Sitting of 19 March 1906

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which

  51
  are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.: Dover Harbour Board Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.
  Millwall Dock Bill; North Metropolitan Tramways Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Mid-Oxfordshire Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Metropolitan Water Board Bill. Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Land Values (Assessment and Rating). Petition of the London County Council, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  They have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Elizabeth Caroline Wallis with Henry Aubrey Beaumont Wallis, commonly called Aubrey Wallis, her present husband, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes." [Wallis' Divorce Bill [Lords.]
  Wallis' Divorce Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

PETITION.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of law; from Albury and Tiddington (two); Aspull; Bardsea; Beeford; Broughton; Chorlton on Medlock (two); Cuddesdon; Eythorne (two); Hawridge (two); Heydon (two); Hull; Kingston upon Hull; Levenshulme; Ollerton (two); Rochford; Shevington; Standish (two); and Sunderland (two); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of final Report, with Appendix I., of the Departmental Com-
  52
  mittee on the Royal College of Science (including the Royal School of Mines), and Questions connected therewith [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Regulation, dated 17th March, 1906, made by the Secretary for Scotland for the measuring and photographing of prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 87.]
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT 1896, AND MOTOR-CAR ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of Order by the Secretary for Scotland prohibiting motor-car traffic on a highway in the county of Peebles [by Act]; to He upon the Table.
  WINES IMPORTED.
  Return presented, relative thereto, (ordered 28th February; Sir Edward Clarke); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 88.]
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Soane's Museum, copy of statement of funds of the museum of the late Sir John Soane on 6th January, 1906 [by Act].
  COMMERCIAL TREATIES.
  Address for "Return showing the countries between which commercial treaties are now in force, and indicating (a) the general character of these treaties; (b)whether they are with or without tariff agreements;(c) whether they are with or without most favoured-nation clauses; (d) when the treaties were signed; (e) the periods of notice necessary to terminate them."—(Sir Gilbert Parker.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cost of Shipbuilding at Pembroke Dockyard.
  MR. O. C. PHILIPPS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, according to the Navy Estimates, the "Duke of Edinburgh," which has just been built at Pembroke Dockyard, is costing, exclusive of armaments, about £48,000 less than the

  53
  sister ship "Achilles," building by Messrs. Armstrong; about £57,000 less than the sister ship "Cochrane," building by the Fairfield Shipbuilding Company; about £60,000 less than the sister ship "Black Prince," building by the Thames Ironworks, and about £75,000 less than the "Natal," building by Messrs. Vickers Maxim; and whether, in view of this saving to the taxpayers, he will consider the question of allocating to Pembroke Dockyard one of the two new ships not yet placed which are included in the Estimates for 1906–7.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The cost of the "Achilles," "Cochrane," and "Natal" is not directly comparable with that of the "Duke of Edinburgh." as the considerable alteration made in the design of the three former vessels since they were laid down has resulted in an increase over the original Estimate. As there is no sister ship to the "Duke of Edinburgh" building in a Government dockyard, this vessel affords no basis of comparison between the cost of building at Pembroke and at other Government dockyards.

  Salaries of London Telegraph Clerks.
  MR. GODDARD CLARK: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that for a number of years the Civil Service Commissioners issued papers to the competitors for the position of telegraph clerks in London, promising successful candidates a prospect of a salary of £190 per annum, he will state the number of telegraphists in the Central Office, London, who are in the receipt of a salary of £3 2s. per week, and also the number of men who received this promise from the Commissioners who are on a scale of wage covering the prospect of £190 per annum.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As regards the first part of the Question, the matter is in dispute and is engaging my attention; the figures asked for by the hon. Member would be misleading.

  Post Office Inspection—Sorter-Tracers Branch.
  MR. RADFORD: To ask the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the fact that he is making
  54
  a tour of inspection of the various departments of the General Post Office, he will extend it and inspect the work performed by the members of the Sorter-Tracers' and Tracers' Associations who are attached to the Inland and Foreign Telegraph Branches of the Accountant General's Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am, as far as time permits, making a personal inspection of the practical working of various departments of the Post Office in turn.

  Repurchase of Stamps by Post Offices.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he can say on what grounds a regulation was made forbidding the exchange of stamps for cash by the public at post offices; and whether, seeing that this regulation is inconvenient to a certain section of the community, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The present regulations prohibiting the repurchase of postage stamps from the public over the counter of post offices were made with a view to impose a check on the pilfering of stamps from employers, and on the use of stamps for remittances, a practice which was found to lead to the theft of letters. It was also desirable, on sanitary grounds, to stop the re-issue of repurchased stamps to the public The regulations are working smoothly, and I see no reason for altering them.

  Toll Bars at Middlesborough.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused by the toll bars which are maintained at the present time on the main roads to and from Middlesbrough; whether he is aware that on the main road from Middlesbrough to South Bank there are three toll bars within less than a mile of each other, and that there is only one main road from Middlesbrough which is free from toll; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the number of toll bars at present in existence in England, and the conditions of their existence, with a view

  55
  to promoting legislation giving power to local authorities to take over and maintain the roads and dispense with toll bars without compensation, and to prevent the erection of toll bars in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention has been called to the existence of toll bars on roads leading out of Middlesbrough, and I am in communication with the town council of the borough with regard to the matter. I have no information to show that there is need for inquiry as to the number of toll bars in existence in England and the other matter referred to in the last part of the Question, and I could not promise to promote legislation dealing with the subject.

  Fatal Accident on board s.s "Pembie.'
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any report with regard to the accident in the river, near Old Calabar, which happened on board the s.s. "Pembie," formerly the s.s. "Croxdale," whereby two men were suffocated in the ship's bunkers; whether he is aware that the master proceeded to take the ship to sea instead of stopping the vessel and obtaining assistance from the shore in recovering the bodies of the men from the bunkers; and whether he can say if any proper inquiry has been held into the circumstances relating to the death of the two men; and if not, will he cause inquiry to be made at an early date.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade have received very full Reports relating to the accident on board the "Nembe," which I shall have pleasure in showing to the hon. Member if he desires to see them. Unfortunately, the lives of two men were lost. Only a few men could work at a time in the reserve bunker, and, although every effort was made under the superintendence of the chief officer, it was only after three hours strenuous efforts that the bodies of the men were recovered. An inquiry was held by the acting superintendent at Barbados, who reported, after examining six witnesses, that the occurrence could not have
  56
  been prevented and that no one was to blame. A further inquiry was held by the acting superintendent at Port Talbot, by whom ten other witnesses were examined, who were unanimous that the accident was unavoidable and that everything possible was done to rescue the unfortunate men. The "Nembe" has been carefully examined by the Board of Trade surveyors, who report that there is nothing about the formation of the bunkers to call for any action on their part. The Board are advised that, having regard to the position of the vessel and other circumstances, the master would not have been justified in stopping the vessel.

  Mutiny of Crew of s-s. "Epsom."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any Report from His Majesty's Consul at Naples relating to the alleged mutiny of a crew of Chinamen on board the s.s. "Epsom," which is under the management of Messrs. Watts Watts, who have had frequent trouble with Chinese crews; and whether he has received a Report as to the trouble with a Chinese crew on board the s.s. "Heathbank," now the "Wandsworth," under the same management; whether he is aware that the Chinese seamen employed on this vessel claimed their discharge and wages on the ground of a change of ownership, although the solicitors representing Messrs. Watts Watts informed the North Shields magistrates that there had been no change of ownership; whether he is aware that the crew refused to proceed in the ship, and were afterwards arrested at Newcastle on the master's instructions; that when the case was tried before the magistrate, no interpreter was present to explain the men's objections to proceeding in the ship, and that they were ordered to be put on board by the Newcastle City Police; whether he is aware that, on the vessel proceeding down the Tyne, five Chinamen jumped overboard and one man was drowned, the captain making no attempt to rescue the men; whether he is aware that the managers alleged the change of ownership did not affect the men's agreement; and, seeing that a summons taken out against an official of the Seamen's Union,

  57
  on the alleged ground that he had persuaded the men to desert, was dismissed, whether he will inquire into the disturbances on the s.s. "Epsom" at Naples, and the s.s. "Wandsworth," and say how many Chinese crews Messrs. Watts Watts are employing on board their vessels.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade have not yet received any Report from the Naples Consul with regard to the case of the "Epsom," which is, I am informed, managed as stated by Messrs. Watts, Watts, and Company, but I have called for a Report, and hope to receive it in a few days. With respect to the "Heathbank" or "Wandsworth," the Registrar General of Seamen informs me that she was purchased by the Gracechurch Steamship Company, Limited (Harris and Dixon, managers), in November, 1905, and sold to the Britain Steamship Company, Limited (F. S. Watts, manager), in February, 1906. So far as my information goes, the facts in this case are as stated in the Question, but the owners state that the Chinese left the ship surreptitiously, and the captain had no knowledge of the circumstances at the time. As to whether, under articles of agreement, these men were liable to be transferred to another owner, this was the subject of legal proceedings at Newcastle, and the magistrates directed the men to return to their duty. I believe Messrs. Watts, Watts, and Company, Limited, carry many Chinese seamen, but as to how many I cannot say.

  British Trade at Dalny.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken any, and what, steps to ensure British traders having equal rights to those at present enjoyed by Japanese traders, who are admitted freely and without any restriction; whether he is aware, or has received, any complaints that the Japanese authorities are imposing duties upon the import of goods other than those of Japanese manufacture into the port of Dalny, although during the Russian occupation no such duties were imposed; and whether he has taken any,
  58
  and, if so, what steps to prevent the injury to British commerce occasioned by the action of the Japanese authorities; and whether he has made, or will make, representations to the Government of Japan as to the desirability of the evacuation of Chinese territory by the Japanese troops at a date earlier than the full limit of time fixed by the Portsmouth treaty, having regard to the hindrance occasioned by the occupation to the free exchange of commerce between British traders and Chinese merchants.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Sir Edward Grey): Inquiries have been made, and we are informed that goods, irrespective of nationality, are entering Dalny duty free. The only exception known is a case of 50,000 cigarettes, the property of the British American Tobacco Company, on which duty appears to have been charged. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio has been requested by telegraph to inquire why an exception has been made in this case. We cannot ask the Japanese to vary the terms of the treaty with regard to the occupation, but telegraphic instructions were sent on 21st February to His Majesty's Minister at Peking, to cause inquiries to be made on the spot, with a view to seeing that the hindrance to trade was as little as possible, and our hope in this respect has been expressed to the Japanese Government.

  Colonial Legislation Vetoed by the Imperial Government.
  MR. RIDSDALE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will state the occasions since 1870 upon which the Imperial veto has been exercised in respect of colonial measures, specifying date, colony, and subject vetoed; and if he will also state the occasions, if any, upon which this Imperial veto has been sustained or withdrawn.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I think that a large amount of the information desired by the hon. Member will be given in the Return ordered by this House on the 6th instant. † If the hon. Member will indicate the points on which he would
  †See (4) Debates, cliii., 267.

  59
  like that Return to be supplemented the Secretary of State for the Colonies will consider how far it is possible to meet his wishes.

  Average Yield of Gold per ton of Ore in Australian Colonies.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Under-Secretary

  Tons.

  Average Yield per Ton.

  Victoria

  1,078,433

  9 dwt.

  New South Wales

  367,227

  10 dwt. 15 grains.

  Western Australia

  2,160,656

  1.07 oz.

  Queensland

  774,473

  1.08 oz.

  New Zealand

  447,969

  13.54 dwt.

  In Tasmania in 1903 the total gold was 61,826 crude ounces or 59,891 fine ounces, of a value of £254,403; the figures for quartz mining do not appear to be given separately for the years since 1899, when 49,029 tons were treated, yielding 37,402 ounces, an average yield of 15 dwt. 6 grains per ton. In South Australia the production of gold is not large, £90,031 in 1903. The value of the gold per ounce varies in the different States; in 1903 it was as follows: Victoria £3 19s. 3d.; New South Wales, £3 12s. 8d.; Western Australia, £3 12s.; Queensland, £3 1s. 8d.; New Zealand, £3 16s. 5d.: Tasmania, about £3 15s.; South Australia, £3 7s. 6d. In Victoria, for ten years, 1895–1904, the average yield has varied between 9·7 dwt. and 8·4 dwt. In the Transvaal the yield in August, 1899, was 9·599 dwts. fine gold per ton crushed, in June, 1905, the yield was 8·473.

  Living-in System—Precautions against Fire.
  MR. SEDDON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will take steps to secure from all local authorities the number of persons who have lost their lives through fire, upon premises where they are compelled to sleep in, under the living-in system; and also whether,
  of State for the Colonies, will he say what is the production of gold per ton of ore milled in the Australian Colonies, excluding gold won from alluvial washings and dredgings.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The following statement appears to answer the hon. Member's Question:—
  by Order in Council, he will empower all local authorities to apply the same supervision to premises where shop assistants sleep in that are applied to common lodging-houses.
  (Answered by Mr. John, Burns.) As to the first part of the Question, I share the view expressed by my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, on the 8th instant, in reply to a Question on the subject. I do not think it would be practicable to obtain from the local authorities the information desired. As to the second part of the Question, I am not aware of any legal authority for the issue of an Order in Council for the purpose referred to.

  Reduction of the Royal Marines.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there has been a reduction of 1,145 in the total force of Royal Marines in the past year; whether further reductions are to follow; and whether these changes, coupled with the fact that specialist marine officers, wearing the uniform of the corps, are no longer to be entered, foreshadow the abolition of the Royal Marine Light Infantry and the Royal Marine Artillery.
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 633.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, the reduction being due to the decreased requirements of the Fleet, consequent upon the recent reorganisation. No further reduction will be made during 1906–7. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Manufactured Tobacco for the Navy.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have completed their experiments in manufactured tobacco for the Navy; whether he intends to invite tenders for the supply of such tobacco; and, if so, when.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The supply of manufactured tobacco for the Navy is still in an experimental stage. A further and more extended trial of a blend milder than the ordinary Service tobacco has been arranged for, and when the results of this trial are known the Admiralty will be in a position to decide to what extent there is a desire on the part of the men for the introduction of such a manufactured tobacco, as an alternative to the ordinary Navy tobacco.

  Clerical Appointments to the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland has refused to institute competitive examinations in connection with clerical appointments, whilst the Dublin Corporation, the Belfast Corporation, the Great Southern and Western Railway, and other similar bodies have instituted such examinations; whether the manner in which the company uses its powers of patronage has been brought to his knowledge; and whether, seeing that the company derives its monopoly from Parliament, he proposes to take steps to compel it to open the appointments on its clerical staff to competitive examination.
  (Mr. Lloyd-George.) Nc, Sir; I have no information on this subject. The
  62
  matter is one in which the Board of Trade have no authority to interfere with the discretion of the railway company.

  Flooding of the Island of Greenborough.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information with reference to the partial destruction of the island of Greenborough, in the Medway, by floods; whether the flooding of this island constitutes a danger to the Sheppy isles; and whether he can state what action is being taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Board of Trade have received no information as to the alleged destruction of the isle of Greenborough. I have been in communication with the clerk to the Medway Conservancy, who informs me that an island 2,000 yards wide and two creeks lie between the island of Greenborough and the isle of Sheppey, so that it is difficult to see how the isle of Sheppey could be in danger by the flooding of Greenborough. I am further informed that breaches in the sea walls along the river side are continually happening and are repaired by the owners of the adjoining lands.

  Explosion on the Dearne Valley Railway near Doncaster.
  MR. J. WARD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the accident caused by the explosion of a charge of gelignite, on the Dearne Valley Railway, now in course of construction, at Loversall, near Doncaster, which resulted in three men being killed and four others being seriously injured; and whether he will cause a full inquiry into the cause and circumstances of such accident, under the powers conferred upon him by the Notice of Accidents Act, 1894.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The accident in question has been reported to the Board of Trade, and, as it was due to the use of explosives, copies of the notices received have been forwarded to the Home Office for the information of His Majesty's Inspector

  63
  of Explosives. I propose to leave it to the Secretary of State to determine whether or no an inquiry under the Explosives Acts is necessary.

  Removal of Shingle from Foreshore at Fulwell, near Sunderland.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the hon. Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he is aware that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have for some time past granted a licence for the removal of sand and shingle from the Fulwell foreshore, near Sunderland, and that, although the Commissioners have been appealed to by the Corporation of Sunderland and the South Shields Rural Council to determine such licence, on the ground of the damage to adjoining lands and public property by the incursions of the sea consequent upon such removal, the Commissioners have decided to continue to permit such removal, although the corporations in the immediate locality have discontinued it; and whether the Commissioners will reconsider their decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Stuart Wortley.) Before the representations from the Corporation of Sunderland and the Rural District Council of South Shields were received by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners negotiations had been in progress with the Sunderland Rural District Council, the local authority within whose area the foreshore to which the Question refers is situate, and an agreement had practically been arrived at for a letting of the foreshore by the Commissioners to that district council. In pursuance of that agreement the requisite notice has already been given to revoke the licence under which sand and shingle have been removed from the foreshore during the last year.

  The Unfunded Debt.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what is the amount of the unfunded debt of the country under its various heads at the present time.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I should be glad if my honourable friend would
  64
  kindly postpone his Question until the delivery of the Budget statement; as statements relating to the unfunded debt which are issued at different dates are apt to mislead.

  Seals in Youghal Bay—Damage to Fisheries.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the damage caused to the salmon fishing industry in the vicinity of Youghal, county Cork, by the numbers of seals which frequent Youghal Bay; and whether steps will be taken with a view to the abatement of the nuisance.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The attention of the Department of Agriculture has been drawn to the damage done by seals to the salmon fisheries in Youghal Bay and harbour. The local Board of Conservators give rewards for the destruction of seals, and about a dozen such rewards have been given during the past few years. The Department will communicate with the conservators with the object of bringing about an abatement of the evil.

  Sale of Mr. J. B. Little's Estate at Bawnboy.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what is the present position in regard to the estate of Mr. Joseph Bennet Little, over which Mr. T. F. Berry, Belturbet, is receiver, known as Lisanover Ranch, Bawnboy, county Cavan; have the Estates Commissioners been approached locally; and when will this large tract be available for distribution.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The estate in question is to be sold in the Land Judges Court. It has been inspected by the Estates Commissioners, who hope shortly to be in a position to make an offer to purchase it.

  Amount paid to Local Bodies under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what is

  65
  the total amount paid to local bodies under Section 58 (4) of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, for the year ended 31st March, 1905; (2) what is the present amount of the accumulated balances under this section; (3) what amount would be required to pay the full amount over 1s. in the £ of railway and harbour charges for the year ended 31st March, 1905; and (4) what amount would be required to pay the full amount over 9d. in the £ for the same purposes for the year ended 31st March, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) (1) £12,524 19s. 11d. (2) On 31st December, 1905, a sum of £75,320 12s. stood to the credit of the deposit account for licence duties under the section quoted. (3) £9,634 17s. 6d. (4) £15,449 19s. 10d.

  Purchase of Land by Mrs. Lambert on the Goodbody Estate, Athenry.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether Mrs. Lambert, of Castle Ellen, Athenry, has purchased from the Commissioners, in or about fifty acres of untenanted land on the Goodbody estate, Athenry; how much of the said land was under timber; and whether any applications reached the Estates Commissioners applying for a holding on this farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that Mrs. Lambert has agreed to purchase from them a portion of this estate comprising eighty-five acres, of which about eighty-one acres are under timber. No application for these particular lands was received from any one except Mrs. Lambert.

  Application for Land on the Goodbody Estate.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any representation has been made to the Estates Commissioners by the people of Athenry in respect to the 311 acres of mountain land for which Mrs. Lopdell is negotiating purchase with the Commissioners; and will he say how much of this land is under timber, and were any applications received by the Estate Commissioners for a portion
  66
  of this land from small holders and people living in the vicinity.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that all applications for land on the Goodbody estate were duly considered when the estate was being dealt with. Eleven acres out of the lot which Mrs. Lopdell is purchasing consist of land under timber. No application for this particular lot was received by the Estates Commissioners.

  Suggested Fish Curing Station at Arklow.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will draw the attention of the Department of Agriculture to the desirability of establishing a fish-curing station at Arklow.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture will inquire into this matter, but, having regard to the great facilities for the fresh fish trade which exists at Arklow, it is doubtful whether curing operations would be profitable.

  Drainage of Lough Neagh—Sir A. Binnie's Report.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what action he proposes to take on Sir A. Binnie's Report re the drainage of Lough Neagh and the Bann.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Report will be considered by the Government as soon as practicable. I am not yet in a position to state what action will be taken upon it.

  Purchase of the Dunne Estate, Aughaboe, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what is the result of the negotiations for purchase which the Estates Commissioners have been conducting with the Land Judges' Court relative to the Dunne estate, Aughaboe, Queen's County.

  67
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The negotiations have not yet been concluded.

  Intimidation of the Gaelic Football Club at Markethill, County Armagh.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the posting of threatening notices in the town of Markethill, county Armagh, directed against the local Gaelic Football Club, its members and supporters, and also to the fact that on various dates, from November, 1905, up to the beginning of the present month, their grounds have been trespassed on, goal posts removed, and the ground itself strewn with broken glass, rendering it useless, and that up to the present date those responsible for these actions have not been brought to justice; and whether he will take immediate steps to put an end to such incidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that, some months ago, a Gaelic football club, numbering about twenty persons, was established at Mullaghbrack, near Markethill. The first match played by the club took place on Sunday, the 25th February, and great objection to the playing of the match on a Sunday was taken by the residents of the locality, who are almost exclusively Protestant. On the 3rd March the football ground was found to be thickly strewn with broken glass, and a threatening notice, directed against the promoters of the club, was found upon a tree in the vicinity. No complaints as to trespass upon the field have been made to the police. The goal posts were removed by a member of the club for safety. The police have used every exertion to trace the offenders in this matter, but, so far, unsuccessfully. They are taking all possible measures to preserve the peace.

  Sunday Football at Markethill, County Armagh.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Gaelic football club at Markethill, county Armagh, persistently play football and hurley on Sundays in a field close to the parish church of
  68
  Mullaback, county Armagh, a district which is almost exclusively Protestant; and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to such proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the Reply which I have now given to the Question of the hon. Member for South Armagh.† See preceding Question and Reply. The football field in question is 300 yards from Mullaghbrack parish church. Football matches were played in this field on Sundays, 25th February, 4th and 11th March. The police have no power to interfere in this matter, but they will use every effort to preserve the peace.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The Navy League.
    MR. KING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a lecture was recently given to a school for girls in St. Andrews by Lieutenant Knox, of the Navy League, and that after the lecture a number of schoolgirls were enrolled members of the Navy League; and whether this proceeding has the sanction of the Admiralty.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Lieutenant Knox is not now in His Majesty's service, and the whole proceedings are outside the jurisdiction of the Admiralty.

    Cadet Nominations to Osborne.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether nominations to Osborne are awarded to candidates, subject to their passing qualifying examinations, absolutely on the result of the interview and the written Reports, or whether the results are liable to be influenced by other considerations.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative.
    †See preceding Question and Reply.

    The 16th Lancers.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will order some inquiry to be made as to the cause of the amount of crime in the 16th Lancers during the twelve months ending February 28th last, seeing that during that period seventy-five courts martial were held in the regiment, besides 300 other regimental entries having been awarded in addition; and if he will give the result of that inquiry.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I do not think this is a matter which calls for a special inquiry, but as the hon. Member has raised the question, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Eastern Command has been requested to furnish a Report. This Report will be confidential.
    MR. LEA: May I ask the right hon. Gentlemen whether he does not think that this amount of punishment points to the fact that there is an enormous amount of crime in the regiment, and that either there is the finest collection of bad characters in the 16th Lancers or else that there is something radically wrong with the system?
    MR. HALDANE: I will consider the matter when I get the information.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Will the right hon. Gentlemen consider the facts that a large number of these men joined the regiment in South Africa during the later stages of the war, that the regiment has lately returned home after fourteen years' service abroad with hardly any non-commissioned officers, and that many of the men have had no experience of life in English towns?
    MR. HALDANE: I will take all that into consideration.

    Jamaican Tariffs.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the existing import tariff of Jamaica expires on June 1st, 1906, he will suggest to the Governor of that Colony that it is desirable to encourage inter-Colonial free
    70
    trade among the British West Indian Possessions, and that this opportunity might therefore be taken of bringing the new Jamaican tariff, so far as the necessities of revenue permit, into uniformity with the lower scale of customs duties already prevailing in the Colony of Trinidad.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr CHURCHILL,): The Secretary of State would view with favour any measures tending to the establishment of inter-Colonial free trade in the British West Indies, though the possibilites of such trade are necessarily limited by the similarity of their products; he is also in favour of the establishment of uniform tariffs in the different Colonies, and of the reduction of customs duties wherever possible; but as these duties are imposed solely for revenue purposes, the possibility of effecting reductions depends upon the financial position. Jamaica has very recently abolished the surtax of 6 per cent. upon the customs tariff which was imposed last year.

    Native Labour in South Africa—Deficiency.
    Mr. GUY BARING: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any official information alleging that there is a deficiency of native labour both for agricultural purposes and railway construction throughout South Africa; and whether he will lay Papers upon the Table.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Information as to the deficiency of native labour is contained in the last Blue-book. A statement by Lord Selborne may be referred to at page 64 of Cd. 2819. To what extent the supply is capable of increase cannot be definitely anticipated, but it appears that in April last there was a larger supply of native labour in the Transvaal than at any previous period. It has since-decreased to some extent.

    Colonial Contributions to the Imperial Institute.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a Statement showing separately amounts contributed to the Imperial

    71
    Institute out of the Revenues of the self-supporting Colonies, and the Dependencies and Protectorates under the charge of the Colonial Office; and showing under what heads, or for what purpose, such contributions have in each case been allotted.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The list would take a long time to read, and I think I shall be consulting the convenience of the House and of the hon. Member if I lay it in the form of a Return upon the Table of the House.

    Illegal Flogging of Chinese Coolies.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make inquiry as to the approximate number of Chinese coolies in the gold mines of the Transvaal who have been illegally flogged, under the sanction given by Lord Milner when High Commissioner; whether that sanction conferred a licence to flog on certain specified mine managers only, or on mine managers generally; and whether he can state the manner in which the terms of the sanction were communicated to the mine managers.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am making inquiry as to the numbers involved. Lord Selborne informed Mr. Lyttelton in November last that he found it extremely difficult to ascertain when and to whom sanction for slight corporal punishment was given by Mr. Evans; that it appeared that sanction was verbally given to Major Bagot of the Labour Importation Agency and certain other individuals, but that there were no written records in the Chamber of Mines Labour Importation Agency or Foreign Labour Department; that the first authority seems to have been given in respect to a quarrel by coolies at Geduld Mine in August or September, 1904, and from time to time to certain individuals but always verbally.

    Transvaal Taxation Returns.
    MR. WALROND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what have been the total annual receipts of the revenue of the Transvaal from taxation on gold and diamond mines during the last four years.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The mining revenue of the Transvaal was as follows:—The financial year is from June to June.

    £

    1902–1903

    506,718

    1903–1904

    720,758

    1904–1905

    759,535

    1905–1906

    (half-year)

    367,352

    Of this last sum £75,000 was from diamond mines. Another sum of £75,000 from diamond mines was received by the Government during the half year and reserved for redemption of loans.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does that amount include the sum accruing from the Premier Diamond Company?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. May I add that I have directed that in future a copy of the Answer shall always be supplied to the hon. Member who asks a Question.

    India's Contribution to the Imperial Institute.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the total amount to date contributed to the Imperial Institute out of Indian Revenues; and if he will state for what purposes it has been allotted.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. JOHN ELLIS,): The total sum expended from Indian Revenues to date for the Imperial Institute is £24,077. Of this £9,731 went for the general purposes of the Institute, £1,450 to scientific research into Indian products, and £12,896 for salaries and maintenance charges of galleries and collections of the Indian section. A further £666 or thereabouts has been spent by the Indian Government in India for raw material collections sent to the Institute. £3,300 has also been spent in India on raw product collections, some of which have been transferred to the Institute. A saving of £400 per annum has been effected at the Indian Office in consequence of the establishment of the Indian section at the Imperial Institute.

    India Office and the Imperial Institute.
    MR. LAIDLAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a decision has been arrived at on the subject of the financial arrangements between the India Office and the Imperial Institute; whether he will state the terms of the revised arrangements; and whether he will grant a Return of all correspondence between the India Office, the Government of India, and the Imperial Institute on the subject of the Indian contribution.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: It has been decided to continue for another year the financial arrangements sanctioned for the quinquennial period ending 31st March, 1906; and I am in correspondence with the Government of India as to the revision of these arrangements. Correspondence regarding the Indian contribution was presented to Parliament in 1896, and subsequent correspondence on the subject has been included in the annual Reports on the Indian section, which are also presented. Pending a decision as to a revision of the present arrangements, I do not think it would be convenient to publish further Papers.

    Indian Officials and Directorships of Companies.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether members of the Council of India are allowed, after appointment, to accept directorships in public companies; and whether subordinate officials at the India Office are allowed to do the same.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Members of the Council of India stand upon a footing totally different from that of ordinary members of the Civil Service; they cannot be removed from office except upon an Address from both Houses of Parliament; and no person has over them the control implied by the terms of the Question. As regards members of the establishment of the Secretary of State for India, they are subject, in respect of the acceptance of directorships to the same rules and restrictions as the rest of the Civil Service in this country; that is to say, they are not allowed to accept any such post if it would require their attendance at any time between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m.

    Life Saving Apparatus in Mines.
    MR. T. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has taken any steps to ascertain the extent to which the apparatus used by the German workmen at the Courrières collieries, France, have proved successful in exploration and rescue work after the explosion.
    The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. LEA: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the advent at Courrières, in France, where the recent colliery disaster took place, of life-saving corps of Westphalian colliers equipped with the oxygen-breathing apparatus with which all German collieries are provided; and will he say whether collieries in Great Britain are provided with this life-saving system in case of explosions taking place; and, if not, what steps does he propose to take to see that these methods of life-saving are made compulsory.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the organisation of the Westphalian Miners Salvage Corps, with a view to ascertain whether some similar system to cope with mining disasters is applicable to the requirements of British coalfields.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The question of the provision of life-saving apparatus, and generally of facilitating the work of rescue in the case of accidents in mines, has engaged the attention of the Department for some time, and I have decided to include it among the subjects to be referred to the Royal Commission on mining which will shortly be appointed. The experience of the German rescue corps at Courrières will, no doubt, afford valuable information, and I am taking steps to obtain a Report on this and other points connected with the disaster.

