. He did not suggest that their Lordships should divide on the Question, but he thought they would be taking the wiser course, in the interests of both landlord and shooting tenant, if they removed the grievance by allowing ground game to be trapped and snared all the year round.
  LORD LOVATsupported the Amendment. He did not think there was likely to be any jealously or antipathy between landlord and tenant in this matter. Again, there was the question of rates. In some districts 40 per cent. of the rates came out of shooting values, and it would be a serious blow to the whole community if grouse rents were in any way injured, or prospective shooting tenants were deterred from taking grouse moors in the Highlands.
  LORD BURGHCLEREagreed as to the very great value of grouse moors to
  1002
  Scotland. It was in the interests, or the supposed interests, of these grouse moors that the Amendment had been put forward and it was obvious that after the expression of opinion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and of His Majesty's Government nothing remained for him but to accept the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 157.)

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that I am not able to allow the Third Reading to pass without a few words of protest against the Bill as it now stands. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships will think I am acting somewhat ungraciously in the matter. It would have been far more congenial to me to have admitted that the Amendments which the Lord Chancellor has accepted mot some of the objections that I was obliged to take to the Bill in its original shape, in which it was certainly incapable of being applied with justice. But I have had no opportunity whatever of pointing out to your Lordships, or through your Lordships to those who are interested in this matter, my objections to the Bill except on the present occasion, and therefore I ask your Lordships to permit me for a few minutes to call attention to four or five matters, and to point out that unless those points are dealt with in another place the measure will be one which cannot possibly be effectively worked.
  I am not going to refer to any matters which could be dealt with by rule or which could be the subject of verbal amendment, but I am obliged to call attention to four or five matters which would arise under the working of the Bill as it now stands. Your Lordships

  1003
  now allow an application to be made by persons convicted for leave to appeal, and it is upon that that the present state of difficulty arises. You Lordships have not inserted in this Bill any provision at all for the release on bail of persons who either give notice of appeal or have a right of appeal given them. That is a most serious consideration. It cannot be cured by rule. At present, by the Statute law, no convicted person can be released on bail except under the provisions of the Crown Cases Reserved Act, which is actually repealed by this Bill.
  What is the position to be? A man is imprisoned, either at Cardiff, Liverpool, or Newcastle. There is no provision in this Bill as to how he is to make his application, no provision whereby he can either get out of prison or get aid in prison; and the result is that that part of the Bill must remain almost a dead letter except in the cases, as I ventured to mention to your Lordships on the last occasion, of rich criminals as compared with poor. It is the more remarkable that that most useful Act of Parliament, the Crown Cases Reserved Act, has been repealed. Under that Act there is given to a Judge power to state a special case, power to respite a sentence, and power to permit the prisoner to bail. In this Bill the only sentence that can be respited is the sentence of death.
  I pass to another point which seems to me to have been overlooked by those who have no doubt been assisting my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack in the preparation of this Bill outside this House. I refer to the fact that no provision is inserted as to how the prosecutor is to be dealt with. That is an extremely important point when you see the practical working of this Bill. At present, in a great number of cases, orders are made for the restitution of goods. What is to happen with regard to those goods under this Bill? There is no provision for suspending the operation of these orders, and the consequence is that a prosecutor who is not going to be represented, or at any rate can only be represented at his own expense, will not know as to how these orders are to be dealt with.
  But it touches a far broader question. What is to be position of the prosecutor?
  1004
  This Bill makes no provision for his costs. That is a really serious difficulty. The prosecutor, sometimes the police but more often a private individual who has been bound over to prosecute, will be obliged, if the case is properly conducted, to appear and bear his own expenses. If the Bill is to pass in its present form it is imperative that the State, through the Public Prosecutor, should take up the conduct of cases for the prosecution on appeal. That leads to another point governed by statute as to which this Bill makes no provision the binding over of witnesses. Witnesses are bound over by the committing magistrate to give evidence at the trial, but, as this Bill stands at present, it provides for a new trial but makes no provision of any sort for securing the attendance of witnesses when the new trial is ordered. This is a very practical question in great seaports like Liverpool and Cardiff, because there are not a few crimes every year tried at these assizes which necessitate the attendance of seafaring witnesses, who are very difficult to obtain. It is essential, if this Bill is to be worked, that this provision should be amended. No rules that could possibly be made under the Bill would enable this difficulty to be got over.
  The only provision in the Bill for legal assistance is in cases in which the Court of Appeal is of opinion that a prisoner requires it for the purpose of getting up his appeal and supporting his appeal before the Court. It will be absolutely essential, if the Bill is to have the effect in any number of cases that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack desires, that this should be dealt with by an alteration of statutes and not by a mere question of rule. There is another important point which seems to me to involve a question of principle. Power is now given by the Bill to convict a prisoner in his absence of an offence of which he has not been found guilty at the trial. The Bill provides that the Court of Appeal may sentence a man for a crime which he has not been found guilty of by the jury if the Court of Appeal thinks he is guilty of it, and that is done in the absence of the prisoner unless the Judges order the prisoner to be present. I submit that, as a matter of constitutional justice, the Bill ought to have been framed the other way. The prisoner should be present, and such an

  1005
  extraordinary anomaly as judgment in a criminal case behind a man's back should not appear on the Statue Book. This, again, is no mere theoretical grievance. If a prisoner is convicted behind his back of some offence with which he was not charged at the original hearing, it might at once be said that if he had known that this was to be charged against him he could have given an explanation.
