Sitting of 10 April 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Barry Railway Bill (by Order); Taff Vale Railway Bill (by Order); Port Talbot Railway and Dock Bill (by Order); Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments. Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Aberbeeg; Abercarn; Abertillery (two); Alloa and Devon; Alva; Arrail Griffin; Blackhill (two); Bloxwich; Cadder; Camp; Caradog Vale; Celynen; Chapel New Mains; Clackmannan; Crown Lodge; Cwm; Cwmtillery; Diamond; Garswood; Guenoo; Halifax; Kendon Lodge; Llankilleth; Lletty Shenkin; Merthyr Vale; Miskin; Motherwell; Mount Avernon; Old Hills; Parkhead; Pelsall; Penyfan; Quarry Bank; Rose Hey worth; Shettleston; Tillery; Tillicoultry; Tollercross; Troedyrhiw; Twyn Gwyn; Vivian; and, West Longrigg Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Abroath and St. Vigeans, against; to lie upon the Table.
FEUS AND BUILDING LEASES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Dalziel, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL OPTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour; from Battyhill; Dalziel; Glasgow (three); Inverness;
194
Kilmacolm; Kirkintilloch; Melsetter; Motherwell; Sakcoats; and, Skelmorlie; to lie upon the Table.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
Petitions against; from Belington Holy Trinity; Kingston on Thames; and, Knowle (Bristol); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA PUNJAB (INQUIRY INTO DEATHS FROM TETANUS.)
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 26th March; Sir William Collins];to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3755 to 3757 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Great Central Railway Bill, and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158b]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN.)
  Copy presented, of Fiftieth Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools for 1906. Part I. List of Schools and Detailed Reports [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF ESSEX.)
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Essex dividing the Bowers Gifford Polling District in the Mid-Essex Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (IRELAND.)
  Return ordered, "of the Government Institutions, Military, Police, Prisons, &c, in Ireland, giving particulars of the supplies annually procured; whether or not the contracts for the same are advertised in Ireland and are open to general competition, and the addresses of the officials who control these contracts."—(Mr. Boland.)

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return ordered, "of the Amounts of British Government Securities held by the several Government Departments

  £2½ per Cent. Consols.

  £2¾ per Cents. (1905).

  £2½ per Cents.

  £2¾ per Cent. War Loan.

  Other Securities.

  Annuities for terms of years.

  Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills.

  —(Mr. Runciman.)

  EAST INDIA (INCOME AND EXPENDITURE).
  Address for "Return of the net Income and Expenditure of British India under certain specified heads for the 11 years from 1895–6 to 1905–6 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 116, of Session 1906)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Pay by Fire Insurance Companies towards the Upkeep of Fire Brigades.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General by what Act or Acts London insurance companies are required to pay to the London Fire Brigade the sum of £30 per annum for every million pounds of insurances effected; does this statutory obligation extend outside the area of the London County Council; and, if not, would he consider the possibility of extending this obligation to all the extra Metropolitan districts where efficient fire brigades are established.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. By Section 13 of 28 and 29 Vic, cap. 90 (The Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act, 1865), companies insuring any property in the Metropolis against fire are required to pay quarterly to the Metropolitan Board of Works (now the London County Council) a contribution towards the expenses of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade at the rate of £35 per annum for every £1,000,000 of the gross
  and other Public Offices on the 31st day of March, 1907, specifying whether held in England or Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 163, of Session 1906):—
  amounts insured. Outside the area of the London County Council there is no statutory obligation on fire insurance companies to make any such contribution, except in one or two large towns under the provisions of local Acts; but, in a number of towns and districts, it is the custom of fire insurance companies to make voluntary payments towards the expenses of dealing with fire. Full information on this subject will be found on page 17 of the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Fire Brigades, 1900 (No. 278, of 1900), which recommended that "all fire insurance companies should be required by law to contribute some proportion of the expenses connected with fire extinction, which is an obligation already recognised by some of the most important companies." I am not, however, prepared, as at present advised, to initiate legislation of the kind suggested.

  Battleships, etc., Struck off and Laid Down.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state, in parallel columns, for each year from 1st January, 1889, to 31st December, 1906, the number of battleships, coast defence vessels, armoured cruisers, protected cruisers, and destroyers laid down, and the number struck off the list of efficient ships, together with the sum total of each class laid down and struck off during the seventeen years, such period being more or less the life of an armoured vessel.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The information desired is given in the accompanying table:—

  Year.

  Battleships.

  Coast Defence Ships.

  Armoured Cruisers.

  Protected Cruisers.

  Torpedo Boat Destroyers.

  Total

  Numbers.

  Numbers.

  Numbers.

  Numbers.

  Numbers.

  Numbers.

  Laid down

  Struck off.

  Laid down.

  Struck off

  Laid down.

  Struck off.

  Laid down

  Struck off

  Laid down.

  Struck off.

  Laid down.

  Struck off.

  1889

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  28

  —

  1890

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  16

  —

  1891

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  1892

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  4

  —

  6

  —

  1893

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  6

  —

  10

  1

  1894

  6

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  8

  —

  32

  —

  46

  3

  1895

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  12

  —

  20

  —

  1896

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  14

  4

  35

  —

  51

  5

  1897

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  1

  —

  11

  —

  1898

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1

  —

  6

  .—

  15

  —

  1899

  7

  —

  —

  1

  7

  1

  —

  4

  16

  —

  30

  6

  1900

  1

  3

  —

  3

  3

  6

  1

  4

  2

  —

  7

  16

  1901

  2

  7

  —

  6

  6

  1

  1

  5

  1

  2

  10

  21

  1902

  6

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  1

  —

  15

  —

  28

  —

  1903

  1

  1

  —

  3

  3

  —

  3

  1

  4

  —

  11

  5

  1904

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  5

  —

  24

  15

  3

  21

  32

  1905

  3

  10

  —

  1

  3

  5

  —

  17

  2

  1

  8

  34

  1906

  1

  2

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  8

  2

  Totals

  54

  24

  —

  17

  38

  19

  85

  59

  155

  6

  332

  125

  Panama Canal Works—Trinidad Labourers' Contracts.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the contracts under which Trinidad labourers have been recruited to work on the Panama Canal.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Governor of Trinidad has been requested to supply a copy of the contract for this purpose.

  Imprisonment of British Colonists at Nairobi.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Captain Grogan and four other British subjects are now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment at Nairobi, for an offence under the Indian Penal Code; whether the offence complained of consisted in the punishment of some natives for insults offered to white women; whether, in view of the circumstances and of the services rendered by Captain Grogan to East Africa and to this country, the Secretary of State is prepared to advise His Majesty to remit the remainder of the sentence; and when Papers on the subject will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill) The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. According to the Secretary of State's present information these men were charged with holding an unlawful meeting and resisting the police. The officer administering the Government reports that the insult was not of a serious nature, and at most did not amount to more than rudeness and disobedience. He further reports that after collecting upwards of 100 Europeans, of whom many were armed, Captain Grogan and the persons acting with him flogged the three natives concerned in a most brutal manner in front of the Court House at Nairobi, in spite of the attempted intervention of the magistrate and a police officer. The natives were not handed over to the police. As at present informed the Secretary of State sees no reason for revising the
  200
  sentence of the magistrate's court upon Captain Grogan, and he proposes to defer the question of laying Papers on the Table of the House until he has received full details by mail.

  European and Native Population at Nairobi.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, what are the approximate numbers of the white and coloured populations in and about Nairobi; what force of white police is now available for the preservation of order in the district; and whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that the force is sufficient for all purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The population of Nairobi municipality is approximately as follows:—

  Europeans

  350

  Eurasians

  94

  Goanese

  295

  Indians

  1,752

  Africans

  2,246

  4,737

  but the Secretary of State has no information regarding the numbers in the surrounding districts. Provision for a white police force of twenty non-commissioned officers and men has been made in the Estimates for the current financial year, and the acting Commissioner was authorised by telegram on the 18th of March to raise this force at once. The Commissioner of the Protectorate, who is on leave in this country, has now recommended that the force should be increased to forty non-commissioned officers and men, and the Secretary of State has no doubt that this force will be sufficient to maintain order.

  Balances in Hands of Boards of Guardians.
  MR. PIKE PEASE:To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the total amount of balances in hand and surpluses now in the hands of the guardians of England and Wales over and

  201
  above that needed for current expenditure.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have no information as to the amount of the balances now in the hands of boards of guardians in England and Wales.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that many boards of guardians in London levy a rate greater than their current expenditure, thus leading to balances in hand and surpluses amounting to many thousands of pounds; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps to stop this practice.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am not aware that it is the practice of many boards of guardians in London to call for excessive contributions from the rates, nor have I received any recent complaints on the subject It must be borne in mind that where the expenditure is large it is necessary that the guardians should have a considerable working balance in hand.

  Housing of the Working Classes Bill—Date of Introduction.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is now in a position to fix a date for the introduction of the Bill for the Improvement of the Housing of the Working Classes promised in the King's Speech.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am desirous of introducing the Bill as early as practicable, but I cannot at present fix a date for the purpose.

  Pay of Male Clerical Staff of the Post Office Telephone Service.
  SIR J. BAKER: To ask the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that the male clerical, staff of the general manager of the Post Office London Telephone Service forwarded a memorial in December, 1905, after four years service, asking for better pay and conditions of service, that the Select Committee on Postal Servants was ap-
  202
  proached and informed the memorialists that their case did not come within its terms of reference, and further that the female staff employed in the same office is already established, and that two years service has been accepted as the basis of establishment of the National Telephone Company's staff when the company is taken over by the Post Office, whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the character of the work performed by the memorialists, and take steps for the early provision of an establishment for them, with pay and conditions of service equal to those granted to established officers in the service of the Department for similar work.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The question of placing the male clerical staff of the general manager of the Post Office London Telephone Service on the establishment is now being proceeded with; but the matter requires careful investigation and consideration, and some little time is necessary for the completion of the scheme.