    Welsh Collieries—Inspection by Workmen.
    MR. BRACE: On behalf of the hon. Member for West

    75
    Monmouthshire I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether His Majesty's chief inspector of mines for the South Wales district has sent him any Report upon the action of the manager of the Ocean Colliery Company's western pit, and the manager of the North's Navigation Colliery Company's Wyndham pit, in refusing permission to the workmen to inspect the collieries, as provided for by general Rule 38 of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887; and if he will issue instructions to these managers to allow the inspection to take place at once.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have received a Report from the inspector of mines on the matter, from which I gather that the difficulties have arisen in consequence of the appointment as examiners under general Rule 38 of men employed at other collieries. In the case of the Wyndham pit, the manager, I understand, acknowledges the right of the men to make such an appointment, but asks for some proof, by a reference or otherwise, that the strangers who are brought on to the mine premises to examine the mine are "practical working miners" as required by the Act. This seems to me not unreasonable. In the other case the colliery company demur to the appointment of strangers at all. It is clear, however, that the men employed at the colliery have the right under the Act to make such an appointment, and I am instructing the inspector to inform the company that in the event of such an appointment being made by the men employed at the colliery, the facilities required by the Act must be given.
    MR. BRACE: Will care be taken that practical working miners are appointed?
    MR. GLADSTONEasked for notice of any further Questions.

    Essex Quarter Sessions—Case of W. H. Cheesewright.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that William Henry Cheesewright was committed for trial to the Essex Quarter Sessions on April 4th, as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, and that the Bench directed him to be kept to hard labour in the interval;
    76
    and will he say under what statute the Bench has powers to direct prisoners on remand to be put to hard labour.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member hag been misinformed. William Henry Cheesewright has not been committed for trial—he was convicted by the magistrate of being an incorrigible rogue, and committed to Quarter Sessions not for trial, but for sentence. He was ordered while waiting sentence to be kept to hard labour. This is the ordinary procedure for dealing with incorrigible rogues under Sections 5 and 10 of the Vagrancy Act.

    Dangerous Exhibitions by Women.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case tried before Mr. Justice Darling on the 13th instant; and if he will consider the advisability of issuing regulations prohibiting performances in public that may entail danger to the lives or limbs of the performers.
    MR. THOMPSON: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Stamirowski v. Barber, tried on 13th March before Mr. Justice Darling and a common jury; whether the police have power to prevent such dangerous exhibitions; and, if not, whether he will bring in a Bill to extend the Children's Dangerous Performances Acts, 1874 and 1897, to adults.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My attention has been called to the case referred to, but as it appears that the performer was over eighteen years of age (the present statutory limit for women taking part in such performances) the police could not interfere. I regret to say that I have no power to issue regulations prohibiting performances such as this, but I will consider whether it is desirable to extend the provisions of the Dangerous Performances Acts 1879 and 1897 to dangerous performances by women of any age.

    London Cabmen's Complaints against the Police.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to complaints

    77
    of London cabmen that they are harassed by certain constables of the Metropolitan Police, and that in these cases the constables have continually summoned the cabmen; and whether he will issue a Return showing the average number of summonses from the City Police with regard to cabmen, as compared with those for which the Metropolitan Police are responsible.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I find, on inquiry, that certain verbal complaints have been made to the Commissioner of Police with regard to one district, and that he has investigated these complaints and finds they are not well founded. The constables do not summon cabmen, but report to their superintendents, who have to obtain the Commissioner's sanction before summoning. Drivers are seldom summoned for a first offence unless it is of a serious character. The circumstances of the City and the Metropolitan Police are so diverse that I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the Return suggested.

    Infringements of the Hackney Carriage Regulations.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of complaints in reference to Hackney carriages, a record is kept of each constable appearing in support of a summons for which he is responsible, and the result of such summons.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The reports made to the Commissioner show the names of the officers who report offences and the results of the proceedings if any are taken; but there is no special record of the names of officers who report offences against the Hackney Carriage Acts.

    Employment of Children Act.
    MR. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state which are the local authorities who have made by-laws under the Employment of Children Act; in which cases do the bylaws so made prohibit street trading by girls under sixteen; in which cases have by-laws, prohibiting such trading, been proposed and failed to secure Home Office sanction; and what is the proportion of
    78
    local authorities who have taken action to those who have not taken action.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Seventy - four local authorities, out of a total of 329 have submitted by-laws under this Act, usually in draft. Forty-four sets have been actually confirmed; seven others provisionally approved; one, the London set, has been made the subject of a formal inquiry; four, recently submitted, are under the consideration of the Home Office; one has been withdrawn, and the remainder are waiting for replies from the local authorities to the Home Office inquiries. I can give my hon. friend the names, if he desires them, privately. Of the fifty-one sets confirmed or provisionally approved, twenty-one entirely prohibit street trading by girls under sixteen, subject to the usual proviso for girls assisting their parents. In other cases, local authorities have fixed a lower age, or prohibited employment at certain specified places, such as the entrances of theatres, railway stations, and the like, in others a system of licensing only has been adopted. In no case has the Home Office yet refused to sanction such prohibitions.

    Courrières Colliery Disaster.
    MR. BRACE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the collieries explosion at the Courrières collieries, France, he will arrange with the French Government, or otherwise, for a British mining expert or experts to make an investigation, and report whether the whole, or how many of the Courrières collieries, were worked through to adjoining pits, and had a connecting road with each other; if the Courrières collieries had connecting roads with each other, to what extent, in their opinion, had that system of working contributed to the disaster; and, in view of the fact that a number of collieries in the United Kingdom are worked through to adjoining pits, and have connecting roads between pit and pit, what precautionary measures, if any, they would, as a result of their investigation, recommend.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The question raised by my hon. friend is a very important one. I am in communication with the Foreign Office on the subject and I will let him know the result without delay.

    The Aliens Act.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any truth in the report which has been current during the last few days that certain Russians who were sent back from this country were shot when they got back to Russia.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no confirmation of that at all.

    Drainage and Sewer Rates.
    MR. BROOKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the charges upon local rates, consequent upon the decisions of the Law Courts in reference to combined drainage and sewers; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to relieve ratepayers of the burdens arising from such decisions.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): My attention has been called to this subject. It is one of considerable difficulty, and I am not in a position to make any promise with regard to legislation upon it this session.

    Insanitary Houses at Bromley.
    MR. BROOKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the insanitary condition of the property between Bow Road and High Street, Bromley, E.; and whether, in view of the fact that the London County Council is seeking powers to erect an electric car shed adjoining Bow Road, he will confer with the London County Council as to the propriety of their selecting this site and dealing with it under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the circumstances relating to the property referred to. I have communicated with the County Council, and I am informed that they have considered the question of using some portion of this property for the erection of a car shed, but they have come to the conclusion that the site would be unsuitable for the purpose.

    Poor Law Belief Administration in Poplar.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of holding in public the inquiry into the administration of relief in Poplar, so that the evidence may be sifted in the public interest; and whether he proposes to carry on these investigations through officials who have already expressed opinions on the matter, or will some independent person be sent down.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received an application from the guardians of the Poplar Union for a public inquiry, and I have replied that I think this proposal should stand over for the present. The investigation at Poplar is being conducted by Mr. Davy, the Chief General Inspector of the Local Government Board, in whose impartiality I have entire confidence. He will receive the help of any other officers of the Department whose services may be necessary. The guardians have already intimated their willingness to render him assistance.
    MR. CROOKS: Mr. Davy has already expressed opinions on the work of the guardians. Is he a proper person to conduct an investigation of this character?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Lots of persons have made ex parte statements on this particular subject.
    MR. CROOKS: They are not public officials. It is a different thing altogether.

    Lambeth Farm Colony.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will receive the deputation from the Lambeth Board of Guardians with regard to his statement that the land for the purchase of which the guardians have sought the sanction of the Local Government Board, in order to establish a farm colony, is sour land which land agents and others have attempted to palm off on innocent town boards of guardians.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have not had any application from the Lambeth Board of Guardians to receive a deputation with regard to the statement referred to

    81
    They have, however, asked the Local Government Board to receive a Deputation to confer with the Board on the question of providing further accommodation for the indoor poor of the parish, and I am in communication with them on the subject.

    National Vaccine Establishment—Lymph Supply.
    SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state what are the original sources of the lymph supplied from the National Vaccine Establishment; and whether any of the lymph supplied from that establishment has been derived directly or indirectly from the artificial inoculation of calves with human small pox.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The lymph supplied from the National Vaccine Establishment is in all cases derived direct from the calf, has been passed through a series of calves, and is in no instance directly derived from the artificial inoculation of calves with human smallpox. The usual method of renewing lymph for supply from the establishment is by vaccinating calves with vaccine lymph obtained from children, but it cannot be stated that this is always so.
    SIR W. J. COLLINS: Does that Answer apply to all lymphs used?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: As far as my knowledge goes, yes.

    Halfpenny Post Regulations.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the halfpenny post regulations which apply to receipts do not provide for the same if the receipt contains any other written matter, such as soliciting the favour of further orders; will he say if these regulations are universally observed; and, if not, will he have this restriction removed.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The regulations of the Halfpenny Packet Post (which are given at page 11 of the Post Office Guide) allow formulas of a conventional character in general use in commercial transactions to be written on
    82
    receipts, provided that they are expressed in not more than five words. A phrase such as that to which the hon. Member refers, if limited as required by the regulations, would be allowed under this rule to be written on a receipt.

    Return of Postal Telegraph and Telephone Offices.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will grant a Return of the Post offices, telegraph offices, and public telephone call offices, which are situated on licensed premises in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales respectively.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will give instructions for the Return to be prepared. This will take some little time.

    Coast Erosion
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the destruction caused to the coast and the townships of the East Riding of Yorkshire by the recent high tides and gales, and to the fact that the village of Kilnsea has been practically devastated by the sea; and whether His Majesty's Government can see their way to give some assistance towards repairing the damage done.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The Board of Trade have received information of the flooding of the lowlands at Kilnsea and Easington during the recent gales and exceptionally high tides—the highest for very many years. From this it appears that the sea washed over the tops of the embankments on both the seaward and riverward sides. From the reports made to the Board by the local inspector in charge of the groynes and other sea defences of Spurn Point, no fresh breach has been made in the embankments. A breach in the banks to the south of Kilnsea Beacon was made on September 30th last. The landowners concerned and the Commissioners of Sewers then intimated to the Board of Trade that the lands, which would be consequently flooded at Spring and high tides, were not worth the cost of protection. In 1903 the Government offered to contribute £400 towards the construction of a bank which the Commissioners

    83
    of Sewers proposed at that time to make, as it was considered that this proposed bank would assist in protecting the road to the Spurn Point works and Coast Guard station. The landowners and the Commissioners of Sewers have, so far, not proceeded with these defence works; consequently the offer has not been accepted, but it still holds good. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the entire question of coast protection is about to be considered by a Royal Commission.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a question of the utmost urgency, and that unless the Government takes some action immediately, the village of Kilnsea, with 1,200 acres of land, must inevitably disappear into the sea?
    MR. KEARLEY: I am aware that the matter is of extreme urgency. The Government offered £400 towards the embankment, and the offer was not accepted. I am certain, however, that the Royal Commission will deal with the question.

    British Interests in Argentine Railways.
    MR. HOUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the capital invested in railways in the Argentine Republic, owned exclusively, or almost exclusively, by British shareholders (the companies being registered, and having their head offices in England, and their directors resident in London), amounts to about 120 millions sterling; whether he is aware that large quantities of railway material and stores have recently been ordered, and are being ordered, for extensions and renewals by the various railway companies; and whether he can state if any, and what quantities of this material are being purchased and manufactured in countries other than Great Britain.
    MR. KEARLEY: I am aware that the capital invested in Argentine railways amounts to about the sum stated, and that the railway companies are largely British. Also that extensive orders are being given by the companies for the supply of stores and materials here and elsewhere; but I am unable to state what quantities are
    84
    being purchased or manufactured in foreign countries.
    MR. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman make it his business to find out?
    MR. KEARLEY: I will inquire as far as I can.

    German Bounties on Locomotives.
    MR. HOUSTON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his Department has received a Report from the English Consul at Rome giving information as to inquiries which the Italian Government were making in various countries for a number of locomotives, the conditions under which the various manufacturers were tendering, and the assistance which the German Government was giving to German makers to enable them to compete with English makers; and if he will state what that assistance is.
    MR. HOUSTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the bounty or bonus paid to German manufacturers by the German Government on locomotives made in Germany for exportation to foreign countries; and what sum it would represent on a locomotive of eighty tons weight.
    MR. KEARLEY: In answer to this and a Question addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by the hon. Member,† I may say that certain information has reached the Foreign Office to the effect stated, but that on inquiry at Berlin we are assured that no bounty is given by the German Government on the export of locomotives.
    MR. HOUSTON: My information is to the contrary.

    Accidents on the District Railway.
    MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the number of accidents which have occurred on the District Railway since its electrification; and whether, in view of the number of hours which the men have to work, and the want of a second man in the motorman's cab, he will take steps to insure the safety of the public who travel on that railway.
    Mr. KEARLEY: I am aware that a certain number of accidents have occurred to trains on the Metropolitan District
    † MR. HOUSTON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his Department has received a Report from the English Consul at Rome giving information as to inquiries which the Italian Government were making in various countries for a number of locomotives, the conditions for a number of locomotives, the conditions under which the various manufacturers were tendering, and the assisatance which the German Government was giving to German makers to enable them to compete with English makers, and if he will state what that assistance is.

    85
    Railway since its equipment for electrical working. The responsibility for the safe working of the line rests with the railway company, and I am communicating with them as to the frequency of these breakdowns. No complaint has been received by the Board of Trade from any of the men employed on the railway as to the hours of work. I am advised that there is no reason to suppose that the employment of one man only in the motor cab of a train is a source of danger, or that any accident which has happened would have been avoided by the presence of a second man.
    MR. WARDLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men cannot make complaints with regard to hours because they have split turns?
    MR. KEARLEY: The men have only to make their complaint to the Board of Trade and an investigation will follow. The men have not complained, and the Board are not in a position therefore to make an inquiry.

    Cost of Feeding Poor Children in London Schools.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on medical inspection and feeding of children attending public elementary schools, which shows that the cost of food alone for a child's meal varies from 1d. to 2d., he can say what would be the annual cost of providing one meal per day for all children attending public elementary schools in the administrative county of London, and to what rate on London property this sum would be equivalent.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): The cost of the food for giving a meal to every child in public elementary schools in London on every occasion when the school is open would be, at 1d. per child, about £596,000, which is equivalent to the rate of 3½d. in the pound; if the food cost 2d. per head, the figures will be £1,192,000, equivalent to a 7d. rate. These figures take no account of the heavy expenditure on the provision and serving of the meals, including, not improbably,
    86
    special buildings. Of this expenditure I can give no estimate.

    Hay Crops in Lancashire and Westmoreland.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the estimated average yield, per acre, of hay from permanent grass, in the north-western counties of Lancaster and Westmoreland, is more than double that of some other English counties, and 50 per cent. above the average yield of all English counties; whether the crop is estimated in the same manner and the aftermath excluded in all cases; and, if so, whether the higher yield in the north-western districts is due to a different system of farming or heavier rainfall.
    THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,) (for Sir Edward Strachey): The average yield per acre of hay in Lancashire and Westmoreland is, as my hon. friend points out, very much heavier than in other parts of the country, and we are advised that this is mainly due to a larger and more equable rainfall. It is probable, however, that the comparative absence of stiff clays and poor sands in the north-western counties and the configuration of the surface of the country are also contributory causes. The estimates of crops are collected on the same system all over Great Britain, and the estimators are expressly instructed to take second crops of hay into account.

    Irish Cattle Imports.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether there are any restrictions against the entry into Ireland from Great Britain of live cattle, as store cattle, and as purebred cattle for breeding purposes; if so, what is the nature of these restrictions; and whether there are any corresponding restrictions against the introduction from Ireland of live cattle for either of these purposes into the inland markets of Great Britain.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): The importation of cattle from Great Britain into Ireland is governed by the Importation of Animals (Ireland) Order of 1900, which provides that cattle cannot be landed in Ireland except with the consent of the Irish Department of Agriculture and subject to such conditions as they may prescribe. There are no restrictions on the importation of cattle from Ireland into Great Britain.

    Cattle Exports to Argentina.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in recent years, a large number of our best breeding cattle are being exported to Argentina and other countries competing with us in the meat trade; whether the cattle so exported have passed a tuberculine test before leaving this country; and whether those that have failed to pass this test and been rejected are permitted to be disposed of for purposes of breeding and slaughter at home.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): There is a considerable export trade in breeding cattle from this country to Argentina, but the cattle are not required to pass the tuberculine test before leaving these shores. The regulations of the Argentine Government require that all imported cattle should be tested with tuberculine at the conclusion of a period of forty days quarantine after landing, and that any animals giving a diagnostic reaction shall be slaughtered. Under no circumstances can cattle exported to Argentina be brought back to this country.

    Cavan Pig Exports.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state why the quarantine on pigs exported from Cavan, the chief pig-rearing county in Ireland, to Scotland should be continued, there being no disease ex-sting in Cavan; and, in view of the loss to the farmers of the county consequent upon this quarantine, will he, if there be any doubt about the existence of disease, idirect that a declaration by the farmer
    88
    selling and the dealer buying, that there is no existing disease, be accepted in lieu of quarantine, and thus protect this industry.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): In view of the fact that there are no restrictions on the movement of swine from one part of Ireland to another, it is necessary to treat the country as a whole, and we cannot grant preferential treatment to any particular county. The regulations governing the importation of swine into Great Britain have, however, recently been modified so as to admit of the introduction of store pigs under certain conditions, and they are now practically identical with those which regulate the movement of swine from one district to another in this country. My hon. friend regrets that he is unable to promise any further relaxation under existing conditions.

    Cornish Mackerel Fishery—Suggested Close Time.
    MR. CORY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will consider the possibility of ordering a close time of Saturday and Sunday nights in the mackerel fishery in Cornwall, to relieve the glut caused by the fishing of the East Coast men on those nights, when they fish the West of England mackerel fishery, contrary to the practice of the Cornish fisherman and in opposition to public feeling, and contrary to what the East Coast fishermen do when they fish in other parts of the British Isles.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): The difficulty to which my hon. friend refers is one which has on several occasions been brought under our notice, and my hon. friend should be glad to confer personally with him respecting it. We have, however, no power to adopt the particular suggestion which he makes as to the prescription of a close time for the weekend.
    MR. CORY: Will the Government or the Board of Agriculture constitute a Fishery Board for Cornwall with power to make by-laws?
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No doubt that is one of the subjects on which my hon. friend would confer with the hon. Member.

    Firth of Clyde Herring Fishery.
    MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the Fishery Board for Scotland expect to conclude their investigations into the causes of the failure, for the last three years, of the herring fishery in the Firth of Clyde; and whether a Report will be issued embodying the resulting recommendations, if any.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The herring fishing in 1903 was above the average. No special report is contemplated. The investigations in regard to the migration of herrings in the Clyde area are being conducted by the scientific department of the Fishery Board, and a report of their work is included in the Annual Report.

    Scottish Fishermen's House Agreements.
    MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the conditions under which numbers of fishermen's houses are held, the fishermen having themselves built the dwellings and being liable to be evicted without compensation; and whether there is any prospect of this subject being dealt with in the forthcoming Land Bill for Scotland.
    MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has not been called to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but I shall be prepared to consider any representations that may be made to me.

    Motor Car Service for Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say in what position the proposed motor car service in the rural districts of Ireland now is; and whether he will say if this scheme can be carried out, in view of the use which might be made of it to bring fish and other products to market.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): I
    90
    presume the hon. Member refers to a scheme for motor-car services in Ireland which was proposed some three years ago by Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie. His Majesty's present Government have had no part in the matter, but it may be desirable that I should state briefly, for the information of the House, what appears to have taken place while the late Government were in office. I gather that the late Government gave their cordial support to the scheme, and did everything in their power to bring about co-operation between the promoters and the county councils in giving effect to the scheme. The promoters provisionally selected seventeen routes for motor car services, and these were surveyed at the instance of the Government. It was a condition of the original scheme that the roads should be put into a state to bear the heavy motor traffic, the combined weight of motor and trailer being 5½ tons. The county councils generally, while approving of the experimental service, declined to incur the expenditure necessary for putting the roads into proper condition, though the Local Government Board expressed its willingness to make loans for the purpose. I am informed that Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie eventually announced that they would give the county councils a year to consider what could be done, but intimated that the scheme must be dealt with as a whole, and that they were not prepared to set it on foot in those localities only in which its prospects of success were least favourable. It is a matter of regret to find that the year allowed for consideration has passed, and that nothing further appears to have been done by the county councils. His Majesty's present Government would gladly do everything that might be possible to further the philanthropic scheme proposed by these gentlemen if its revival should in any way be brought about; but the question of reopening negotiations with Lord Iveagh and Mr. Pirrie is obviously one for the county councils to consider.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: When this scheme was first started, was any condition as to improving the roads attached to it?
    MR. BRYCE: I take it that as soon as the scheme took a tangible

    91
    form, it was found necessary to ask county councils to put the roads in a proper condition.

    Lord Westmeath's Galway Estates.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will inquire before sanctioning the purchase price agreed on, between Lord Westmeath and his county Galway tenants, into the circumstances which led to the existing litigation between the landlord and sub-agent Moran; whether the amount claimed by the landlord in the writ against Moran is alleged to represent rent collected by Moran from the tenants; if so, will care be taken to prevent what Lord Westmeath treats as collected arrears, in one proceeding, from being included in the purchase bargain with the tenants; and whether the rent receipts given to the tenants in recent years will be examined by the Commissioners, and the tenants brought up before the Commissioners to ascertain the circumstances in which they were given.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before them, and that they have, therefore, no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. If the estate should come before the Commissioners, they will make due inquiries, in accordance with the Act and with the Regulations made thereunder.

    Lisard Estate, County Galway.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that it is the desire of the small tenants at Kilconnell, county Galway, that the Congested Districts Board should hand over the Lisard estate to the Estates Commissioners in order that it may be divided amongst them; and whether he will instruct the Congested Districts Board to do so.
    MR. BRYCE: A Resolution to the effect stated in the Question has been received by the Congested Districts Board. The Lisard estate, which is not situate in a congested district, was purchased by the Board for the benefit of congested districts in county Galway.
    92
    The Resolution in question will be considered by the Board at their next meeting; but in the meantime I may refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for North Roscommon on Monday last†, in which the powers and policy of the Board in regard to the disposal of lands purchased for the purposes of migration are fully stated.

    Marquess of Clanricarde and the United Irish League.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the Marquess of Clanricarde in instituting eviction proceedings against Mr. Martin Ward, merchant, of Loughrea, for the recovery of his business house and premises, because he acts as secretary of the Loughrea branch of the United League; and whether, in the interest of the peace and good order of the district, he will introduce legislation this year with a view of putting a stop to proceedings of this kind.
    MR. BRYCE: It is, I understand, the fact that eviction proceedings against Mr. Ward are pending at the suit of the Marquess of Clanricarde. Men's motives are matter for conjecture, and I cannot undertake to state what they were in this case; nor can I make any statement as to possible legislation on the subject of town tenancies.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: On the question of motive, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Clanricarde's agent wrote a letter, which has been published, in which he gives as a reason for the eviction of this gentleman the fact that he is secretary to the local branch of the United Irish League.
    MR. BRYCE: I have not heard that.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter.

    Goodbody Estate, Galway—Case of Christopher Kennedy.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
    † See (4) Debates, cliii., 882.

    93
    Ireland whether he is aware that an evicted tenant named Christopher Kennedy, with three sons, aged respectively twenty-seven, twenty-four, and twenty, applied for a holding on the Goodbody estate; and whether, seeing that Kennedy was in possession of his old home for over forty years, until dispossessed by the Agricultural Board, in order to take up possession, the Commissioners will give immediate consideration to Kennedy's application for a holding before it is all distributed amongst the large land proprietors in the neigbourhood.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that Kennedy was not a tenant on the Goodbody estate, but was employed on the estate as a herd. The question of providing Kennedy with a certain portion of the land which would be suitable for his present business of a butcher is at present under the consideration of the Department of Agriculture and the Estates Commissioners.

    Athenry Agricultural Farm—Purchases of Machinery.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Agriculture in Ireland is responsible for the purchasing of foreign machinery for use on the agricultural farm near Athenry; and whether, seeing that similar pieces of machinery can be purchased from people who manufacture the same class of material at home, he will take steps, price and quality being equal, to see that encouragement is given to home-manufactured goods.
    MR. BRYCE: The instructions issued by the Department of Agriculture to the superintendent of their agricultural station at Athenry are to obtain quotations for machinery of Irish manufacture, and, price and quality being equal, to purchase the same in preference to goods manufactured elsewhere. As, however, the station serves as an educational establishment, the superintendent is at the same time instructed to avoid a sameness in the type of implements used, and to procure specimens of new types of machinery or implements designed for special purposes. Several of the implements used on the Athenry farm were bought by the Department with the estate.

    Irish Courthouses—Clare County Council Resolution.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he received a resolution from the Clare County Council calling on the Government to have the management of the various courthouses in the county vested in the county council, who are responsible for their rent and repairs, and find it difficult to deal with them in the absence of any control; and will he say what action he will take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received the Resolution referred to. Legislation would be necessary to effect the change suggested, and the matter would require to be very carefully considered. I am not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of introducing legislation, in view of the hardship inflicted on the county council, by making them pay for the courthouses while giving them no control over them.
    MR. BRYCE: I will consider it, but I must not be taken to give any promise.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: If I bring in a Bill, will the Government give me facilities for it?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Donemana Protestant Flute Band.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at Donemana, North Tyrone, on Saturday night, March 10th, the Protestant Flute Band, while on parade, were attacked by Nationalists, who threw stones and other missiles at the bandsmen, and what steps are being taken by the police to put a stop to mob interference with peaceably disposed people and the destruction of property in this district.
    MR. BRYCE: The police are doing everything which may be possible to preserve the peace at Donemana, where, unfortunately, Party feeling has recently become excited. The information which

    95
    I have received does not agree with the allegations in the Question, but as proceedings are being taken against certain persons in connection with the disturbance of the 10th inst, it is better not to make any statement while the matter is sub judice.

    Longworth Oatfield Newcastle Estate, Galway.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a petition from the tenants in the neighbourhood of the Longworth Oatfield Newcastle estate, in the county of Galway, requesting that the Land purchased by the "Congested Districts Board should be divided amongst those of them who at present live upon uneconomic holdings; and whether their request will be granted with as little delay as possible.
    MR. BRYCE: The petition in question has been received by the Congested Districts Board, and will be considered by them at their next meeting.

    Shooting Outrage at Gurteenreery, County Tipperary.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the result of the Constabulary inquiries into the statements of Thomas Pratt and his wife that they were fired at twice at Gurteenreery, Kilcooley, county Tipperary, on the 17th Februrary; have Pratt and his man, William O'Keeffe, firearms in the shape of revolvers and guns; could the marks on the walls of the old dwelling-house have been caused by shots fired at Pratt or his man; and, having regard to the peaceable state of the district and the doubtful character of this alleged outrage, will he order that these men be deprived immediately of the firearms which they possess.
    MR. BRYCE: The circumstances of the alleged firing at Mr. and Mrs. Pratt will be stated in my reply to the next Question. The local police are of opinion that the case was a genuine one and not bogus. Mr. Pratt possesses a gun and a revolver, for both of which he is duly licensed under the Peace Preservation Act; but, so far as the police are aware,
    96
    O'Keeffe has no firearms. On the day after the alleged firing, the police examined Pratt's gun and formed the decided opinion that it had not been fired for a considerable time. In these circumstances, no sufficient reason for the revocation of Pratt's arms licence appears to exist.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain the circumstances under which an evicted tenant named Philip M'Donnell, from near Kilcooley, county Tipperary, was arrested on February 18th and committed to Clonmel gaol; is he aware that he was subsequently brought up on remand, after spending eight days in prison, before Mr. Turner, R.M., at Clonmel petty sessions, and that Mr. Turner refused the remand, on the ground that no evidence was produced to sustain the charge then entered against him of having fired two shots at Thomas and Mary Ellen Pratt; that, notwithstanding the refusal of the remand and his consequent release from custody, he was immediately re-arrested and brought back to Killenaule under arrest, and that depositions were then taken from Pratt and his wife, who are there in possession of the farm from which M'Donnell was evicted; and whether, seeing that the case was finally brought before two magistrates, Mr. R. Hemphill and Mr. R. Ashby, at Killenaule, and dismissed on the grounds that there was not a particle of evidence to support it, he propose to take any steps to compensate M'Donnell for the imprisonment suffered by him and the annoyance he was put to.
    MR. BRYCE: Mr. and Mrs. Pratt reported to the police that at 7.30 on the evening of February 17th two gun shots were fired at them as they were crossing the yard of their residence, but they both escaped injury. The police on examining the place found that several pellets of shot had struck a wall and a cart in the yard. On February 19th, Philip M'Donnell was arrested upon suspicion, and was remanded in custody for a week. M'Donnell is the son of a tenant who, twenty-four years ago, was evicted from the farm which Pratt now holds. The police had not completed their investigation of the case by the expiration of the remand, and they therefore applied for a further remand, but this was refused by the

    97
    magistrates, upon the ground that no evidence to justify it had been produced. The police thereupon re-arrested the accused, and on the following day Mr. and Mrs. Pratt gave sworn evidence that they had been fired at, and the accused was further remanded in custody for a week. Upon the expiration of this remand, the accused was discharged, the police having failed to obtain evidence incriminating him in the offence. The Inspector-General is of opinion that the local police ought not to have re-arrested the accused in the circumstances stated, and he has so informed them, but he is satisfied that they acted in good faith. I regret that I have no power to give compensation to a person arrested on suspicion in such a case.

    Adulteration of Foods and Drugs.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether seeing that the Sale of Food and and Drugs Act only defines in general terms what constitutes adulteration, the Government will consider the advisability of appointing a permanent board of reference, to which appeals may be made for guidance and authoritative advice touching the permissible composition, and the definition and the brands which should be used in the sale of food and drinks.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The establishment of a board of reference that would be empowered to prescribe standards of the quality and purity of food has been more than once suggested, and, I may add, that some authority of the sort appears to me to be indispensable, if the intentions of Parliament with respect to the administration of the laws affecting adulteration are to be rendered effectual. I am advised, however, that legislation would be necessary for the purpose, and the Government see no prospect of introducing such legislation during the present session.

    Land Conveyance in Scotland.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Town Council of Alva urging upon the
    98
    Government to appoint a Commission to institute a careful and exhaustive investigation into the present system of conveying land in Scotland, the registration of writs affecting the same, and the complaints as to delay and expense which it occasions; and whether he will be prepared to appoint such a Commission.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A number of representations, including that mentioned by my hon. friend, have been received, and the subject is now under the consideration of the Government, but I cannot as yet make any announcement as to the conclusions at which they have arrived.