  The matters to which I have referred affect the working of the Bill as it is now framed. They are all matters that depend upon statute except the last one, which is a new provision in this Bill allowing a prisoner to be convicted in his absence, and they are matters which in my judgment must be considered before the Bill as now framed can possibly work. Ending as I began, I regret I cannot abate my objections to the Bill. I have never heard, from the beginning to the end of this discussion, any case made out for the proposed alteration in the law. If it is to be carried into effect, I do respectfully submit that it ought to be after this kind of legislation had been carefully examined by experts who are acquainted with the administration of this branch of the law; if necessary by some Departmental Committee or Select Committee that really could deal with the practical question. It is my duty most unwillingly to say that I believe the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House to be unworkable, and I deeply regret that legislation in this shape on so important a matter as the criminal law should be sent down from your Lordships' House to another place.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I think your Lordships will feel that it is very unfortunate that my noble and learned friend's judicial duties have prevented him from Attending and making these observations at the earlier stages of the Bill. We had the Committee stage and the Standing Committee stage, which lasted some time and in which the noble Earl the late Lord Chancellor and other noble and learned Lords took part, and at which, too, several of the matters referred to were considered. In regard to the other points to which my noble friend has referred, I have heard them for the first time now, and I believe, with all respect,
  1006
  to my noble and learned friend, that his objections are unsound.
  It is said that there is no provision for the release on bail of those who appeal No; they have been convicted before a judge and jury, and I do not propose that they should be released on bail unless the Court of Appeal decides that they ought to have a new trial. I am paying respect to the decision of the Judge and jury by whom they have been convicted. They are not persons who are awaiting trial; they are persons who have been convicted, Let the appeal take place as soon as possible, but, until then, why not allow them to remain in prison after sentence has been passed? The next point raised was that there is no provision for applying for leave to appeal. There is. It is provided that rules can be made in regard to all notices of appeal. The next observation was, how is the prosecutor to be dealt with? He is one of those who may have notice given to him under the rules in accordance with one of the clauses of the Act. I did not understand the point made in regard to the restitution of goods. Until the appeal is settled and acquittal takes place the order for restitution stands good.
  As to the binding over of witnesses to appear at the second trial, I should like to have had an opportunity of looking up the statute which provides for this matter, but my impression is that the recognisances would be binding at the second trial. If they are not the witnesses could be again summoned, if available, for the second trial, and if they are not available they could not be forthcoming whether you have recognisances or not. The provision with regard to punishment for a minor offence on a conviction for a major offence was discussed in Committee in the presence of the noble and learned Earl the late Lord-Chancellor, who is the greatest criminal authority in this country. That provision is intended for this kind of case. Suppose a man is convicted of murder, and the Court of Appeal does not think he is guilty of murder but of the lesser offence of manslaughter, they may then convict him of manslaughter. The exact wording of the clause is—
  " Where an appellant has been convicted of an offence and the jury could on the indictment have found him guilty of some other offence, and on the finding of the jury it appears to the

  1007
  Court that the jury must have been satisfied of facts which proved him guilty of some other offence, the Court may, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the verdict found by the jury a verdict of guilty of such other offence, and pass such judgment in substitution for the judgment passed at the trial as they think proper."
  What does that mean? If the Court thinks that the person convicted has not been guilty of the greater offence of murder but has been guilty of manslaughter, then they may reduce the sentence to one for manslaughter. That is all that is meant. I do not see any great harm in that. For my part I think it is a sensible provision.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: I did not object to that. I objected to the absence of the prisoner.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The other point raised by the noble and learned Lord is the absence of the prisoner. It would be very difficult alway to require that the prisoner should be present whenever he thinks proper to appeal. It would be a very serious matter to bring up prisoners in this way. It must be remembered that the man has been already convicted. You are giving him another chance; you allow him to either send in a document to the Court asking them to reconsider the case or to appear by counsel, and you authorise the Court of Appeal to say he shall be present in person if necessary. He having been convicted, the country should not be put to the expense of bringing the prisoner up to the Court in order to hear the arguments, because there are not witnesses, except in rare instances, to be heard. It is reasonable to say that the prisoner shall not be brought up under these circumstances unless the Court thinks he ought to be. I have now come to the end of the criticisms of the Lord Chief Justice, and I think everybody will agree that they are substantially Committee points.
  I wish to express my gratitude for the assistance I have received from many noble Lords in the passage of this Bill. I believe the Bill to be a good one and to be sincerely desired outside by people of all opinions. I have valued from the commencement the criticisms directed against it, and I think I may say that except on minor, I might almost say minute points, there have only been two things
  1008
  said against the principle of this Bill. The first is the objection to the expense. I do not believe there will be any expense to speak of. If there was an expenditure of £10,000 or £15,000 a year, it would be perfectly insignificant in comparison with the object attained. The second argument, one which has not been renewed, is that juries when they thought there was going to be an appeal would cease to do their duty with the same vigilance as before. I believe there is no foundation whatever for that statement. I refrain from answering the numerous criticisms which have been made outside, not always in temperate language, and I am glad to think that opinion has now come round to the belief that the Bill is a good one, and is, on the whole, destined to be a valuable addition to the statute law of this country.