  The Police Superannuation Bill.
  MR. BKODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of certain hardships existing under The Police Act, 1890, the Government will give special facilities to the Police Superannuation Bill now before Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.)I cannot promise that special facilities will be given for this Bill.

  Wages of Agricultural Labourers.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state the last available figures as to the average rate of weekly wages paid to agricultural labourers in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland respectively, with the highest and lowest average weekly earnings in each country.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The latest available figures are contained in

  203
  the Second Report on Wages and Earnings of Agricultural Labourers [Cd. 2376], and relate to the year 1902, but information furnished to the Department by correspondents from time to time since that year tends to show that, in 1906, wages were generally at about the

  England.

  Wales.

  Scotland.

  Ireland.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  All classes of agricultural labourers (including ordinary labourers and men in charge of animals)

  18

  3

  17

  3

  19

  3

  10

  11

  Ordinary agricultural labourers only

  17

  5

  17

  7

  19

  5

  10

  9

  In the case the of the ordinary agriculture labourers the following statement shows

  Highest.

  Lowest

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  England

  Durham

  22

  2

  Oxford

  14

  6

  Wales

  Glamorgan

  21

  3

  Cardigan

  15

  8

  Scotland

  Renfrew and Lanark

  22

  2

  Shetland, Orkney, and Caithness

  13

  7

  Ireland

  Down

  13

  0

  Mayo

  8

  9

  * These averages relate to able-bodied male adults. They do not include the earnings of stewards, bailiffs, foremen, or casual labourers.

  Accidents to Railway Servants
  SIR F. CHANGING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been in each year, from the year 1896 to the year 1906, inclusive, the number of railway servants killed by accidents in which the movement of vehicles used exclusively on railways was concerned, the number of instances in which such fatal accidents to railway servants have been investigated by inspectors or sub-inspectors of the Board of Trade, the number of inquests held in respect of such fatal accidents to railway servants, and the number of instances in which the coroner at any such inquest has applied to the Board of Trade for an official assessor at
  same level as in 1902. The following figures, extracted from the above-mentioned Report, show, for each division of the United Kingdom, the average weekly earnings of agricultural labourers (including all payments in cash and the value of allowances in kind) in 1902*—
  the highest and lowest county averages in 1902.
  such inquest, in pursuance of Section 8 of The Railways Regulation Act, 1871.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) A statement is attached showing the number of railway servants killed during the period mentioned by my hon. friend by train accidents and other accidents arising from the movement of railway vehicles, the number killed in such accidents as were investigated by the inspecting staff of the Board of Trade, and the number killed in cases in which the coroners holding the inquests asked for the appointment of an assessor. I have no knowledge of the number of inquests held, but it may, I think, be safely

  205
  assumed that every fatal accident to a railway servant forms the subject of a

  Year.

  Number of railway servants killed in the movement of railway vehicles.

  Number killed in accidents into which inquiries were held.

  Number killed in cases in which coroners applied for assessors.

  1896

  447

  76

  —

  1897

  510

  89

  3

  1898

  504

  104

  1

  1899

  531

  83

  3

  1900

  583

  109

  3

  1901

  511

  101

  3

  1902

  447

  123

  —

  1903

  455

  121

  1

  1904

  416

  155

  4

  1905

  399

  156

  3

  1906

  438

  157

  6

  Children and Council and Voluntary Schools.
  MR. AKMITAGE: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of places provided in council schools on 31st December, 1906, or the nearest date for which the information is available; the number of children on the register at the same date; the number of average attendances; and if he will give the like information with regard to non-provided schools.
  (Answered by Mr McKenna.) Accommodation on the 31st July, 1906:—

  Council schools

  3,520,093

  Voluntary schools

  3,509,914

  coroner's inquest, or, in Scotland, of an inquiry by the procurator fiscal.
  Average attendance for the statistical year ending 31st July, 1906:—

  Council schools

  2,812,570

  Voluntary schools

  2,490,525

  No later figures than those given above are available.

  Sedition of Bombay Newspaper.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the editor and publisher of a Bombay newspaper called the Vihari has been bound over by the Chief Presidency of Bombay to be of good behaviour for six months for publishing an article describing British India as Hell on Earth, and the English as surpassing Nero, Nadir Shah, Tamerlane, and Satan in cruelty, so that their success causes the mercy of God to be doubted in the world; and whether it is the intention of the Government of India to move for a sentence more proportionate to the effect of the publication of

  207
  such statements among the masses of the Bombay Presidency.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have seen a report of the case. So far as I am aware, the Government of India do not intend to take any action.

  Opium Exported from India.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for India what was the total value of the opium exported from India in 1906, and the value of that consigned direct to ports in China.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The value of the opium exported from India in the year 1906, as shown in the trade returns, was £6,128,016, of which £4,806,452 represents opium consigned direct to Hongkong and the treaty ports in China.

  Suggested Increased Allowances for Officers serving in South Africa,
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is able to do something to diminish the serious burden placed upon officers by service in South Africa, and whether he can allow the same rate of pay in South Africa as in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of the alleged inadequacy of the allowances granted to officers serving in South Africa was very fully considered quite recently, and it was decided that there were not sufficient grounds to justify any increase. The difference in the circumstances of officers serving in India and South Africa makes any comparison of their respective emoluments of doubtful value, but I observe that in the junior ranks of the infantry the total amount of pay and allowances is higher in South Africa than in India.

  The Sherwood Foresters—Coloured Facings to Uniforms.
  MR. GIBBS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that several regiments have been allowed to return to having their old coloured facings on their uniform, permission will also be given to another regiment with a very famous record, the Sherwood Foresters, the old Forty-fifth, again to have green on theirs.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This proposal was fully considered on the previous recent occasion, and it was held that the application could not be entertained. I am not prepared to reopen the question.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Cost of Naval Construction.
  MR. NUTTALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the total estimated cost of the nine battleships and ton armoured cruisers which, as stated in the Navy Estimates, will be completed by 1909; and whether the nine battleships include four ships of the "Dreadnought" type, but exclude the three ships of that type the construction of which it is proposed shall be commenced this year.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The total cost is approximately £29,000,000. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Cost of H.M.S. "Invincible."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, why the cost of the "Invincible," as given in the White Paper, Cd. 3048, issued last session, is now increased from £1,736,645 to £1,744,055; and whether he can explain why this vessel building at Elswick is to cost £34,145 more than a sister ship building on the Clyde.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to the first part of the Question is that the lower figure included sums which were not finally determined at the time the estimate was made, whereas the higher figure represents a contract price. As regards the second part, there are slight differences in the arrangement of details of the ships building on the Tyne and Clyde which contribute to a variation in price.

  Cost of H.M.S. "Dreadnought."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in spite of the fact that the "Dreadnought" has been in commission since last October, the Navy Estimates do not present a true account of her cost in that they

  209
  exclude the cost of her reserve of guns; and whether this practice of excluding the cost of the reserve of guns has been followed in the case of any previous ships.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The reserve of guns provided is calculated upon the total number mounted, and individual guns are not appropriated to particular ships except where only one ship exists with a particular type of gun. The cost of reserve guns is not included in cost of guns shown in the Estimates, and has not been included with previous ships. The Estimates, therefore, give a correct account of the cost of the "Dreadnought."

  Battleship Reserve Guns.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the reserve guns of the "Dreadnought " are now ready to be placed on board that vessel; and whether the reserve guns of the "Lord Nelson" and "Agamemnon" are ordered to be completed by the time those vessels are ready, and are included in the cost of the armament of those ships as sot forth in the Navy Estimates.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The replies to the first and second parts of the Question are in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative.

  Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the continued lack of employment at Woolwich in consequence of the Royal Arsenal having to bear the whole, or nearly the whole, of the loss of orders attendant upon the Government declaration to reduce expenditure; and whether, having regard to the fact that 15,000 men have been discharged from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, during the last four or five years, he can now say whether he will stop any further discharges.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will instruct the Army Council to place such orders with the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, as will obviate the dismissal of the 1,200 men who have received warning of discharge.
  THE SECRETARY Of STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I will answer both Questions together. Yes, Sir, my attention has been drawn to the continued diminution of work at Woolwich referred to by my hon. friend, but the reason is not that stated by him. The reductions are the outcome of general reductions in naval and military expenditure. Except rifle and small arms ammunition, as to which sufficient proportions have been ordered from the ordnance factories to keep the respective shops in work with present staffs, practically all the new orders on Army Votes for articles made in the ordnance factories are being placed with them. The fact is, that there is not work to keep the present staff employed, and further discharges appear to be inevitable. I have, however, postponed the operation of the notices of discharge temporarily in order to mitigate hardships as far as possible, and I am in anxious consultation with the Admiralty as to the possibility of finding further work for this year. There are certain articles which public polity requires us to place in a certain proportion for manufacture by the trade, but it is not any unusual allocation of these articles which has led to the present difficulty.
  MR. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman facilitate the payment of bonuses to the men now in the Arsenal, so that they may get away quickly when opportunity offers, and make vacancies for those who are not successful in getting jobs elsewhere?
  MR. HALDANEasked for notice of the Question.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of appointing a small expert Committee to discuss the possibility of employing the plant at these places fully in both peace time and war time.
  MR. HALDANE: We have such a. Committee now.

  Army Bill and the Militia and Volunteer Officers.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the effect of the new Army Bill will be to merge

  211
  the officers of the Militia and Volunteers into one class, receiving the same allowances and emoluments and undertaking the same duties both as to time and place.
  MR. HALDANE: The reply is in the affirmative.