    American Subsidy Bill.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Darlington, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have considered the probable effect which the Subsidy Bill, now before the American House of Representatives, will have on the shipping and ship-building industry of this country; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps in regard to it.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: His Majesty's Government are not able to say what will probably be the effect of the Subsidy Bill, in the event of its becoming law. If the Bill passes, its consequences will, of course, be carefully watched. The Government do not see that any useful action could be taken by them in the matter.

    Colonial Conference.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government that the Colonial Conference, to be held next year, will be given a free hand in the consideration of all matters of Imperial interest, fiscal or otherwise.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, it will be open to the Conference to discuss any matter of Imperial interest.
    MR. LONSDALE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider fiscal arrangements a matter of Imperial interest
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It depends on what is included in the term fiscal arrangements.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what date the Conference will assemble?
    SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir. Notice should be given of that Question.

    Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill.
    MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government, in accordance with the usage prevailing up to the year 1895, to introduce a Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill, especially in view of the long period that has elapsed since such a measure was passed into Law.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Answer is in the affirmative.

    Germany and the Welsh Coalfields.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have any information of the conclusion of negotiations for the purchase of two anthracite collieries in Wales by a Gorman syndicate; and whether they propose to take steps to prevent the alienation of the sources of supply of a commodity essential to our naval supremacy.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir. The Government have no information of the kind at their disposal. A similar Question was addressed to the late Prime Minister on more than one occasion towards the close of last session, and I can only repeat what he said on August 1st, namely, that we have no reason to believe that there is a Gorman Syndicate in treaty for any area at all of the steam coal which is used by the Navy. With respect to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, the Admiralty are satisfied that there is no necessity for taking any steps in the matter, and in that view the Government entirely concur.

    MEMBERS AND THEIR SEATS.
    MR. SOAREScalled the attention of the Speaker
    100
    to what he described as a daily breach of the rules of the House. He pointed out that the rules provided that a Member I by placing his hat on a seat, or a card provided for the purpose, and subsequently remaining within the precincts of the House, acquired the right to that seat for the sitting. Every day Members secured a seat and then went away and did not return until prayers. He wished to know whether such conduct was not a breach of the rules of the House, and whether it came under Rule 161 and was punishable by the Speaker as "grossly disorderly conduct."
    MR. SPEAKER: It is, or ought to be by this time, the well known rule that Members who take seats before prayer time ought not to leave the House, but should remain within the precincts. I cannot say that as at present advised I should be prepared to put in force the rule mentioned by the hon. Member. I feel sure that when it is thoroughly understood that there should be an honourable understanding to that effect, hon. Members will be prepared to carry out the spirit as well as the letter of the rule.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked the intentions of the Government with regard to the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule. In the event of the Army Estimates debate being continued till a later hour, was it proposed to take Vote 8 and Vote 10 of tho Navy after twelve o'clock? He thought it would be very objectionable.
SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We do not propose to take any Navy Votes to-night other than on Report.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with

101
respect to the arrangement of Polling Districts for the election of County Councillors." [Polling Districts (County Councils) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the arrangement of Polling Districts in Parliamentary Boroughs." [Polling Arrangements (Parliamentary Boroughs) Bill [Lords.]

NEW BILLS.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  To reform the system of House-letting in Scotland," presented by Mr. Cross; supported by Mr. Findlay, Mr. Robert Duncan, Mr. Watt, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Robert Balfour, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Murray Macdonald, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Younger, and Mr. Munro Ferguson; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 5th April, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]
  BATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to the Rating of Hereditaments containing Machinery," presented by Mr. Bright; supported by Mr. Barran, Mr. Cawley, Mr. Gill, Sir William Hornby, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. John Rutherford, Mr. Haworth, and Mr. Alfred Scott; to be read a second time upon Friday, 4th May, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]
  ALKALI, &c., WORKS BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Alkali, &c., Works Regulation Acts, 1881 and 1892," presented by Mr. John Burns; supported by Mr. Runciman; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

  SUPPLY [3RD 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 £10,220,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, &c, of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said that when Vote A was about to be given on Thursday there was an understanding between himself and the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Croydon, that, as there were many members of the Committee who wished to speak, they should be at liberty to discuss Army matters generally upon Vote 1, but they could only do that with the Chairman's permission. They should have obtained that permission, however, before the Vote was put. The Chairman would remember that the right hon. Gentleman and himself wished to raise the point, but it was too late. He (Mr. Haldane) therefore asked him now, on behalf of those Members who wished to speak, whether they might be at liberty to discuss matters generally on Vote 1, and not be debarred by a misunderstanding for which he was really to blame owing to a want of knowledge of technical practice. It would be a great convenience to the Committee generally, and would be carrying out the distinct understanding between himself and the right hon. Gentlemen, if the Chairman permitted that discussion of Army matters generally.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The ordinary rule is that when a continuation of the general discussion i desired on some other Vote, an arrangement for such continuation must be made during the discussion of Vote A, the consent of the Chairman not being withheld. On this occasion that has not been done. The right hon. Gentleman now informs me

  103
  that the fact of its not having been done was due to a misunderstanding. Under those circumstances, I do not think I can take the responsibility of refusing a general discussion on Vote 1, but I do wish to point out that this is an important rule and must be observed as far as possible in the future. It is only because of this serious misunderstanding affecting both sides of the House that on this occasion I allow the general discussion to go on.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he took it that there would be no desire to discuss the whole matter over again on the report stage of Vote A.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERconcurred.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEhoped he might claim the indulgence of the Committee if he made a few observations of a general nature on this Vote, in view of the fact that it was now three years since he last troubled the House with any remarks on Army questions. Although he was by no means an old Member, he had had the fortune to hear three successive Secretaries of State for War make their déebuts, and on each occasion he seemed to remember that their introductory statements were received with a measure of generous acclamation from most parts of the House, praise which was not always repeated in subsequent stages of discussion. Therefore, if he might add his insignificant tribute to the many which the right hon. Gentleman had received on his statement, he should like to do so with a certain amount of caution, and to congratulate him for perhaps somewhat different reasons to those hitherto advanced. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the lengthy statement— it was not too lengthy—which he had made to the House, had said many wise things, but had told them very little. In this respect he had shown a remarkable restraint, even self-denial, if he might say so, for it must have been a severe strain upon any Secretary of State for War not to submit to an expectant House a complete panacea for all the ills that military flesh was heir to. The gist of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was "Leave me free." Personally,
  104
  he did not raise any objection to that course. Hitherto, he understood that Secretaries of State for War had been considered fair game, but this was the first instance that he knew of on record in which the game had been able to name the close time which it should enjoy during the approaching season. The right hon. Gentleman had by his wisdom secured for himself a reasonably close time during the present session. In approaching the question of Army reform, he had wisely determined to apply this touchstone to all questions of military organisation, and indeed to all existing arrangements —whether they were directly conducive to the fighting efficiency of the Army. He did not, however, add the natural complement to that which was used in the case of the Naval service, viz., not only fighting efficiency, but instant readiness for war. That was the touchstone which had been applied in the case of the Naval service during the last few years with remarkable success, and there was no doubt it had been highly conducive to economy, which they all knew was now the question of the hour. The right hon. Gentleman had shown them that he had already made a beginning in the matter of economy, but he must draw attention to the very remarkable statement or claim put forward by the Prime Minister in the course of the debate the other night, when he claimed that the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in reducing the Estimates of his predecessors by some £1,750,000. That was a very surprising statement and he believed his right hon. friend the late Secretary of State for War absolutely repudiated it. It had, however, been used in the Liberal Press during the last few days, and it was used by a member of the Government speaking in the country on Saturday night. He would therefore like to put to the right hon. Gentleman this direct question: Did he claim that he had actually reduced the Estimates of the late Government by £1,750,000?
  MR. HALDANE: NO, Sir. Those Estimates were merely draft Estimates, as the right hon. Gentleman says. They were what may be called the military requirements put forward in the office, and I take it the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon and the late

  105
  Chancellor of the Exchequer would have reviewed them. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman himself would have reduced them.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he thought the right hon. Gentleman's statement showed that the Prime Minister was under a complete misapprehension when he made that claim to the House on Thursday night.
  MR. HALDANE: The Prime Minister made a statement only in reference to military requirements.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid the Prime Minister went further than that, but the right hon. Gentleman had given a categorical denial, and he thought that was all that was necessary. The aspect of economy which animated the whole Committee expresssed itself the other night in an arbitrary attempt to reduce the Army by 10,000 men, an attempt very properly resisted by the right hon. Gentleman, because it seemed to him (the speaker) that before they could decide whether or not they could dispense with a certain number of men a little clear thinking, of which the right hon. Gentleman was such a distinguished exponent, had to be applied. They had first of all to arrive at the basic element of the problem, which was: What was the purpose for which the British Army was maintained? That was an inquiry which had often been put by the House in recent years, and had never been satisfactorily answered. An attempt was made some years ago by Mr. Edward Stanhope in a celebrated Memorandum to define the objects of the British Army, and he could not help thinking that the time had now arrived when the right hon. Gentleman or the Committee of Defence, should bring out a revised or up-to-date edition of the Stanhope Memorandum. He was fortified in that expression of opinion by certain weighty remarks made by the Prime Minister himself when Leader of the Opposition last session. He spoke in the strongest possible terms on the point. He said —
  "The right hon. Gentleman has however, after all, not contributed out of the wealth of his knowledge and argument to the point we all wish to be informed about—what are the military necessities of the country? How
  106
  many men do we require?… What is the good of the Secretary of State for War telling us his views, which he has done with great force and fulness, with regard to the regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers? We have never heard what the view of the Cabinet was, and we are invited to form our opinions and to vote money and do all the other part of our duty without having the fundamental notion of what the wisest and highest authority in the country declares should be the number of men required for the defence of the country and its oversea obligations."
  He was anxious to emphasise the nonparty character of these discussions, and would therefore press upon the right hon. Gentleman not his own demand, but the demand put so forcibly by his own Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman's basic theory was an absolute acceptance of the extreme blue-water school. He was a member of the blue-water school himself, but he was not sure that he was able to accept its extreme conclusions quite as readily, he almost said as joyously, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have done. He preferred that there should be some kind of prudent insurance against the extreme risk or the hundred to one chance of a fatal accident. The right hon. Gentleman had told them, and he thought all of the blue-water school would agree, that invasion on a large scale, as long as the Navy was adequately maintained, was impossible. He went further, however, and said a raid was impossible. There was, he should say, a good deal of divergence of expert opinion on this point, and he could not help thinking that the question of a raid required a little more examination before it was finally dismissed, because in a matter of this description they had to consider not only probabilities but possibilities. The vital point of the right hon. Gentleman's whole argument, as indeed it was of the whole position of the blue-water school, was that the whole theory was fatal unless the Navy was invincible. It was not merely a question of the arithmetical proportion between the Navies of this country and any two countries as expressed in the two-Power standard, because the Empire could not stake its existence on the efficacy of arithmetic. If we should be engaged in a European war, it was more than probable that we should have to face two or more Powers at one time, because probably no less a combination would think of attempting such a venture. Therefore the only justification

  107
  of the extreme blue-water theory was that our Navy must be maintained invincible, and the question was could we count on that maintenance? The air at present was full of talk of retrenchment, reduction of armaments, even disarmament. Of course, if disarmament could be carried out in mathematical proportion between the various Powers concerned, well and good, but what tribunal could there be which could in the first place determine the proportion, and, in the second place, enforce it? Let them take a practical example. Let them take the case of a possible continental enemy, a large military Power. They might agree to a reduction in the interests of peace of 100,000 men in their Army. In the first place that would be a purely illusory reduction, because it could be almost instantly replaced in a conscript country, and in any case the residual strength would be ample to overwhelm our relatively insignificant forces. In any case we could not reply to that advance by reducing our Army by 100,000 men; we should have to reply in kind, and what would probably be considered the naval equivalent? Possibly a squadron of battleships, according to whatever index number was adopted by the Hague or other Peace Conference. Such a reduction on our part would take years to replace, and it would probably just tip the balance of invincibility against us and lay us open to that fatal blow at the heart from which recovery would be impossible. Therefore he trusted we should not take a sentimental lead in the pious aspiration towards a reduction of armaments, leading up to universal peace, although he thought we should take every opportunity of responding to any actual and reasonable advances which were made by other Powers whose position in the matter was not quite so vital. We had not only a "blue-water" school to consider, but also a "milk-and-water" school, which had received a good deal of re-inforcement. during the last few months. They had all read a remarkable speech by Mr. Courtney a few days ago. It would not have been so important if it had not been taken up by the Liberal Press and received an immense amount of support from hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. There was no doubt that that feeling existed, and he was all the
  108
  more thankful that the right hon. Gentleman himself belonged to the "blue-water" school, and that so long as he was in office he was not likely to consent to any disarmament or reduction of armaments which would in the least imperil our invincibility upon the sea. The right hon. Gentleman had naturally dwelt, on the various occasions on which he had spoken, upon the financial aspect of the question. He had shown his practical desire to make reductions wherever possible, and he had shown with unanswerable logic that the only way to make substantial reductions was by reducing the number of men. He (the Speaker) confessed he was not able to follow all the right hon. Gentleman's conclusions upon that point. It seemed to him that the case of India was especially puzzling. The right hon. Gentleman gave them to understand that one of the substantial reductions that might be made was in the British Army in India. Where did the economy come in? The British Army in India was paid for by the Indian Government. It was true, of course, that a certain expense came upon us, but it did not come upon us from maintaining that force in India, but because we had chosen to find drafts for the force in India by a most expensive, extravagant, and inefficient method. They must not apply the question of efficiency only to the drafts; they had to consider the state of the Army at home as well, and that had been seriously injured by the system of supplying drafts through the linked battalion system, which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had most effectually demolished in debate, though unfortunately not in practice. The Indian Government, so far as the strength of the Indian force was concerned, paid the piper, and he therefore presumed that it was entitled to call the tune. It was not only the Russian problem they had to consider, but also the question of British prestige in connection with a handful of white men among 300,000,000 of natives of India, and they could not altogether ignore the lessons of 1857. It had also to be remembered that whilst the Army at home had been recently increased, the Army of India had remained practically at the same figure for the last fifteen years. There did not, therefore, seem the same necessity for making any attempt to reduce the force there. The economic question, however, was the one which

  109
  primarily concerned the Committee. The Indian Army was expensive to us only in so far as we insisted on maintaining the system of linked battalions. The right hon. Gentleman the other day quoted in support of his defence of the linked battalion system certain authoritative opinions put forward by Lord Roberts and Sir Evelyn Wood, who had expressed the opinion that the recruits produced under the linked battalion system were superior to those produced under the depot system. That was a matter in which he believed even the experts were by no means agreed. If, however, there was doubt as to whether the recruits produced by the linked battalion system were the better of the two, there was no doubt whatever as to which of the two systems was the more economical. He himself extracted information from the War Office some three or four years ago, which went to show that the cost of the recruit under the linked battalion system was five times that of the recruit under the marine depots system. He did not think they could afford to be extravagant in these matters, and he was quite certain that, even if the recruit under the linked battalion system was slightly better at first, in three months after he arrived in India his superiority would be absolutely indistinguishable. He could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could not, with the expert advice at his back, produce some alternative to this vicious and costly system of supplying recruits for foreign service. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a number of minor economies which he either proposed to introduce, or had introduced, during the course of his short term of office. On the majority of them he (Mr. Lee) had no criticisms to make, although there were two small points he felt bound to refer to in justice to the late Board of Admiralty. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the late Board of Admiralty wished to maintain a garrison and forts at St. Helena for the purpose of defending 5,000 tons of coal. He presumed that was meant as a jest. It was not the object at all; the object was the very reasonable one of having defences there for the purpose of denying the use of the anchorage of St. Helena to any enemy's cruisers which might use the place as a coaling rendezvous. That was a very different and a very substantial reason.
  110
  The other point was with reference to Wei-hai-Wei. Various jokes had been made with regard to Wei-hai-Wei as a watering place. It was really not a joke. If the hon. Gentlemen who laughed had had the experience of spending three summer seasons at China as he had done they would know that the health of the men, not only of the Army but of the Navy, was of the utmost importance, and that there was no other place except Wei-hai-Wei which was suitable for the establishment of a sanatorium for the Fleet, and for the hospital which had now been erected for the benefit of the men of the Fleet.
  MR. HALDANE: I did not object to Wei-hai-Wei being retained as a British possession; but we did object to, and what we have got rid of, was the maintenance of a Chinese Regiment at Wei-hai-Wei, which cost £20,000 a year.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman must remember that that regiment was exceedingly useful at the time of the relief of the Pekin Legations, and it might be again wanted in the case of an outbreak in China. There was one economy which the right hon. Gentleman had taken a considerable pride in, but to which he took most serious objection. The right hon. Gentleman had said he had either stopped or reduced to a large extent the military reconnaissance of possible theatres of war in these islands. How much money would be saved in this way? It must be an exceedingly small sum. He himself had been engaged in carrying out military reconnaisances on a large scale and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that they could be carried out at a very much cheaper cost than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine. That was only one of the small and obvious precautions which should be taken against the 100 to one chance of invasion. It was quite certain that these reconnaissances had been made by foreign experts. The right hon. Gentleman referred with some humour to the futility of surveying the defences of Birmingham. Birmingham, it might be said, was very well able to take care of itself. It was possible to improvise earthworks, rifle-men, and scouts, but we could not improvise knowledge of the ground.

  111
  It was only that superior knowledge of the ground which would enable amateur riflemen to make a stand against trained and organised troops. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not forget what had happened in Natal and the loss we had suffered there for want of a knowledge of the country. All that was needed was a small number of staff officers to study the strategic and tactical features of the ground. He knew that was a thing which could be easily done in time of peace, but the lack of it might easily lead to disaster in time of war. The last point he wished to make, and, perhaps, it was the most serious of all, was in regard to the shortage of recruits. During the last few years the pay of the British soldier had been greatly improved, as well as his conditions of service. Why, then, this falling off in the number of recruits? Many reasons had been advanced, but there was one which had not been advanced, nor even suggested. It was that the Army had been made unpopular. There had been a conspiracy in the Press, in Parliament, and in society to discredit and ridicule the Army. There was a popular idea abroad that we had no Army to speak of and that what we had was inefficient. The truth was that our Army was considerably stronger than it was before the opening of the Boer War, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had admitted to the House that the Army was never so efficient as it was to-day. He was exceedingly glad that the right hon. Gentleman had publicly repudiated the most unfortunate, and altogether inexplicable, statement; made by Lord Roberts which had gained such wide currency. The evil, however, had been done. The Army had been sneered at and laughed at; and both officers and men were tired of being "humbugged about." A few years ago the Army was a popular idol; to-day it was a popular butt—at any rate with certain classes. The cloud under which it had been resting naturally affected those high-spirited young men who looked upon the Army as a glorious profession in which they could engage and enjoy a life of adventure while at the same time doing service to their country. This was the class of men who had been deterred from entering the Army. We had been getting, he admitted another class who had been driven by hunger, or
  112
  want of work, to enlist; but these were poor substitutes for the other classes who had been discouraged. Let the right hon. Gentleman, the Government, and the Press encourage the Army. Let them let it alone. That was what the Army really wanted for a time and then it would soon be restored, not only to popular favour, but to that confidence in itself which was of far more importance than anything else at the present time. The recruiting problem would then solve itself, because the conditions of service were excellent, though of course, not incapable of improvement, and the pay sufficient. In conclusion, he would earnestly beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider the points he had raised, and to recognise that they came from one who had the best reason for being interested in the welfare of the Army, and who had the greatest possible admiration for the fresh, broad - minded, and non - Party attitude in which the right hon. Gentleman had approached this great national problem.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEhoped he would not be charged in any way with indulging in a controversial spirit if he took some slight notice of one or two of the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that one reason why the Army was unpopular at the present moment, and why recruits were not coming in, was that the Army had been "humbugged about." That was only a re-echo of what he himself had been saying during almost all the time the late Government remained in office. It was during that period that the Army was "humbugged about," and successive Secretaries of State for War would not let it alone. He did not wish to rake up slumbering or dead ashes; but it should be recognised how those difficulties arose When this subject came up for discussion earlier in the session, he ventured to point out to the Committee some of the difficulties connected with enlistment. Take the cavalry alone. Last year the cavalry was subjected to no less than three different systems. At the beginning of 1905 the period was three years with the Colours, and nine with the Reserve. A little later it was eight years with the Colours and four with the Reserve. At the

  113
  present moment, it was seven years with the Colours and five with the Reserve. That was one of the reasons why young men would not enlist; they did not know from day to day, from week to week, or from month to month, for what term either they or their comrades were being enlisted. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would introduce a consistent policy, in regard to the distribution and numbers of the Army, and that the actual terms of enlistment would be laid down on a permanent footing. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean and he had been at loggerheads in this House on the subject of linked battalions He ventured to think that the case for linked battalions had never been fully stated in Parliament since the days of Mr. Cardwell. "Linked battalions" was quite an erroneous term; it should be in reality the "double battalion system." That system was the outcome of the Cardwell territorial system and the short service system. Without these it never would have existed at all. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the fact that the Esher Commission recommended its abolition. That was so; but many other recommendations of the same Commission had also not been adopted, while some that had been adopted had not been justified by events. The case for the double-battalion system rested partly on administrative convenience and economy, and it was also more convenient for the despatch of drafts to the battalions abroad. There was another reason which was entirely overlooked by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down when he argued against it. At all events the hon. Gentleman had not informed the Committee of the fact that the infantry soldier was not enlisted for general service, but for a particular regiment; the consequence was that he could not be transferred, when he came up for reserve service in rejoining the Colours, to serve in any other regiment than that for which he was enlisted. The result was that if war broke out, and if the linked battalion, either in the Colonies or in India, was at its full strength there was no need for recruits or reserves. If the linked battalion system were done away with, there would be hundreds of thousands of men at home whom it would not even be possible to bring together in any military
  114
  organisation, but who would be felt stranded at the depots where they could be of no service to the country at all. If, on the other hand, they had, as they had at present, this linked battalion system, what did they do with their recruit? He was at once sent, instead of to a depot, to the linked battalion at home and helped to bring up that battalion to its full strength. Then the linked battalion at home, unlike the depot, could be despatched to the scene of action as a military unit. That was the case for the linked battalion as it presented itself to Mr. Cardwell's mind, and as he thought it presented itself to the mind of the present Secretary of State for War. Although it was unquestionable whether depots by themselves when created would be slightly less costly than the linked battalion, there was not, as far as he knew, a single military officer of experience who could he found in public to adopt the course proposed by his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean and those who thought with him. On the other side there was overwhelming evidence—Commission after Commission, Committee after Committee, Report after Report—to substantiate and uphold the present system. He would not give more than one or two points in illustration of what he had said. There was, for instance, a Report by Lord Wolseley, and he noticed that nowadays Lord Wolseley's name was never quoted in this House as a military authority, and yet he was known in his day—which perhaps had rather passed—as the foremost military reformer, and to no man in this country was a greater debt of gratitude due for breaking up the obsolete system which had prevailed at the War Office. Lord Wolseley said—
  "Our internal military history for the past twenty-five years has in every way demonstrated the wisdom of those, who, in 1870, maintained that this principle is the keystone of the arch supporting the military organisation then introduced."
  The keystone then referred to was the linked battalion system. Then there was the opinion of Sir Evelyn Wood, than whom there had been no more distinguished soldier in this country. His opinion was dead against that expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. Sir

  115
  Evelyn Wood was, he thought, the first man who produced at Aldershot any military system worthy of the name, and who made Aldershot a real training ground for the Army. His system was that training was not to be received between intervals of pleasure but as the essence of military life. Sir Evelyn Wood's opinion was as explicit and as clear as it could be that to the linked battalion system we owed the military organisation and stability of the Empire. Many other authorities could be quoted, but in the face of the two great ones he had cited those opposed to the linked battalion system could not produce a single one. No one who had looked at the Recruiting Report could be altogether satisfied with it. A great many advantages were introduced into the Army during the time of Mr. Brodrick, and one great advantage was the introduction of characters. Too much stress could of course be laid on that point, but it had reduced the troubles of the district and general courts-martial to an extraordinary extent. It had reduced the "ins and outs" in the different regiments to a great extent: that was the men who enlisted, then deserted and enlisted elsewhere. But nobody could look at the figures of the men going in and the men coming out without alarm. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon put the difference of the figures at 18,000. There had been an exodus from the Army not only on account of the three years men, but on account of the eight years men, who, having served with the Colours, had gone off through the system of bounties or the prolongation of their service in India in consequence of the late war.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid that in common with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House he listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for War with the greatest possible pleasure, especially to that part dealing with the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman was the first Minister of modern times who had recognised the great part which the Militia ought to occupy with regard to our defence, and also the part it had played long ago in the defence of our
  116
  coaling stations in times of war. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he hoped the Militia would not be used as a Militia Reserve; that they should be trained under their own officers and kept to their own functions and not be "bled white" by being made the subject of drafts for other service. That was, to his mind, the most admirable exposition of the duty of the Militia that he had ever heard. He could tell from his own personal experience an incident showing how absolutely destructive of the Militia was the policy of "bleeding white." A few months after the outbreak of the South African War a Militia battalion to which he belonged was embodied and reported at Alder-shot. They came up about 700 strong in the rank and file, but within three months of their embodiment 250 of their best men, in fact their only good men, were drafted off to the line battalions in South Africa. They were then left with 450 men, of which fully two-thirds were middle aged men, who had lost the use of their legs, and the others were young men of seventeen or eighteen years of age who had not learned how to use theirs. They had an excellent band, an efficient body of officers, and a very good staff, but, for all practical purposes, they were useless to protect this country in case of a raid, and it would have been better if the Government had disbanded them, saved the cost, and spent the money in another direction. If the right hon. Gentleman would carry out his policy in regard to the Militia, he would receive the grateful thanks of everyone interested in that old historic force. As to recruiting, there was no difficulty with the Cavalry, or the Artillery, or the Guards, but the difficulty arose in regard to the regiments of the line. Although the position of recruits had been improved in respect of pay, allowances, and barrack accommodation, there was one thing in connection with the soldier which he never heard mentioned, which had some effect upon recruiting, and that was the question of uniform. Napoleon I. was supposed to know a good deal about soldiers and about human nature, and in his reign the uniforms in the French Army were rich to an extreme degree.