  On question, Bill read 3a; an Amendment (Privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  SPEECHES OF IRISH MAGISTRATES.
  LORD MUSKERRYrose to call attention to the disloyal and violent speeches of certain magistrates in Ireland, and to the manner in which they had incited the people to commit illegal and criminal acts; and also to the fact that certain of those magistrates were members of disloyal organisations, and had attended meetings of these bodies, where not only disloyal but also illegal and criminal proceedings were advocated; and to move for Papers.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Second Reading of the Justices of the Peace Bill about a fortnight ago, the subject of the appointment of Irish magistrates was brought forward. My noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry instanced certain points in connection with this matter; and my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne informed your Lordships of the policy he adopted in appointing new magistrates, telling you that his procedure was to request them to state what petty sessions they proposed to attend. I also gather that he suggested it might be a good thing that the Lord High Chancellor should make himself acquainted with the Irish procedure in these matters. I am perfectly in accord with my noble and

  1009
  learned friend in that. I think it would not only be advisable that the Lord High Chancellor should make himself acquainted with the Irish procedure, but also that every one in England who is interested in the proper administration of justice should make himself acquainted with what is happening in Ireland. Although my noble and learned friend told you what his custom was he omitted to inform you why that custom was adopted. I am inclined to believe that it was adopted simply owing to the new class of magistrates.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: The practice was not introduced by me. It existed long before my time.
  LORD MUSKERRY: At any rate it did not exist twenty years ago. It was realised that, unless such a restriction was placed upon these new magistrates, the result, in many cases, would be an absolute failure in the impartial administration of justice, owing to these magistrates attending in overwhelming numbers at any petty sessions where there were cases being tried connected with the interests of either the agrarian or the nationalist movements. The following is an example. At a meeting of the Clare County Council, held on the 13th of last month, Mr. James O'Doherty, J.P., referred to the small number of Nationalist magistrates they had in East Clare. He said that—
  " On more than one occasion he had been brought with Mr. Hogan and Mr. McInerney to fight the hirelings of Dublin Castle, and he never refused to attend any petty sessions in the interests of justice. But he should say that were it not for Mr. McInerney and Mr. Hogan he would be quite useless on many an occasion."
  The interpretation which your Lordships and I think most people in this country would give to the word "justice " is different from Mr. O'Doherty's.
  I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time by going into all the speeches that have been made. I only intend to take extracts from one or two as samples of the reprehensible language which is being freely used. I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the utterances of Mr. Conor O'Kelly, J.P. He addressed a meeting at Barhave, near Belmullet, on October 1st, 1905, held for j the purpose of intimidating a farmer
  1010
  named John Padden, who held possession of a farm from which the previous tenant had been evicted. Mr. O'Kelly said—
  " I have come to denounce Padden. I have denounced him. It is for you now to put my words into practice. I hope that before I leave Belmullet a vigilance committee will be appointed, and the work of that committee will be to report to another committee I intend also to form every single man, woman or child, who has any intercourse of any sort or kind with this nefarious grabber. Any man that talks to him at a fair, or market, or meeting place is to be branded as bad as himself, if not worse."
  As a result of this terrorising speech the unfortunate John Padden at once gave up his farm. It would not have been safe for him to have retained it. Mr. James Mills, J.P., was chairman of the meeting at which Mr. Conor O'Kelly spoke, and at its close he also addressed those present in the following terms—
  " Men of Barhave, Mr. O'Kelly and Mr. O'Dowd have spoken at some length to you on the National question; have spoken to you in such a way that I trust that you will follow their advice; the land question will soon be settled."
  On May 27th last, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, J.P., addressed a meeting at Callow, near Swinford, county Mayo, held for the purpose of intimidating a local bailiff named Thomas Durkin, popularly known as "Tom Watt." And this is what Mr. O'Kelly said—
  " There are many grabbers in Mayo, but what did we do with the grabber of Bally-heane? And what did we do with Padden down in Erris? They prosecuted us for that also, but it failed. They will have to prosecute us again if this wretched creature does not give up the land he should never have touched. If you mean business, let no man in this parish be contemptible enough to have any dealings or any intercourse with Tom Watt."
  The immediate result following this speech was that on June 4th, Thomas Durkin found his mare dead, mutilated in the most shocking manner, apparently with a knife. At a meeting of the South Galway Executive of the United Irish League on November 13th, 1904, Mr. P. J. Kelly said—
  " He often thought on learning of the extravagant prices being paid (for land) that the people must be gone mad. Some of these people deserved to be shot down as John Blake had been shot, and the revolver was there still. Whenever a man was found going into the enemy's camp, he should be brought down."

  1011
  At a meeting held at Loughrea, on December 29th, 1904, Mr. P. J. Kelly said—
  " At the outset of the negotiations he advocated the rifle and the sword, and there was no going behind. What use were they unless they were bound like an army, and bound by their duty in the field, and if a soldier deserted in the field he would be shot like a dog, and deserved to be so shot. And he (Mr. Kelly) now said that if there were renegades on the Clancarty estate they would be, and deserved to be, shot down like dogs if they broke through their pledge and deserted their ranks."