  Indian Legislative Councils.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received the Report from the Government of India upon the question referred to them last year of widening the powers and responsibilities of the legislative councils; and whether he can conveniently communicate the Report to the House before the Indian Budget is taken.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. Morley,): On last Saturday I received a despatch dealing with the subject of my hon. friend's Question; but at present I am not in a position to make a statement or to lay any Papers on the Table of the House. It is a long and important despatch and calls for mature consideration.
  MR. SMEATON: Will the right hon. Gentleman enable the House to consider and discuss the Report before he takes a decision upon it?
  MR. MORLEY: No, Sir. By all usage, and certainly by all expediency, I must answer that despatch on the responsibility of His Majesty's Government. But I anticipate that before any action is taken the House will have an opportunity of considering the matter.
  SIR H. COTTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is in a position to say whether the recommendations contained in the despatch will involve legislation, or whether they can be decided by mere Executive action?
  MR. MORLEY: I must ask my hon. friend to excuse me from saying anything on the subject at present.

  Native Labour in the Transvaal Mines
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State
  212
  for the Colonies whether any natives of the British Central Africa Protectorate have been recruited for the Transvaal mines since the departure of those mentioned in the Commissioners Report for 1905–6; and whether such recruiting is still permissible and proceeding.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.): Five hundred natives of the British Central Africa Protectorate were recruited for the Premier Diamond Mine during the last recruiting season which ended on the 31st of December; the next season for recruiting commences on the 1st of July; the question whether further recruiting will then be permitted is under the consideration of the Secretary of State.
  *MR. REES: Has any occasion arisen for the exercise of the Under-Secretary's promised kind offices on behalf of the Protectorate in connection with the Anglo-Portuguese Labour Convention?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of that Question.

  Sir A. Swettenham's Resignation.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: On behalf of the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the resignation of the late Governor of Jamaica was occasioned by consideration of age; whether age was assigned by the late Governor as the reason of his retirement; and, if not, on what ground was the resignation officially expressed to be the result, of age.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The resignation of Sir Alexander Swettenham of his office as Governor of Jamaica was tendered upon 24th January last in a telegram couched in the following words: "Respectfully apply for permission for retirement on account of ago, forthwith to be relieved."
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the recent unfortunate incidents which took place in Jamaica had any connection with the resignation of Sir Alexander Swettenham.
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is not included in the Question on the Paper. I do not think it would be any advantage at this stage if I were to try to specify the circumstances which were and those which were not connected with the resignation.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the whole of the correspondence be laid on the Table?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot yet say what part of the correspondence may properly be laid. Certainly the whole of the correspondence is not of a character suitable for publication.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: But are we to understand that other causes beside that of age dictated the resolve taken by Sir Alexander Swettenham?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. LYTTELTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the correspondence will be laid?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I think the right hon. Gentleman had better put down a Question on that subject. The correspondence affects other Governments besides our own, and it must be very carefully considered, from every point of view, by the Foreign Office as well as by the Colonial Office, before any decision can be come to in regard to publication.

  The Bahr-el-Ghazal.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that Congo Free State troops are still occupying four stations in the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and that the Lado enclave is occupied by a force of 1,800 men; and, if so, whether he can explain the reasons which induce the Congo Free State administration to maintain so large a military force within striking distance of British territory.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir EDWARD GREY): My right hon. friend understands that telegraphic instructions have now been sent to the
  214
  Congolese Commandant at Lado, ordering the evacuation of all posts in Meridi.

  Sale of Revolvers.
  MR. G. H. FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of his commutation of the death sentence in a recent case of planned and deliberate murder, he proposes to take any measures to restrict the sale of revolvers to such applicants only as shall have obtained a magistrate's certificate as to the necessity of the purchase.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am informed that the Pistols Act of 1903 has proved satisfactory in diminishing crime connected with the carrying of pistols, and I do not at present contemplate undertaking its extension or amendment. No possible amendment of the Act would prevent the class of murders which can be described as "planned and deliberate."

  St. Pancras Unemployed.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many unemployed in St. Pancras were registered from January 1906 to March 1907 in each month respectively, and how many in each successive month were given employment through the committee; what was the nature of the work given to these men; what requests for money or help were made by the St. Pancras Unemployed Committee to the Local Government Board during the last fifteen months; and what money grants to this body have been made by the Local Government Board during that period.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am informed that the total number of the unemployed registered by the St. Pancras Distress Committee from January 1906 to March 1907 was 2,567. The total number of persons in each month for whom work was provided through the committee was approximately 2,316. Of these 999 were employed on work provided by the borough council, eighty-eight on local work to which the Central (Unemployed) Body contributed, and 1,229 on work

  215
  provided by that body. I will send my hon. friend a statement showing the particulars for each month. The work provided by the borough council consisted of extra road sweeping, painting lampposts, and general labouring work. The local work to which the Central Body contributed consisted of reducing the gradient of a road and laying out gardens. Payments out of the parliamentary grant were in London made not to the Distress Committees, but to the Central (Unemployed) Body, and no request for a payment from the grant was received by the Local Government Board from the St. Pancras Distress Committee.

  Leicester Distress Committee.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he would lay upon the Table the letter from the Leicester Distress Committee indicating that the committee required no more money from the Local Government Board.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The letter forms part of a correspondence between the Local Government Board and the Distress Committee, and refers to other portions of that correspondence. It does not seem to me necessary to lay the letter on the Table of the House, but I shall be happy to send my hon. friend a copy of it.

  Rifle Ranges for Postal Officials.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the roof of the General Post Office has been converted into a rifle range where postal employees are taught rifle practice; if so, by whose authority a branch of the civil service is being used to assist the military service; whether any alteration has been made in the roof to adapt it to the purposes of a rifle range, and who authorised the alterations to be made; what the alterations cost, and who paid for them; whether any expenses are incurred in teaching the postal youths and employees how to shoot; and, if so, who pays the expenses.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): A miniature rifle range has recently been erected on the roof of the
  216
  Savings Bank building at West Kensington and another is about to be erected on the roof of the General Post Office North. The space in question is not required for any other purpose. The ranges will be used by Post Office employees in connection with their drill. All expenses in connection with their erection and maintenance are defrayed by the officers concerned, who have formed clubs for the purpose and no cost whatever will fall on public funds. I have every desire to facilitate the formation of such clubs, which are entirely of a civil character and have no connection with military service.

  Sharlston Elementary School Teacher.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that Mr. O. B. Milnes has fulfilled his duties as head teacher at the Sharlston elementary school in a most satisfactory manner; that the West Riding education authority have refused to consent to the appointment of Mr. Milnes by the managers of the Royston national school as head teacher to that school on educational grounds; that Mr. Marvin, the inspector sent by the Board of Education, on their being appealed to by the managers to inquire into the circumstances of the case, reported that Mr. Milnes was one of the most deserving of the younger men in his district, and very strongly recommended him for the appointment; and that the Board informed the authority on 30th January, that Mr. Milnes' career, as shown in the reports of His Majesty's Inspectors, presents an unbroken record of success and good deserts under very adverse circumstances, and advised the authority to reconsider their decision: and will he say on what ground or fresh information the Board have, since that time, completely reversed their decision.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The facts are substantially as stated, except that the Board of Education have not reversed any previous decision. Their powers in such cases are limited by the Education Act, 1902, to determining whether the local education authority withheld their consent to the appointment of a teacher on educational grounds. It was clear that the West

  217
  Riding County Council withheld their consent to Mr. Milnes' appointment on educational grounds, and on finding that the council were not prepared to reconsider their action in the matter, the Board had no alternative under the Statute but to decide accordingly.
  MR. LANE-FOXasked whether the Board of Education had not some option of deciding whether the grounds urged were genuine or not. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grounds alleged were based entirely on a visit lasting only three-quarters of an hour, and on six questions put to particular people? Was it not unfair that a promising teacher should be under the stigma of being inefficient?
  MR. MCKENNA: The Board of Education have to satisfy themselves that the decision was come to on educational grounds. There is no shadow of doubt that the decision in the present case was come to on those grounds.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what the educational grounds were?
  MR. MCKENNA: Certainly.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman do so?
  MR. MCKENNA: I do not think that this is the occasion to do that.
  MR. LANE-FOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the teacher has been fairly treated in this matter?
  MR. MCKENNA: I do not think I am called upon to express any opinion upon that point.

  Molascuit.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that a new process for using the by-products of the sugar-cane, called molascuit, has been recently developed, and that it can be imported and sold at a price to be of considerable advantage both to the British stock feeder and the Colonial sugar-cane grower; and will he take steps to bring
  218
  this product before the agriculturists in this country by drawing attention to it through the Board's publications.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Our attention has been directed to the feeding-stuff to which my hon. friend refers, but we do not see our way to call special attention to it in our publications. It will doubtless be brought to the notice of stockowners through the usual channels.

  Labourers' Cottages in County Down.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the Exchequer grant for the purpose of the Labourers Acts made to county Down for the financial year ending in 1906; and what will be the corresponding grant of the same county under the Labourers Act of 1906 for 1907–8.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The share of the county Down for the financial year ended 31st March, 1906, was £2,010. Its share for the year 1907–8 on the basis of distribution established by the Labourers Act of last session will be, approximately, £297. The alteration of the method of distribution was, as I have already explained, made for the purpose of securing an equitable allocation of the grant amongst the several rural districts in which cottages have been provided. It was manifestly unfair that county Down should receive £2,010 in respect of 235 cottages, or about £8 11s. 0d. per cottage, while county Limerick, for example, received only £1,553 for 2,647 cottages, or about 11s. 9d. per cottage. Under the new system all districts will be paid out of the grant at a uniform rate of £1 8s. 8d. per cottage for every cottage provided before the 1st November, 1906.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that this change in the law in reference to the grant is likely to facilitate the building of cottages in county Down?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is a question as to a matter of opinion and is not in order.