  117
  He was not advocating that the working dress of the British soldier should be made more attractive, but he thought the dress which he wore at church parade or upon ceremonial occasions and when he went home should be increased in attractiveness, and he would almost say in richness. Hon. Members must remember that a boy enlisted when he was seventeen, and promises of pension or of increased pay were not so attractive as a rich uniform and the love of adventure which all felt at that age. He suggested the appointment of a small Committee to go into this question, and, as the matter affected not only the recruit but his female relations, he thought it would be an advantage if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to appoint some ladies on that Committee. The right hon. Gentleman might even enlist the sympathies or services of some of the ladies who beseiged the bedroom door of the Prime Minister some days ago. He wished to refer to the question of the number of units that should be kept in India for the defence of the country against foreign invasion. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have rather an open mind upon the subject of whether 80,000 men was not too large a garrison to keep in India, and he noticed other hon. Members were taking the same line, for the reason that, owing to the recent war between Russia and Japan, we need not fear for a long time any aggression on the North-West Frontier on the part of Russia. It seemed to him that the result of the war would make us far more open to an attempt on the part of Russia to take India, for the reason that a great Empire like Russia was bound to expand unless she contracted. If she was prevented from expanding to the east she would only attempt to expand in the south-west, and we should be unwise to think of reducing the garrisons of India.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he desired to associate himself with the congratulations which had been showered on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War from all sides of the House. He accepted the French proverb that there was no such thing as a little economy. In dealing with public money every economy was a great economy, and therefore he welcomed the course the
  118
  right hon. Gentleman was taking in looking into these matters and would, if he had the opportunity, give the right hon. Gentleman information which had come to him (Mr. Cox) which showed how thousands of pounds were being wasted. What they were concerned with now, however, was not thousands but millions. The country wanted to get back to the military standard which Lord Salisbury I found sufficient for so long. As the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had pointed out in regard to Army Estimates, we had to look not at what was paid by this country alone, but also at what was paid by India and the Colonies. The real problem of the Army was the problem of the defence of India. Mow did that work out financially? India and this country together maintained an Army costing £50,000,000 a year for the defence of the North-West frontier against Russia, whilst the cost of the Russian Army, which had to guard half a dozen frontiers, cost only £40,000,000. That would seem to be one serious reason for considering whether there should not be a reduction in the Army expenditure not only here but in India, and he was glad to hear the hint thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman that there was a possibility of reducing the Indian garrisons. In this regard he read with great pleasure last autumn a letter written by the late Secretary of State for War to an hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, in which that right hon. Gentleman said that India would not run any immediate risk if her garrison was reduced to the point to which it was reduced during the time of the South African War. During the South African war at a time of great anxiety the Indian garrison was reduced, and if it could be reduced then it could be reduced now. It was then cut down to 63,000 men, but the late Secretary of State at the same time sanctioned the payment of bonus of £15 per annum in order to retain men in the service whose term had expired. The number of men in the Indian garrison was now 78,000, and that number of men had only been maintained by the payment of this bonus. If we were bound to the linked battalion system we were doubly bound to consider whether we were not maintaining more than a

  119
  sufficient garrison to guard against the danger to which India was exposed. The reason put forward for that garrison was always the same. It was always the Russian bogey. But they had the statement of the late Prime Minister that the question of the invasion of India by Russia was not so much a question of men as of transport; that she could not invade India until she had built a railway through Afghanistan. At present the Russian railway terminated 400 miles from the North-West frontier of India, and the intervening region contained some of the most difficult mountainous country in the world, and such a railway could not be built for at least ten years. In order to send 100,000 men into India Russia would require 1,000,000 men to guard her lines of communication. By all means let us prepare for danger, but let us not prepare now for a danger which could overtake us for ten years. With the command of the sea we could put our forces into the field on the North-West frontier of India quite as quickly as, if not more quickly than, Russia could get her troops there and at much less cost. We were justified in ignoring this danger also, because we had made a treaty with Japan which, while it reduced our difficulties by half, doubled those of Russia. Japan would attack her on the Manchurian Frontier and we should attack her in Afghanistan and also wherever we could get at her in Europe, and therefore the danger from Russia was so remote that we were wasting our resourses in preparing for it. There was a real danger at the present time that we might find the Indian Government pressing for a larger number of men for the reason that Lord Kitchener, in order to prepare for this danger of ten years hence, was withdrawing garrisons from India to place then on the frontier. He himself would guard against that danger by refusing such a request on the ground that troops were not at present wanted to guard against any external danger and so far as any internal danger was concerned there was no necessity for a garrison of the present size. From his own personal experience he knew that the vast majority of the inhabitants of India were the gentlest and most easily governed people in the world,
  120
  and if the Government of India, with its enormous resources of native troops and native police, wanted a garrison of 78,000 men to keep down such a population as that, in his opinion it amounted to a confession that they were governing them badly. The reduction of the Indian garrison would give immediate relief to both the Indian and the British taxpayer, because such a reduction in India must mean a corresponding reduction of the forces at home. The majority of this House were pledged to economy and they knew that that pledge could not be carried out unless there was a large reduction on the accounts for the Army. There were many other ways in which the Army might be reduced, but here was one which the experience of the South African War showed could at once be applied. He did not think the House sufficiently realised the financial strain put upon us. Few realised that the expenditure the House had already agreed to in principle was as great this year as it was last, and that there was no new source of revenue in sight. This meant that the same taxes which they had protested against last year as abnormal would be continued not only this Year but next year. There would still be an income-tax of 1s. in the £, and there would still be heavy duties on tea and sugar and the export duty on coal. But there was a still more important point. If they agreed that there was no immediate danger of war in any part of the world but realised that there were always potentialities of war in the future, then it was for the future that they should make provision, and the best provision that this House could make for meeting future dangers was the building up of a great financial reserve. It was because he realised the necessity of building up such a reserve that he hoped the Government would cut down the Army expenditure.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid he did not understand the Secretary of State for War to indicate in any of his speeches that he intended to reduce the garrison of India, and he certainly hoped the hon. Gentleman had no intention of doing so. The hon. Member for Prestun had advanced as an argument for

  121
  reducing the garrison in India that, in the event of a war with Russia, the latter would be attacked by Japan on one side and by ourselves in Afghanistan. He would like to ask the hon. Gentleman, who seemed to acknowledge that one of the chief principles of defence was offence, in what manner we should be able to attack Russia in Afghanistan if we relieved our garrison of the necessary troops? He listened with interest last Thursday to the speech of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool on the subject of Army reduction, which had become a hardy annual with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The House must have realised by this time that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had some cut and dried Army scheme in his pocket which he would produce eventually. They could all understand that during the late Government's term of office the hon. and gallant Member did not like to produce his scheme, but he might do so now, because he was certain the Secretary of State for War would be only too pleased to have it. One thing which struck him in the speeches of those who supported the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion was the fact that nearly every one began by stating that he had a mandate from his constituents for economy and retrenchment. It was proposed arbitrarily to reduce the Army by 10,000 men, but each Member who supported the reduction apparently had not the interests of the taxpayer in view, but some pet scheme of his own. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the reduction had an idea that by that means they would be able to increase the pensions of the men, and secure other laudable objects, which would cost money. The Secretary of State for War had struck out a totally new line. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that his idea was to inaugurate a policy which should be a continuous one, and to make the War Office less of an Aunt Sally which anybody could regard as a legitimate object at which to throw a stick. The right hon. Gentleman had done his best in his speeches to raise the War Office above Party politics and to place it on the same footing as the Admiralty. Those who had the interest of the Army at heart and had studied it at all knew that
  122
  it was very much in need of a period of test. Of late years the Army had been a ground for experiments by successive Governments, and altogether there had been a little too much of Army reform, and a considerable amount of unrest had been created. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now be able to see his way to give that period of rest to the Army which was so absolutely essential in its best interests. He wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. He noticed in his Memorandum that he had utilised some of the vacant rooms at Woolwich for the purpose of creating a new class, and augmenting the cadets at Sandhurst. The right hon. Gentleman was well aware that at Sandhurst the cadets with the cavalry and the cadets with the infantry were trained side by side. The cavalry officer required a somewhat different, and perhaps a more technical and higher, training, especially in reconnaissance duty, than the ordinary infantry officer, and he would therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he might not utilise the class referred to at Woolwich purely for cavalry officers so that they could undergo a thorough and complete training in cavalry duties and all matters appertaining to reconnaissance.
  MR. SOARESsaid he did not profess to understand the mysteries of the linked-battalion system or the various advantages of battalion training and depot training, but he should like to say a few words on the Vote from the point of view of the ordinary layman. There was, without doubt, a deep feeling of dissatisfaction in the country at the present time with regard to the enormous amount of military expenditure, and he himself believed it was shared by the Secretary of State for War as well as by the Prime Minister and those who sat on the Ministerial side. The only excuse that could be given for enormous estimates this year was that they were the estimates of the preceding Administration. What was the actual position at the present time? In 1895–6 the military expenditure of the country was £18,941,000; in 1904–5 it was £29,595,000; and for this year the estimates were £17,000 less than last year. He understood from the Secretary of State for War

  123
  that the Army Estimates would have amounted to £800,000 more if he had not effected certain economies. How did he effect them? The right hon. Gentleman told his military experts, he presumed, that they must reduce expenditure, and in nine weeks they knocked off this £800,000. They struck out items, he supposed, which they felt themselves able to strike out without injuring the efficiency of the Army. What he would like to ask was this: if these estimates could be reduced by £800,000 in nine weeks, could they have been reduced by £1,600,000 in eighteen weeks? If so, they would have been very glad to have seen them so reduced. But were these military experts the same gentlemen who advised the previous Administration? If the £800,000 were unnecessarily paid away in previous years it did not give the House overweening confidence in the military experts. He thought the desire of the right hon. Gentleman for continuity of policy and to take the Army out of the arena of Party politics was a very good thing. He should also like to see the Navy taken out of Party politics, as it was to a great extent, and also questions of foreign policy, but he was afraid that that was rather a desire which, owing to the infirmities of human nature, they could hardly hope to see fulfilled in this world, although it might be in the next, where the Liberal Party would always be in a strong majority. Nearly every speaker on the Opposition side had congratulated the Secretary of State for War, and he had been supported in the Lobby by the votes of hon. Members on both sides of the House. He had also been praised by all the Unionist newspapers in the country, many of them hostile to Liberal ideas of military policy. While the right hon. Gentleman was receiving all this chorus of praise he would remind him of the phrase Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. He felt quite sure that when Members of the Opposition saw a chance to attack his right hon. friend they would be quite ready to turn and rend him with the greatest possible pleasure in the world. Therefore the Secretary of State for War must look entirely for support of his economic policy to hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side. The Prime Minister had said the other night that the honour and good faith of the Government
  124
  was bound up in a reduction of military expenditure. With that he agreed, and he was quite satisfied with that statement. At the recent election the Ministerialists received a mandate for economy, and they meant to carry out the promises made to their constituents. They had received a mandate for Free Trade, and to deal with the Education question, and they intended to carry it out. They had also received a mandate to abolish slavery and they were carrying that out. Then there was that everlasting mandate for peace, retrenchment, and reform. It was impossible for them to carry out these reforms unless they first had retrenchment. In his humble opinion they could get the money in only two ways—one washy imposing extra taxation on the rich, and the other by making large reductions in military expenditure. He believed that the Secretary of State for War held the fate of the Liberal Party in his hands at the present moment, and it was because he believed that the right hon. Gentleman realised his responsibility and had promised that so far as a man could do he would reduce the cost of the Army that he gave him his support the other night, and intended to support him again on this occasion.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDONsaid the hon. Member for Barnstaple had warned them that the time might come when the Members of the Opposition would turn and rend the Secretary of State for War. He wished to point out that that was what had taken place already, but the attack came from below the gangway on the Ministerial side of the House; and therefore the right hon. Gentleman could not complain of too harsh criticisms from the Opposition. He wished to join in the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman for his recent speech. He had laid down certain principles which every sensible man and every earnest Army reformer must agree with. The right hon. Gentleman had rejected all things that did not make for fighting efficiency, and had told the House that he had been occupied in endeavouring to discover how much could be eliminated which did not make for fighting efficiency. He agreed with those sentiments, but he hoped and trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would have the

  125
  courage to carry those principles to their logical conclusion. In a recent debate the right hon. Gentleman had been called upon to reduce the Army by 10,000 men in the course of the year. Those reductions might be quite possible when the Secretary of State had completed his inquiries, but he could never see why if those reductions were to be made they should be confined to one branch of the Service alone. The Regular Army had been spoken of as if it was the only part of the forces of the Crown that could be reduced; but, if the right hon. Gentleman carried out the principles he had enunciated he would also turn his attention to the Volunteers. The Secretary of State for War was a strong disciple of the "blue-water" school, and if the principles of that school were also carried to their logical conclusion, if what he said with regard to the possibility of invasion, or even of a serious raid was admitted, then the Volunteers, really and honestly regarded, became as obsolete and out of date as those forts and defences which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to in his opening speech. But he did not go so far as that. The Volunteers fulfilled a great and important part in the forces of the nation; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be content with merely putting down large figures, such as 270,000 men, without going closely into the military efficiency of the individuals who went to make up that number. Let him have a large force by all means; but, if his principles with regard to fighting efficiency were to be carried out, the right hon. Gentleman would find upon inquiry that there were large numbers of men in the Volunteers who were known to be of no fighting efficiency whatsoever, and who never would, under any amount of training, become really efficient soldiers, [Cries of "No, No," and "Oh, Oh," and "Why?"] If hon. Members would refer to the numerous reports such as those issued by the Norfolk Commission, and the Royal Commission on the War, they would find statements of witness after witness, of Volunteer and Militia officers, and statements made upon the highest military authority to the effect that there were large bodies of men in all branches of the Service, notably in the Volunteers and the Militia, who not
  126
  only were not now efficient units, but who could show no prospect whatever of ever becoming efficient. He could quote passage after passage from the Blue-books to that effect. If that was the case he asked the Secretary of State for War in the process of this close inquiry which he was going to make to look carefully into that matter. He would ask him to confer with such experts as Sir George Clark, who more strongly than any other man had laid down the principle that we were simply living in a fool's paradise if we kept up large bodies of men who showed no prospect whatever of ever becoming really efficient fighting men. He wished to refer briefly to the orders which had been issued with regard to the brigading of the Volunteers. The Royal Commission on the War laid down that the Volunteer force should be organised on its war formation of brigades and divisions, that commanders and staff should be appointed, that they should hold no other appointments, and that they should be responsible for the training, instruction, and inspection of those bodies, and also for their mobilisation, and for leading them in time of war. The recent orders with regard to the brigading of Volunteers seemed to set aside that important recommendation. He noticed that nineteen brigades had been organised for coast defence and twenty-five brigades presumably for service in the field. Those brigades were composed of various numbers of battalions, some containing seven and others six, five, four, and three battalions. He did not think the Secretary of State for War could possibly argue that that was a war organisation in any shape or form, because such brigades could take no place in a war. It would be impossible for brigades of these different sizes to exist, and he submitted that if it was pretended that this was a war organisation it should be stated now because they ought not to delude themselves that the Volunteers were organised for war when that was not the case. With regard to the Militia, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that for a great many years past the Militia had been bled white in order to feed the Line. The Secretary of State for War, like many of his predecessors, objected to that, and thought it was a great

  127
  evil and very bad for the Militia; but if the blood was to be maintained in the veins of the Militia, how was the right hon. Gentleman going to supply blood to the Regular Army? He knew that from year to year some 15,000 men passed from the Militia into the ranks of the Regular Army. A difficulty which had always occurred to him was that they would deprive themselves of recruits for the Regular Army if the Militia was to be turned into a popular force, and if men were to be attracted to it. The position at present was that there were not enough men to go round. The Volunteers were competing for men with the Militia in many districts, so that there were really three competing forces. No suggestion had been thrown out to overcome the difficulty of increasing the popularity and efficiency of the Militia without at the same time exercising a destructive influence on the Line. When the Militia Vote came to be discussed they would be able to find out more on that most important subject. In regard to the general staff, the Secretary of State in his speech referred to the great step in advance which had been taken by his predecessors. That was a very old fad of his own, and he had brought it forward ever since he had been in this House. He had even been snubbed for his pains. Once the late Prime Minister turned to him and said that he was suggesting the introduction into the British Army of German ideas which were not applicable to our military organisation. The time had now come when we no longer hesitated to imitate not only Germany in this respect, but every other great military Power on the Continent. He rejoiced that the Secretary of State saw from the outset the great importance and necessity of having a thinking department properly constituted. He understood that so far not very much progress had been made in establishing a general staff, and he would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee on what basis it was to be founded, and how far his military advisers, the Army Council and so forth, had gone in laying down the line as to how that body was to be recruited. The right hon. Gentleman was well aware that in
  128
  Germany privileges were given to the permanent officers belonging to the general staff. The time taken for their promotion was shortened, and they got advantages of all kinds. They were thus encouraged to fit themselves for great and responsible positions as staff officers. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech said something about the scientific side of military affairs, and asked why degrees should not be given for arts and science for the Army as well as for other branches of science and art. He hoped that some scheme similar to that which at present existed in Germany in regard to passing through the general staff might be adopted in this country, and that thereby the very cream of our officers might be induced to qualify themselves in that way. As to India, he rejoiced to find that the anxiety which was displayed, after the right hon. Gentleman first spoke, as to the reduction of the garrison, was an anxiety which need not have occurred, and that in his second speech the right hon. Gentleman repudiated any desire of immediately—he himself hoped at any time—materially reducing the garrison in India. Although the possibility of the invasion of India might be remote, it would, he thought, be admitted that, in view of the present position of Russia, and of the fact that we had entered into a treaty with Japan, we should devote ourselves to the consolidation and the completion of our preparations for the defence of India. He hoped the question of the defence of India would be carefully thought out by the right hon. Gentleman and the Defence Committee before any decision was arrived at.
  MR. REESsaid the hon. Member for Barnstaple had appealed to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Liberal Party, and said that the right hon. Gentleman in this matter held the fortunes of the Liberal Party in his hands. He hoped and believed it was not in that spirit that the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the Army. It was for that reason, and because of the proper and necessary deliberation with which he had dealt with reform and reductions, that they all rushed to his support on Thursday last, when the right hon. Gentleman had to repel the attack of a Parliamentary

  129
  Mad Mullah with a following of Irregulars in the House. He used the term Mad Mullah, of course, in a Parliamentary sense, and he thought no description could be more suitable to the occasion. In moving the reduction of 10,000 men the hon. and gallant Member for Abercromby Division said he did not care when or how the reduction was made in these bloated armaments, provided that it was made. All he could say was that the expression he had used was an exceedingly moderate one, if reform in haste regardless of consequences was pressed upon a responsible Minister.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he was sure the hon. Member did not wish to misrepresent what he did say. He must have got hold of a wrong report of the speech. He stated that the object of his Amendment was to suggest the propriety of the reduction in the following year. He asked the hon. Member not to misrepresent him.
  MR. REESsaid he would be extremely sorry to misrepresent the hon. Member, but he quoted from The Times, and having heard the speech he submitted it was a fair report of its substance. He formed his own impression of the speech, and of the effect which must be made in India and throughout the Empire and without it by the proposal to reduce the Army by 10,000 men, regardless of ways and means, or of any consideration with respect to the frontier of India.
  MAJOR SEELY: I never suggested India. I specifically said "At home."
  MR. REESsaid they could not reduce the strength of the Army at home without necessarily affecting the Army in India. Russia had been crippled, it was true, for the present, but it was equally true that internal dissension never prevented a military autocracy from carrying out external aggression. Indeed internal dissension was sometimes a factor making for external aggression. He did not believe there was any danger of attack over the Indian frontier. Only the Emperor Paul, who was mad, and General Skobeleff, who was not a serious politician, had seriously contemplated such an insane expedition. There had been
  130
  many invasions of India, but they had all been made by Afghans and others of a more or less local character who were able to get over the hills by arrangement with the tribes. He protested none the less that there was nothing in the present condition of Russia at all to justify us in relaxing our present establishment. He maintained that it was absolutely necessary that there should be no reduction in the battalions at home until the Secretary for War had had ample time to look into the whole question, and that it was altogether unreasonable to be dissatisfied with the large reductions made in a few weeks and to press for further specific promises. They should not press the right hon. Gentleman to make any hasty or ill - considered reduction. No one in the House was more committed to the policy of economy than he was; but reductions hastily made might lead eventually to larger charges, to expensive expeditions, and might disorganise the whole economic structure and trade of the Empire. There were, however, one or two directions in which some reforms might perhaps be effected at once without danger. There was the question of the capitation grant paid by India. When the subject of Indian expenditure was considered by this House, an hon. Member now on the front bench was of opinion that India should not be charged with that capitation grant. He did not profess to be a competent judge of these matters; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee whether something could not be done to relieve the Indian Exchequer in that respect. Then, there was the question of the payment of troops on the Indian establishment when they were employed out of India. He trusted that that matter would be settled in a manner satisfactory to the Indian Government. Such troops had been of the greatest possible service to the Empire during the late war in South Africa. He would also like, in a friendly and Parliamentary manner, to dissociate himself from the estimate of the British officer which had been given by the hon. Member for East St. Pancras. He realised the good intention of the hon. Member; but he could not accept his statement. There was a time, some thirty years ago,

  131
  when it used to be said in India that the Civil Service represented brains and industry, and the Army represented the good looks and idleness. He admitted that so far as his experience went these estimates were altogether wrong. He had lived for years with officers of the British and Indian branches of the service, and was bound to say that they were exceedingly industrious, competent, and accomplished men of whom the country might be proud; and he had felt it his duty to say what he had done in their behalf in consequence of the remarks made by the hon. Member to whom he had just referred. It by no means followed that because men were brave in war they were idle and incompetent in time of peace.
  LORD CASTLEREAGHhoped his intervention in the debate would not be thought presumptuous, seeing he had had various opportunities of studying this question from an expert point of view. Hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial benches had expressed sentiments in favour of economy on the Army, but there was no question of economy when they advocated a system of free meals for poor children, old-age pensions, and payment of Members. No practical suggestions had been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the particular lines along which economies in the expenditure on the Army should be made. He admitted that there were various small matters in which economy could be carried out; but no large economy could he brought about without seriously endangering the efficiency of the Army. In the branch of the Army with which he was connected, he granted that some saving might be effected in the purchase of horses. Large profits were often made by a few men in making these purchases. As to the reduction of the Indian Army, he urged that that would be a menace to the safety of the Indian Empire. Something had been said as to the possible invasion of India by Russia. He would not, for one moment, minimise that danger; but he contended that the internal condition of affairs in India required as big a garrison as was there at the present moment. And the reason
  132
  was that the Indian Government had to show its strength, that our rule was strong, and that that strong rule was accompanied by great benefits to the people of India. It should be borne in mind that the Indian Mutiny followed the withdrawal of various battalions of English troops to be sent to the seat of war with Russia in the Crimea. The reduction of the garrison in India might therefore he attended with the most disastrous consequences. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had said that he intended to reduce the expenditure on military reconnaisances. He (the speaker) held that one of the most important phases of the education of officers was the ability for the performance of these reconnaisances. The raising of the pay of the soldier by the late Government had perhaps induced a certain amount of additional recruiting; but he felt that the class of men whom it was; desired to attract to the Army had not been so attracted. An hon. Member had alleged that the feeling of the people of the country did not encourage soldiering; but he maintained that it was the duty of the nation to encourage the military spirit, because we had no conscription, and he sincerely trusted we never should have. The consequence was that the Government had to compete in the labour market for recruits to fill up the ranks of the Army. What had been said by his hon. friend as to the uniforms of the soldiers was very important, because a recruit of eighteen years of age or so was attracted by a handsome uniform which he could wear when he walked out on Sunday with his girl. He hoped the Secretary for War would hold out some inducement to the soldiers to put by a certain amount of their pay. The old system of deferred pay and of military savings' banks was most excellent in. enabling the soldiers to make some provision for old age. All hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House desired to congratulate the right hon. the Secretary for War on the reforms he had already accomplished, although he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had received much encouragement from his friends on his own side of the House. He would remind these hon. Gentlemen that false

  133
  economy would be of no benefit to efficiency, but might result in disaster to the Empire.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think I may suggest to the Committee that the object of a general discussion is not for the purpose of raising any small points which may be brought forward on a particular Vote. It is that hon. Members may raise points of importance which cannot be brought forward upon any one of those Votes when considered separately, and I would therefore suggest that matters of detail arising on subsequent Votes had better be deferred to a subsequent time.
  MR. MOLTENOsaid he also wished to congratulate the Secretary of State for War upon the able and masterly speech in which he showed the basis upon which we must work if we would have real reform of our Army system. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to India and our colonial garrisons, and the latter seemed to afford considerable hope of reduction. After the Crimean war in 1858 attention was drawn to the enormous cost in men and money of these garrisons. We then had 47,000 men, costing just under £4,000,000 sterling. The Estimates of this year showed that we now had 58,000 men at a cost of £5,000,000 sterling, so that the expenditure in 1858 was greater in proportion to our resources than it was to-day. In 1859 a Departmental Committee was appointed, consisting of Mr. Hamilton of the Treasury, Mr. Godley of the War Office, and Sir T. Elliott of the Colonial Office, to go into this question, and they reported in 1860 and laid down the true policy on this subject. They said that it was bad strategy to scatter small garrisons, all over the world; that the defence of colonies really depended upon the will and determination of the people who inhabited them; that reliance on Imperial troops must perpetuate in the colonies a feeling of dependence on the mother country, and conduce to recklessness of policy, neglect of local efforts, and the absence of that spirit of self-reliance which was the very essence of
  134
  their prosperity. Further, the report of the Committee showed that—
  "Colonial garrisons when not very large and in first-class fortresses had always found themselves in traps at the mercy of naval expeditions."
  The Committee laid down the principle of withdrawal of troops from all colonies with the exception of great fortresses, and that if any troops were to remain they should be paid for at their full cost by the colony which asked for them. That Report was in 1861 discussed in Committee of the House, of which Mr. Arthur Mills was chairman. That Committee condemned the plans of colonial fortification and laid down the main principle that—
  "the tendency of modern warfare is to strike blows at the heart of a hostile Power and requires a concentration of troops at home, trusting to naval supremacy for securing against foreign aggression the distant dependencies of the Empire."
  In 1862 there was also a discussion upon that Report in this House, and this House fully accepted and affirmed the recommendation of the Committee. Thereupon the policy of reduction of colonial garrisons was carried out by successive Secretaries of State on both sides of the House, as it was held that colonists must, like the rest of His Majesty's subjects, bear the cost of civil and military establishments. Mr. Cardwell first commenced the withdrawal of troops from New Zealand, and they now knew that it was long since all troops in that colony had been withdrawn. In the case of South Africa Lord Carnarvon and Earl Granville commenced the reduction of the troops, and the Duke of Buckingham commenced a similar policy in Canada. What was the result? By the year 1877 the troops in the colonial garrisons had been reduced to 24,700 costing £1,769,000, just about half the numbers and cost of 1858. In pursuance of that policy, 16,721 men were withdrawn from North America, Australia, the Ionian Islands, Windward and Leeward Islands, Falkland Islands and the Bahamas, and if they left out the Mediterranean and Egypt and counted only those stations at which we still had troops, viz., North America, Africa, China, and Ceylon, the troops had been reduced from 19,471 in 1858 to 11,134 in 1878. He referred to the year 1878

  135
  because it was in that Year that we again had an increase of colonial garrisons. Sir Bartle Frere went out to South Africa and thought it desirable to have fresh troops there. He suggested that fresh regiments should be sent out to Cape Colony and to Natal. Objection was taken by those colonies to having those troops and paying for them, but still his advice was followed and then there came a very large increase of garrisons. The result was that the troops were doubled in 1878–79, and the cost was doubled. In the following year, 1879–80, the troops were trebled and the cost was trebled. We were in consequence finally led into the war which from 1878 to 1881 caused an expenditure of £5,500,000, and a very large increase of garrisons from £208,000 to £1,000,000 in 1881. We got tired of this and recalled Sir Bartle Frere and the troops. We reduced the garrison to 3,473 in 1896 just where it stood in 1878. How did the figures stand in regard to these stations and the Estimates now before the House? The numbers were 36,909, or an increase beyond 1878 of 25,750. He was not referring to those Colonies which had no garrison, because we had in 1858 no less than 16,700 men in Colonies which had no garrison to-day. The enormous increase had taken place in those places where we had garrisons to-day. He should like to point out where the principal increases were: South Africa, from 3,357 to 19,983; Mauritius, from 583 to 3,352; Hong Kong and North China, from 1,122 to 7,233. He was unable to say anything about Mauritius or Hong Kong and North China except that he wished to express the hope that the garrisons might be reduced, as he thought that with a peaceful policy they might proceed to a considerable reduction. But in regard to South Africa the cause of the increase was clear, and was directly due to the policy pursued from this country. The Departmental Committee to which he had referred drew attention to the condition of South Africa at that time, and he should like to draw attention to what they said on that occasion, as the conditions resembled those which prevailed to-day. They said—
  "Above all, there is the gigantic anomaly of expenditure on the Cape. We cannot avoid
  136
  calling the especial attention of His Majesty's Government to the drain on British resources which has resulted from our undertaking the reference of this Colony, and to that inadequacy of benefits resulting to British products. As affording a field for British emigration, a. supply of our wants, or a market for our produce, our connection with the Colony has not been, comparatively speaking, of any considerable advantage to us. In fact, the only direct object of Imperial concern is the use of the roadsteads at Table and Simon's Bays. Yet in 1857–8, a period of exceptional tranquility, we had at the Cape, including the German Legion, a garrison, or rather Army, of 10,759 Regular troops, and the military expenditure alone was £830,687, equal to more than one-fifth of the expenditure on the whole of the Colonies, including the Mediterranean Garrisons."
  Sir Thomas Eliott in his report says—
  "The above expenditure is enormous, and is not likely ever to be materially reduced except by a Radical change of policy."
  He was glad to say that that Radical change of policy took place, and the troops were, as he had already stated, reduced by Lord Carnarvon and Earl Granville, and the Colonies were told to rely upon their own forces, which they had since done and shown that they were perfectly well able to protect and defend themselves. He had shown that that change of policy took place, because the 10,759 of 1858 were reduced to 3,357 in 1878. In the latter year the increase insisted upon by Sir Bartle Frere took place, to which he had already referred, and this led to the Zulu War and the war of 1881, upon which we spent £5,500,000 and increased the cost of garrison from £208,000 to £1,000,000 in 1881. Then another change of policy was made and on January 7th, 1896, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham telegraphed to Sir Hercules Robinson that—
  "He was considering in concert with his colleagues, the propriety of immediately sending a large force, including cavalry and artillery, to the Cape to provide for all eventualities."
  On the 8th Sir Hercules Robinson replied—
  "I should deprecate the proposed despatch of a large force."
  The policy pursued by Sir Hercules Robinson received universal approval in South Africa, and up to the eve of the War the Cape and Natal protested against the use of force. He had simply given this record to show that there had been no local demand for troops, and

  137
  also to illustrate the fact that the departures from the policy laid down in 1862 by the House had led to disastrous increase of expenditure and of garrisons in South Africa. They all knew what this policy of interference in South Africa meant. The lesson was plain. Why not leave South Africa alone, as we had frequently been requested to do by all responsible authorities there, to manage their own affairs, just as in Canada and Australia we left them alone? They were perfectly able in South Africa to manage their own affairs if we would only leave them alone, and we might then withdraw all the troops in excess of those who were there in 1895. The enormous cost entailed upon us by their presence was given yesterday in a Reply by the Secretary of State for War. It appeared from that answer that the average expenditure on troops and fortifications since the war was £5,343,000 per annum. The expenditure under military works loans was £3,040,000 for the three years 1903–4 to 1905–6, and the cost borne on the Army Estimates for that period was £12,990,000, making up the total of £16,030,000, which gave the average he had stated. But there was another very serious danger involved in leaving this body of troops in South Africa, because there was, as the Departmental Committee had pointed out, the risk of our becoming involved in native wars. The Colonists might pursue an aggressive and high-handed policy, relying on the presence of the troops. If we allowed the use of Imperial troops we must interfere to control policy. This was a fatal system, as had been shown in the past history of the Cape. If our troops were involved it became a question of one power fighting for another power quarrelling, which was a recipe for endless war. There was a very serious danger in pursuing this course, and the only safe policy was to leave Colonists to rely upon their own resources and to feel responsible for any defect of policy. He had observed that the Conservative Party at the end of last year were recommended to follow the advice of Mr. Disraeli in order to get back to their former proud position. Mr. Disraeli said on the 15th of July, 1865—
  "I am myself in favour of a conservative foreign policy—a policy which believes that, the
  138
  tranquillity of the world is the interest of England; that peace is the normal aim, and that in the tranquillity of the world the state or best objects of English ambition may be legitimately obtained.… Since I have been in Parliament—now twenty-seven years— there has only occurred one occasion on which war was justifiable on our part, and even then it was a war which we could not enter upon without hesitation, but still it was a war necessary for the interests of the world."
  He drew special attention to those words "justifiable" and "necessary."
  "That was the Crimean War, and on that ground I supported it. I have seen no cause since for the warlike interference of England in the affairs of Europe or America."
  It was a remarkable fact that that one war, the only justifiable war in the opinion of Mr. Disraeli, was the one war which all now agreed was unnecessary. So it was with all wars. Were we never to advance? Were nations always to distrust each other? Were we always to give way to those who held the view that force was the only means of settling disputes between nations?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he was not sanguine—he did not put it higher than that—that it would be possible materially to reduce our garrisons abroad. An hon. Member had referred to Mr. Disraeli. He thought it was Mr. Disraeli who said—
  "Tell me your policy, and I will tell you what your armaments must be."
  The application of that maxim was not more obvious in any part of the world than in South Africa. If, as he trusted, the policy of the Government in South Africa might be calculated to maintain and to foster the loyalty and devotion to the Mother country of all our white fellow-subjects in South Africa, then, and then only, it might be reasonable to hope that at some future date we might be able to reduce the garrison in South Africa. But if the policy of the Government should not be a policy of non-interference, but should be a policy of interference in matters which excited more feeling in South Africa than any other question, why, then, so far from looking forward to a reduction of the garrison, we might look with foreboding to the possibility that the garrison might have to be increased. It was not only true that the number of our armaments depended on foreign and Colonial policy,