  On the following 13th of June Mr. P. J. Kelly became, a Chairman of the Loughrea District Council, ex . officio a Justice of the Peace. He had been a magistrate previously. This Mr. Kelly has since delivered several other violent speeches. At a meeting of the United Irish League, held on March 11th, 1906, he said—
  "They, as men who had fought and suffered for God's poor, would continue to fight for them, and the bishops had no right to dictate to them. If necessary, they would be proud to go out again with the rifle or the blunderbuss to plant the people on the soil."
  I would remind your Lordships that these ex officio magistrates have to take exactly the same oath as those gentlemen who are appointed in the ordinary way to the Commission of the Peace.
  At a meeting held at Enniscorthy on May 28th, 1905, Sir Thomas H. G. Esmonde, J.P., said:—
  " We are the descendants of the rebels of 198. We are many of us still suffering for the sacrifices of our forefathers made 107 years ago. We honour them all the more on that account. We hold their memory in all the greater reverence. Their principles are our principles; their beliefs are our beliefs; their ideals are our ideals; and, led by the inspiration which animated them, we declare that we will never submit to foreign rule in Ireland, and that we will never cease from struggling, by whatever means seem best to us, until Ireland is free from the centre to the sea. This solemn pledge we renew to-day. And we pledge our faith once more by the memory of '98."
  These gentlemen have taken the oath to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the King and also the oath of office. My Lords, do you think that people can be relied upon to administer justice fairly and truly when they show, both in words and actions, such absolute disregard for the solemn obligations into which they have entered?
  1012
  I would like to refer briefly to the disloyal societies which at present exist in Ireland. Your Lordships all know of the United Irish League, and probably you have formed your own opinions as to the category in which that body should be placed. But there is one body of which, I believe, your Lordships have not heard, and that is an organisation called the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Now, this society poses as a purely benevolent association, and was, I understand, registered as such in February, 1905. Mr. Joseph Devlin, who is a Member of Parliament and the National President of the Order, said that some of the best support which Mr. Redmond received in Australia was received from the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and they had guaranteed £1,000 to the contribution which was then being raised in aid of the General Election. I was under the impression—I may be mistaken —that action of this description was outside the power of any benevolent society, I and that it would be considered as a misappropriation of their funds. No doubt noble Lords learned in the law will be able to set me right in regard to this point. To show what this Ancient Order of Hibernians really is, I will quote from the words of Mr. John Dillon (National Vice-President of the Order) and from other officers. Mr. Dillon, at a meeting of the Order held at Drummulan, county Tyrone, on March 17th, 1905, speaking on the history of the Order, said—
  "The Hibernians were then known as Ribbonmen."
  At a meeting of the Ancient Order of Hibernians at Creslough, county Donegal, on March 17th last, the Vice-President of the local divisions of the Order, who presided, said—
  " The defenders became known as the Ribbonmen … It was then (in the nineteenth century) that they became known under the title of the Ancient Order of Hibernians."
  The National Secretary of the Order, at a meeting of Hibernians held at Castle-blayney, county Monaghan, on October 21st, 1905, said that—
  " In those days the combination assumed many names, Molly Maguires, and Ribbon-men."
  I do not know if any of your Lordships have ever heard of the Ribbonmen's oath, which members of that society have to take. I hold it in my hand, but it is

  1013
  far too long to road in its entirety, and I will quote only a few paragraphs from it. I may say that the whole of the oath is couched in terms equally as strong as the words which I now quote—
  " And I further swear to owe no allegiance to any Protestant or heretic Sovereign, Ruler, Prince, or Potentate, and that I will not regard any oath delivered to me by them or their subjects, be they judge, magistrate, or else, as binding.
  " And I swear to aid as best I can, any brother or brothers who may be on trial for any act or expression of theirs, before magistrate, judge, jury, or else, and to be ready at all times to aid by every means in my power in preserving his or their liberation; and, if myself a, witness, to disregard any oath delivered to me on such occasions by judge, jury, magistrate, counsel, lawyer, official, or else, and that I will not regard such oath as binding.
  " And in revenge for the sufferings of our forefathers and protection of our rights, I further solemnly swear to aid as best I can in exterminating and extirpating all Protestants and heretics out of Ireland or elsewhere; to hunt, pursue, shoot, and destroy all Protestant or heretic landlords, proprietors or employers, and also to hunt, shoot, pursue and destroy all landlords or proprietors belonging to the Church of Rome, should he or they evict his or their tenants from the house, land, home, or holding of theirs."
  At a meeting of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, held at Moy, on April 16th last, one of the officials said—
  " The organisation was formed for the purpose of driving the English Government and garrison out of this old land of ours."
  And another official said—
  " There were at the present time about 380,000 members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians."
  The character of this organisation may be gathered, from the action of seven Roman Catholic priests residing in Pennsylvania, who, on October 3rd, 1874, signed a united declaration in which they stated that—
  " Experience has proved that no faith is to to be placed in the most solemn promises or denials of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. It is certain that a fear, terror of punishment, that may in secrecy be decreed in upper circles, compels members to execute commands given under the countersign, no matter how repugnant to the laws of God and man those commands may be. Evidence sufficient to convince the most sceptical has come to light that works forbidden by the commandment ' Thou shalt not kill' are traceable to the Ancient Order of Hibernians."