  The Drainage of the Barrow.
  MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the medical evidence given before the Barrow Drainage Commission in 1885 by William Neale, M.D., medical officer, Mount-mellick dispensary district, to the effect that houses were annually rendered unfit for habitation, and whole families had to leave in flood times and were huddled together in most unsanitary houses, public health seriously injured, malaria and typhoid fever and diphtheria prevalent in consequence of the floods, and that no adequate sewerage for the town was possible, and the water supply was contaminated; and whether, having regard to the fact that the evils arising from the flooding have increased since this evidence was given twenty-two years ago, he will take steps to provide an effectual remedy.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission, dated 23rd February 1907, in which it is stated, pages 9 and 10, that for fifty years the state of the Barrow has been the subject of acute complaint, that nothing save the making of maps, plans and estimates has yet been done by the State or by any combination of owners towards curing or even mitigating the evils complained of, whilst they had abundant testimony that the flooding and consequent injury grow greater year by year, that the case of this river basin differs from others in Ireland, once similarly circumstanced, in that no expenditure by the State has ever taken place, although the task of clearing the main outfall is manifestly far beyond the reach of private enterprise, and that they therefore feel that the case of the Barrow calls for exceptional and early treatment, and the existence of surveys, maps and plans already referred to removes the difficulty that might otherwise exist in taking such action; and whether, in view of this declaration, he will provide an immediate remedy.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has
  220
  been called to the medical evidence given before the Barrow Drainage Commission, 1885, by Sir Francis P. M'Cabe, M.D., F.R.C.S.I., Local Government Board inspector, to the effect that the result of the flooding over an estimated area of 3,400 square miles was most injurious to the public health of the country, developed constitutional diseases, pulmonary phthisis, bronchial and catarrhal affections, acute and chronic rheumatism, and predisposed to lunacy, enteric and typhus fever, bog-lameness and chronic rheumatism in cattle, and fluke or liver rot in sheep; and, seeing that these evils have been in existence over fifty years and have increased since this evidence was given twenty-two years ago, whether he will provide any remedy.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been to the Report of a Committee consisting of the Parliamentary and local representatives of Kildare, Carlow, King's and Queen's counties, formed to promote the drainage of the River Barrow, which Report was forwarded to him on the 16th June 1906; whether he is aware that in the Report of the Arterial Drainage Commission, dated 23rd February 1907, it is stated in reference to the Barrow that this river basin differs from others in Ireland, once similarly circumstanced, in that no expenditure by the State has ever taken place, although the task of clearing the main outfall is manifestly beyond private enterprise, and that the case of the Barrow calls for exceptional and early treatment; and whether he will provide the £50,000 asked for by the Committee.
  MR. BIERELL: I will answer all these Questions together. I regret that I can only repeat the Answer which I gave on 20th March to the hon. Member's previous Questions on this subject.† As he is aware, the Arterial Drainage Commission has only recently reported. The Appendix containing the evidence has not yet been presented to Parliament. It is, however, in the printer's hands and will shortly be ready. When the evidence has been received it will be necessary to consider the recommendations of the Commission as a whole in order to decide what legislation may be necessary, and this will take time. It is obvious that in
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi., 823–6.

  221
  the meantime it will not be possible or desirable to consider the question of undertaking a drainage scheme for the Barrow or any other particular river.
  MR. DELANY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than three Commissions have supported this recommendation, and cannot he do something to remedy the present state of things?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not denying the importance of the question or that the Commissions have reported as stated. But the question is of such importance and involves so much expenditure that obviously I must take time to consider my decision.

  Keelnabrack School.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in allocating the new building grant, regard will be had for the necessity of building a new school at Curraheen, Glenbeigh, in place of the existing Keelnabrack school, which has been reported as unsafe and unsuitable.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, in allocating the funds to be placed at their disposal for the erection and improvement of vested school-houses, they will consider the case of the proposed now school in question on its merits, having due regards to the funds available and to the claims of other urgent cases.

  Glencar Potato Crop Failure
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the people of Glencar, county Kerry, applied for a free grant of seed potatoes from the Department of Agriculture owing to the partial failure of the potato crop in some townlands and the complete failure in other town lands and can he say why they were refused subsequently seed potatoes, seed oats, lime, and manure under the same conditions as were granted in the neighbouring parish of Glenbeigh, in view of the fact that Glencar is not so favourably situated for procuring sand and seaweed.
  MR. BIRRELL: It does not fall within the province of the Department of Agriculture to make free grants of seed potatoes. The Department have made arrangements for establishing demonstration plots in some of the congested districts, including the district of Killorglin, and in this connection small quantities of seed potatoes, seed oats, lime, and manure have been sold to certain persons in the latter district. The objects of these plots is to demonstrate the advantages of change of seed, and the use of lime and artificial manures. The Department have found it impossible owing to the limited funds at their disposal, to arrange for demonstration plots this year at Glencar. The question of extending these operations to other districts next year will receive consideration in due course.

  Mr. Packenham's Mullingar Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that Mr. E. M. Packenham, owner of an estate in the Mullingar rural district, comprising1,900 acres of untenanted and non-residential land surrounded by uneconomic holdings, is now attempting, by selling the latter and retaining the former, to perpetuate the condition of things which Parliament desires to relieve; and whether, in view of the number of industrious young men obliged to emigrate from that district every year for want of land, the Commissioners will, in exercise of their statutory powers, refuse to sanction the sale of any part of this estate unless the whole is offered for sale and a map of the whole is furnished to them.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are not aware of the facts alleged in the Question. The Commissioners have, with the owner's consent, arranged to have a preliminary inspection made of some 2,700 acres of untenanted land in the districts of Delvin and Mullingar, with a view to considering the question of purchasing it. The inspection will be made as soon as possible.

  Evicted Tenants' Bill and Future Tenants.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  223
  Ireland whether, in preparing the promised Evicted Tenants Bill, he has considered the claims of the number of persons who have been technically evicted under Section 7 of the Land Law Act of 1887, and who are now future tenants, precluded from having judicial rents fixed except with the unobtainable permission of their landlords; and whether he will embody in the Bill any provision for opening the courts to those people.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Government have no record of the number of persons served with eviction notices under the section quoted who are now future tenants. I am not prepared to make any statement as to the possibility or desirability of extending to future tenants the fair rent provisions of the Land Acts.

  General Fetherstonhaugh's Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the date upon which the Estates Commissioners received a memorial praying them to purchase, for distribution among necessitous people, General Richard Fetherstonhaugh's evicted and untenanted lands; the dates upon which the Commissioners communicated with that owner on the subject; the nature of his replies, if any; and whether there is any prospect of the lands in question, or any of the evicted lands belonging to that owner, being acquired for distribution.
  MR. BIERELL: The Estates Commissioners received memorials from the tenants in question on 12th January, 1906, and 21st November, 1906. As the first memorial stated that the property was being sold, the Commissioners took no steps, expecting that the matter would come before them in the ordinary course. As no proceedings for the sale of the estate were instituted before the Commissioners, they wrote to the owner on 2nd November inquiring whether he was prepared to sell his estate, but received no reply. They again wrote to him on 5th March, but so far without result.

  Crannagh Farm Boycott.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 18th March the Ballina Board of
  224
  Guardians passed a boycotting resolution in reference to the tenants upon the Crannagh farm, and that on 1st April the same body made it a condition of the appointment of Dr. Isaac Clarke as temporary medical officer to the local dispensary district that he should use his influence to induce his uncle to relinquish his tenancy of the Crannagh farm; and whether he proposes to take any action in reference to this matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The guardian's minutes of 18th March do not contain any resolution of the nature referred to in the Question, and I have no information that any such resolution was passed. The Local Government Board have no official knowledge that the condition alluded to was made by the guardians when appointing Dr. Clarke. The question of sanctioning Dr. Clarke's appointment is at present under the consideration of the Local Government Board.

  United Irish League and Gore Booth Estate Tenant.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Edward Layng has-yielded up his holding on the Gore-Booth estate, Streamstown, as ordered by the Mullinabreena branch of the United Irish League; and whether the Estates Commissioners obeyed the demand of the same authority to send an official to take possession of the holding and pay Edward Layng the sum of £190 as agreed upon.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the communications, if any, which may have passed between Edward Layng and the local branch of the United Irish League, nor have the Commissioners acted in the matter in obedience to any demand of that organisation. The Commissioners, at the desire of all the parties, including the landlord, endeavoured to effect an amicable settlement of the case and to reinstate John Quinn, the evicted tenant, and in this they have succeeded. Layng has been paid a sum of £190 as compensation for surrendering the holding.
  MR. LONSDALE: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a paragraph in the Sligo Champion in which it is stated that the following

  225
  resolutions were unanimously passed at a meeting of the Mullinabreena branch of the United Irish League—"That with reference to the evicted holding of John Quinn on the Gore-Booth estate, Streamstown, county Sligo, we call on the Estates Commissioners to send an official here to take up possession of the evicted holding and pay the present occupier (Edward Layng) the sum of £190 in cash as already agreed upon." ''That having the correspondence in reference to re-instatement of John Quinn before us, and knowing as we do the unreliability of Edward Layng's word, we hereby declare that nothing but the immediate surrender of John Quinn's holding by Edward Layng will satisfy this League, and as the Estates Commissioners are quite willing to pay him the £190 compensation any day he gives up possession we demand that Mr. Layng give up possession on the 1st March, and we call on the people to take note of this resolution."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I rise to order. If I am not mistaken it has been the practice at the Table to refuse to allow Questions to be put on the Paper asking if a Minister's attention has been directed to a statement in a newspaper, and then quoting that statement. Is it not equally out of order to quote newspaper statements in like manner in a supplementary Question?
  MR. LONSDALE: My Question is if the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been directed to an order issued by the United Irish League.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was quoting from a newspaper, and newspaper quotations are not allowed to appear in Questions on the Paper; presumably, therefore, they are not in order in supplementary Questions.
  MR. LONSDALE: But this resolution was passed by the branch.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member began by asking if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been directed to a statement in a newspaper, which he proceeded to read. That is not in order.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that
  226
  one of his colleagues has joined the United Irish League?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.