  139
  but it was also true that the cost of our armaments depended on domestic policy. We could not raise the standard of living or labour in this country—a most desirable object—without increasing the discrepancy between the conditions of life of the Regular soldier and the conditions of life of the artisan, and therefore, every Secretary of State for War, and the right hon. Gentleman in common with his predecessors, had, before he could consider the possibility of effecting a reduction, to counteract automatic increases. The pressure put upon him that the soldier should be better housed, better clothed, and better fed, and that he should have more opportunities of legitimate relaxation, led necessarily to the automatic increase of the cost of the Army. He could not quite accept the view that the right hon. Gentleman had effected immense reductions in the Estimates because he was imbued by views not shared by his right hon. friend his predecessor. His right hon. friend had to his knowledge, year in. and year out, striven, and not without success, to cut down the cost of the Army. If he could he wished he might disabuse some hon. Members opposite of a suspicion which they apparently entertained. They seemed to think that his right hon. friend and hon. Members on his side of the House took a delight in spending money on the Army for the mere sake of spending money. They were in complete error. Every man who cared, as he cared, for the efficiency of the Army, knew that the greatest peril to that efficiency was the fact that it cost £29,000,000 or more every year. There was not a man who desired to see our forces on the most efficient and economic basis who would not, if he could, hail the right hon. Gentleman with acclamation supposing he could effect a reduction of one or two millions on the Estimates, without decreasing the efficiency of the Army. But many of them knew that the difficulties with which he had to contend were very great, and they applauded him for pledging himself to no plan during his first session in office. Far a blow at their adversary in the course from cavilling at anything in his speeches with their own ideas, their only plea was that he would not allow his theories
  140
  to crystallise into a plan until he had weighed very carefully and fully our forces in all their aspects, for they were very multifarious. Part of the difficulty with which any Secretary of State had to contend was that the legacy, not from his immediate predecessor, but from past history, was the legacy of different theories of the Army, different schemes of defences which had come into being under conditions which prevailed then but did not prevail now, but which could not be suddenly abolished. They could not, in view of a new theory, suddenly dispense with all that had been bequeathed to them in consequence of theories now obsolete, but which at the time they were entertained might have been thought as reasonable as the theory of the "blue-water" school which the right hon. Gentleman was now putting forward, and therefore they ought to be very patient in this attempt to secure economy. If they abolished anything which existed they must find a substitute. The abolition cost them abolition terms, and, having made the substitute, they found themselves driven, year by year, into making it more palatable by spending more money upon it than they originally intended to spend. So that there was something to be said for conservatism, not as a Party principle, but as a principle which must actuate all Governments to a certain extent, whether they were Liberal or Conservative. The difficulty of Secretaries of State for War was that they had the relics of all these different theories to deal with. They could not abolish them; they had to adapt them to the theory of the day. The right hon. Gentleman had pushed what was called the theory of the "blue-water" school very far, and the question they ought to consider was, Had he pushed it too far? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman intended to push it too far. It was urged with truth, on the other side, that no Navy, however overwhelming, could finish a war. In any fight they must be able to hit as well as parry. Unless they could strike a blow at their adversary in the course of a war the war would never come to an end. Again, it was true that we might have to fight not one, but two first-class Powers. To put that fear

  141
  in a more ominous guise, we might be fighting one first-class Power for several months or a year and then be attacked by another first-class Power. The fear of that led many thoughtful men to hold that the "blue-water" theory was being pushed too far, and that in view of the danger which, though remote, was possible, we must have a home defence army in spite of all that the theorists said. Even if the fear of invasion in this case was an illusory fear, the fact that it existed was a matter that had to be taken into account. One form of insurance was not only that against invasion, but against panic, and if this country were at war it would be of immense assistance to the Government that their countrymen should not be the prey of grave fears which might have been allayed, perhaps at no great expenditure of money. In spite of all that he was prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman, if he understood him aright, was not pushing this theory too far. The right hon. Gentleman had laid it down that we required a striking force. The right hon. Gentleman did not pledge himself to its size, but he did not reject the view that it ought to be the size of three Army Corps. The right hon. Gentleman did not object to the view that we ought to have ready in this country for conflict with trained European troops, he supposed, at least nine divisions of infantry and the proper amount of cavalry and artillery which should go with nine divisions of infantry. If we had this force ready to embark there would be no panic, but we could not embark them until we had established our supremacy on the sea, and we could not embark them if our Navy had been defeated. If it were true that we could not embark a striking force until we were in that position, then danger of invasion on a great scale was as visionary as the theorists declared it to be. If we came into conflict with a great Power, from the outbreak of hostilities we should have to begin to form and train as large an Army as we possibly could. But if we were to have economy in peace our organisation for the striking force of nine or ten divisions could not be totally distinct from the organisation for feeding our peace garrison abroad. That created a slight
  142
  presumption in favour—he would not say of the linked battalion—but certainly of a battalion system as against a depot system at home, or otherwise we should have to pay far more than we did at present. We had now about eighty-five regiments abroad. After about five years abroad a soldier ceased to be as good a man as he was the first five years, so that new drafts had to be sent out every year to take the place of individual soldiers, and it was bad for any regiment to remain abroad for more than fifteen years. Thus in time of profound peace we had to send between 20,000 and 30,000 men abroad every year, and it should not be impossible to make the organisation for supplying these men coincide with the organisation for our striking force. It did create a presumption in favour, at any rate, of battalions, though not necessarily of linked battalions, and it did create a presumption against depot training, although he believed there must be both in any system. He thought we should aim at getting large and good depots. A very high authority once told him that if we wanted to work our drafts and reliefs by battalions it was no use having four battalions to a regiment; but a good deal of battalion training could be given if regiments were divided into eight battalions, with five abroad and three at home. Could not the right hon. Gentleman arrive at some scheme which would give the training advantages of the battalions and some of the advantages also of the large depots by grouping the Army into larger groups? The Secretary of State had himself laid it down that even in the "blue-water" theory we needed a great power of expansion behind our striking force in order to finish a war within a reasonable time. What had we to look to? The Reserves, the Volunteers, and the manhood of the nation. Yes, but all those forces must be susceptible of training at the time of the outbreak of war. He could imagine no more calamitous day for this country than for legions of men to come clamouring for guidance and finding there were not enough regimental officers and that there was not a staff. There would be the metal but not the mould into which that metal was

  143
  to be poured. It might sound a simple thing, but one of the hardest problems in the art of war was to show people where to go, how to get there, and what to do when they got there. Problems of time, distance, and direction lay at the very core of the whole art of war. If that were so, it was clear that some plan was wanted which would give plenty of regimental officers, and a highly trained staff, and that again raised a presumption against dispensing with battalions absolutely at home. It was difficult to train men except in battalions, but he defied them to train officers unless there were battalions. The whole success of an attack often depended on hitting the right place in an enemy's position. He defied them to train a staff properly unless they had battalions. They must get each division absolutely and accurately on the very place on the map from which it could strike, and if it deviated by the smallest angle the whole attack might perish. Bad staff work made success impossible. No staff could be trained unless it had battalions, brigades, and divisions with which it could be trained. It did not follow that they must all be Regular battalions, but there must be Regular battalions in sufficient number to supply the nucleus of each brigade during the minor manœuvres which must take place when regimental officers and staff officers were to be trained to meet the day of war. If those conditions were observed he thought we needed some simplification. The Secretary of State already had at his disposal a large number of kinds of troops—the Regular battalion abroad, the Regular battalion at home, the small depot, the large depot, the Militia, the Militia Reserve, the Volunteers, the Volunteer Reserve, and rifle clubs; and now there was a project for giving some slight training to anybody who would undergo it. Some simplification was absolutely necessary if any economy was to be effected. How were we to get it? He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman could materially alter the present condition of the Volunteers. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had better leave the Volunteers to expand at the
  144
  proper time, and if he had the necessary staff officers to guide them perhaps we should make the best of the Volunteers under those conditions. But what was he going to do with the Militia? The Militia he would be driven either to let down towards the status of the Volunteers or to lift up towards the status of the Regular Army. Existing in the air as it did now between the Regular Army and the Volunteers the Militia would die out. He thought the solution of the problem would be not to absorb the Militia in the Line, but to establish some strong and close relation between the home battalions, the large depots, and the Militia. That was an integral portion of Lord Cardwell's original theory; and it was foreshadowed in a marvellous paper written by Pitt to William Wyndham, which showed that they must use the territorial system to bring the Militia and depots and. home battalions into some close relationship. He apologised to the Committee for having made these few observations, and he thanked the Government for having given the Committee an opportunity of taking a bird's-eye view of the whole field of military defence. The Secretary for War had his best wishes for his success.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a speech of the highest interest, because he had reviewed from a very broad standpoint questions of the most far-reaching kind in connection with military organisation. He believed with the right hon. Gentleman that these questions must be treated as a whole; that the organisation of the Army, heterogeneous though that Army was, was one and indivisible; and yet, as had been said, one was confronted at every turn by difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman had begun his speech with a rather gloomy forecast about economy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in that respect. He had always thought economy was not a thing, that would be accomplished at a stroke, that it was easier to talk about than to effect; but because it was difficult it was not impossible. The noble Lord the Member for Maidstone had said that

  145
  the Secretary for War had received more encouragement from the Opposition side of the House than from his own, but he did not think the noble Lord was right. On his banner was inscribed, no doubt, the word "efficiency," but the word "economy" was also inscribed upon it, and on the question of economy he was bound to say that he had received most ample encouragement from the Ministerial side of the House— as much as he could possibly desire. For efficiency he had received much encouragement too. He could not help thinking that hon. Members ought not to grudge him the transient momentary popularity which he enjoyed. By that time next year it was possible—if he were disposed to indulge in gloomy forebodings—that he might see himself the most unpopular War Minister there had been for a long time. [An HON. MEMBER: That will want a lot of doing.] Economies were not easy to effect, and the right hon. Gentleman had been well advised in referring to the difficulty of automatic increases. Automatic increases were always taking place, and the worst of it was that not only had one to deal with necessary automatic increases, but also with automatic increases which might have been avoided which were the result of changes of policy, perhaps dating a very long way back, and which were not easy to alter when once they had become operative. Yet, notwithstanding all the difficulties, it seemed to him that there was room in the present condition of things for— he would not put it higher—a hope of economy, substantial economy, in Army organisation. He did not say that he individually could do it, but he did say that he thought it could be done. He could not forget that the Estimates had gone up £11,500,000 in the very short time of about ten years, and he could not forget that even taking the ideal of a striking force of three Army corps, or nine divisions, on the Indian basis, there was a vast surplus which arose from want of organisation of the Army as a whole. He gave the figures the other day, simply quoting them roughly and from memory. We required for the nine divisions 130,000 men. We had, on the footing of mobilising, as we wanted to mobilise for this
  146
  purpose, our reserves, and taking into account the Militia and Yeomanry, 330,000 men in the country—a surplus of 200,000 men. We wanted a large amount of support for etceteras, but 200,000 was an enormous surplus, and it seemed to him hard if it were not possible to get out of that something very substantial indeed in the way of reduction. It also seemed to him that such a reduction ought to be compatible with more efficiency, and to be possible with a very substantial body of men who were not really required for any Imperial organisation on the basis of nine divisions or three Army corps. That, at any rate, was the problem which the War Secretary to-day had to face. The Member for Croydon had faced it, and he appreciated thoroughly the way in which he had desired to get at the solution of the problem. But he had never been able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He felt himself much nearer to the Member for Dover in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of what had been called—and he agreed with him that it was an unsatisfactory name—the linked-battalion system. It was better to speak of feeding and training battalions. The system was one in which, instead of depots being used to train or feed, battalions were used for this purpose. He agreed that the system was not one to be lightly or rashly abandoned. He did not pledge himself to it, but he felt that it was a system which had a great deal of promise and potency in it, and he was astonished at the acerbity which had been introduced into this matter. As to the controversy to which the system had given rise, he could only say that he had taken part in many controversies, theological and political, controversies of every sort, but in none had he noticed a sharper division of opinion than on this question of battalions versus depots as instruments of training for the British Army. It was hopeless to expect to get men to agree about it. We might as well expect them to agree about predestination. This controversy would go on in the House session after session, with the result that the only way the unfortunate Secretary for War who desired to learn could pursue was to listen to all sides and,

  147
  after hearing all that was to be said, to take his own way. He could only say at this moment that whatever might be said against our system of feeding battalions, it had a great many advantages —advantages to which the Member for Dover had already referred. For our money we got more cadres under this than under any other system. The home cadre was very important from the point of view of fighting efficiency. It was only in time of peace that the home battalion which fed the battalion abroad was passing drafts through it. In time of war the reserve was called out and these skeleton battalions—skeleton battalions so far as efficient fighting men were concerned — were clothed. In the Cardwell system they preserved the spirit of territorialism. All he wished to observe about the Cardwell system was that it was a system from which he was not going to depart lightly. He might have to depart from it; but he would have to know a reason very definitely before making a change which seemed to him to go to the root of the organisation of the British Army. Depots must not only be great depots, but they must do very different work from anything they knew any depot was doing now. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to Caterham. He was himself at Caterham very recently, and he found that the Guards recruit received sixteen week's training there. His battalion, of course, was always at home, and he was trained in his battalion at home. He had only sixteen weeks in that big depot. The depot itself never could produce the training of the battalion, though it could give education and a certain amount of preparation to the soldier which would enable him to work better at battalion work; but the work of the battalion it could not give; Moreover, there was another great difficulty in these large depots. India would not take troops who were not seasoned—troops less than twenty years of age. The reason of that was to be found in the conditions of health in India. How were men of twenty years of age to be got from a depot at home? A depot was not a place where a man could be kept a couple of years; and if it was required to recruit men in this country over eighteen years of age, it would be found
  148
  that the conditions of the country made it impossible to get all that were required. It would be found that at that age men got into employment, or perhaps got married. A man could not be kept at the depot for more than a few months; and the class required to be trained for India, to be employed there and put to work when they had reached the age of twenty and not before, could not be got in this country in any great quantities. Therefore they were thrown back on the battalion system for training the soldier to pass through the Indian battalion that was linked to it and then to be brought home to the Reserve. Taking it from whatever point of view, it seemed to him, as at present advised, that the linked battalion system was the most workable. The figures with which they were all familiar showed that about 65,000 men at home fed about 85,000 abroad. He included in the term "abroad" the battalions on short tour in the Mediterranean at this time. They therefore wanted about 27,500 a year to feel the 85,000 abroad. Taking that number out, there were left 37,500 available for home service. It seemed to him that the feeding battalion system was a system which required to be considered very carefully; and they should pause before they abolished it as going to the root not only of the present organisation of the Army, but, as he was rather inclined to think, though he said it with all reserve, of further developments which ought to take place, such as a more complete territorial organisation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of South Africa and the policy which turned on South Africa. He said that the Government would be doing a very rash thing if they interfered to any large extent with the establishment kept up in South Africa, unless they were perfectly certain, as he understood him, of satisfying the British element, which was our nearest concern over there. He agreed that they must satisfy that element; but there was another element they must satisfy also. If there was to be peace and tranquillity in South Africa so that our policy might enable us to reduce armaments, they must satisfy both Boer and Briton. That was what they had to work out; and he agreed that

  149
  until they had satisfied, not merely the one element, but the other also, it would be very difficult to bring things on to a harmonious footing and to reduce our garrison out there. But, at the same time, he was not sure that the maintenance of large garrison in South Africa was just the thing to conduce most to that harmony of which he spoke. Let the matter be worked out by all means; but he was not sure that its working out was assisted by keeping up in a prominent and ostentatious fashion anything like a large military display. There had been striking confirmation in the history of the country of the valuable results that had sometimes come from the withdrawal of a garrison at an opportune moment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite also spoke of the "blue-water" principle and the danger of pushing it too far. He agreed that it could be treated as an abstract principle, and could be pushed too far. They could not justify, of course, the keeping up of the Volunteers if they were out and out for the "blue-water" school; but this nation was governed, as Mr. Disraeli once said, not by logic but by Parliament. This Parliament was just as much Parliament after the general election as the Parliament of a year or twenty years ago, and as long as Parliament remained Parliament, this country would never be logical. Therefore there was no danger of their running to extreme courses over "blue-water" principles. He agreed with some of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite about both the Volunteers and the Militia; they had to consider them also as well as the Regular Army in considering our fighting efficiency. The country had no right to keep them up to the present point unless it got value for its money. He thought he went a little slower than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon in his way of approaching these things. He thought the country could get value for its money out of both the Militia and the Volunteers without taking any sudden or strong step with regard to them. They could not, however, be left as they were now. Volunteers hovered between being Regular soldiers and not being soldiers at all. They could not be justified as men to be put against Regulars without a great deal
  150
  more training than they got at the present time, and they could not get that trailing in time of peace. On the other hand, the Militia, he agreed, must have something done. They must be brought nearer to the Regular Army, and the Regular Army also must be brought nearer to them. He did feel that the Militiaman was a soldier, but he was a civilian for nine-tenths of his time, and they had to see that during the remaining one-tenth of his time, when he was a soldier, he acted as a soldier. During that time he wanted to be levelled up very much more, and he wanted to serve under his own officers. Again, the Militia ought not to be bled of its best men. The best men ought not to be taken out of every company. But the Militia should be none the less a support to, and in another sense a reserve for, the Regular Army The Militiaman was nearer than the Volunteer to the Regular Army. He was a Regular soldier for part of his time, and a definite function must be assigned to him. When that function was assigned to him he believed the Militiaman would cheerfully accept it, and the Militia would once more become a popular service. No one could tell what mischief was done both to the Militia and the Volunteers by not assigning to them definite functions. It was not that they needed to be stirred into action. They had shown what they could do. But to-day we had no definite notions of what we wanted to do with the Volunteers and Militia. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had definite ideas, but he thought they were too definite. He thought that if a proper and definite place was assigned to the Volunteers and the Militia in the organisation, it would be possible, without suddenly revolutionising anything, to bring them into line in such a way as to get value for our money and to get them in a concentrated form such as they were not in at the present moment. On the whole, though it was a policy which some might regard as open to a certain amount of suspicion, he believed that his own view of trusting to soldiers, and trusting to them even in matters of economy, was not only easiest, but cheapest. After all, they were dealing with matters

  151
  of a highly technical kind, and soldiers were just as good economists as anybody else. If they got the chance, and if a Minister set to work to get their sympathy on his side, there was not a man in the War Office who did not desire to bring down the cost of the Army if it could possibly be done consistently with efficiency, and there were many men there who thought that the efficiency which all desired could be obtained for a less expenditure of money than it cost at the present time. He thought that was the spirit which existed among the military experts, and when that spirit existed among the military experts it was well to have them on one's side. It was desirable in the interests of economy to work with the experts, and, above all, to have a settled policy accepted as far as possible by both Parties, and by that great middle element which set the tone to both Parties, which would enable one to carry on continuously without sudden reversals and upheavals always resulting in vast expenditure. The policy of grouping regiments, which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, required to be pursued with extreme caution. It might mitigate some of the pressure which occasionally arose under the Cardwell system, although that pressure had been exaggerated. He was a Scotsman, and, although only a Lowlander, would shrink from the notion of grouping kilts in the Highland regiments. There would be peril of exciting jealousies if these regiments, with their distinctive traditions and tartans, were grouped. The noble Lord the Member for Maidstone had not sufficiently distinguished between reconnaissances and staff rides, The surveys of the terra ought not to be surveys of the terra of the United Kingdom, but of places where there was real use for such services. What an advantage it would have been if the money spent on surveys some years ago in preparing for the defence of the United Kingdom, which was already adequately defended by the Fleet, had been spent in surveying South Africa! In the last war we had no maps, no information about positions. The right figure which he should have given as the cost of staff surveys in this country was
  152
  £7,000, not £14,000. He would consider the proposal of the hon. Member for West Marylebone with regard to cadets, but thought there might be difficulties in the way. He reminded the hon. Member for Blackpool that there were more urgent matters to be attended to before much money could be spent on clothes. He did not think there was a great deal to be complained of in the present dress. The Army was, and must be, on short commons for some time. There was no room for luxuries. The reduction of £800,000 had been referred to by the hon. Member for Barnstaple. That reduction was made by severe pruning down expenses without any sacrifice of efficiency; to cut down to the same extent again would not be done with ease or in a short time. He did not say it could not be done; it was the very business on which he should be embarked during the next twelve months. But the only undertaking he could give was that he would do his best to effect further savings. But let him do it in his own way, and with the co-operation of the soldier. He did wish to get it into the heads of all about him that this was really the way that gave most hope of success.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERdid not like to say, "vixere fortes ante Agamemnona multi"; but he wanted to say in his own justification that there had been people at the War Office before the right hon. Gentleman who had not been stone blind and stone deaf. The right hon. Gentleman had enumerated to the House a number of larger and smaller changes as the result of applying thought to matters on which there was need for clear thinking. He mentioned five or six operations which were supposed to show how easily a process which he compared to the transmutation of metals in the imagination of the alchemist could be performed if they had the mind to do it. One was the application of the blue-water principle to the abolition of the forts on the Surrey hills. In April last year, however, he had explained to the House the arrangments at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Sheerness in substitution for the defences abandoned in Surrey. Only a small remnant of tools remained in the

  153
  fort which the right hon. Gentleman saw, because they were more conveniently stored there than anywhere else; and the whole cost of the fort was the cost of a caretaker. As a perfectly natural consequence of this new policy, the whole of the scheme of the defence of London was abandoned more than a year ago, and abandoned with the assent of the House.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the fort was full of valuable stores, which were being supplied from week to week. He found new axes had been sent down only the week before his visit. He saw 3,300 Lyddite shells and things of that kind. He did not say it as a reproach, but the forts were full of stores, and were being kept up.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the only reason these forts were kept up was simply that they might be store-houses. If the right hon. Gentleman doubted that he offered to read the statement he had made to the last Parliament as to the orders given.
  MR. HALDANEdid not doubt that the statement was made; he might doubt whether it was carried out. He certainly saw one of the forts himself in the condition he described, and inquiry of the Army Council confirmed him.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that he really did not know to what the right hon. Gentleman referred. The renewal of armaments in the fortresses around the coast had been going on for three years. The date of the War Office action as to the removal of the garrison of St. Helena was November, 1904, and only 200 artillerymen were left there temporarily against the protest of the War Office at the special request of the Admiralty. The reconnaissance service, with which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was twitted in a reference to Birmingham as the centre of England, was overhauled in May, 1904, and the work severely limited to certain work on the south-east and south-west coasts at the expense only of the out-of-pocket expenses of the officers. It was on entirely military grounds that a limited number were
  154
  retained, and now he understood the right hon. Gentleman was going to stop their operations. He was unable to ascertain what was the extra expense, but in his opinion it was limited to £100, and he would like to know whether the engineer officers would continue to be employed in carrying out this service. Another example brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was the Tidworth barracks, and he said they should not be there. Quite true; but in fairness it might be mentioned that last year he told the House that at the second meeting he attended at the War Office he gave orders to stop barrack construction, and in this way an expenditure of £1,500,000 was stopped. This style of barracks was most distasteful to recruits, and he decided that no more of them should be built. That was decided three years ago. Of the barracks which the right hon. Gentleman saw the foundations had been laid, and these were left. He did not wish to make too much of small matters, but it would not have been fair to the Committee not to have mentioned that action had already been taken, guided by those considerations that had influenced the right hon. Gentleman in his study of the problem. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the record of the Defence Committee and of the Army Council he would find that the questions to which he had referred and he (Mr. Arnold-Forster) had endeavoured to explain, had, with scores of others, been considered, and were not the result of a sudden outburst of the clear thinking which had been alluded to. With regard to the Militia, he did not want the right hon. Gentleman to pledge himself, but he had told the Committee something that was calculated to cause considerable alarm. Two schemes, he said, were under consideration, and when he indicated a change by which the training of the Militia was to be made a means of relieving the poor rates he suggested what would certainly be the greatest possible mistake; it might be a good thing for the unemployed, but it would be one of the worst things possible for the Militia and the Army. If the men were being trained as members of the Army he could understand it, but if

  155
  this system of winter training-was only to be used as an adjunct to the poor law administration it would be a great mistake. Another suggestion was to call out certain battalions for six months' training and for six weeks' subsequent training. The right hon. Gentleman had said that a man in the Militia was a civilian for eleven months and a soldier for one, and how was he going to make him a soldier for seven and a half months and a civilian for four and a half months? 35,000 recruits went into the Militia in 1904. Six months training on enlistment and six weeks subsequently, what proportion did that bear to the whole? It would be a third of the whole recruiting, and officers must be provided for the training of these men.
  MR. HALDANEsaid it was not proposed to apply this generally. It was limited to twenty battalions and was for the purpose of finding out where, under local conditions, better recruits could be obtained.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was glad to hear that it would not be extended to the rest of the Militia. But did the right hon. Gentleman think the men could be trained by their own officers? Of these the senior officers could give a month to the duty; then there were a certain number of retired captains from the Army, some useful, some not; a certain number of officers who had failed to get into the Army and went from battalion to battalion in order to make an income; and the remainder would certainly not train for seven months. He believed the attempt would destroy the Militia. Did the Committee realise that in 1904 35,000 men went into the Militia and that 38,000 went out of it, that of the 35,000 who went into it 22,000 either deserted or went into the Line, and that 12,000 of those that were left were under the age of twenty and therefore unable to go into the Line? He believed that great harm would be done to the Militia and to the Line by attaching to the experiment the condition that a man should not enter the Line until after receiving military training. In many cases it would mean putting off passing into the Line for
  156
  from ten to eighteen months. Of the men who entered the Line eighty per cent. never went into Militia training, and the expectation that these men would go into the Line after eighteen months in the Militia would not be realised. Such a system would destroy both the Line and the Militia. They would perpetuate a bad system, and make the one absolutely dependent on the other. Until they gave the Militia what it ought to have, namely, an independent territorial existence, they would always have these difficulties, which would only he aggravated by the proposals made. There was a misconception as to recruiting: it had not been a bad recruiting season.
  The number of recruits in the past year had been 4,500 below that of the previous year, but that year had been the heaviest known in peace time and the medical regulations were not then in force. But they were in force last summer, and thousands of men were refused as medically unfit, while each recruit was ten times the value of a recruit under the previous system. When the figures were tested by the proportion of waste, it would be seen that a wise step had been taken. Recruiting had not been bad; there had been an ample supply of recruits if proper use were made of them. He was not in favour of keeping the system of linked battalions. It was idle to say that if the depot training was substituted for linked battalion training the recruit should not get battalion training. A man having been in the depot for six months was drafted into a battalion for fighting service. The Royal Navy and the Guards and the Royal Marines were recruited from depots. The right hon. Gentleman was again mistaken in supposing that the Marines were not taken until the age of twenty. They were taken at the age of eighteen, and the right hon. Gentleman was also mistaken in supposing that a recruit could not be trained in a depot in four or six months. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that they could not get a sufficient number of recruits at a suitable age for India. At present they were getting a larger number of recruits over the age of nineteen than were necessary to supply the waste of the Army in India.