  I will now show your Lordships the connection between the Ancient Order of
  1014
  Hibernians and the United Irish League. A gentleman holding high office in the Ancient Order of Hibernians as " National Delegate," said, at a meeting of the Order, that—
  " Every man who joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians was expected to be a member of the United Irish League, and for his part he would admit no man as a Hibernian who was not a member of the League. … The A. O. H. conferred many benefits on its members. In the first place, as he had already pointed out, it was a most valuable force behind the national organisation the wide world over."
  Mr. Joseph Devlin, who, as a Member of Parliament, has taken the oath of allegiance to the King, is President of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and also Central Secretary of the United Irish League. Now, my Lords, as regards the object of the United Irish League, at meetings of which magistrates have presided and spoken, and of which body many of them are members, I only propose to read you a very few extracts, which will reveal the real character and aim of the organisation. At a meeting of the League at Ballingarry, county Limerick, Mr. James Lynam, official organiser, said—
  " God helps those who help themselves, and the evicted tenants will have to stir up and make it a hell upon earth for their enemies. He was glad to have the privilege of standing beside the great Father Casey, and he could say that if they had a man like him in every parish they could sweep away the English Government in a short time."
  After the declaration of the poll at the election for East Tyrone, on January 24th, 1906, a meeting was held at which Mr. James Mullin, a solicitor and Justice of the Peace, in the course of an address, said —
  " They had been called rebels. Well, if a man who was true to his country and opposed to British rule was a rebel, then he was one."
  I have in my hand a list of magistrates who have taken part in meetings of the United Irish League. It is far too long to read to your Lordships, but I should say that the greater number of them are ex-officio magistrates. There are twenty-two of them, however, who hold the Commission of the Peace, seventeen of whom are members of the United Irish League.
  There is another disloyal society—the Sinn Fein. I will read an extract from an article on the Sinn Fein policy, which

  1015
  shows the aims of the Nationalists as regards the magisterial Bench—
  " But one civil department Ireland must completely capture when her people are properly disciplined, and when, moreover, her campaigning fund is sufficiently strong — namely, the legal department; because the administration of the law is almost as important as legislation itself for the welfare of the national government. This capture when the national fund can bear the strain will be easily effected. … All magistrates would be called on to resign as English officials, and would be at once restored as Irish magistrates. If any refused to resign others would take their place. All Nationalist lawyers who would be willing to accept them would get equal positions and salaries under the Irish Government."
  Now, my Lords, in this House some years ago a measure giving Home Rule to Ireland was brought forward. It was thrown out, and the opinion of the country endorsed the action of your Lordships upon that occasion. Since then a modified form of Home Rule has been granted to Ireland, and the present results of that modified form of Home Rule are showing, day by day, how sound was the judgment of your Lordships in rejecting the full measure that was proposed. We are constantly being shown how little chance there is, even now, of fair play and fair treatment being given to the loyal minority of our follow-subjects in Ireland. We have an example of the class of magistrates who have been brought into existence by this legislation—a class of magistrates who seem to imagine that the office they hold is to be used, not for the administration of pure and impartial justice between His Majesty's lieges, but simply as a political instrument to encourage and support the cause of disloyalty and crime in the country.
  The boast and pride of this country have been in the uprightness, the fairness, and the impartiality of our Judges. When I say this country, I mean the United Kingdom, for I do not think that the members of the high judicial bench in Ireland yield in any one way to their learned brethren on this side of the Channel who occupy the same high positions. Your Lordships will have seen what the object of the Nationalists really is, and have realised that they desire to have the appointment to these high judicial offices entirely in their own hands in Ireland; the first requisites for these appointments being, not learning, honesty and uprightness, but that they should be Nationalists
  1016
  and support the objects of the United Irish League. You have an example of this among the present ex-officio magistrates. No one who has a regard for the welfare of the country can look upon this prospect with equanimity. The Commission of the Peace in Ireland has been degraded, and the administration of justice at petty sessions has been brought, into contempt.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: No.
  LORD MUSKERRY: In many cases it has. On this point I cannot agree with my noble friend. If this sort of thing be permitted to continue, the administration of the law at petty sessions will soon become a perfect farce. It would be far bettor once and for all to do away with such a thing as the Commission of the Peace in Ireland, and let the resident magistrates alone administrate justice at the petty sessions.
  My Lords, I move fur a Return of the names of those appointed to the Commission of the Peace in the past twelve months, and also the names of those who, during that period, have occupied the position of magistrates through holding certain appointments which entitled them to that position ex-officio. I would also like to have an exact statement of what disqualifies anyone from holding the Commission of the Peace or acting as a magistrate. If we are to understand that, as the law now stands, any one who is elected to certain chairmanships or positions in Ireland making him ex-officio a Justice of the Peace is to be allowed to occupy that position no matter what his previous records or offences against the law may have been, and that he cannot be removed from a magistracy unless he commits similar offences while holding that position, I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is high time some change should take place in the laws regulating such appointments. I beg to move for Papers.
  Moved, for a Return of magistrates who have been appointed in Ireland during the last twelve months. —(Lord Muskerry).