  Irish Poor Law Administration.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether His Majesty's Government have any intention of submitting proposals to Parliament for the reform of Poor Law administration in Ireland on the lines of the recommendations of the Viceregal Commission.
  MR. BIRRELL: I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question put by the hon. Member for North Kilkenny on 5th March, †

  Crannagh Farm Boycott.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a boycott has been instituted against the tenants of the Crannagh farm, in county Mayo, who have refused to give up their holdings at the bidding of the United Irish League; whether these persons are refused the necessaries of life by shopkeepers, prevented by crowds from working upon the holdings for which they are paying rent, and have been prevented from attending Mass at the Ardagh Roman Catholic Church; and what steps have been taken to protect these persons in the exercise of their lawful rights.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that the persons in question have not been boycotted or prevented from working upon their holdings. It is, however, the fact that public feeling has been manifested against them, and the police are informed that on one occasion three of the tenants were prevented from attending Mass. The police have afforded full protection to the persons concerned, five men being employed on the duty. A police hut is in course of erection at the spot.
  MR. LONSDALE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that twelve tenants under stress of the boycott have served notice to surrender their holdings, and that at a meeting held on Easter
  † See (4) Debates, clxx., 648.

  227
  Sunday it was decided to pursue the campaign of boycotting until the remaining tenants are forced into submission?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information as to that.
  MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry?
  MR. BIRRELL: Yes.

  Protestant Children in Catholic Schools.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the new rule issued by the Commissioners of National Education requiring that in schools under Protestant management, where a substantial minority of the children belong to one religious denomination, an assistant teacher of the denomination of the minority shall be appointed if the average attendance permits; why has this rule been made applicable only to schools under Protestant management; and whether it is intended to apply it to all national schools in Ireland without distinction of creed.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education have furnished me with a copy of the new rule referred to, which provides that in schools under Protestant management in which a substantial majority of the pupils belong to one religious denomination the principal teacher should be of that denomination, and that when a substantial minority of the children belong to another religious denomination an assistant teacher of that denomination should be appointed, if the average attendance, permits. Having regard to the comparatively small number of schools under Roman Catholic management in which there is a substantial minority of Protestant pupils, the Commissioners do not consider the arrangement to be feasible in the case of such schools. The aim of the Commissioners in making the rule has been to remove, as far as possible, the obstacles to the education in common schools of all denominations of Protestants, so that, so far at least as these schools are concerned, the fundamental principle of the national system may be carried out.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many schools in Ireland under Roman Catholic management which are attended by a considerable minority of Protestant children? Are they to be allowed a teacher of their own faith?
  MR. BIRRELL: As far as I can make out the number of Protestant children attending Catholic schools is too small to permit of the rule being applied.

  Elphin Disturbances.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any information respecting the agrarian disturbances at Elphin, county Roscommon, on Easter Sunday and Monday; and whether he will state the number of police now in the district engaged in protecting the lives and property of persons who have been denounced by the United Irish League.
  MR. BIRRELL: On Sunday, 31st March, a large crowd accompanied by bauds assembled at Elphin with the intention, as previously announced, of demonstrating in the vicinity of local grazing farms. An extra force of seventy police was drafted into Elphin with the object of preserving the peace on the occasion, and this force prevented the crowd from approaching the grazing farms. The force remained on duty at Elphin on the following day, but no further demonstration took place. The police force at Elphin station has been temporarily strengthened by the addition of six men from neighbouring stations, and a further force will be brought to the district if necessary.

  Irish Local Government Officials.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that of the forty-seven nominated officials in the Local Government Board (Ireland) thirteen are Catholics, whose salaries aggregate £7,550, whilst the remaining thirty-four are mainly Episcopalians, whose salaries aggregate £22,225; whether he is aware that similar complaints are made about nearly all Government Departments in Ireland; and whether he can take steps, by limiting the right of nomination or otherwise, to

  229
  terminate the evil of religious ascendancy in such departments.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board have no record of the religions persuasion of members of their staff. As regards the concluding part of the Question, I can only assure the hon. Member that fitness for any given post, and not religious denomination, will be the test applied by His Majesty's Government in making appointments in Ireland.

  Hillsborough Labourers' Cottage Rents.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the fact that the Hillsborough Rural District Council, West County Down, has decided to raise the rents of the labourers' cottages in their area; that the chairman and the rent collector warned the council that the result would be to empty the cottages, and that the councillor who proposed the increase replied that that was the very thing they wanted to do; whether the Local Government Board will refuse to sanction this resolution; and whether the Board will at the same time take steps to compel the council to consider the representations for further cottages, having regard to the declarations of the councillors that they will not build any more cottages.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board are aware that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. Under Section 29 of the Act of last session the rural district council is required to make regulations dealing, amongst other things, with the rents to be charged for labourers' cottages, and such regulations do not come into force until confirmed by the Local Government Board. No regulations have yet been received from the rural district council in question. A special meeting of the council is to be held on 6th May for the purpose of considering all representations for labourers' cottages which they have received.

  Barnmeen School House.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of the
  230
  schoolhouse at Barnmeen, county Down, and to the fact that no less than four inspectors of the National Board have reported it to be old, unsuitable, badly lighted, and imperfectly ventilated; whether he is aware that the only means of ventilation is by the door, that the window frames are decayed and will not hold the glass, that the structure is built partly of clay, and that the eyesight and general health of the children has been impaired; whether he is aware that the manager of the school, Reverend T. Gallery, P.P., has been endeavouring for years to have a new school provided near to the present school, but that the Commissioners of National Education have refused to sanction the building of a new school on the only site available in the whole district; and whether, having regard to the opinion of the people of the neighbourhood, and to the interests of the children and of education, he will advise the Board to waive its objection as to the new site being within the proscribed distance from another school.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that their inspectors have reported that the existing schoolhouse at Barnmeen is unsuitable for school purposes, and the Commissioners are satisfied that steps ought to be taken to provide suitable accommodation. They are, however, precluded by their rules from making a grant, except in special circumstances, towards the erection of a new schoolhouse when there is a vested school within three miles of the proposed new school. In the present case there are two vested schools under the same manager within one and three-quarter miles of Barnmeen. In these circumstances the Commissioners have felt obliged to refuse the manager's application for a grant, and they see no sufficient reason for departing from that decision, more especially as there are a large number of cases to be dealt with and the available funds are limited.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this rule as to the three-mile limit has only lately been introduced? Is he aware also that there is no other site available for the school?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will make inquiry.

  Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin.
  MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have received a memorial from the staff of the Registry of Deeds Office, Dublin, complaining of the increase of work, and asking for an increase of salary in consequence of increased duties; whether the memorial has been considered; if not, when is it likely to be dealt with; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails amongst the staff; and whether they will receive an increase of salary for the extra duties performed.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The memorial referred to has now been received, and is under consideration. I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  Irish Board of Works Staff.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if at any time subsequent to the appointment of Mr. Williams as Secretary of the Board of Works in Ireland any correspondence passed between him and the Civil Service Commissioners with reference to the religious opinions of clerks appointed to the Board of Works; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the correspondence.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Civil Service Commissioners inform me that they know nothing of any such correspondence.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Minister in charge what business it is intended to take tomorrow?
MR. MORLEYsaid it was proposed to take further discussion of the Rules of Procedure.
MR. BALFOUR: I do not suppose there is any possibility of finishing the debate on the Army Bill to-night. That is clearly out of the question, but may I ask if it is intended to divide the discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and in the interim to take Procedure Rules de die in diem until they are concluded?
MR. MORLEY: I understand the discussion on the Procedure Rules will be completed to-morrow. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will defer the remainder of his Question until the Prime Minister returns.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: desired to know when it was intended to proceed with the proposal in reference to the House of Lords.
[No Answer was returned.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure (in respect of the Education (Provision of Meals) (Scotland) Bill): The Lord Advocate; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Education (Provision of Meals) Scotland) Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.
Report to lie upon the Table.

TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [9th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House, though anxious to increase the capacity for expansion of the forces of the Crown in time of war, regrets that the Government should make proposals which, while destroying the Militia, discouraging the Yeomanry, and imposing new and uncertain liabilities on the Volunteers, would not, in a period of national peril, provide an adequate force for Home defence or prompt support for the regular Army in the field,'''—(Mr. Wyndham)—instead thereof—
Question again proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I propose to support the Amendment put forward by my right hon. friend. It would be a very great pleasure to me

233
and to many other hon. Members on this side of the House if we could accede to the appeal made yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Monmouthshire. I can truly say that upon naval and military questions I have never taken Party line; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in the circumstances, asks a little too much. I should like to recall to him the circumstances of the case under which he makes this appeal. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said most truly that the Secretary for War had in all his dealings with the Opposition shown invariable courtesy. This I fully recognise; but courtesy is not all that is desired. The right hon. Gentleman has accompanied that courtesy by doing all that in him lay to destroy work done, or attempted, by some of us on this side of the House. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs very properly, I daresay from his own point of view, drew a picture, or rather made suggestions, as to what the Secretary for War might have said regarding the iniquities and infirmities of his predecessors. I am not going to dwell upon that. But what I want to point out is that this is part of the regular stage background upon which this Bill is introduced. It is part of the business to show that order has been restored where chaos was found. It was represented that the right hon. Gentleman found the Army in a state of chaos and dissolution and that he has come forth as its saviour aud restored it to its pristine virtue. The fact is, however, that the right hon. Gentleman himself has borne testimony to the condition of the Army as never having been so good as when he took office. I venture to assert that there is not an officer who will not say that two years ago the Army was better manned, better armed, better trained, better equipped, than it had ever been before. The Volunteers two years ago had 175,000 men in camp, and if the right hon. Gentleman had not interfered they would eighteen months ago have been doing exactly that which he is now hoping they will do in the future; they would have been enjoying the advantage of a fortnight in camp, and the experiment with regard to Volunteer Artillery would not be a question for the future, but a matter of experience to look back upon. I only say these things because I am
234
anxious to dissipate the idea that there has been a waving of the wand by which the reign of order has replaced a state of chaos.
The Secretary for War appealed for plenty of time, free from criticism and interference, wherein to formulate his policy, and everybody on this side of the House felt that it was a fair appeal, and it was responded to. But what has happened? Eighteen months have passed and we have had speeches innumerable from the right hon. Gentleman—the air has been ringing with his eloquence. What has been done? Absolutely nothing at all, except that a large part of the Army has been rendered less effective for war. The Romans, when they wished to inflict a disabling blow coupled with indelible disgrace upon an enemy, used to practise decimation, and the right hon. Gentleman has very nearly succeeded in decimating the Regular Army; already he has succeeded in knocking 20,000 men off the Regular force. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] I am glad to have the accuracy of this statement confirmed. That, we are told, is a beginning only; and when I speak of the Regular Army I mean men serving with the colours only. I can quite understand that there are some who think this a meritorious act, but it does not go far towards strengthening the Army. What I wish to point out is that, so far as accomplishment goes, there has been nothing but destruction, nothing in the way of construction but promises, hopes, and anticipations in regard to the future.
My objections to the Bill can be summed up in a very few words; I believe it involves a policy of make-believe from beginning to end—a make-believe of which the real authors are very well aware. The Secretary of State astonished some of us when he told the House that he I had not been able yet to ascertain what were the real military needs of the Empire. I think that was rather an astonishing statement, for I thought we had during the last five or six years made some progress towards arriving at a conclusion upon this all-important matter, and it causes a shock now to find proposals made without any calculation, any hypothesis, arrived at upon this all-important question. Some of us at any rate had formulated ideas on the subject. We thought—rightly or wrongly—that

235
the principal duties of the Government in relation to the two great services were to furnish a Navy beyond challenge, to provide an Army capable of fighting abroad, to provide a striking force to move prior to mobilisation to create a great power of expansion, and in addition we thought it was necessary, even after taking into consideration the strength of the Navy, to have an efficient force to meet and defeat any raid that might be made on the shores of this country. Now, it is only the last of the requirements that the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to fulfil. Fortunately, the Navy is outside the right hon. Gentleman's dispensation; but when we come to the expeditionary force, I venture to suggest that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division may set their minds at rest. They need not be in the least alarmed at the prospect of a gigantic expeditionary force of 160,000 men; it is but a spectral force, it does not exist, and will not exist, and nothing the House is asked to do will call it into existence; it is no more a reality than the spectral force that "beleaguered the walls of Prague." I do not believe that the formation of such a force is a prime necessity of our military constitution, but I do believe the power to keep such a force in the field by expansion by trained men is a military necessity of the first order. In this matter the right hon. Baronet may possess his soul in peace, because this is a visionary force which has no existence now, and, as far as anything the House is going to be asked to do, is not to have any existence whatever in the future.
I will not trouble the House with any reference to the striking force. It is condemned by every military authority with whom I have discussed it. The striking force of 5,000 sixpenny Reservists has been condemned by every soldier I know of.
Some words fell from the Financial Secretary to the War Office last night that require notice. The Bill, he said—and I think he said it with the wisdom of the serpent—was exclusively concerned with what have hitherto been called the Auxiliary Forces, That is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants the House and the
236
country to think, and if that were all the interest I take in the Bill would be very different from what it is. So far as the Auxiliary Forces go the Bill practically makes no difference at all. When all is said and done, and if the Bill passed to-morrow, the difference would be so slight as to be scarcely observable. But the Bill touches greatly, intimately, and most dangerously, not the Regular Forces only, but the quasi-Regular Forces which hitherto have supported the Army in the field. I do not wonder that the Financial Secretary was anxious to divert attention from that aspect of the Bill; but I am anxious that attention should be called to it because it is a most important question. For 840 years this country has been fighting year in and year out abroad. The bones of British soldiers lie in every land from the shores of the Baltic to Torres Strait, from Pekin to the Red River. There is only one part of the world's surface where such relics of war are not to be found, and that is the soil of England. Have we no right to learn something from the history of the past? That history tells us that whereas we have had, in order to build up our Empire and to safeguard and protect our industries, to sacrifice blood and treasure in every part of the inhabited world except this England in which we live, we have never yet had to undertake a serious war to repel an invasion of this country. The conclusion I draw from this fact is the simple one that as things have been, so it is probable they will remain. The high probability is that the lessons of the past will serve us in framing our anticipations of the future; and I believe that if ever there was a time when we were justified in forming that conclusion it is the present time, when we have done so much to strengthen our power at sea. At any rate I think I am not unreasonable in asking hon. Members to attach importance first of all to that weapon on which alone we have ever had to rely in the whole of our long history. It is that weapon which the right hon. Gentleman is trying to blunt, but which I desire to keep clear and bright for all emergencies. That weapon is being blunted to an extent which the country does not appreciate at all, and much of that process is to be effected within the four corners of this Bill. The right hon.

237
Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said—and with much that he said on this point I agree—that what we want in order to reinforce the Army in time of war is cadres. How is it that when we want cadres our first effort is to destroy ten of the units we already possess? The Government know perfectly well where the real crux of this question lies, and that is why they have been so very careful to cover up their tracks, if I may use that expression. It is absolutely wrong to say, as was said by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, that fewer recruits will be required under the new policy. It has been stated that under the previous arrangement 31,000 recruits have been required for the Infantry, 12,000 for long-service, and 19,000 for short-service. How many are required now? You require 22,000 long-service recruits and 13,000 short-service recruits, or 35,000 altogether under the new system. The right hon. Gentleman has told us we are going to have a stronger Reserve than we have ever had; and in order to make people accept that statement he has taken a very strong course indeed. It was necessary that he should try to create that impression. He has destroyed or is destroying the Militia, which with all its faults, and they are many, has at any rate done something to give us a substitute for a Reserve, and has set free Regular troops in time of war. He has reduced the number of cadres, the artillery, and the establishment of the cadres, and therefore it is natural to suppose that the available force after these reductions will be less than it was before. In order to dissipate that very natural belief, he has given the House the Return entitled "Army Reserve, Actuarial Calculation of the Normal Strength," etc. I challenge that Return. I say that it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Every line of it is calculated to mislead, and has misled. Prima facie the Return is absurd. What does it start out to prove? We have diminished the Army by ten cadres of infantry; we have reduced every battalion of infantry by eighty men as compared with 1890, by thirty men as compared with last year.
MR. HALDANE: Establishment?
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to make a
238
distinction between establishment and strength? If so, he will make his case worse, not better. After the reductions made and the increase of the term of service for the whole Army, the right hon. Gentleman asks us to believe that the Reserve will not only be as great, but greater than it was before. How carelessly these things are presented to the House! My right hon. friend the Member for Dover asked the natural question how is it, if this reduced establishment is to produce this large Reserve, that even now, after a long period of enlistment for short-service, we have a smaller number of men? We are told that we are to have a Reserve of 115,000 men, recently magnified to 121,000 by some stroke of the pen, and my right hon. friend asked how was it that now we had only got 113,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman said that the explanation was that fourteen recently created battalions have not produced their normal reserve. As a matter of fact these battalions have all been in existence for seven or eight years, and under normal conditions they would have produced their seven years reserve. But the conditions were not normal. During five of these years there have been men pouring into the Reserve on a three and even on a two years enlistment. But there is a much stronger point than that. The regiments have produced much more than their usual reserve, and it would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman had looked at the Return before making his explanation. The Return shows that so far from there being a falling off in the Infantry Reserve, the Infantry Reserve is now 7,000 men more than the calculated Infantry Reserve under the new scheme. And yet he coolly accounts for the number of the Reserve by this imaginary diminution. There will be a great diminution in the calculated Infantry Reserve. I have gone through this Return and others have gone through it also, and I venture to state that if we were to say that we shall get 90,000 men as the available Reserve product of this new scheme we should be very much nearer the mark than this figure of 115,000. The whole of this calculation has been deduced, not from strength, but from establishment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us himself that this year there are 9,000 more men going out of the Army than