  157
  He should like to tell the Committee what was the real essential difference between the linked battalion system and the depot system. In order to keep up the battalions abroad we had to supply the waste. The real waste of a battalion 900 strong serving abroad, taking the ever company organisation period of enlistment as nine years, was one-ninth every year. That proportion was diminished by extensions and increased by sickness, invaliding, death, and discharge. In order to supply that waste, about 130 men were required each year, and for the purpose of supplying those men we kept up at home a great barracks, a battalion 700 or 800 strong, with a colonel, two majors, eight captains, subalterns, and a band, as well as a depot with a permanent establishment of forty or fifty men. That was a wasteful plan. The waste of a battalion 900 strong could be supplied by sending out seventy men trained at a depot twice a year. If the right hon. Gentleman cut down the battalions and retained the linked battalion system he would find himself hopelessly at a loss for trained reserves for the Army. He believed that force of circumstances would be too much for the right hon. Gentleman. The training depots at Winchester, Caterham, and Newcastle were standing and interesting examples of the possibility of training men in depots. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had not pledged himself in this matter, and he was confident that when he came to study the facts, as he had seen and studied them, the inexorable logic of the situation would bring him to the same conclusion, and that they would have the abandonment of the linked battalion system and the substitution of the depot system for it. The right hon. Gentleman had another great constructive plan, but he did not trouble about it because he did not believe it would come to anything. He did not believe that an army of village Hampdens would be any good; they would be a perfect nuisance to everybody. He was not speaking of rifle clubs. The right hon. Gentleman had not let them into the secret; but he had seen enough of the proposal to understand what it meant. In addition to the Navy, the Army, the Militia, the Yeomanry, and the Volunteers, there was to be a force to be
  158
  called out when they pleased, possibly on Saturday afternoons. They were not to have uniforms; they were to go to the national schools and be instructed by Volunteer sergeants. There was to be no battalion organisation; not even company organisation.
  MR. HALDANE: I have no plan.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid a great many people had, and he thought he had seen many schemes that the right hon. Gentleman had had before him. At all events, this was to be a new army [MINISTERIAL cries of "What army?"] —an army of village Hampdens. His belief was that the Volunteers would not look kindly on this army, which, so far as he could see, could only be constructed at their expense. He felt strongly that they were in danger of sacrificing quality to quantity, and that was the last thing they ought to do. His right hon. friend had not told them where he would get his officers from. He did not believe in the kind of officers of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke the other day, men who made war a bye-product of their daily business. As in the Navy so in the Army; the officer must be a specialised, highly trained individual. He saw no suggestion at all as to how they were going to get the officers. He trusted that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman would be firm, He hoped the Committee would not think him impertinent if he ventured to say that he believed that the more the right hon. Gentleman studied these problems, the more he realised their true nature, the more would he be convinced that there was only one clear, logical solution. Already they were coming within measurable distance of some of those things which he was not able to do but which he hoped were in sight. He was aware that there was a strong and growing opinion in some quarters in favour of the depot system, but there was an equally strong and growing opinion in favour of territorialising the Militia and taking them away from service to the Line. He believed they would eventually come nearer and nearer to the ideal which he had formed, and which he had tried to persuade the House to accept. He had confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, and he regarded him as standing between

  159
  them and some of those fanciful schemes the whole tendency of which was to sacrifice quality to quantity.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down took credit for having initiated many of the changes which the present Secretary for War was about to carry out. But what were the facts? If they took, for example, a case of St. Helena it would be found that the troops there were sent out by the last Government. They had heard a good deal about the "blue-water" school, but he was not so sure that that theory was fully understood. He thought it was a cardinal principle of that theory that we must rule out of consideration all ideas of our being defeated at sea. The view put forward by the "blue-water" school was that given by the Secretary of State for War, that only about 5,000 or 10,000 men could raid this country after evading the Navy. A certain number of steamers might evade the blockade. When they took a larger number, when they contemplated twenty funnels emitting smoke, it became practically impossible to evade the naval defence which we could put forth. To put it briefly, the blue-water school endeavoured to think in battleships, and regarded all expenditure from that point of view. When they talked about cutting down the defences he would remind them of a Return which was published in 1903–4, relating to the money spent by the War Office on passive defence and active defence. That Return showed that half the net Army Estimates were spent on coast defences, defence of naval bases and stationary forces, and that took no account of the enormous expenditure upon military works. That expenditure could easily be cut down, because it was governed by our policy of naval supremacy. If they estimated half the Army Estimates in battleships of the "Dreadnought" type, putting her life at twenty years, and including the cost of crew, repairs, coal and stores and everything else, they would find that the passive defence of the Army worked out at about fifty "Dreadnoughts," which they could keep in full commission and replace for the money now being spent on the passive defence of the country. To those who were asking for these coast defences he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the same answer as was given to
  160
  Bristol in 1797, when the cabinet said that if they wanted fortifications they must pay for them themselves. That was the only safe way. Another point to which attention had not been drawn was the enormous expansion of the British Empire, which threatened to outrun our military capacity. During the last twenty-one years thirty United Kingdoms in area had been added to the British Empire. He ventured to assert that if they spent too liberally on the Army it would inevitably lead them to economise on the Navy. The Stanhope Memorandum of 1891, elicited by the Hartington Commission, laid down everything in exactly the wrong order, opposite to the blue-water principles. The first thing it laid down as the purpose of the Army was the maintenance of civil order; the second, that it existed to prevent the invasion of these islands; the third, that it existed for the defence of the coasts and commerce; the fourth, that it was to provide drafts for India and the colonies; and the fifth, that it existed, subject to the foregoing purposes and to financial considerations, to provide a striking force. This showed the immense reversal of policy which was now going on, and which, he thought, would succeed in bringing about the economy they so much desired on the Liberal benches.
  MR. POWERsaid the increase in the naval and military Estimates in recent years had been simply appalling. He doubted whether there had been a corresponding increase in efficiency. The report of the Financial Relations Commission showed that Ireland contributed more than its proper share of taxation, and therefore the growing expenditure on armaments was a matter to which the representatives of that country could not be indifferent. Even at the risk of making enemies, they had declared their abhorrence to some of the wars of aggression of which this expenditure was the consequence. Ireland was naturally proud of the horses it produced, and he wished to know what steps the War Office had taken, or intended to take, regarding the disease which was introduced after the South African war. This was a matter of national importance, for anything that interefered with the production and sale of horses in Ireland naturally

  161
  affected the whole industry. At present the trade was absolutely dislocated. The disease was introduced by the negligence of the War Office, who sent diseased horses, which spread the disease all over the constituency he represented. He was anxious to know what steps were to be taken to stamp out the disease. They had indulged in a short-sighted policy in trying to cure these animals. If the animals had been slaughtered the people in the south of Ireland would not have been complaining now. He held that, instead of tinkering away as at present, the War Office should not stand on small technicalities in regard to the proportion of the cost of the slaughtered animals to be paid. He thought the War Office should pay the entire cost of the animals which it had been found necessary to slaughter in order to prevent the disease from spreading. He had no statistics at present as to what had been paid by the local authorities in his part of Ireland, but he knew that the ratepayers were already taxed to the tune of 8s. 6d. in the £1. This taxation was a grievance of which they had reason to complain. In equity and justice the cost should be paid by the War Office, and he commended the matter to the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. The disease was introduced by three Artillery horses in Waterford, and it had gone over the entire south of Ireland.
  MR. MORTONsaid they knew that the Army and Navy were going to cost something like £66,000,000, the portion appertaining to the Army being about £30,000,000. He wished to know from the Secretary of State for War, whether that was all the Army was going to cost.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUPPLY [3RD 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 £10,220,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, etc., of His Majestys' Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  Debate arising,
  MR. MORTON(continuing his speech) said that in ten years the cost of the Army had been doubled, although they were told by Lord Roberts that the condition of the Army now was no better than in 1899. Unless they could reduce expenditure generally, and that of the Army in particular, they could get none of those reforms which had been promised by the Liberal Party and which were desired by the country. He now intervened in the hope that the Government would before long take some steps to reduce this expenditure. What he wished to know was what was to be the total expenditure on the Army for the forthcoming year, because the Estimates, as they were told by Mr. Gibson Bowles in his pamphlet, never agreed with the total spent. In the year 1904–5, as Mr. Bowles pointed out, although the Estimate was £29,163,837, the total cost of the Army was £37,833,000. This year the Estimate was about £30,000,000, but in addition to that there were appropriations in aid over £3,000,000, and in the Civil Service Estimates a further £500,000 was provided for Army purposes, whilst there was a very large amount to be added under the Military Works Acts, which meant loans. Unless they knew what was going to be spent for the Army out of loans, it was impossible to get at the total cost. He congratulated the Secretary to the Admiralty upon the account which he had put before the House. That account did in fact show the total cost of the Navy, and he urged the Secretary of State for War to treat the Army Estimates in the same manner. He did not think it was necessary to move a reduction, but he contended that they were only doing their duty in calling attention to these matters before the money was voted and spent. The cost of the Army must be reduced, otherwise the Government could not carry out the

  163
  reforms promised to the country. He would like the Committee to say, "There is £20,000,000, and you must carry on your Army with that; you will have no more." He was told that there were £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 wasted in the Army, and that by a little economy a good deal of money would be saved. He noticed in the Estimates a charge of £71,700 for chaplains and ministers, and a separate charge of £1,000 for a chaplain general, and £50 for his clerk. Why was not that amount of £1,050 put in with the £71,700? He supposed the reason was that that was waste and nothing was done for the money. It was for that reason he called attention to those items, and he had no doubt many similar items might be found in the Estimates. Taxation had now reached its limit, and the people could not find more money to carry out the reforms that were necessary for the well-being of the country. The money could only be found by saving. The Liberal Party had promised these reforms and they had promised large reductions in the cost of the Army in order to provide the money. What we wanted in this country was the settlement of disputes by arbitration, and that instead of spending money on Armies the Government should place themselves at the head of a league of peace and do away with these great armaments Although everything connected with War was bad, it was necessary, he supposed, for us to keep an efficient Army, but he did not see why we should not have a good one at a much loss cost. This country had been warned against this kind of expenditure. Lord Lytton had said—
  "Let England draw the moral and beware not only of wars which exhaust, but of Governments which impoverish. A waste of the public wealth is the most lasting of afflictions."
  If the present expenditure of the Army was continued the exact state of things which Lord Lytton warned the country against would occur. Tacitus, who flourished about the year 90, also pointed a moral when he said—
  "The treasury which is drained by extravagance must be refilled by crime."
  There appeared to have been a wicked Tory Party even in those early days. He contended that to spend money on the Army for mere fighting purposes when the money was wanted for the purposes of necessary reforms in this country was
  164
  a crime against the community. What was wanted was a Liberal Party which would insist upon the Government's doing what was right, and upon their keeping their pledges, which they could not do if they went on in this extravagant manner. They would never be able to reduce Army expenditure until they got a House of Commons which would refuse to vote blindly whatever was put before them, but which, instead, would warn Ministers of the consequences of recklessly spending money in the way they were now doing. They did not go to the country for the mere purpose of changing one sot of Ministers for another. The Liberals were placed in power in order to reduce expenditure and in order that the people of this country should be better served than before.
  MR. O'SHEEurged that inasmuch as the introduction of the disease epizootic lymphangitis into Ireland was entirely owing to the incompetence and negligence of the members of the Army Veterinary Department, the large area of that country affected was entitled to some compensation. This was a serious matter for Ireland, for the horse trade was of very great importance to a large area; and the introduction of the disease had caused a considerable money loss. The Waterford County Council had paid no less than £800 compensation under the Diseases of Animals Act, and the Waterford Agricultural Society had lost £350 in connection with the show, which was prohibited on account of the existence of the disease. He was told by the right hon. Member for South Dublin last session that there was no statutory power to enable a sum to be paid out of Imperial funds to compensate for the loss caused, but he found from an answer given by the Secretary of State last session that the War Office had paid small sums to officers who had lost their horses in consequence of the disease.
  MR. VERNEYsaid there was one point to which he desired to call attention—a point which seemed not to have been sufficiently mentioned during the debate. While a good deal had been said about economy, only one class of economy had occupied the attention of the Committee, the economy of saving money. There was another

  165
  kind of economy oven more important, and that was that the country should get value for the money spent. The smaller the Army the more important it was that the officers should be very highly trained. He spoke as a civilian although he had served as a volunteer at a public school and at the Unversity and in the Yeomanry. He agreed with much that had been said as to the importance of economy as regarded saving, but he desired to add a few words as to the economy of efficiency. The total increase in the expenditure for their armies and navies during the past ten years by the four great military Powers of Europe— Russia, Germany, Prance and Italy—amounted to £27,000,000; whereas the increase in the cost of naval and military forces of the United Kingdom for the same period was £50,000,000. These figures were sufficient to show what an extremely serious problem had to be faced. In Clode's "Military Forces of the Crown" it was pointed out that the pay of officers in Line regiments had not been materially increased for more than a century. It had been said that officers received allowances for various requirements, such as furniture for their rooms and mess furniture, but, in fact, these allowances were allowances to the Government rather than to the officers. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes, which might be interpreted by officers that they regard with a certain reasonable suspicion offers from the War Office to supply them with furniture on the hire system. In nineteen years an officer would have paid for the hire of his furniture double the sum originally paid for it by the Government, and it remained the property of the Government after an officer had paid for it twice over. Moreover any repairs needed were paid for by the officers themselves. That he called an Imperial hire system, and the Government made an uncommonly good thing out of it. He had no objection to the Government supplying furniture to officers, but they should not make a profit out of it. On the other hand, the private soldier and the non-commissioned officer had had very considerable increases in their pay during the past 100 years. The question directly connected with pay was education. In diplomacy proficiency in certain professional subjects was rewarded by an increase of pay. The
  166
  same principle should be observed in the Army. He believed that there was no profession in this country where so little direct encouragement was given to the technical study of the higher branches as in the Army, and he thought that officers who showed a proficiency in these higher branches should receive a proportionate increase in their pay.
  MR. BRACEsaid that he was not acquainted with linked battalions or other military matters, but he and his fellow Labour Members had been sent to Parliament on a distinct issue, viz., to protest against the enormous expenditure on the Army. It would not be consistent for his own dignity, or in accordance with the wishes of his constituents, if he did not make clear to the Committee his position on this matter. He thought the right hon. the Secretary for War might well reconsider the attitude he had taken up after the more than flattering comments which had been passed upon his splendid speeches by the Gentlemen on the Opposition benches. If there was anything in the world that would lead him to doubt that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was a good one, it would be the flattering manner in which it had been received by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches. A start had been made on a wrong basis. The present year seemed to have been the basis taken, whereas it should have been, both as regarded the number of men and the expenditure of money, the year 1897. What was there in the situation to-day which would warrant this Committee in passing expenditure for an Army larger by 45,000 men than the Army of 1897? If ever there was a time in the history of Britain when the number of men in the Army could safely be reduced it was the present. The horizon was absolutely clear, thanks in a great measure to the good offices of the King, and of hon. Gentlemen who had made sacrifices in attempting to bring about a better understanding between nation and nation; and if the House of Commons was to carry out the demand of the country to reduce the expenditure on our military forces now was the opportunity to begin. He quite understood the difficulty of the present Secretary for War, who had to take over a bad legacy from the late Government; but they who had come to Parliament pledged to a policy

  167
  of economy ought to have a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman that his policy was not to be based on the expenditure of the late Government, but on that of 1897. In 1897 the expenditure in the Army amounted to £19,500,000; in 1906 it had leapt up to £29,750,000. There was nothing to justify an increase of £10,250,070 in ten years. Now was the time to practice economy, when there were no complications with other countries. In a time of peace we seemed to be living on a war footing, and that ought not to he the case with a Government returned to power to pursue a policy of peace. The people of the country did not understand more than he did the technicalities of linked battalions and the blue-water school, but they did appreciate the fact that they were groaning under a burden of taxation, and they hoped that this Government would reduce military and naval expenditure to the fair and proper level. He wanted not to be only logical but consistent. War was to him an abomination, and his experience as a Labour leader had shown him the appalling effect of strikes. He was glad to say that at the last international workmen's congress which met in Belgium, a resolution, proposed and supported by the Labour leaders from Belgium, France, Germany, Austria and the United States, was unanimously passed, setting forth that all international disputes should be settled by arbitration rather than by war. It was in conformity with that policy that he maintained that no opportunity should be lost for reducing expenditure on the naval and military forces of the country.
  MR. FELLsaid he knew that when a new Minister entered into office he found numerous engagements made by his predecessors which tied his hands to a large extent If the large sum of £30,000,000 was to be spent on the Army, a larger number of men and more guns should be obtained than now. France had an Army of 525,000, Germany an Army of 600,000, Austria an Army of 350,000, yet the Army budget of all these countries was considerably less than ours. He did not suggest that with a volunteer Army we could compete with countries where conscription strictly prevailed. The greater pay which the English soldier received as compared with the continental
  168
  soldier in no way accounted for the difference in the cost of the different armies. The English private soldier cost £96 per year, but the French soldier only cost £36, and he was just as well cared for, as well nurtured and as well clothed as the English private. Besides, for that money France had all her great fortresses and 3,000 cannons, while this country had only 600 or 700. A cannon must cost the same in France as in England, and the same also with a horse. It had always puzzled him how France with an Army expenditure of £26,000,000 could afford to have five times the number of cannons, three times the number of horses, and far more waggons and commissariat stores than we had in England. The Army both in Germany and Austria cost per man less than half the amount expended on the English Army, while their arms and equipments were infinitely greater. He hoped the Minister of War would give him some inkling of the sources of information on this matter, and especially on the extraordinary difference between the cost of our Army and that of the continental Armies. He had never been able to find it either in books or in speeches of previous War Ministers.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he wished to appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on the Question. The general policy of the Army had now been discussed for two days, and ample opportunities would he afforded later on for debate both on economy and efficiency. A few points were raised in the course of the discussion which he would endeavour to answer briefly. His hon. friend the Member for Sutherlandshire put a question as to Appropriations-in-Aid. These Appropriations-in-Aid were credited for services rendered; they therefore added nothing to what the Navy paid, or what the Navy got.
  MR. MORTONsaid that that only covered a part of his point; there was an Appropriation-in-Aid of £1,000,000 received from the Colonies. That was money spent.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes; but it was not money spent by us.
  MR. MORTONsaid it was money spent by us but received from the Colonics.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the hon. Member for Waterford had assumed that the only question at issue between the County Council of Waterford and the War Office was the amount of the claim upon the latter by the former for having, through its horses, imported into the country a South African disease. But it was a question whether the War Office had not a claim against the Waterford County Council for having infected through its lay horses the horses of the War Office.
  MR. POWERsaid he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was cognisant of the fact that the military authorities admitted that the disease was introduced into Waterford by the Army horses.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the War Office made no admissions, and reserved all their rights. With regard to the pay of Army officers he agreed that it was too small, and he should like to do something for them; but standing mid-way between these claims and the demands for economy, he felt a little paralyzed.
  MR. MORTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had not explained why the Vote for the Chaplain General of the Forces was put into Vote 13.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the details were all in the accounts.
  LORD BALCARRESthought the Secretary of State had risen unusually early, and he should like to ask a few questions.
  MR. J. WARDasked whether he would be in order in moving that the Question be now put.
  LORD BALCARREScondemned the scheme for the winter training of the Militia. The announcement on this subject had first been made to the House by the President of the Local Government Board, and it was made more as the contribution of the Government, and the sole contribution of the Government, towards the unemployed problem than as a contribution towards increasing the efficiency of the Militia. They were told that twenty selected battalions were to be drilled and trained during the winter. We were now getting towards the end of March and it would be of immense advantage to those concerned to know the names of the battalions. He thought it unwise to use barracks for this training were other arrangements possible, as the best possible training could only be under canvas. In camp it was said that increased attention would be given to musketry, but the conditions for training were surely better for that in summer than in winter.
  MR. WHITLEYrose to a point of order. Should not this come on under the Militia Vote?
  THE CHAIRMAN: As a matter of convenience I should think it would be better that the matter should come on on the particular Vote of the Militia, but as this is a general discussion I cannot say the noble Lord is out of order.
  Mr. J. WARDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 222; Noes, 36. (Division List No. 18).

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Benn, John Wiliams (Devonp't)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Agnew, George William

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Alden, Percy

  Bertram, Julius

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)

  Billson, Alfred

  Caldwell, James

  Astbury, John Meir

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cameron, Robert

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Brace, William

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Barker, John

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Branch, James

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Beale, W. P.

  Brigg, John

  Cleland, J. W.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Bright, J. A.

  Clough, W.

  Bell, Richard

  Brooks, Stopford

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W

  Cooper, G. J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n

  Corbett, C. H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominst'r

  Richardson, A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cory, Clifford John

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cox, Harold

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancr's, E.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crooks, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robinson, S.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Rose, Charles Day

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, J.

  Duckworth, James

  Lynch, H. B.

  Runciman, Walter

  Duffy, William J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Sears, J. E.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  M'Crae, George

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Essex, R. W.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shakleton, David James

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Gill, A. H.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Meagher, Michael

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Menzies, Walter

  Summerbell, T.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mond, A.

  Thomas, David Alfred) Merthyr

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Thorne, William

  Hall, Frederick

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Toulmin, George

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Moss, Samuel

  Verney, F. W.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Murphy, John

  Vivian, Henry

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Napier, T. B.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Newnes. F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Ward, W Dudley(Southampton

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nicholls, George

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Norman, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  O' Grady, J.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Hodge, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Paul, Herbert

  Wiles, Thomas

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Hudson, Walter

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S' thampton)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Young, Samuel

  Jenkins, J.

  Priestley, W. E. B.(Bradford, E.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Radford, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Jowett, F. W.

  Raphael, Herbert H

  Mr. John Ward, and Mr.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rees, J. D.

  Byles.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Renton, Major Leslie

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S Edm'ds

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bull, Sir William James

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Keswick, William

  172

  173

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

  Marquess of Hamilton and

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mr. Pike Pease.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Turnout, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Walker, Col W. H. (Lancashire)

  Motion made and Question, "That this House do now adjourn"—(Mr. George Whiteley)—put and agreed to.

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1906, the sum of £120,580, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1907, the sum of £42,855,900, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  SUPPLY [1ST MARCH] REPORT.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th March], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That 129,000 officers, seamen, and boys be employed for Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1907, including 19,466 Royal Marines."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.

  SUPPLY [1ST MARCH] REPORT.
  Order read, for further consideration of Second Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,810,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Wages, etc. to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  SUPPLY [7TH MARCH] REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.

  NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY), 1905–6.
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for additional expenditure on the following Navy Services, viz.:—

  Vote 8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.-

  £

  Section II. Material

  100,000

  Section III. Contract Work

  100

  Vote 10. Works, Buildings, and Repairs, etc.

  100

  Vote 11. Miscellaneous Effective Services

  61,000

  161,200

  Less Surpluses on other Votes

  161,100

  100

  NAVY ESTIMATES 1906–7.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,954,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1907."
  "That a sum not exceeding £820,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay, Reserved, and Retired Pay, to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1907."
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,256,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."
  "That a sum, not exceeding £383,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Pensions and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."

  SUPPLY [15TH MARCH] REPORT.
  Resolution reported.
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 204,100, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1907."

  ARMY ANNUAL BILL.
  Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army; and that Mr. Secretary Haldane, Mr. Edmund Robertson, and Mr. Buchanan, do prepare and bring it in.
  MR. WYNDHAMmoved the adjournment of the House. They had been discussing Vote 1 of the Army and it was generally understood that there was to be a general discussion covering the whole Army policy of the Government. When such an understanding was arrived at, it was in order that all Members should have an opportunity of expressing their views on Army policy as a whole. Of course opinions would differ as
  176
  to the time which was necessary to cover so large a field, but about this there was no misunderstanding, that it was clearly understood that after they had to the best of their ability assisted the Committee by giving their views on the military policy of the country as a whole, then they should take the Report stage of the Votes for the Navy. Some of his right hon. friends were responsible for the Navy Estimates, and the Opposition had no occasion to criticise the Naval policy of the present Government. Having enjoyed as far as was permitted them the opportunity of reviewing the military policy of the Government, they thought the House ought now to adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —(Mr. Wyndham.)
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the only question in which discussion was interrupted was the Militia and that would come up again on the Militia Vote. He was very sorry that right hon. Gentlemen opposite should feel aggrieved. The right hon. Gentleman was very good in meeting the Government in the mode in which the discussion was taken, and he was quite prepared to assent to the adjournment of the House on condition of his being permitted to introduce the Army Annual Bill. It was merely a matter of form.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he would consent to that course, it being understood that the adjournment would not be opposed, and that the introduction of the Army Annual Bill was merely formal.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  "To provide, during Twelve Months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed, [Bill 110.]
  Adjourned at twenty-eight miuntes before Eleven o'clock.

VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Mervyn Richard Viscount Powerscourt to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificate from the examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
2
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company [H.L.].
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Clause 27 be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Channel Ferry Railway and Quay (Dover) Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Heacham Water Bill, Romford and District Tramways Bill, ought to be dispensed with.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London United

3
Tramways Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that the powers to construct the tramways proposed to be authorised be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the West Yorkshire Tramway Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramway No. 10 be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 2.) Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that Tramway No. 3B be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill ought to be dispensed with, provided that Tramways Nos. 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7, 7A, 7B, 7c, 8, 8A, 9, 17, 17A, 17B, 17C, and 20 be struck out of the Bill.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Middlesex County Council (Tramways) Bill ought to be disposed with. Read, and agreed to.

HOLYHEAD WATER BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 8th instant and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
ACCRINGTON DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 5th instant and Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
WEST CUMBERLAND ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
NEWPORT HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order) and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WALLIS' DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed and sent to the Commons.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious education in schools; of persons signing (2); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACT, 1891.
  Regulation made by the Lord-Lieutenant under the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, Sections 8 and 9, for the taking of finger prints and measuring and photographing prisoners. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING.
  Message from the Commons that they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on the 9th instant on the subject of Sunday Trading as desired by this House.
  PROCEDURE.
  Message from the Commons for leave for the Viscount Selby to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House.
  ROYAL COLEGE OF SCIENCE.
  Final Report of the Departmental Committee on the Royal College of Science, Vol. I. Final Report, with Appendix I.

  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Training Return of Imperial Yeomanry, for the year 1905.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.
  An account of moneys received and paid by the Chamberlain of the City of London for the year 1905, also an account of extraordinary works executed other than general repairs for the same period.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to William Watson under the Acts, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Regulations, dated 26th February, 1906, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, in respect of the processes of spinning and weaving flax and tow, and the processes incidental thereto.
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Regulation, dated 17th March, 1906, made by the Secretary for Scotland, under the Penal Servitude Act, 1891, Section 8, for the measuring and photographing of prisoners.

  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896 (MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903).
  Order by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 5th March, 1906, prohibiting motor car traffic on a highway in the county of Peebles.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SIR JOHN SOANE'S MUSEUM.
  Statement of the funds, 5th January, 1906. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, with respect to the carriage of deck-loads in the winter time. Was presented by the Lord Muskerry; Read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 31.]
  NAVAL PRIZE BILL [H.L.]; PRIZE COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  THE MILITIA.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGErose to call attention to the present organisation and condition of service in the Militia and the increasing deficiency in the numbers of the force in officers and men; and to ask His Majesty's Government what they propose to do to deal with this evil; and to move for papers.
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in bringing forward this Motion it is a matter of great satisfaction to know that a question of this kind is never approached in your Lordships' House as one of a purely Party nature. On the contrary, I am fully aware that this subject always receives that consideration which it undoubtedly deserves, noble Lords on both sides of the House being actuated by the same motive—the good of the country, and, therefore, of His Majesty's Imperial Forces. It was, therefore, not surprising, but at the same time none the less gratifying, to find the Secretary of State of War, in his very able speech the other day in the House of Commons when moving the Army Estimates, emphasizing in no small degree the necessity and importance of maintaining a continuity of policy, irrespective of the Party by whom that policy was enunciated. It was also a pleasure, after the many hard things that have been said about the Party now in Opposition, to hear that their administration of the War Office, which had been so freely and adversely criticised in the past, was such that the Secretary of State for War was able to declare in Parliament that—
  "The Army has never been in such an efficient state as it is now."
  But although this gratifying announcement has been made with regard to the Army as a whole, we find that a different note is struck when reference is made to a most important branch of the Army. I refer, of course, to that old constitutional force, the Militia, a branch of the Service of which many Lords on both sides have had actual experience, and in which I am sure all of us take a great and abiding interest.
  In the speech of the Secretary of State the other day we were told that all was well with the Army, but in the same speech we were informed, with regard

  7
  to the Militia, that its present condition could not be considered satisfactory, and the reason for this was given in this way, that as yet no definite function had ever been assigned to that force. Without desiring to cavil in any sort of way at the eminently statesman-like and patriotic speech of the Secretary of State for War, I must, as one taking a keen personal interest in the Militia, and having the honour at the present time to command one of His Majesty's Militia battalions, express my great disappointment at learning the cause of the position of the Militia force, and observing that no proposal is made to remedy it. It is for the purpose of obtaining information on this subject that I have brought this Motion before your Lordships to-night, and I trust that my noble friend who represents the War Office in this House will inform us in detail as to what the Government propose to do in order to raise the efficiency of the Militia, and I hope he will tell us at the same time what its future organisation is to be.
  I am, I must admit, rather apprehensive as to the future of the Militia. There are at the present moment in this country two schools of thought, in neither of which the Militia occupies a place. On the one hand, there is that school of thought to which many distinguished members of both houses belong—the blue-water school; on the other hand, there is that school to which as yet no title has been ascribed, but which advocate general disarmament all round. I cannot help feeling that the Militia would die a violent death at the hands of the one, whilst it would suffer a lingering fate at the hands of the other. The first would undoubtedly abolish it as useless, whilst the second would neglect it as unnecessary. Personally, my Lords, I do not belong to either of these schools, nor am I in sympathy with any of their opinions. I claim to belong rather to that school which has for its maxim Si vis pacem, pare bellum. I was glad to note the statement by the Secretary of State that he would like to see the functions of the Militia more clearly defined, and I shall rejoice if the noble Earl the Under-Secretary is able
  8
  to define clearly those functions to your Lordships to-day.
  The present uncertainty as to the future position of the Militia cannot but have a degenerating influence on that force, both as regards morale and efficiency. So long as this force is used as a stepping-stone for the young officer of the Line; so long as the Militia is used in the manner suggested the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who would like to see the Militia used as a temporary employment for casual labourers out of work—so long as these suggestions are brought forward will the Militia fail to render efficient service to the Crown. This is a state of things which I desire to see altered, for it is undoubtedly the cause of great anxiety on the part of those who have carefully considered the position, a position which up to now has prevented the Militia taking that place in the Services to which by its historical associations it is most undoubtedly entitled. As a Militia commanding-officer I must protest, too, against this branch of the Service being, as the Secretary of State for War very aptly put it in the House of Commons the other day, bled white in order that the Army should be supplied with its fighting strength in time of war. This may or it may not be a useful position to hold; it certainly is not a dignified one, and I suppose in the future it will not be considered a necessary one.
  I am perfectly aware that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary has not been many months at the War Office, but he may have been there long enough to discover why the War Office has always looked upon the Militia as the Cinderalla of the Service. Is it not the fact that the Militia has been treated in the past as a half-way house between the Volunteers and the Line? Whilst it has only received half the encouragement accorded to the former, it has always met with double the criticism allotted to the latter. This is not as it should be when it is considered that anything has been thought good enough for the Militia, as regards armament, clothing and equipment, but not as regards the

  9
  Volunteers. Is it surprising, therefore, that those taking an interest in the Militia should raise criticisms as to the methods of favouritism which have been adopted, I may say, from time immemorial?
  I do not propose to trouble your Lordships to-night with figures, for I am asking to be supplied with them by the noble Earl. What I want to know is, what has been the annual decrease of officers and men in the Militia since the South African War. I believe the deficit at the present time is no less than 1,045 officers and 36,000 men. My point is this—if there is a deficiency, as there undoubtedly is, of officers, noncommissioned officers, and men, how do the Government propose to meet this deficiency? If officers are to be regularly deflected from the Militia to the Line, how can it be expected that they should occupy themselves actively for the benefit of those battalions in which they can have no permanent interest? Therefore, it is surely essential that the officers should know their men, and at the same time that the men should know their officers. Without mutual knowledge there can be no mutual sympathy, no esprit de corps, and without esprit de corps the Militia, or any other force, is virtually dead. The Secretary of State for War in his speech on the Army Estimates the other day informed us that there had arisen in the Army a new school of officers, which he described as the thinking school. I desire to enroll myself in that school as a pupil, and I trust that in future the War Office will give fairplay all round. Then I trust that the claims of the Militia, great as they undoubtedly are, will not in the future be neglected as they have been in the past.
  We have recently emerged from a great war, in which the Volunteers nobly took their part, and I think the same can be equally said of the Militia. The lessons that were learnt during that war include, we are told, a knowledge of the fighting capabilities of the Volunteers. That is equally true of the Militia. Do not, therefore, let us forget that lesson now that the ship of State is sailing in peaceful waters, but rather let us encourage to the utmost in time of peace those on whom we must rely
  10
  in time of war. I venture to think that the most difficult problem that the Government have to meet at the present time is the officer question. It cannot be denied that there is now a most lamentable dearth of officers in every branch of His Majesty's Service. More especially does this apply to the Cavalry. Every one must admit that it is essential that these officers should attain the highest standard of efficiency; but what do we find? We find gentlemen admitted into these regiments who have not pased the ordinary elementary educational tests, but who are admitted on probationary terms. This dearth of officers is also to be found in the Militia, and it is due, as I have said, to the suspense and great uncertainty that hangs over their heads. I believe it is chiefly for this reason that the noble and gallant Earl the late Commander-in-Chief has urged the necessity of introducing into this country some form of universal training for all young men on attaining manhood who are of good physique. He has urged that they should be called upon without distinction of class for service in the United Kingdom. This, to my mind, is the true solution of the officer question, and also, for the matter of that, of the rank and file difficulty.
  After the lesson of patriotism taught us by our ally Japan, and bearing in mind the fact of that alliance, it behoves us to take immediate steps to fulfil the compact in a far more patriotic spirit than has been the case hitherto, by making up our minds to see that all branches of our Military Service are raised to the highest state of efficiency. And it is on these lines that the noble and gallant Earl has pleaded with no uncertain voice throughout the country. All must admit that the noble and gallant Earl's opinion is entitled to respect and consideration. I trust, therefore, that the people of this country will take what he has said to heart, and that something will be done to make our fighting forces effective for home defence, and at the same time ready to take the field in any part of our Empire, wherever they may be called upon to do so. Admiral Togo, who has been very rightly called the Nelson of the East, has said, and said truly, that battles are won only