  LORD DENMAN: My Lords, five months of what I think will be remembered as a momentous and eventful session have

  1017
  gone by, and this is the first notice affecting the Government of Ireland which has appeared on the Notice Paper of your Lordships' House. This, I am informed, constitutes a record, and is, I think, a matter of congratulation for the House of Lords and the Irish Office, and more especially, perhaps, for the representative of that Office in this House. And now that a Question has been asked it does not appear, from the rather sparsely populated nature of the Benches of your Lordships' House, that it has aroused any general interest.
  I regret that on this, the first occasion it is my duty to reply in this House for the Government of Ireland, I am obliged to enter a protest against the form in which the Notice has been placed upon the Paper. If your Lordships will glance at the Notice you will see that it is to—
  "call attention to the disloyal and violent speeches of certain magistrates in Ireland—and to the fact that certain of these magistrates are members of disloyal organisations."
  Could any Notice be vaguer or more indefinite than that? Yet the noble Lord uses this very vague Notice as a peg on which to hang a debate on matters which, though very important, are essentially matters of detail, and matters which, if investigated, have to be inquired into, each case upon its merits.
  I would remind your Lordships that this is in great contradistinction to the method the noble Lord employs in the admirable work which he does on behalf of the mercantile marine of this country in your Lordships' House. In the Notices which he then places upon the Paper he is, at any rate so far as the Question is concerned, always definite and precise as to the exact nature of the information he requires. In his Notices he tells us, for example, what happened when the three-masted schooner "Mudlark" went aground off Southend, and what the captain said to the Lascar at the wheel of the " Saucy Kipper." My noble friend who represents the Board of Trade is therefore able to come down with a neat answer in his pocket, and everybody is satisfied. On this occasion the noble Lord has gone into questions of great detail, of which I contend he has not given me proper notice. He asks me, I presume, to discuss with him across the Table what Mr. O'Doherty said to Mr. Hogan, and what Mr. Conor O'Kelly is reported to have said at Bel-
  1018
  mullet. I contend that such a course is unfair, not only to myself and to the Government of Ireland, but more particularly to the Lord Chancellor within whose jurisdiction such cases as these would naturally fall. Therefore, I must respectfully decline to discuss the details of these cases across the floor of the House unless the noble Lord takes the trouble to give me adequate notice of each particular case he proposes to raise.
  There was one case he touched on, of which I happen to have particulars—the case of Mr. P. J. Kelly. Mr. Kelly, speaking at Loughrea, is reported to have said that they would be prepared to go out again with the rifle and the blunderbuss to plant the people on the soil. With regard to that case, it appears that this meeting was held within closed doors, and there was no evidence to show whether the language was in fact used. No complaint was made by any person to the Lord Chancellor in reference to it, nor had he any evidence on which he could take action. The noble Lord concludes his Notice by a motion for Papers. If I grasped correctly what he said I understand that he requires a list of ex-officio magistrates who have been appointed during the last twelve months.
  LORD MUSKERRY: And other magistrates.
  LORD DENMAN: I take it he can get the names of the ex-officio magistrates in the ordinary course by referring to any Irish book of reference. With regard to the names of magistrates otherwise appointed he has given me no notice that he proposed to move for this information, and therefore I must first communicate with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. I do not, however, imagine that he will have any objection to furnishing the list; but, before I can give the noble Lord any definite reply or; that point, I must consult my learned friend. The noble Lord has quoted some extravagant and violent language alleged to have been used in different places, and he has dubbed certain gentlemen and certain associations disloyal. I will venture to remind your Lordships that violent language is not confined to Ireland. There are other parts of the Empire—possibly some of the Colonies and possibly at home in Hyde Park — where violent language is frequenty used, and if the Government

  1019
  were to take notice of every expression of violent language—
  THE EARL OF MAYO: This is a case of violent language by magistrates.
  LORD DENMAN: If the Government were to take notice of every violent expression used by prominent gentlemen I think they would have their hands very full, and they would be rather serving the end of these gentlemen, some of them agitators, if they made heroes or martyrs of them by initiating prosecution against them. Apparently the noble Lord desires us to pay particular attention to these matters at a time when the country is unusually tranquil. I believe Ireland has not been so tranquil for a considerable period. The noble Lord told us about the oath of the Ancient Order of Hibernians.
  LORD MUSKERRY: The oath of the Ribbonmen, who were the former Ancient Order of Hibernians.
  LORD DENMAN: The noble Lord made our flesh creep with the horrible oath which the members appear to take against all landlords, Catholic or Protestant, in the country. I see several Irish landlords opposite who have survived the oath which the Ancient Order of Hibernians have taken; and, looking at the very tranquil state of the country at present, I do not think it is necessary for the Government to take cognisance of all these matters. If proof were wanted that the country is in a tranquil condition I would point to the Summer assizes which are now proceeding. The addresses of the Judges of Assize to the grand juries at the opening of the assizes in the different counties show, so far as they have yet gone, that not only do the calenders contain unusually few cases for trial, but that the counties generally are in a satisfactory and orderly condition. I have here a long list of extracts from Judge's addresses at different assizes in Ireland. In West Meath the Judge remarked upon the very satisfactory condition of things; in Louth he said the county was in a highly satisfactory state; in Sligo he congratulated the grand jury on the condition of the country; in Limerick City the Judge had white gloves, there being no cases; and in Roscommon he referred to the fact that the county was free from serious crime. I could
  1020
  quote more cases such as this, but I will refrain from taking up too much of your Lordships' time.