239
coming into it. And next year there will be 13,000 more going out than will come in. I want to know the right hon. Gentleman's authority for his calculations.
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question. The authorities were the best actuaries at the War Office. The Return have been prepared on the most skilled advice.
*MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: Very well, the right hon. Gentleman says his calculations are based on the most skilled advice. I have in my hand a Return drawn up two years ago in the War Office for the information of the Army Council, and I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman under what conditions the Return was drawn up. The question was asked what would be the normal Reserve of the Army on a given establishment. At that time the Army was larger by eight battalions than it is now, every battalion having a larger establishment of strength than is the case at present. What was the result? That larger establishment and larger number of battalions was there stated to give a Reserve of 7,000 less than the Reserve of the right hon. Gentleman. I look upon this actuarial calculation, and I see the name of "J. G. Ashley," the identical actuary whom the right hon. Gentleman claims as supporting this Return.
*MR. HALDANE: Nine years and three are the terms of enlistment.
* MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is one of the casual interruptions of the Secretary of State for War. He is in error. The question answered in the Return to which I have referred is " What, with a system of seven years enlistment, will be the number of men in the home battalions unavailable on mobilisation, and what numbers will be available from the Reserve?"
*MR. HALDANE: The home battalions?
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman need not interrupt me. Given an establishment for home battalions of 750, the strength of the Reserve
240
is shown in the answer as for sections A and B, 40,000 in round numbers, and for section D, 15,000, total 55,000, the establishments being fifty-two battalions in India, twenty-five in the Colonies, and seventy-nine battalions at home of 800 non-commissioned officers and men. There is no getting out of that.
*MR. HALDANE: Seventy-nine battalions?
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, eight more than we have got now. I challenge this Return, it is impossible to have this Reserve. And I will go further. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we are to have an additional Reserve for the Regular Army. I want the House to understand exactly what this additional Reserve is going to be. It is to be made up of boys now going into the Militia, boys who enlist at seventeen. They are to have six months training in the depot, they are to get 6d. a day in their pockets, and at the end of one year, or two years, or two and a half years, they are to be brought back and made the first-class Reservists of the British Army. I have seen these boys, and if I could take hon. Members down and show them these boys, as I have seen them, stopped in their gymnastic rounds because they had not the strength to go through them, I think we should not hear so much of this great addition to the strength of the British Army. Two out of every three of these boys are useless; they fall by the wayside and die out. The remaining one survives; he goes campaigning in India; he bivouacks; he is fed, and clothed and he survives, and at the end of seven years becomes a Reservist. I saw the Devon Regiment mobilised for the South African war. It consisted of 1,000 men, 500 of whom were Reservists. They occupied, I am told, more lateral space than any other battalion in the British Army. There was not a man who did not know his colonel, his officers and his non-commissioned officers. Such are the present Reservists of the British Army. What is the substitute? These boys, cast adrift at seventeen and a half, and for a year in nearly all cases, and in some cases for two years, absolutely useless either to God or man. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] Well, I withdraw that remark; I used the expression

241
colloquially. But, at any rate, for any military purpose these boys are useless. They cannot be called out for service at home and they are not allowed to be used for service abroad; but at the end of two-and-a-half years they will be called out as first-class Reservists of the British Army. I read lately an article—I do not speak as to the accuracy of it, but I can testify to the ability of the writer—in which it was stated that we are not to be discouraged because the second line of the Army is not equal to the first, and the writer said "No second line can take the field. Look at the second line of the German Army." The House is often misled on this subject. The second line of the German Army is composed of men of thirty-five years of age and upwards. Every one of them serves two years under the most severe discipline in the world, is commanded by officers of immense experience, and is utilised, if necessary, in that enormous chain of fortresses which rings the German Empire. Is it reasonable, is it common sense to compare these men with such a second line as this of the right hon. Gentleman? I say it is not.
Then there is the utter failure to provide for the great want of the Army—that is officers. Here I must complain again that the House is not properly informed. We were told that officers were to be taken from the public schools and the Universities. We were told that these young gentleman from the Univerities were everything that was to be desired, because they were to be trained on the same method as that in use in the German Army and were attached d la suite of a regiment. The House thought that was a very good thing; but let me explain where the analogy fails. If these boys have served in their public school corps—not a very high form of training, I think— four months are to be knocked off; if they joined their University corps, four months more are to be knocked off, and they are to be attached to a line battalion and to be a la suite for four months only. 'They will mess with the battalion and try very hard to do somebody else's work while somebody else tries to prevent them from doing it. The second line of the German Army is officered to a considerable extent by men who have been a la suite of a
242
regiment. If a boy passes his final examination in the schools and shows educational and social qualifications, he is permitted, as a one year volunteer, to join a regiment. The only thing to distinguish him is that he wears a white thread in his collar and is allowed to live in lodgings. At the end of the year, if physically, socially, and intellectually fit, he is permitted to serve one year a la suite of a regiment as a subaltern officer, under the sternest discipline the world affords, and at the end of that time, if still regarded as qualified, he is permitted to serve as Under-Lieutenant in the Landwehr. And some Gorman papers complain that officers with that amount of training and discipline are inadequate for the purpose for which they are required, and are trying to get a better class of officer. A comparison of that kind is absolutely unmeaning and illusory. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby Division always reminds me of Sir Walter Scott or George Eliot, who, whenever they wanted to find a chapter heading, wrote a verse themselves and ascribed it to an "old song." Whenever my hon. and gallant friend finds it difficult to enforce an argument, he always invents an old song or a new song to illustrate it. He told the House yesterday that all officers of Continental armies were raised from the ranks.
MAJOR SEELY: I said they had served in the ranks.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTEK: As a matter of fact, in France some officers are promoted from the ranks because, very much to the regret of the authorities, they have not been able to provide sufficient officers from the military colleges. But in Germany, no officer serves in the ranks, he has to be balloted for before he is taken, and even those who do pass a year in the ranks under the circumstances I have described, are not taken for the Regular Army, but for the Landwehr. I think we must, therefore, pause and ask ourselves whether we are really supplying the fighting line with competent officers.
I will not deal with the question of the Yeomanry. My impression is that the Government will be well advised to give way on that point,

243
and I trust they will do so. But I would like to touch on the question of the Volunteer Force, which I admit I consider a subsidiary question. In the first place, it is not the Army that is going to fight our battles. It never has done so, and I do not believe it ever will; but, be that as it may, I do not trouble myself very much on that matter, for I believe that when the Bill has passed, if it does pass, there will be no difference whatever between the Volunteers as they are now and as they will be then. With regard to what I may call the penal clauses, I do not think my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Sheffield need I trouble about them. They are rather like the famous punishment in which the penalty is death or a 5s. fine, and you need not pay the fine unless you like." It is my impression that the right hon. Gentleman will relax those penalties and that the Volunteers will go on very much as they do now. They will have, it is true, the advantage of being organised and looked after by a miscellaneous body, the structure of which has not yet been denned; but I would remind the House that at the only time our Forces were in the hands of local authorities they were worse conducted and there was more corruption and failure than at any other time. That is an historical fact. I admit, however, that I do not anticipate such a state of things under modern conditions. I only hope that when the Volunteers come under the Lord-Lieutenant and the county council and the rest of the omnium gatherum proposed, they will be very much improved; but, as far as I can see, there will not be any change at all, except that they will be reduced in numbers.
It is part of the scheme, as I understand it, that the Volunteers shall, if necessary, go out as units in case of war. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby Division gave the House a little lecture yesterday on voluntary service, but there was no truth in it at all.
MAJOR SEELY: The point I endeavoured to make was that, in point of fact, when you have forced men to serve in your home Army, you find it difficult to get them to serve abroad.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: On that I point I absolutely and entirely agree
244
with the hon. and gallant Member, but I think he did very much dwell upon the question of whether good work would be done by men serving under compulsion. But as a matter of fact all men serve under compulsion. In this Bill compulsion is provided for. Every single one of these men who is still serving in the Force when a war takes place is compelled to serve for one year or for the duration of the war. It is quite certain that unless we have some compulsion of that kind we get no service at all. It is a dream to imagine that we can get service without compulsion in this sense. During the war in America between the North and South—a National cause if ever there was one—what happened? The men who had joined for six months went away the moment they got their liberty, and President Lincoln had to use his immense influence to put the law in correspondence with the circumstances and bring back these men or keep them where they were.
The Swiss Army has been held up as an example for our imitation and as bearing in some way on this Bill. But are we going to have the Swiss system? Nothing the least like it. If the Swiss system is good, our system is very bad. The Swiss Army is a conscript Army. The hon. and gallant Member has told the House that it is only called out for repetition courses every other year. That was so, but the Swiss Government found that that did not give a sufficient military education, and they changed it, and the men have now to come out every year.
MAJOR SEELY: No; not last year certainly.
*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly right; but the arrangement was found so unsatisfactory that the law has been altered. Let me compare the training of the Swiss Army with that of the Territorial Force. The Swiss preliminary training for infantry is sixty-five days, but the preliminary training of the men of the Territorial Force is eight to fourteen, and forty drills; for the cavalry the Swiss training is ninety days against our fourteen, and for the artillery seventy-five days against our eight to fourteen. The period of service in the Swiss Army is eight years, and the total number of days training is, for a private, 164 days, while the equivalent period in our Army is forty-eight.