  11
  by preparation in time of peace—preparation, not only of men and materials, but of character. You cannot have character without enthusiasm. That is what I want to see in the Militia, and when it has acquired it, it will be able to take its position as the great custodian of the security of this country.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I join with the noble Viscount in deploring the lack of officers and men in the Militia. The main reason, and the only one with which I propose to deal, for the decline of the Militia is the policy which has been advisedly and consistently pursued towards that force by the War Office. On assuming complete control of the Militia some twenty-five years ago, the War Office determined that the Militia was not to remain as a substantive force, but to become a feeding force for the Line. The foundations upon which alone a national Militia can rest—namely, local influence and civilian interest—were excluded, and replaced by departmental control. This system, advisedly adopted by the War Office, has completely throttled, as it was meant to do, all the national element in the Militia.
  The Militia as a national institution has ceased to exist. What we are pleased to call the Militia is now only a recruiting agency for the Line. Even in that capacity there is abundant evidence given before the Norfolk Commission to show that the methods practised for recruiting the Line from the Militia are unsound and unfair, and consequently injurious to the popularity of both Line and Militia in the country.
  The policy pursued by the War Office of converting the Militia into a Line-recruiting agency was based on the assumption that the Regular Army was capable, without the assistance of any supplementary force, of bringing to a successful termination any war upon which we were likely to be engaged. We realise now that no matter how excellent our Regular Army may be, it must be numerically so insignificant that it cannot of itself hope to bring to a successful issue a war against a civilised Power. You cannot contend with any hope of
  12
  ultimate success against a nation in arms by means of a few hundred thousand Regular soldiers. It was to meet this new development in the military systems of the world that His Majesty's late Government created the Home Service Army. But His Majesty's present Government, by a recent Army Order, put an end to the Home Service Army, about which so many debates took place last year. I venture humbly, but sincerely, to congratulate the Government upon their prompt action.
  The Home Service Army was the direct negation of the recommendation of the Commission on the South African War, which advised the extension of the forces of the nation outside the limits of the Regular Army. But how are His Majesty's Government going to replace the Home Service Army which has been just ended? The need for a supplementary force to the Regular Army remains the most pressing problem of the day; until it is solved the defence of the Empire is but ill provided for. I trust the Government may find the solution of the problem in the direction of a force raised on a Militia basis, but recruited by national, not by departmental, methods, organised and enlisted for the purpose for which it is required—namely, the defence of the Empire all the world over. I ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government mean to continue the War Office policy of the last twenty-five years, whereby the Militia as a national force has been destroyed and converted into a Line-recruiting agency, or whether they propose to restore the Militia as a substantive, self-contained force, recruited by national and not by departmental methods.
  There is a short paragraph dealing with the Militia in the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War relating to Army Estimates. The proposals contained therein do not touch the main question—that is, the use for which the Militia will in future be required; but they are of considerable interest, and I am very glad to see them. Some experiments are to be made in the direction of increased training for recruits. The recruits of twenty selected battalions are to be drilled under their own officers

  13
  for six months on enlistment. I have always been in favour of training Militia recruits for six months duing the slack season of the local industry, but I am not in favour of drill on enlistment. Drill on enlistment means in this case— at least as far as I can understand it— that the moment a man enlists he goes Into barracks and stays there for six months drill.
  Now, suppose recruit No. 1 comes into barracks on the 1st of November, and recruit No. 50 on the 1st of January following, and all the intervening numbers dribble into barracks by ones and twos at various intervals between the 1st of November and the 1st of January; then recruit No. 1 will have been in barracks two months longer than recruit No. 50, and hardly any half-dozen recruits will have been in barracks the same number of days. You will perceive that it is impossible to get these fifty men into one class for instruction. Common-sense shows military training cannot be done by squads of five or six with good results. It is bad for both instructors and instructed.
  I should prefer the plan known in the Militia as the preliminary drill party. That would work as follows: say a battalion is to train in May, then all the recruits of that battalion would be assembled in November for a six months recruit training, preliminary to the one month of battalion training. Enlist recruits all the year round, but say to the man enlisted in March—" You do not come up for drill till November, when the preliminary drill assembles." In this way you get all the recruits assembled at the same moment for a course of instruction, followed by one month of battalion training. An Infantry soldier can be taught a great deal in seven months, provided always that the system of instruction is the best, but it never can be the best with drill on enlistment. I know well that drill on enlistment will be a great convenience for the unemployed. But I am looking at this question from the point of view of a Militia commanding officer, anxious to give the soundest military training to men at that moment of their life and at that season of the year when they can be best spared
  14
  from their civilian work. Drill on enlistment all the year round will increase the number, but will detract from the quality of the Militia. I fear, in short, an inrush of bad characters. I would therefore ask the noble Earl if power could be granted to Militia commanding officers to dismiss from the Service, on their own authority, men of bad character, without the delay inseparable from reference to superior authority.
  I ask the noble Earl if the standard of instruction for the six months training of Militia recruits is to be the same as that of the Line, or is it to be a lower standard than that of the Volunteers. I ask for this reason. Signalling has just been abolished in the Militia. A short time ago all Militia adjutants were required to be in possession of a signalling certificate. But that is no longer the case. For the last three years I have been allowed to call up a party of men to be instructed in signalling duties during the recruits' preliminary drill. I have been informed this year that leave cannot be given for calling up this party for instruction, because signalling is prohibited in the Militia.
  Signalling is authorised for the Volunteers and Yeomary. It is essential for service in the field; but since it is not to be allowed in the Militia, the inference must be that it is not the intention to employ the Militia in the field in the same way as the Volunteers and Yeomanry. The abolition of signalling for the Militia is quite consistent with the policy of using the Militia as a Line-recruiting agency. It is consistent with the absorption of the Militia into a Home Service Army, but it is not consistent with greatly increased training for the Militia. and for using the Militia as units in the field. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if, pending the advent of a little clearness of thought upon these matters, Militia battalions should be allowed to practise signalling, and to call up men for signalling instruction if their application to do so be recommended by the General commanding the division.
  As regards remedies for the deplorable and ever-increasing deficiency of officers in the Militia, I have already suggested

  15
  to your Lordships that lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants should be made responsible for providing officers for the Militia. There are at present 123 lords-lieutenant and about 3,700 deputy-lieutenants in Great Britain and Ireland, all appointed under the Militia Jaws, all persons of light, leading, and influence in their localities, and charged by Statute with duties towards the Militia which, by the policy of the War Office, they are prevented from performing. As regards the deficiency of men, I have on a previous occasion suggested that that deficiency should be met by means of national instead of departmental recruiting. On those two points I have nothing to add to that which I have already said in your Lordships' House. There is, therefore, no need for me to dwell further upon these two subjects.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hardinge has brought forward this Motion with so much fairness and such complete absence of Party feeling that it is my intention to discuss this matter in the same spirit. My noble friend moves for Papers. On seeing his Motion on the Paper I wrote asking what the Papers were that he required, and he replied—
  "The Papers referred to in my Question are as to the present deficiency of officers, noncommissioned officers, and men in the Militia; also as to whether this decrease has been gradual during the last five years."
  I can assure my noble friend that I shall be very glad to have those figures got out and submitted to him. I would beg him, however, to bear in mind that any figures that we can produce giving effect to his wish must be modified, and that they cover the very disturbing influence of the war itself.
  I now propose to deal with the general question of the Militia, which has been raised by the noble Viscount. I am glad that noble Lords have raised in this House a debate upon the Militia, if it is only to have the opportunity of re-assuring your Lordships that it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to utilise to the fullest extent that we can the opportunities and energies of the Militia. The Secretary of State in
  16
  his recent speech alluded to the necessity for a power of expansion outside the limit of the Regular forces of the Crown, and in so doing he was re-affirming a principle which finds a vital place in the recommendations both of the Elgin and Norfolk Commissions.
  It is my intention, appreciating to the full the friendly spirit in which this; matter has been approached, to take the House into our confidence. We admit, and in the admission deplore the fact, that the Militia is at present in a very unsatisfactory state. One reason for this is, to my mind, the decline of county military feeling in the United Kingdom. Another is the popularity of the Yeomanry. They receive high pay and allowances—5s. 6d. a day as compared with 1s. paid to the militiamen; and a yeoman also gets £5 for his horse for the fortnight, and as the horse is often his own, this means a free gift in many cases. There is no doubt that the Yeomanry absorb more officers and men into their ranks than formerly, and also attract more popular attention and sympathy. The Volunteers too, possess considerable political influence. They have of late years attracted many men of the Militia class into their ranks, owing to their being able to pay them whilst in camp, and consequently they also have been greater competitors with the Militia force than was formerly the case.
  A militiaman is paid and clothed and fed exactly on similar lines to a Regular. The Volunteers are not paid a daily rate of pay, but the corps are paid a capitation grant per efficient to meet expenses, such as drill-halls and clothing, and camp allowance, to meet the expenses of camp, rations, etc. On the whole there is not much fault to find with the principle of the present organisation of the Militia. It is essentially a county organisation, and, where county feeling exists, it is the one best calculated to attract civilians who can give up a month annually to soldiering. The varying establishments of regiments—they vary from 600 to over 1,200 men in a regiment—are, however, detrimental to efficiency from a mobilisation point of view. In the Regular Army the regiment is of the same establisment, and mobilisation is planned accordingly—transport and everything.

  17
  required for fitting it for the field. It is hoped that this may be remedied when we know what effect the new system of training will have on the force, thereby enabling us at the War Office to rearrange the establishments of battalions.
  Some Militia officers object, and perhaps with reason, to an organisation which places them under the control of the Regulars; for example, the Militia recruits and the permanent staff are during the non-training season under the officer commanding the Line depot, and not under the officer commanding the Militia unit. This is a matter the importance of which the War Office is fully alive to and is seriously considering. The future organisation of the Militia is not yet determined on. It plays such an important part in sharing the duties and responsibilities of the Regular Army that it can only be considered in conjunction with it, and we cannot announce our intentions with respect to the Militia until we are in a position to formulate our policy on the Army generally. The new condition of service, which we propose to try experimentally with twenty infantry battalions, is that recruits will on enlistment, in any period of the year, drill for six months instead of, as at present, for sixty-three days, and the regiment will train annually for forty-one days instead of for twenty-seven. The noble Duke spoke of the difficulties that might arise from the men being engaged at different times. I quite admit the force of that; but we cannot control the conditions of labour. I should like to say that this has nothing to do with the idea of winter training. It is simply an extension of the present periods of training by which it is hoped that recruits will get a more thorough grounding in a soldier's duties, and the trained militiamen will have more time for the many subjects of instruction which now have to be compressed into twenty-seven days—indeed, into much less than that, when Sundays and bad weather are taken into account.
  In musketry we anticipate a great improvement by the increased time given to drill and to training. Under existing arrangements the musketry instruction is of necessity much neglected and hurried through. The annual train-
  18
  ing of units will continue to take place generally during the summer season, as at present. The question of winter training is receiving careful consideration. It will be tested with a limited number of regiments, should they be anxious to undergo it, and should accommodation be available. The difficulties in the way of winter training are that the instruction in outdoor work, especially musketry, cannot, owing to cold weather and bad light, be so beneficial as in the summer; that accommodation is difficult to find; empty barracks are rare; canvas cannot be used. To billeting there are grave social as well as military objections; it is not popular with the officers or with a considerable proportion of the men. With regard to the supply of officers, inquiries are being made of various Universities and educational establishments to ascertain whether a large number cannot be obtained from those sources. The War Office also hope to get increased interest and assistance from lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants of counties.
  LORD NEWTON: In what way?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: We hope, as I say, to get increased interest and assistance from lords-lieutenant and deputy-lieutenants of counties, whose very appointments, as was mentioned by the noble Duke, were made under the Militia Act, 1882 (Sections 29, 30), and who, under Section 6 of the Act, are primarily responsible for the supply of officers for the Militia. The existence of this inherent obligation has in the large majority of cases been entirely ignored of late years, and we are certainly not supported as we should be by these officers. At present the deputy-lieutenants, both in their numbers—they run to thousands—and in their military efficiency, bear too close an analogy to the military patriots in America, who were by no means the least expensive legacy of the Civil War.
  The deficiency in the numbers of officers and men in the Militia is much to be regretted. It is not being lost sight of by the War Office. We earnestly hope that if we can place the Militia on a sound basis, and clearly define its military functions, a matter which necessarily involves time and great care, it

  19
  will recover its old prestige and its position among the military forces of the Crown. With regard to signalling in the Militia, it was found that, owing to the concentration of training into one month in the year, it was impossible to keep up the requisite standard, which was only to be acquired by continual practice, and, consequently, the issue of signalling equipment is not now allowed, nor are Regular officers required to hold signalling certificates on appointments as adjutants, although a certificate of proficiency in semaphore work is essential.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: Why is it allowed to the Volunteers and the Yeomanry and not to the Militia?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am not able to answer that Question offhand; but it must be remembered that the Volunteers have an advantage which the Militia have not, in that they are able to practise signalling more or less regularly. This question of signalling is undoubtedly an important one. It is one which shall not be lost sight of by the War Office; but we feel that our decision must be guided by the experience, of the increased training. We are anxious that the Militia, in order to be a real support to the Regular Army, should have every opportunity of training as self-contained units with its own officers. As the Secretary of State has said in another place—
  "By all means let the Militia be the support of the Regular Army, but let them train in their own units and under their own officers."
  It is not intended to stop the transfer of trained militiamen to the Regular Army, but it is proposed, in the case of the twenty experimental battalions, to restrict that transfer to those militiamen who have completed at least one annual training—that is of six weeks— in addition to their recruits' drill of six months. These commanding officers of Militia will thus be enabled to see, for at any rate one training, all men who have enlisted in their unit, instead of, as at present, having the trouble and anxiety of a large proportion of their recruits merely enlisting in the Militia as a stepping ing-stone to the Line. In conclusion, I desire to say that, without being in a
  20
  position at present to give more detailed information, we are desirous to give to the Militia the character of a national force, and we are anxious that the Militia should, both by their organisation and training, be at all times prepared to take the field as units.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, although the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War expressed himself kindly towards the Militia, he was not in a position to make any statement as to what is to be our future position. The position of the Militia for several years has been an extremely unfortunate one. We were first of all told that we were to be very much improved. The late Secretary of State for War when he came into office admitted, in a speech either at Manchester or at Liverpool, that the force had been very much neglected, and he stated that he intended to do great things for it. We heard nothing more until the following year, when the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do a great thing for the Militia by abolishing it. That plan was not adopted; but since then no further word has come, either from the late Secretary of State for War, or from the present Secretary of State, as to what is to be our future.
  The effect of the present uncertainty, as every one of your Lordships is well aware, has been most unfortunate to the Militia, and it has been excessively unfortunate in the case of officers. The question of an armed force of any sort is primarily one of officers. The rank and file can be improvised in a short space of time; non-commissioned officers even, within limits, can be provided; but it is absolutely impossible to provide a body of competent officers without long and careful training. The noble Viscount quoted figures to show that the Militia is 1,045 under strength in regard to officers. That practically means that there are something like 30 per cent of vacancies among the officers' ranks. That is a most dangerous state of things for the country; and what makes that particular matter more than usually serious is this, that, as the noble Duke has said, there are great differences in the establishments of regiments. Some are very strong, while others are very weak. I think the noble Earl was too sanguine in putting 600 as his lowest

  21
  estimate. I am acquainted with a regiment which does not possess, I think, 200; and it is a curious fact that those regiments which have most officers usually have the fewest men, and vice versa. The strongest regiments are in the manufacturing districts of the north. If the noble Earl will turn his attention to the Lancashire regiments, he will find that there are fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen vacancies for officers in those battalions, and a battalion with only one-third of its establishment of officers cannot under any circumstances be considered an efficient unit.
  The deficiency of men is also very great. Of course all these things are known at the War Office, and the War Office ought to set to work and correct these deficiencies. I remember some years ago discussing the question with a very distinguished officer, holding a very high position in the Army, and his final words were—
  "You have never had Miltia officers and you can never get them, and there is an end of it."
  I do not think that is the way the thing should be looked at by an officer holding a high position, but I am afraid that is the view that has been taken hitherto by distinguished officers at the War Office. The difficulties of the Militia lie in the fact that the differences between the various regiments is so great that it is impossible to lay down any general rule. You had in former days a very large number of country gentlemen who officered your Militia regiments. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, those gentlemen have disappeared. You have not got that large number of comparatively idle young men who existed in this country twenty years ago, and therefore you cannot rely upon getting your soldiering done for you in the Militia by a certain idle class in their spare time.
  If you wish to have officers for the Militia, there are only two ways of obtaining them—you must either pay them or force them. If you have compulsory service in some form—which, I hold, must come as sure as there is a sun in heaven—the whole of your difficulties will disappear. There are many ways of paying besides the physical act of putting money into a man's hand. You can offer certain privileges to those who give up their time to the service of their country.
  22
  You can confine distinctions such as deputy-lieutenantships to those officers who have served in the Militia. There are, again, many appointments of a semi-military description throughout the Empire which you could confine to officers of the Militia. Why should not the Indian police be reserved exclusively for officers of Militia? It would cost the country nothing, and it would cost India nothing; and India would have this advantage, that she would recruit officers for her police who had a certain amount of military knowledge and discipline. There are other ways in which officers could be encouraged to serve in the Militia. I think a Militia officer should be exempt from serving as high sheriff, which is a very severe tax now laid on country gentlemen. Personally, I should like to see the whole of the officers of the Army come into the Army through the Militia. I think you would then get a certain amount of work done for the country by these young men who are now engaged at "crammers," doing no good to their country and probably very little good to anybody but I the "crammers" who receive their fees; and those who did not get into the Army subsequently would, many of them, remain in the Militia.
  These are a few of the suggestions I throw out, but what I urge most strongly on His Majesty's Government is that they should really take up this question and make up their minds to do something. A force which has lost one-third of its officers and which for many years has had a considerable deficiency in its establishment, is a force which cannot be said to be in a healthy condition. It is, indeed, perilously approaching extinction as a military force. With regard to the question of men, there are ways in which recruiting could be largely improved. You never will get the Militia put on a satisfactory basis until you make one man responsible for a unit. At this moment there are three or four people responsible. There is the commanding officer, who commands the battalion during the training; there is the officer commanding at the depot, who is the commanding officer out of the training; there is the recruiting officer, who may or may not be at the depot, and there is the adjutant. You have these four officers, either of whom could claim all the credit if the regiment was in a satisfactory state, and all of whom could disclaim

  23
  responsibility if it was not. Until you make the commanding officer responsible for the regiment you can never get it in a satisfactory condition.
  I should like to endorse the hope expressed by the noble Duke, that commanding officers will be given power to discharge bad characters. I could quote to your Lordships many instances of the immense amount of trouble, inconvenience, and cost to the country which the retention of one bad man in the regiment has caused. I regret the noble Earl did not allude to one incident which I think the whole Militia force deeply regrets—the abolition of the Militia Advisory Board. That board was instituted some years ago at the War Office. It consisted of six commanding officers of Militia, nominated by the generals of different districts, and at certain periods they met, and, accompanied by high officials of the "War Office, discussed Militia questions. The late Secretary of State for War swept away that board. I venture to think that was one of the most unfortunate things that has ever been done. As long as the Advisory Board was in existence the Militia felt that at all events they had a channel through which expression could be given to their needs. That board has been swept away, and there is now practically no channel through which we can communicate with the high authorities at the War Office. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will see his way to reinstate the Militia Advisory Board. It was not an extravagant board; the whole of the expenses in connection with it could not have come to more than £25 a year. It gave great confidence to the Militia to feel that they had representatives of their own who were consulted from time to time by the War Office.
  In conclusion, I would again most earnestly press on His Majesty's Government the importance of proceeding with the Bill which His Majesty's late Government passed through your Lordships' House, under which the Militia were liable, in the event of a great national emergency, to serve abroad. It would be impossible to conceive a more unsatisfactory condition of things than that which now obtains. The moment war breaks out the militiaman is asked to volunteer for service abroad. I have
  24
  always looked upon that as a great mistake. It is really fraudulent. It is like the action of our grandfathers, who, while they pretended to keep up the Army and Navy by voluntary enlistment, kept up both by compulsion. You put officers especially in a most unfortunate and unfair position, especially officers who are married men with families. It is the unanimous opinion of the Militia that if the whole force were liable to serve abroad in a case of great national emergency it would raise the status of the Militia and make the force feel that at last it had got a settled position among the forces of the Crown.
  LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I rise with unfeigned diffidence to address your Lordships' House for the first time. My only excuse for taking part in this debate is my former connection, for some years, with the War Department, and the fact that for the last five years I have had very unwillingly to take a leading part on the Front Opposition Bench in discussions of this character in another place. I venture to think that there could hardly be any subject more important than that which the noble Viscount has brought forward this evening, because I think if there was one matter upon which the people of this country gave their decided opinion in the recent election, it was that some steps must be taken to reduce, if possible, the enormous sum of £29,750,000, which we now spend on the Army of this country. But, as the Secretary of State has impressed upon us, the only possible way of reducing, to any large extent, the cost of the Army, is by reducing the number of men; and if you do that you must look to the second line, and be sure that the men you have behind can take their place, and are capable of expansion when time of emergency arises.
  I do not believe there is any assembly in this country which is so capable of discussing particular subjects in connection with the Army as your Lordships' House. I have listened with the greatest instruction and pleasure to those debates which have been initiated by the noble Duke who spoke second tonight, and by many other noble Lords, and I think it must be from the fact that there are so many noble Lords who have themselves taken a part in the commanding and organising of the Auxiliary-

  25
  Forces, that we always have an illuminating light shed on all these subjects. It was not possible for the Secretary of State in his exhaustive speech to deal in detail with all the particular elements of the question, and, therefore, I think that in dealing with this question of the Militia your Lordships' House is well occupied, and the results of the discussion will, I am sure, be conveyed by my noble friend below me to the Secretary of State, and will be well weighed by him and the Army Council.
  There is one matter which, I think, makes this debate particularly opportune at this moment. We have to acknowledge that the Militia has lately gone through a period of extreme peril. It was not so very long ago that we had a direct statement from the then Secretary of State for War that he intended to abolish the Militia altogether, and to divide the armed forces of the country into two bodies, one of which should be composed of men of long service who should serve abroad, and the other, of men enlisted for only two years service, who never were to leave these shores, and who were to constitute what he called a territorial Army. Of all the proposals I think the worst was the amalgamating of the Militia, and the causing of it to lose its local status by making it part of the territorial Army. In the summary of his speech which he issued with the Army Estimates the then Secretary of State for War said that when economy was so earnestly and universally demanded, and when it was conceded that economy could only be obtained by reducing the men maintained, they must begin with the least efficient. Why, he asked, should not the Militia be entirely absorbed in the territorial Army? He added—
  "There will be an improvement in the Militia if public opinion will allow the amalgamation of the Militia with the Line, for the purpose of forming a true territorial Army."
  I venture to think that that was a method of improving the Militia by wiping it off the face of the earth, and if we lose the Militia we should be denuding our military forces of one of their best arms.
  I do not share the gloomy views of the Militia which some noble Lords entertain. Although I deeply deplore that there has been a decrease of 6,000 men in the recruits, after all what is the falling
  26
  off in the strength of the Militia? Why, 600 men only. It was 86,491, it is now 85,814. Independently of that, which is a mere trifling reduction, there are certain features, if you look at the recruiting returns, which give a silver lining to the cloud, and make us think that matters are not altogether so bad as they seem. In the first place, there is an increase this year of 1,000 in the re-engaged men, and there is a decrease of 1,600 in the number we have lost by desertion. If the desertions have decreased by 1,600 and the re-engagements have increased by 1,000, surely that shows that the Militia is not so discontented as we are led to believe. In regard to the falling off in the number of recruits you must take into consideration the fact that in November, 1904, the standard of recruits was raised, and you have in addition to that a stricter examination for the men. You have both a closer physical examination and an examination into their antecedent character, and it is to that examination that the authorities say we mainly owe the falling off in the number of recruits. They say that while the recruits themselves are certainly not quite equal in physique to the Line, yet at the same time they rapidly improve by the better diet and the better conditions under which they live. I am sure all must rejoice to find that their character has been exceedingly satisfactory, and that that improvement is mainly due to the stricter examination made into their antecedent character.
  I should like to say one or two words as to how we can popularise the Militia force. I think one of the wisest proposals of the Norfolk Commission was that for the future the Militia should be exercised, or, at any rate, that two trainings out of three should take place, in the neighbourhood of their county town. It is only human that the men and officers should like to show themselves in uniform among their own friends. They like to be seen at drill and at recreation, and so far as the officers are concerned there is a unanimous opinion, I believe, that many would be retained if they could give an afternoon or so a week to their own business. I think it would be an excellent thing if the plan could be adopted by the War Office of two out of three trainings being held in the neighbourhood of the county

  27
  town. Then it may be said, "But they must have brigade drill." I never could see why you could not brigade Militia regiments of contiguous counties. Take the case of the Berkshire Militia, the Oxfordshire Militia, and the Buckinghamshire Militia, which are all in contiguous counties. It so happens that in the neighbourhood of each county town there are excellent opportunities for drill. It may be said that if you drill Militia regiments together they will only strive to become equal to the best Militia regiment, and will not see their own faults. But what could possibly be easier than to bring down from Aldershot by train, and station, say, at Reading, two battalions of the Regular troops under an excellent and experienced brigadier. There you would have a force of five battalions which would enable brigade drill to be carried out effectively. Recollect that the alternative is to take the Militia for their whole training to Salisbury Plain, or Aldershot. Sir William Butler says on that subject—
  "I do not see the necessity of assembling men who are only half trained and who can only be half trained, in large masses in isolated and desolate places like Salisbury Plain. You kill recruiting by it."
  That is what we have to look to. If such training is of use to the brigadiers, and possibly to those commanding battalions, it is not of the slightest use to the private in the ranks, who goes home having seen nothing, having understood nothing, and having wasted precious time.
  The real way to increase the number of the men is by entering into some sort of arrangement with the large employers of labour. That is done with singular success in the case of the Northumberland Militia. That Militia—a letter from whose adjutant I hold in my hand—has entered into an arrangement with the directors of the Elswick Works, and these men take their holidays by going out for twenty-seven days with the Militia. The adjutant says—
  "Large employers of labour in Northumberland encourage their men to become Militiamen for the following reason:—The Northumbrian is a hard worker. He gets stale. He goes for twenty-seven days Militia training in the free pure air. He is fed well and regularly, and goes back to work like a giant refreshed. Consequently the works reap the benefit; hence we find very little difficulty in recruiting."
  LORD RAGLAN: Is that artillery or infantry?
  LORD HAVERSHAM: Infantry. What proves such a success in the case of the Northumbrian, might surely be carried out in the south. Why should not the Berkshire Militia enter into communication with Messrs. Huntley and Palmer and the proprietors of other large works? Surely this would be equally easy in the neighbourhoods of Manchester and Liverpool; it only requires a little organisation. The arrangement in Northumberland is popular both with the Elswick Works and the Militia authorities.
  I cannot agree with the noble Lord who spoke last and who expressed the hope that His Majesty's Government would reintroduce the Bill for making the Militia liable, on embodiment, to servo abroad. I confess that I once thought that that would be a good thing. I thought it would add to the status of the Militia on the one hand, and give the authorities a certainty of having a certain number of men to send abroad on the other. But I understand that it is regarded with the greatest possible jealousy and dislike by some of the best regiments in the country. I know one case—and this is a case of a regiment whose complement of officers is full and which has 900 men in the ranks—where the officers signed a roundrobin to the effect that they would resign their commissions if that Bill passed
  LORD SALTOUN: Will the noble Lord give the name of that regiment?
  LORD HAVERSHAM: I would prefer not to do so; it would be rather invidious.
  LORD RAGLAN: I think I could name it.
  LORD HAVERSHAM: But even if the Bill were passed it would be of no great advantage, because you get the men already. The men are sure to volunteer for service abroad in the case of grave national emergency. One word with regard to the officers. I endorse most fully what has fallen from noble Lords opposite with regard to the position of the commanding officer. You would never initiate such a system as we have

  29
  now. You have a man responsible to the Crown for a large number of men, and you do not give him power of appointment, transfer, or promotion, of any noncommissioned officers on the permanent staff. The whole thing is most ridiculous. By the Militia regulations I do not believe the commanding officer is able to see his own recruits except once a year, and then by suffrance. The Norfolk Commission said on that point that the opinion of commanding officers should be as far as possible considered in reference to appointments, transfers, promotions, etc. Sir Alfred Turner declared that the commanding officer goes out of existence so far as his battalion is concerned after training. That is, I think, a very bad system. The Duke of Connaught declared that the Militia commanding officer ought always to command and to have supervision of the regiment during the whole time he is commanding.
  I suppose that next to the commanding officer we ought to consider the adjutant as the most important officer, particularly in a Militia regiment. I hope that the greatest possible care will be taken in the selection of these officers and that they will be regarded as responsible as adjutants in the Line. If a battalion is brought up to a high pitch of perfection and the adjutant does his duty satisfactorily he should be rewarded by a staff appointment. With regard to the proposal to interest lords-lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants more in this matter. I was glad the Secretary of State declared that he did not see why we should not make it a condition of the appointment of lords-lieutenant that they should be persons taking an interest in the organisation of the Militia. I can remember the time when the Leicestershire and the Nottingham Militia were 1,000 strong. The reason for the popularity of those regiments was that the Duke of Rutland of that day, who was honorary colonel, took the greatest interest in them, always attending the reviews and inspections. The Northumberland Militia is in a very good state, both as regards officers and men, and the reason for that is attributed to the fact that the battalions are respected, and have been raised to their present pitch owing to the interest taken in the force by the Duke of Northumberland and his family, and by the county
  30
  gentlemen of Northumberland. If this spirit could be instilled into county gentlemen in other parts of the country, and the forces respected, instead of being looked down upon, the officer question would be solved. If county gentlemen could be induced to take up commissions the old constitutional force would, I think, once again take its place as the premier auxiliary force of the country— a position worthy of its ancient memories, and worthy of its former fame.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have listened to a number of military debates in this House, but I have never listened to one which left a more hopeless impression on my mind. Almost every speaker up to now has made some suggestion or other with reference to the improvement of the force, or the increasing of its popularity. To my mind, it is not a question of improving the Militia at all. The question is, is it possible to keep the Militia itself in existence at all? As far as I am able to gather, not only from what I have heard this afternoon but from other sources, the Militia is actually perishing before our eyes, in spite of the fact that, according to the present Secretary of State for War, we are now spending upon the Militia £21 19s. 3d. per head, whereas ten years ago the cost of the Militia was only £13 10s. per head. I do not know what moral this conveys to the rest of the House, but to me it conveys the impression that it would be quite impossible to find any more decisive condemnation of what you are pleased to call the voluntary system. I presume there are people—possibly a majority of those assembled here—who still believe in the efficacy of that exploded system, but I have never heard any more convincing proof of the absolute failure of the so-called voluntary system than what has come out to-day.
  We have been told by various speakers that the Militia are so many thousand men short, but this does not come upon us in the light of a revelation. It was all brought before us in the Report of the Norfolk Commission—the only Report, by the way, which we have had for many years past of any real value to us with regard to military affairs. In the Report of that Commission the