  I would only add one or two remarks, generally on behalf of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He instructs me to say that there is no danger of any person being appointed to the Commission of the Peace against whom any evidence of illegal or disloyal action exists. The Lord Chancellor before he makes an appointment always obtains independent reports as to the suitability and good character of the candidate, and it may be mentioned that almost every appointment that he has made since he came into office has been on the recommendation of the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, the names having been in nearly all cases submitted to them by the Lord Chancellor for consideration. What possibly is more relevant to the question raised by the noble Lord is that whenever a case of language inciting to illegality or illegal or disloyal action is brought under his notice, supported by reasonable evidence, he will not hesitate to deal with it. That is all I am able to say in response to the remarks of the noble Lord. If he will give me notice of particular cases I shall be glad to obtain detailed information with regard to them, but I think he must see that it is quite impossible for me to answer at a moment's notice questions of which it is impossible for me to know the details.
  As this is the first opportunity on which I have been able to speak for this Department I would like to say one word generally with regard to our discussions of Irish questions in this House. I am well aware that besides the Irish representative Peers there are many noble Lords who are owners of large estates and have other great interests in the country, and other noble Lords, like the noble and learned Lord Lord Ashbourne and the noble Marquess Lord Londonderry, who have had great experience of Irish legislation; and I take this opportunity of informing them that I shall always be glad to obtain any information possible with regard to questions which they may choose to raise, that I shall listen with the closest attention to any criticisms they may bring against the policy of the Government of Ireland, and that I shall make it my business personally to bring those criticisms to the notice of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, from whom I know

  1021
  well they will meet with that close consideration that expert criticism always merits. For the reasons I have just given to your Lordships I hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion for Papers. Possibly he will refer again on a future date to the matter, when I shall be able to give him a more definite Answer. As it is, I am obliged to decline to accede to his request.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down entered a protest against the way in which the Notice had been placed on the Paper. I have heard a great many Answers given to Irish Questions in this House, but this is the first time in my recollection that in those Answers allusions have been made in a comic manner to other Notices that have appeared on the Paper. I regard the noble Lord's humorous allusions to the " Mudlark" and the " Saucy Kipper " as entirely out of place. I would much rather have had a typewritten Answer read such as we have been accustomed to hitherto. I admit that the noble Lord who has called attention to this matter did not make out a very strong case with regard to the magistrates, but it must be remembered that there are people in Ireland who take a much more serious view than do noble Lords opposite of what magistrates say. I do not see why the simple Return for which the noble Lord has moved should be refused. I think it would have been more courteous if the noble Lord had stated in his reply the number of magistrates appointed, ex officio and otherwise. I was glad to hear the very satisfactory statement which the noble Lord was instructed to make as to the attitude taken up by the Lord Chancellor in this matter.
  LORD ASHBOURE: My Lords, I rise to make only one or two remarks in regard to the discussion which has taken place. There are over 4,000 magistrates in Ireland, yet only four have been actually named by the noble Lord. I admit others have been referred to in a general way. In this matter it has to be borne in mind whether the magistrate is an ordinary county magistrate or an ex officio magistrate, and whether the words attributed to him were made use of at a time when he was actually a magistrate. It is not competent for the
  1022
  Lord Chancellor to sit in judgment on the elections which have made them ex officio magistrates. It is provided in the Local Government Act that persons who are placed in certain positions shall become ex officio justices of the peace. It is not in the province of the Lord Chancellor to object to the election because it carries with it a magisterial appointment. The Local Government Act mentions certain disqualifications, but speeches made before elections are not included among them.
  I gather from the observations of the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office in this House that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has given a very clear statement of his views, and that he will not make an appointment unless perfectly satisfied of the propriety of it. That is all that the Lord Chancellor can do as to making appointments. As I have mentioned, he has no power to sit in judgment on the elections which have made ex officio magistrates or to consider whether they were such appointments as he would himself have made. He has only power to appoint ordinary county magistrates with regard to whose appointment he has been in correspondence with the Lord-Lieutenant of the county. The noble Lord has stated that the present Lord Chancellor has not made any appointments except on the recommendation of Lords-Lieutenant, and he has indicated the line he will adopt in making these appointments in the future, and the inquiries he will think it right to make in reference to them.
  The desire of the noble Lord who introduced this discussion was, I take it, to elicit a statement as to what would be the attitude of the Government in reference to magistrates who made disloyal, improper, and unbecoming speeches. In reference to that matter, the present Lord Chancellor, equally with those who have filled the office before him, can only deal with each case as it arises in reference to its own facts and special circumstances; and we have the assurance that the Lord Chancellor is quite alive to the importance of the matter, and will consider carefully every case that, is brought to his notice and endeavour to do what is just and fair. I think we have every reason to be satisfied with that declaration.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the notice of the noble Lord was not in any set terms an attack on the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and I am sure he did not mean it to be. But it did involve some reflection upon the manner in which my learned friend the present Lord Chancellor had exercised his discretion in these matters. Therefore I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down for having put the case so clearly in regard to the position of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the ex officio bench. It is, of course, perfectly possible that a man may become an ex officio magistrate of whom individually the Lord Chancellor may not have a very high opinion, and whom he would not proprio motu have been disposed to place on the Bench. But as the noble and learned Lord very truly pointed out, any previous utterances of such a man cannot in any way come under the cognisance of the Lord Chancellor, and therefore it would be exceedingly unfair to blame him for anything which was said except when the supposed culprit was actually exercising the functions of a magistrate.
  I feel bound, having had the pleasure of serving for three years with the present Lord Chancellor in the Government of Ireland, to say that I know no man who would be less likely to overlook or ignore any disqualification of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord in his Motion, and no man who would be more likely to take a severe view either of seditious utterances or of utterances of any kind which could lead to the perpetration of crime. But in these matters there are two considerations to be borne in mind, one of which I think appeals to anybody who has lived in Ireland, and the other to all who have been concerned in Irish Government. In the first place, it must be remembered that the general scale of expression in Ireland is a great deal higher than it is in England. The superlative degree is habitually used in all transactions of life. Whether a man is describing a political opponent, or endeavouring to transact the sale of a horse, the superlative degree is used, whereas in this colder climate the positive suffices. That is one consideration to be borne in mind.
  There is another consideration which appeals to everybody who has had to do with the Government of Ireland. It is
  1024
  this, that it often becomes a matter of very anxious thought for those concerned in Irish Government whether it is wise to take notice of particular utterances, however mischievous and reprehensible they may be in themselves, without most carefully weighing the individual circumstances of every case. In the first place, there is the point to which my noble friend drew attention—the condition of the country. When the country generally is in the satisfactory condition, which I am glad to believe Ireland is in at present, it may not be always wise to take notice of utterances which, in a more disturbed state of the country, would be in themselves infinitely more dangerous and would have to be checked at once. Again, the local importance and character of the man who makes the mischievous speech has very often to be taken into account. If he is a man who carries little weight, a local crank, perhaps, or a man of the kind Sir Wilfred Lawson once described as " total non-abstainers," he may make very foolish and reprehensible speeches and very little harm is done. On the other hand, when anything of a mischievous sort is said by a man who really carries weight in his own neighbourhood, who is a local leader, then it may be proper to take very much more serious notice of it.
  I am quite certain that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland bears all these considerations in mind, and that your Lordships will be perfectly safe in leaving this particular matter in his hands. There is no risk that he will make unwise appointments, or that he will be disposed to overlook improper utterances on the part of present occupants of the Bench. I am sure my noble friend behind me did not mean to be anything but courteous in his reply as regards the Paper asked for. I do not think it would be worth while to print at the public expense a Return of these magistrates and circulate it to your Lordships generally, but I have no doubt that if it will be any satisfaction to the noble Lord my noble friend will be happy to acquire the information and give it to him privately or in reply to a further question.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords. I confess I do not wonder at those who have been closely associated with Ireland for many years putting questions of this sort

  1025
  when they read the reprehensible speeches made in that country by occupants of the magisterial Bench. Although, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne has pointed out, the utterance of only a few magistrates have been quoted to-night, it must not be forgotten that speeches of this kind in the past have had a very serious effect upon the prospects, happiness, and comfort of the people in the districts in which they have been made. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, who has occupied the position of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, knows full well that I am not exaggerating on that matter, and I do not think he will contradict mo when I say that Lord Ashbourne when Lord Chancellor either removed from the Bench or reprimanded magistrates who made use of language of a reprehensible character during the time I was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland.
  I endorse what has been said as to the desire of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland to deal justly in this matter. I have been in communication with him in regard to magisterial appointments in County Down and I am glad to have this opportunity of acknowledging the great courtesy with which he has met my representations. I am bound, however, to say that when speeches of this kind are made I think it is the duty of the Lord Chancellor not to allow them to pass unchallenged, and that if the guilt of a particular magistrate is proved to his satisfaction it is his duty to remove that magistrate from the Bench, or signify in some way disapproval of his action. It is impossible for the House of Lords to attempt to govern Ireland. The Government of Ireland is in the hands of the Irish Office, and the Irish Executive alone must be responsible.
  I agree with what was said by the Lord President of the Council as to the great excitability in the language of Irishmen. They frequently speak in the superlative sense, and often mean a great deal loss than they say. But when persons in responsible positions make use of this language they ought to remember how their utterances will be construed. I do not regret that this question has been brought forward, though I admit that this language is less dangerous
  1026
  when Ireland is in a tranquil condition, as I am glad to think it is at present. I hope, however, that this debate will be read carefully by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and that he will carry out in the fullest sense the duty imposed upon him in this matter.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I wish to say that I had no intention of reflecting at all upon the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. If I said anything which led to that impression I unhesitatingly withdraw it. It has been said that I have only taken four magistrates. I could have gone on quoting for a couple of hours, but I selected four specimens in order to save your Lordships' time. As to what was said by the noble Lord who represents the Irish Office, I can promise him that the next Question I put on the Paper will be very ample and that he will have no cause to complain on account of its indefiniteness. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Motion; but I should like to have an answer as to the disqualification for holding the position of ex-officio magistrate.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: They are all stated in a section of the Irish Local Government Act.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.