  31
  position is put in a nutshell. The Commission state—
  "Under the present system there would seem to be an incessant effort to exact from the Militia and the Volunteers, in the name of the State, more than the State will pay for and more than it has any right to demand."
  The Commission went on to point out that every Power has abandoned the idea that war is the exclusive business of a limited class, and has subjected its male population to a thorough military training. What further explanation do you want than that? In other words, we are continually endeavouring to do what every other nation has long ago given up.
  We have heard a variety of recommendations and suggestions this afternoon. I do not know whether my noble friend who initiated this discussion was satisfied with the reply that he received from the Under-Secretary of State for War, but I must confess that personally, if I had been in his place, I should have derived no satisfaction from it whatever, because it appeared to me to amount to a mere pious expression of opinion that the Government were well aware of the inestimable services of the Militia, and that if they were given time, and if the present Secretary of State for War in particular was given time, eventually things would be brought round to a thoroughly satisfactory condition. I seem to have heard expressions of this kind frequently before. Since I have had anything to do with politics I have seen six Secretaries of State for War, beginning with Mr. Edward Stanhope and ending with the present occupant of that office, and, strange though it may appear, I have never been able to see any real distinction between the eminent persons who have occupied that position, though much of their time has been taken up in pointing out the shortcomings of their predecessors. There may be differences, but they are not perceptible to my mind. The results are in every case precisely the same.
  I may add that I have always observed exactly the same phenomena with regard to Secretaries of State for War. When a Government is formed and a person appointed Secretary of State for War, universal approval is expressed on all, sides as to the choice of this gentleman, who is pointed out as the one man absolutely fitted to put everything right. In course of time this paragon makes a
  32
  speech and after he has done so the applause becomes still more vociferous. Everyone declares that he has shown, as everybody expected, that he was the man absolutely suited to the post. At a subsequent period this statesman produces what is generally known as a scheme, and then, if possible, the feeling of admiration which is felt for him increases, and although people, as a rule, do not understand the scheme very clearly, yet they all say the same thing. "Here," they say, "is a statesman who has at last grasped the rudiments of the case, a man who does understand the necessities of the Empire." This paragon, as I say, produces his scheme, and then there is silence. After about six mouths have elapsed it suddenly appears to strike people that our military system is in very much the same position at it was before, and when a year has elapsed this paragon has probably become the most unpopular member of the Ministry, and the question really is as to who shall throw the biggest brickbat at his head when the first opportunity occurs. As the present Secretary of State is a gentleman of a philosophic turn of mind, he has no doubt anticipated that in the course of a year or two the cloud of unpopularity will descend on his head. I repeat that I have never been able to see any difference between these distinguished men, because they have all been engaged during their tenure of office in what I might term shuffling and re-shuffling the military pack in the hope of discovering five aces instead of only four.
  There is not much consolation to be derived from the suggestions that have been made or from the statement of the Under-Secretary. I turn to the suggestions that have been made by my noble friend behind me, the Duke of Bedford. The noble Duke is well known as a highly efficient officer who has taken the greatest interest in the Militia, but I entirely fail to realise the value of the suggestions he has made. There appears to be in this House a touching confidence in the power of lords-lieutenant, and it was a great satisfaction to me to find that this feeling was entertained by democratics opposite like Lord Haversham. He evidently entertained a sub-lime confidence in the power of lords-lieutenant, with regard to which I am

  33
  not so absolutely sure myself. After all, what can they do? What means have they for forcing either men or officers to enter the Militia? There is only one means that occurs to me by which they could exercise their power, and that would be by some means of social pressure. My noble friend, in his capacity as Lord-Lieutenant, might give a vast garden-party and induce every other lord-lieutenant in the country to do the same, for the express purpose of leaving out those gentleman who decline to join the Militia force.
  Then my noble friend has another suggestion. If the Militia force cannot be created by the action of lords-lieutenant, let it be created by the action of deputy-lieutenants. I think I am not wrong in attributing to my noble friend the scheme by which every deputy-lieutenant would be liable for one-third of a Militia officer, and I think he intimated that in his opinion every deputy-lieutenant who failed in conjunction with his two colleagues to produce a Militia officer should be deprived of his commission. I confess I do not see how that could work. I, for instance, am a deputy-lieutenant. Suppose there is a shortage of Militia officers in my district. I presume I must call a meeting, collect everybody I can from the district, and address them in as pathetic terms as I can, saying: "Here am I, a Deputy-Lieutenant. Now, for God's sake, some of you go and join the Militia or I shall lose my commission." What effect does my noble friend think they would have on my hearers? The impression upon them would be very much the same as that which was created on the mind of the Irish landlord when he was told that his agent would be shot. They would toll me probably, in more or less polite language, that it was matter a of supreme indifference to them whether I was a deputy-lieutenant or not; and I think they would be perfectly justified. There have been other remedies suggested. The noble Duke who spoke second in the debate this evening suggested that if a sufficient number of men were not found by a locality, that locality should be fined. I imagine that more than half the districts of the country would have to be fined, and all those districts would necessarily be represented by Members in Parliament, and I should
  34
  not envy a Government the task of keeping a majority in the House of Commons if a large number of its supporters represented what may be called defaulting districts. These remedies appear to me to be absolutely useless. I do not wish to labour the question of compulsion, but I do hope, before this session is concluded that we may fight this question out and that the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Roberts, who I regret is not in his place to-day, will bring forward a Motion asserting the absolute necessity of introducing some system of universal training. I should like to see the opinion of this House taken upon it.
  In the meanwhile, I would point out that if you really want to put the Militia on a sound footing, and if you really mean to have that reserve Army which you all profess to desire, there is only one way of having it, and that is by adopting the conclusions of the Norfolk Commission. A force such as I have mentioned, capable of meeting European troops, not outside this country, but in this country, can only be raised on one principle—namely, that of universal liability to training, and my personal opinion is that remedies such as have been suggested this afternoon are little better than a more beating of the air, and that we shall not make any satisfactory progress until some form of compulsory service is adopted in this country.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, the House always listens to my noble friend opposite with pleasure and amusement, and I am certain that we have followed his remarks in that spirit this evening. My noble friend made some attack on the present Secretary of State. He said he thought that Mr. Haldane would eventually prove as destitute of popularity as those Secretaries of State who have preceded him in that high office. I venture to think that there is a great difference between the policy of the present Secretary of State and that of his predecessors. If my noble friend will carry his recollection back not so long ago he will remember that Secretary of State after Secretary of State came down to this House with a fully-fledged scheme of reform in his pocket very shortly after having entered upon office. I remember Secretaries of State

  35
  and Under-Secretaries of State who seemed to count their chickens before they were hatched, and in many cases counted chickens which were never hatched at all. But if I may say so of the present Secretary of State without disrespect, he does not try to number chickens which may be hatched in the future; his attitude is rather that of a brooding hen, and I have no doubt that in time we shall reap the reward of that patience which he asks the country to exercise pending the result of his deliberations.
  I cannot help remembering other debates which have taken place in this House on the question of the Militia. I well remember one in 1904, when we discussed one of those fully-fledged schemes to which I alluded just now, and which was brought before the country by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Arnold-Forster. The pivot of that scheme was the question we are debating this afternoon. Mr. Arnold-Forster at that time proposed to absorb thirty-three battalions of the Militia into the territorial Army which he was then going to create, and he also proposed to abolish the remaining battalions of Militia. That was to effect a saving of £1,800,000, the cost at that time of the Militia. We were told then, as we are told now, that the condition of the Militia was unsatisfactory. I remember that Lord Selborne in that debate declared that the Militia was profoundly unsatisfactory. He said—
  "The Militia is what the War Office has made it, and the War Office alone is responsible for its failure and short comings. The military officials at the War Office know nothing about the Militia at all."
  I conclude from what I have heard this afternoon that, in the opinion of those able to judge, the conditions of the Militia are very much the same now as they were then. But, my Lords, I did not rise to make a speech on the Militia. I rose to call attention to one passage in the Secretary of State's speech which bears on the question of the Militia and the Volunteers, and is, therefore, germane to the matter now under discussion. The Secretary of State, in his speech, adumbrated a sort of citizen army composed of the Militia and the Volunteers, in order to effect those economies which both sides of the House are anxious to secure in regard to the
  36
  administration of the War Office. He said that he looked to the use of men who did not give the whole of their time to military service to bring about economy in Army expenditure. Supposing the Secretary of State is able to create this citizen army, it seems to me there will still remain the essence, the crux, of the problem which Mr. Arnold-Forster himself had to face in his scheme—that is to say, whether the soldiers of that citizen army will be bound to serve abroad.
  If economy is going to be brought about by the creation of a citizen army and the preservation of the Militia, it follows that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State will have to cut down his striking force to its effective minimum. Then, in moments of danger, having reduced his striking force to its lowest limit, he must be absolutely certain of the Reserves he calls out from the Militia. He must not leave it to them to volunteer. If he did, he might find it somewhat difficult to get men; although I must admit that the Militia hitherto have volunteered when it has been necessary. But if my noble friend is going to rely on the Militia and the Volunteers for effective aid to a striking force of the regular Army, which he has cut down to its lowest possible limits, difficulty will certainly arise unless he is able to call on the whole of these men to go to his aid in the event of a great crisis abroad. I only put this point because it has not been alluded to this afternoon. I do not bring it forward by way of criticism of the Secretary of State. My right hon. friend made a speech putting forward his policy. It was a speech as statesmanlike as it was modest, and as modest as it was statesmanlike, and that speech has given him, not only the confidence of the nation, but, what I venture to think is a great deal more important, the confidence of the Army itself.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, after the epithets which were applied by my noble friend Lord Newton to the oratory which has been poured out this evening, I am rather diffident in rising to address your Lordships, but I can promise, after what has been said by my noble friends behind me who represent the Militia, that I shall be brief. I note the promise which Lord Newton makes

  37
  that we are to have what I presume he would permit me to call a National Service League debate shortly, or, at all events, before the conclusion of the session. I for one will welcome that debate. We have been accustomed during the last few months to almost weekly pronouncements of policy by the National Service League. I am sure we shall welcome the opportunity of hearing once more a pronouncement of their views in your Lordships' House, and I think that most of us will also welcome the opportunity of again beating them in the division lobbies.
  I entirely reciprocate what was said by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary as to the necessity of treating the subject before us with an absence of Party feeling. It is perhaps natural that noble Lords opposite, after the result of the general election, which I have no doubt they found very satisfactory, should be anxious to treat everything with an absence of Party feeling; but in this particular case I am sure we shall be most anxious to meet the noble Earl half-way. I think nothing proves more accurately the absence of Party feeling when these subjects are discussed in your Lordships' House than the impartial way in which Militia colonels attack the representative of the War Office, no matter to which Party he belongs.
  The first point to which I would like to refer is the subject of signalling. I was rather disappointed that the noble Earl did not amplify a little more fully his remarks on that subject. I have been told of regiments which had hitherto been doing signalling, but which under the new orders are debarred from continuing it. One particular regiment has been singled out by the General Officer Commanding as a fit regiment to carry on their signalling exercises, but under the recent War Office decision these regiments are not permitted to do signalling any longer. I admit that the noble Earl the Under-Secretary holds out a possible hope that they may be able to resume at some future time, but for one training, at any rate, these regiments will be debarred from signalling exercises, and a great deal of the efforts they have made in the past will be wasted, even though next year they are allowed to continue. Signalling is a matter with which a man should keep constantly in touch, if he is to be of any use. I would suggest that the decision,
  38
  at any rate of the particular regiment to which I have referred, should be reconsidered.
  With regard to the abolition of the Militia Advisory Board, which was deplored by Lord Raglan, I would like to say a word. This is a matter in which I am not now individually concerned, but I hope we shall never see the Militia Advisory Board at the War Office again. I believe the noble Earl opposite has the advantage of an infinitely better system. He has a colonel of Militia at the War Office always at his beck and call, and I believe that to be a far better channel for communication between the heads of the War Office and the Militia than the Advisory Board. As to the accusation of Lord Haversham, whose maiden speech we all welcomed, that we were anxious two years ago to reform the Militia by wiping it out of existence, I must protest against that statement. I have repeatedly had to argue against the view that it correctly represents what we proposed two years ago, and I am not going to repeat the same arguments now. I content myself with stating that I deny its accuracy.
  I recognise the experiment which the War Office is going to carry out as an old friend. It was worked out in the Adjutant-General's Department last autumn. One of our last actions as an Army Council, before noble Lords opposite succeeded us, was to discuss that scheme; and I think I recognise in the very short paragraph referring to this matter in the Memorandum on the Army Estimates the main headlines of the scheme we then discussed.
  LORD LOVAT: Was it not the direct recommendation of the Norfolk Commission?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Yes. The scheme was based on some of the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission. It must not, however, be forgotten that those recommendations required a great deal of working out in the War Office before they could be acted upon or even adopted. But there are one or two omissions from the scheme which we discussed at the end of last November — omissions in the announcement made by the Secretary of State for War, omissions also in the

  39
  Speech of the Under-Secretary this evening. I should like very much if some member of His Majesty's Government would tell us, firstly, if these omissions are to be made, and secondly, why they are made. The first omission was referred to shortly by the noble Earl. We had discussed this scheme and given it practical approval. We are gratified to see that the present Government have adopted some of the suggestions we viewed with a favourable eye, but still we had discussed the question of organisation, and had practically agreed that a brigade organisation was necessary, and that the Militia was to be organised in brigades under a permanent commander. I would like to ask, is that organisation into brigades definitely dropped, or is it dropped pending further consideration? Is it part of the scheme still, and only left out for the obvious reason that you cannot put the whole scheme into a short Memorandum such as that which precedes the Army Estimates?
  I would also like to ask a question as to the Royal Garrison Artillery. The Royal Garrison Artillery have a number of Militia regiments which have never been included in any defence scheme of any kind. They are most of them in Ireland, and the story we were all told was that when they were raised a hundred years ago it was thought safer to give forty Irishmen one big gun between them than a musket each. But what is going to be done with those seventeen or eighteen regiments of Garrison Artillery? Are they going to be retained, or are they to be reduced? War Office Committees have nearly always recommended that they should be done away with. Last autumn suggestions were brought forward that they might be useful as ammunition columns. I should like to know if His Majesty's Government have considered the future of these regiments.
  The last omission from this scheme, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Raglan, is far the most serious— namely, what is going to be done about the Militia Bill which was passed by your Lordships' House last year? That Bill was opposed by the noble Marquess opposite, the present Leader of the House; but I think he will permit me to say that he did not express any very great objection to the principle of
  40
  the Bill, but objected to it because we did not state enough as to what we were going to do in regard to the Militia. When this matter came up for discussion at the Army Council last autumn there was no doubt in the mind of any member of that body that practically this whole scheme depended on the Bill's being passed. I have documentary proof of it here. Those who were then my military colleagues at the War Office felt it of the very highest importance that we should employ money primarily to improve parts of our Army which were to be of use to us in service abroad. There is really little objection to the Bill from the Militia, and there is nothing but the strongest enthusiasm for it among the military authorities at the War Office. I know that soldiers are very anxious to see this Bill passed, and I do hope that His Majesty's Government will be able to tell us that they intend to again present it to Parliament and to pass it into law. I am convinced that it will be of the very highest advantage both directly and indirectly to the military forces of the Crown.
  I have only one other matter that I feel it my duty to bring before your Lordships. It is a matter that does not concern the War Office, though it does concern the Militia and His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary quoted certain reasons, the cogency of which no one will deny, for the deficiency in numbers of officers, and, above all for my particular purpose, men in the Militia. The annual report of the Inspector-General on recruiting, which has just been presented to Parliament, contains the following paragraph—
  "In Ireland articles in the Press have been published and placards posted to deter intending recruits from enlisting, and in England publications and leaflets have been issued by societies averse to military service. Thirteen leaflets published by one society were received in this office."
  We are a very tolerant nation, and are becoming more tolerant every day, but it is getting a little strong, I think, when we stand open and unchecked attempts to influence people not to serve their country. It is no new thing; it has been going on for some considerable time, and at the risk of wearying your Lordships, I would ask you to listen to some specimens of the sort of thing that has been published in Ireland during the last year

  41
  or two. Here is a case of the Gaelic Athletic Association in Ireland, a body on a par with the Amateur Athletic Association in England. The rules of this Association, according to an extract from the Freeman's Journal of 19th August last year, provide that—
  "Permits shall not be granted to promoters of athletic meetings held under the auspices of the constabulary or any other section of the British garrison; that police, soldiers, militiamen, or sailors of the Royal Navy shall not be allowed to compete at athletic meetings held under such auspices, and that no permit shall be granted to a sports promoting body that would allow a military or police band to be present."
  On 5th August last year the Dublin Leader contained an account of a speech made at Tallow by a certain Father Kavanagh. Father Kavanagh said—
  "If the majority of professed Irishmen were sincere in their profession, would England and in the Irish people a nation from which she always could recruit her Army and Navy?"
  At the same meeting Mr. Davitt said—
  "Why should any Irishman join the English Army? Can any honest, self-respecting countryman offer a solitary reason why the English Army is or ought to be one iota less objectionable to young Irishmen than the Russian Army is to the men of Finland?"
  I hope I am not wearying your Lordships, but I think it right that the House should be made aware of these things. In the Irish Times of 14th September last year there is an account of a meeting of the Gaelic League held in St. Patrick's School, Strokestown, at which the following resolution was passed—
  "We are of opinion that it is the duty of all Gaelic Leaguers, although the Gaelic League is a non-political association, to he disloyal to the British Government and her representatives in this country, to weaken its influence as far as possible, and in particular to use all their efforts to prevent all classes of our countrymen from enlisting in the British Army as long as the Government continue to show their utter contempt for everything Irish."
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): The noble Earl is wandering from the subject before the House.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The noble Marquess accuses me of wandering from the subject. Have anti-recruiting placards and resolutions nothing whatever to do with the Militia? I think they
  42
  have. I am sorry if I am boring the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am not bored.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I have in my hand an extract which goes to show that this sort of thing is going on even now, when we are all living so happily under the Government of noble Lords opposite. A placard which was circulated in County Longford during the last week in December, called upon Irishmen to—
  "Make a vow that you will not recognise or mix with any man who dons the livery of an Irish slave—a red or black coat, or blue jacket—and keep your children from mixing with this anti-Irish horde—the slaughterers of the innocent Boer women and children."
  And I may inform your Lordships that a testimonial is being got up to a gentleman who has just come out of gaol after serving nine months for distributing these placards.
  The point I wish to enforce is this. This agitation has been going on in Ireland for a year; its primary object-is to sow dissension between the two countries, and to engender a separatist feeling. I do not pretend that I think that that feeling will be very unpopular with noble Lords opposite, but its secondary effect must be to affect recruiting in Ireland. My right hon. friend Mr. Walter Long certainly checked this movement by prosecuting the prime movers in it whenever he could catch them; but all prosecutions in this matter have been stopped by the present Chief Secretary. Let us understand that noble Lords opposite, in stopping these prosecutions, are doing so with their eyes open. Let us know that they realise the results which will follow; and if recruiting in Ireland shows a still further diminution, as rumours tell us it is beginning to do, do not let us be told that the county interest in the Militia is being lost, and that the Volunteers are competing with the Militia. If noble Lords opposite choose to let this movement—this very wrong movement, as I claim it to be—go on, they must be prepared to take the consequences, and it will not lie in their mouths to grumble at any diminution of recruiting in Ireland as the result of these highly seditious publications.
  LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to a statement made in the other House by the Secretary of State for War, who gave what is to me a new version of the "blue water" school, and one which seems to be of the utmost importance. The Secretary of State declared that in his view, not only can there be no invasion of England in force, but that there cannot even be a raid of 5,000 or 10,000 troops. If this is the deliberate opinion of the Secretary of State for War, and if he finds that the country is with him in that opinion, surely it foreshadows a most revolutionary change in regard to the Auxiliary Forces. What the Norfolk Commission said of the Militia was that they existed chiefly, and that the Volunteers existed solely, with a view to resisting invasion.
  It appears to me that the now view of the "blue-water" school is totally different from that which was put forward last year in this House when the Militia Bill was being discussed. At that time noble Lords accepted the view that there was a possibility of an invasion of this country by a small foreign force and that the Militia and Volunteers—the Auxiliary Forces in general—must be maintained partly, if not solely, for the purpose of resisting invasion. But now we are told that there is no possibility of invasion. Consequently our Army is for the future to be what I may call a triple-expansion Army. The first expansion is to be when you call out the Reserves; the second takes place on the embodiment of the Militia; and the third when you call upon the Volunteers to fight outside this country, because it seems they will never be called upon to fight within the country. In these circumstances it seems to me difficult to imagine that the Secretary of State for War will not make the Militia liable to foreign service, because if you do not make the Militia so liable, and if you say definitely that never under any circumstances can they be called upon to fight in this country, you will do away altogether with the utility of that force. It is perfectly true that last year I voted against the Militia having liability for foreign service thrown upon them on embodiment. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who also objected to the proposal, did so simply on the ground that it was not part of a general scheme; that it was, I think he called it,
  44
  an isolated change. That was the principal reason why he objected to the Militia on embodiment being available for foreign service. One word with regard to a small point taken up by Lord Raglan. I would suggest to Lord Raglan that he should not press his suggestion that Militia officers should be eligible to serve in the Indian Police, because for that service special qualifications are required, in particular a knowledge of the native languages and of law.
  LORD RAGLAN: But do they learn the languages before they go to the country?
  LORD MONKSWELL: I did not understand the noble Lord to suggest that Militia officers should go through the examination at present gone through for the Indian Police.
  LORD RAGLAN: I meant that.
  LORD MONKSWELL: That,of course, alters the position. Before sitting down I would express the hope that the noble: Marquess the Leader of the House will give your Lordships some light and leading on the important point as to whether the Militia, on embodiment, are, or are not, to be liable for foreign service.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend who has just sat down quite rightly understood what was said by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War. I do not remember his having said anything exactly of the kind my noble friend has suggested, but I will inform myself as to what was the exact statement made on that subject. On the main subject which has been discussed to-night we have had a very interesting debate. We have had many interesting debates on the Militia in this House, always, I am afraid, in the same tone, that the Militia is in an unsatisfactory condition. It has been so, I am sorry to say, for a long time. It is highly important, it is a matter of the greatest importance, that steps should be taken to alter that condition of things and to bring about a more satisfactory state of matters. But it is the view of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State and of His Majesty's Government, that after so many Army schemes of one sort and another, sometimes

  45
  very wide and very extensive, and sometimes dealing only with individual points, have been before the public and Parliament, the time has come when the general question of Army organisation, and of the Militia as part of the general question, ought to be deliberately considered in all its bearings by the Government, and that no partial expression of opinion, except on minor points, should be given to the public until time has been taken for full and deliberate consideration.
  His Majesty's Government have been in office but a short time. I think it would have been very wrong on the part of my right hon. friend if he had attempted to deal hastily with this question. We have had Secretaries of State with preconceived opinions on this subject, who have entered on office with the intention of carrying those opinions into effect. They have not been a success; those schemes have one and all broken down. My right hon. friend Mr. Haldane does not desire to put forward another scheme of that kind, and I think, my Lords, that he is acting wisely in that course. He is entitled to the support of Parliament when he declines to commit himself to the details of arrangements connected with general Army organisation until such time as he has had full opportunity, after the freest and most intimate concert and consultation with his expert advisers, to present a general scheme, and if the statement which it has been in the power of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to make to this House to-night seems to any extent to be limited and narrow, it is because my right hon. friend does not desire to enter piecemeal into this question, but to deal with it, as I have said, as a whole.
  The noble Earl opposite alluded especially to the Militia Bill of last year. I took objection to that Bill on various grounds when it was passing through this House. The principal point that I put forward was that it was undesirable to deal partially with a large question of that kind. To that opinion I adhere. That is the opinion of my right hon. friend, and, therefore, there is, as far as I know, no intention of proposing that Bill again this session. I was, I confess, a little surprised to find that the noble Earl opposite attached such extreme importance to that measure, and that he thought it was of such vital interest
  46
  that it should be passed. Noble Lords opposite could have passed it last year. They sent the Bill down to the House of Commons; it was there in the hands of the then Government with their majority, but they refused to pass it, preferring to pass the Aliens Bill. I think, therefore, that my noble friend has no right to speak as if we were neglecting our duty in this respect because we hesitate to play the game which was played last year, and because we preferr to deal with this question as a whole.
  I did not intend to interrupt the noble Earl in another part of his speech. I made a remark to my noble friend beside me which reached the quick ears of my noble friend, but I still think that he did wander from the subject on the notice of the Paper. The subject of the notice relates entirely to the Militia. The extracts which the noble Earl read from the newspapers and placards in Ireland related to the subject of recruiting generally, and I do think that the noble Earl was somewhat out of order. I am quite sure that if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had the authority in this House which the Speaker has in the other House, my noble friend would have been called to order. All I have to say on that matter is this, I do not believe that placards and notices of that description have any material effect on recruiting in Ireland. The Irish people are a race of soldiers. The Irish people have, as we all know, done great and gallant service for this country, and I do not believe that ill-advised articles of that description and placards of that sort will really be found to check the Irish people from recruiting. If I am right in that opinion, it would be unwise to resort to the measures which the noble Earl sketched out. I think it is much wiser to abstain from taking stringent measures for the purpose of dealing with an evil which I believe to be in itself of comparatively little importance.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, after the speech of my noble friend Lord Newton I feel that it requires some courage on the part of one who is a Lord-Lieutenant of his county and who has been a Secretary of State for War to address even a few words to your Lordships in this debate. I cannot

  47
  but consider that the matter which was mentioned at the close of his speech by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore deserves the most serious consideration. I can well understand that the noble Marquess opposite should not have been prepared to find it discussed this evening, and that he should not therefore care to pursue it further; but it does seem to me to be a matter of the gravest importance. Its importance is, I think, not to be measured by the effect of these placards and incitements upon recruiting; what is serious is that in a part of the United Kingdom ill-affected persons should be allowed with impunity to discourage their fellow-citizens from entering a service in connection with which, as the noble Marquess reminded the House, Irishmen have conferred so much distinction upon the history of this country.
  Turning to the main question, your Lordships may perhaps have listened with some little disappointment to the statements vouchsafed to us from the Front Bench opposite, but I am bound to say that the appeal of the noble Marquess seemed to me a reasonable one. It is reasonable that His Majesty's Government should desire to deal with this great question of Army organisation as a whole, and we shall certainly not grudge them the time necessary for that purpose. It is true that nothing could be more unfortunate than the present condition of the Militia force; we have often had to admit it on both sides of the House.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Why?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend at the Table asks me why. One answer was given earlier in the evening by the noble Lord who spoke first, and who told us that Army reformers had only two ways of treating the Militia—obliterating it abruptly or condemning it to a lingering death. I do not admit the justice of that description. I think it would be fairer to say that there are two currents of thought with regard to the Militia, On the one hand you have the school which desires to introduce reforms of a thorough and drastic character; on the other hand you have the feeling of friends of the Militia whose frame of mind is intensely conservative; and between these two stools Militia reformers have often fallen.
  48
  The Militia difficulty seems to me, indeed, to be typical of the difficulty which attends the whole question of Army organisation in this country. This country has military requirements probably more extensive geographically and more complicated than any other European nation; and yet I think it true to say that we have an Army which has never been constructed on a scientific basis, which has grown with the growth of the nation, and which therefore is irregular and overlapping in its constitution. The force which has suffered most from that condition of things is undoubtedly the Militia; it has been plundered at one end by the Line, it has been encroached on at the other by the Volunteers; and the result is that at this moment it is in the condition which was described by the Secretary of State for War when he said it had been bled white and is in a state of inanition. We are well content that time should be taken to investigate this Militia question thoroughly; and I, for one, am grateful to the Secretary of State for War, in the first place, for his frank admission that the Army, as a whole, never was more efficient than at present, and also for his readiness to examine all these questions with an open mind and with the desire as far as possible to observe continuity of military policy. For the present we are to have, with regard to the Militia, a very important experiment, and we shall watch that experiment with great interest. It contains one or two features which I regard not without a certain amount of misgiving. I am not sure whether the endeavour to require from the Militia a much longer period of training is a step which will increase the popularity of the force. Mr. Haldane described the Militiaman the other day as a soldier who was one-tenth soldier and nine-tenths civilian, and that is a consideration of which we should never lose sight. It seems to me that anything which you do to diminish the value of the militiaman as a civilian in the labour market during that part of the year when he is not occupied as a soldier is likely to render service in the Militia more onerous, and therefore less attractive, in the eyes of the public.
  Again, there is the announcement with regard to winter training. It may be a very good thing; but I earnestly hope that care will be taken not to create the

  49
  impression in the public mind that an attempt is being made, as I have seen it described, to transfer the cost of outdoor relief to the Army Estimates. If that impression gets abroad, the result will be deplorable. It is also part of the experiment that these more thoroughly trained Militiamen are not to be allowed, during their first year, to be transferred into the Line. That is a suggestion which appeals to me very much, but it must not be forgotten that the effect will be to deprive the Line of a large part of the recruits on which it has hitherto depended. We have been in the habit of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and if we stop doing so Paul will have to go short. I understand from the noble Marquess that the mind of the Secretary of State is open upon the subject of the Bill rendering Militiamen liable for service abroad, and that we are not to infer that it has been dropped. We regard it as a measure of very great importance—and that is not less true because we were unable to find a sufficient amount of Parliamentary time to pass it into law last session. My reason for considering the Bill of very great importance is this. I cannot conceive of any arrangement under which we should be able to avoid occasionally and in times of emergency employing the Militia beyond the limits of these islands; and, if we are to do that, we should do it under statutory powers and not by means of the kind of extemporised arrangements which used to be made and to which I have heard the strongest exception taken in debate in this House. Militia battalions used to be publicly paraded and invited to declare then and at once whether they would or would not undertake the liability for foreign service. Of course in the circumstances it was almost impossible for them to say "No," and very disagreeable things used to be said as to the kind of moral pressure put upon them in order to obtain their consent. That can only be avoided by imposing on the Militia a statutory liability to serve abroad at certain contingencies.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: What about compulsory service?
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend asks me about compulsory service. I have very often ventured to tell your Lordships that in my opinion
  50
  compulsory service was not likely to be regarded with favour in this country, and I for one shall base my hopes on the attempts of His Majesty's Government to solve this Militia problem without having recourse to compulsion in any shape or form.

  JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
  Bill read 3a (according to Order.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I have a small Amendment to move, the object of which is to provide that one of the solicitors who is to be a member of the Rule Committee shall not necessarily be a member of the Incorporated Law Society.
  Amendment moved—
  "In Clause 1, page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'solicitors' to the word ('to') in line 10, and to insert the words 'one being a member of the Council of the Law Society, and the other being a member of the Law Society and also of a provincial Law Society.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.