245
For the non-commissioned officers the period of training is 164 days plus 103 days for special instruction, a total of 267 days. In the case of officers, a lieutenant has to serve for 431 days in addition to his annual trainings. The repetition courses are in the infantry eleven days annually, and in the artillery fourteen. It is a pity, I think, that my hon. and gallant friend did not draw attention to these facts when he held up the Swiss as an example for our imitation. The Secretary for War recently took the chair when a Paper was read on the Swiss Army by an officer of Volunteers. I wonder the right hon. Gentleman was not tempted to set the lecturer right. The latter admitted that he knew that the Swiss Army was not thought much of by the German War Office, and, in order to get out of that difficulty, he said the Germans have apparently only lately discovered that it was owing to their adopting the Militia system, that they succeeded in saving their country and making it what it is. There again is an example of how people are misled. What was this Prussian Militia system adopted after the battle of Jena? In one day, the audience were told, the Prussian Army was swept away by an Army on a Militia basis. What was the Army on the Militia basis? The Army of Bonaparte in 1806, I suppose the most professional Army that ever trod shoe-leather or carried a bayonet. Then it was said that they were beaten in the long run by the Prussian Militia system. The Prussian Militia system was compulsion on every man in Prussia who could bear a gun to serve for three years in the Army. If that is the idea of Militia service, we are a very long way off it in this country. But I can excuse the lecturer when I consider the point of view from which he approached the subject. He said that in Switzerland they were not cursed with the Blue Water school. Can the depth of folly and ignorance go further? What is the Blue Water School? It is the product of the study of our great sailors who have preserved this country inviolate through many generations, and who believe they have accumulated a store of military and naval knowledge which is worth placing at the disposal of their country. That a British officer should be silly enough in the presence of the Secretary for War to praise and hold
246
up for admiration the organisation of an Army because the people of that, country are not cursed with a Blue Water school is a strange departure from propriety—I will not say from sanity.
Are we really going to provide for the expansion of the Army by Volunteers? I do not think we are, or that in his heart the right hon. Gentleman thinks we are. As to the number of Volunteers on the outbreak of war, I would draw attention to what was said by the authorities questioned on this matter by the War Commission. The Inspector-General of Recruiting said—
"The number of Volunteer companies at first required were obtained with the greatest ease. The second drafts required to replace these in the spring of 1901 wore obtained with more difficulty, and, indeed, not obtained in sufficient numbers; and it was found to be impossible on a later attempt to obtain at all an adequate number. The Volunteers obtained on the last call in the autumn of 1901 only amounted to 2,413 as against 10,500 obtained on the first call."
What was the reason? There is some testimony on this point. The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield asked why the Volunteer ceased to come, and he said the reason was that the Yeomanry were getting 5s. a day without qualification and service companies 1s. a day with a very high qualification also that the great war fever had passed away. The Inspector-General of Recruiting also said that—
"The Volunteer private did not see why he should go out for 1s. a day in the Volunteer service companies when he could go out for 5s. as a Yeoman."
That is a reason, but it does not quite fit in with the case which it is desired to make. It is true, moreover, that war fevers do arise and pass away. I make no charge against the Volunteers. Men do not go to war for the picnic anywhere. But the whole organisation of the Volunteers is on a basis which makes it improbable that they will give the necessary service. Let the matter be put to the test. If the Secretary of State will ask the Volunteer commanding officers to get a statement from the men serving as to how many of them are willing during the next twelve months to go to any war which may break out, he will get some idea as to what it is he is really counting upon. Why this should not be done I am at a loss to understand.

247
The whole organisation of the Volunteers shows that they are not intended to supply units for a war abroad; we are driven back, and shall always be driven back, on the Reserve we have prepared for the Regular Army. Lastly, I want to say a word about the artillery. We are living in a perfect fools' paradise as regards this subject. The right hon. Gentleman has been acquitted of any attempt to mislead the House in the answer he gave to a question regarding the new guns, but the answer could scarcely have been different if it had been deliberately designed to mislead. The answer was one from which any human being would have carried away the impression that the guns in question were first-class guns, equal, if not superior, to the guns of foreign Powers. If our gunners were in action against foreign troops and were armed only with this gun, they would simply be destroyed 1,500 yards before they got into action. I do not know whether the cumulative effect of what I have said has produced on others an impression like that which I am under myself. My impression it; that we are playing with these problems; we are not really taking the matter seriously at all. We are not following the example of Switzerland or of any other country. We are pretending that we can achieve our objects with practically no training and under conditions which are not those which make soldiers, or under which anybody has ever succeeded in dealing with such a problem. I am not one of those who believe the right hon. Gentleman will not get his Territorial Army. I do not see why he should not get it. He has the Volunteers now, even if he is going to leave them exactly as they are. What I want to know is, has the right hon. Gentleman got an Army, or when the right hon. Gentleman has got the men, can it be reasonably supposed that he will get an Army which will uphold the honour and preserve the safety of this country in time of war? Although a great deal can be done by good will, we must have also discipline and confidence. There are Members of this House who know very well by experience what I and many others only know by reading—they know perfectly well that when a man is called upon to face death, and it becomes a question as to whether he ought to go forward, to go back or to
248
remain where he is at the risk of his life, everything depends upon association with his officers, confidence in his comrades, and, however irksome it may be, upon discipline. Shall we create men in the Territorial Army like the men of the 10th Legion, or the Old Guard, or the men of the Light Division? Are you preparing an Army for that day of trial, to stand the tremendous pressure upon the human organism and the human spirit that was imposed by intimate contact with the sight and fear of death? Because if you are not, all these fine words and speeches are not worth anything at all. You may point to your Army and your county associations and say "Look at our success." You may have 300,000 men playing about with guns, and organised in brigades and divisions, and say that is success. But that is not the real test. The ultimate test, the only serious test of whether you have an Army at all is the test of the day of battle. I venture to hope hon. Members on this side of the House and some hon. Members on the other side of the House will ask themselves whether we are preparing to meet that test; whether it is in accordance with the universal teaching of all time that we shall postpone our preparations for war until the enemy is at our gates; whether it is in accordance with the teaching of this and all other ages that we should provide inferior troops with inferior officers, and whether it be in accordance with that teaching that we should be the one isolated example of that departure from the accepted doctrine of every other country in the world. Do we believe that we can do without effort, without sacrifice, without science, and without expense, that which other countries with all these things have found it difficult to accomplish? For all these reasons I cordially support the Amendment of my right hon. friend.
*MR. ACLANDsaid the House would hardly expect him to enter into and answer the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The House had been told many things and had heard many strong expressions. They had been told that every speaker from the Government benches on Army matters was wrong, and that nothing had been done by anybody since the Government had come into

249
office; that their Returns were worthless; that the House had been misled by the phrases used and, once or twice that no truth at all had been uttered by Members on those benches. That was such strong language that he did not dare to imitate it. There was, however, one question which struck him as important, bearing in mind what had already taken place. Surely ex-Ministers for War could not make any great claim to have left the Army in a satisfactory condition, while at the same time attacking violently and mercilessly the schemes that had been brought before the House for improving the condition of the Army as left by them. The question, for instance, which, the House had to ask itself about the training of officers by the scheme now under consideration was not whether it was an ideal scheme which would give the officers as much training as they would like them to have, but whether it was not a great improvement upon anything that was done, or intended to be done, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman left the Army short of 4,000 officers, and surely he could not go on and denounce the effort which was now being made to get rid of that grave danger and produce a better state of things. With regard to the Reserves there was the actuarial question, and the general question. Their actuarial Return had been attacked. It would be defended and justified at the proper time. But on the general question he could reply at once. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was to be some change in the system of supplying Reserves for the Regular Army. He had mentioned the second battalion of the Devon regiment in order to allege that the system which produced that battalion was being done away with. There would be no such change. The special contingent was intended to supply drafts; they did not take the place of the men who filled up the Reserve, which was secured to bring up the battalions to their full strength. The filling up of the battalions would go on in exactly the same way as before. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had attacked the proposed organisation in two portions, professional and non-professional, and complained that it was not as suited to our needs as a system of three lines of support. That suggestion had been supported in a leading
250
article in The Times. But the argument for it entirely broke down when examined, for it was found that the second line was said to be required for two purposes—providing drafts and also serving in complete units. These two different things could not be done by the same force, and therefore, as drafts were essential, a draft providing force had to be set up separately. There would then be, according to the right hon. Gentleman, apart from this force, a second line which must be either professional or non-professional But if the second line was a professional force, when war came it would compete with the Regular Army for the same class of recruits. On the other hand, if the second and third lines were non-professional forces, they would compete with the Volunteers. It was far better to have a professional force with a complete system of drafts on one side, and a non-professional force on a uniform basis on the other, than to have successive supports under different systems and different organisations. The question was whether, in a time of national disaster, when our professional resources had been exhausted, and it was necessary to call upon the nation for help, we should have time to train and complete our force before it left this country. If organisation was provided—and he believed it could be provided in the best possible way by having a home force organised in one system—we could devote all our attention to training, and we should be in a much better position to send out a great force to bear the burden cast upon our shoulders. The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the practical and the problematical side of the Government scheme, and had made much of the point that if the practical side, or Field Force, succeeded, the problematical side, or Home Force, must fail. That would have been true if he had applied it to the Militia in the past, for if the Militia had succeeded in doing its duty to the Regular line, namely, by supplying them with recruits in time of peace and drafts in time of war, it was fairly certain that they would have failed to perform the other part of their task, that of expansion. Surely, however, it was one of the great benefits of this new plan that it enabled the two things to be kept distinct; it enabled the Regular line to do its work

251
with its drafts provided for it, and did not interfere with the Home Force. He understood that it was one of the chief aims of the scheme to separate the professional from the non-professional side of our national forces, in order to ensure that the success of the one might be entirely independent of the success of the other, and in order, too, that they might complete the Regular Army and keep it up to the full strength without interfering with the Home Force at all. He might comment upon one point raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who had very much blamed, as he understood, the Secretary for War for having confessed that there was no strategical reason at the bottom of the fixing the expeditionary force at a certain number.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had not blamed the Secretary for War, but the right hon. Gentleman had said that it was an accident that the number was fixed at what it was. He had said that in his opinion the number was too large, and that he agreed with the Leader of the Opposition as to that.
*MR. ACLANDsaid that then perhaps he was in agreement with the right hon. Baronet in saying that there was no reason in the nature of things why this particular force should be kept at that particular number. What he meant was that, although it was considered necessary to maintain that force at present at a certain number of battalions, for certain purposes, in certain parts of the world, yet, when we had got, in the next few or many years, a power of expansion outside our professional force, and when our prospective relations with foreign countries admitted of it, then we might safely cut off some of those triplets of battalions which the right hon. Baronet mentioned. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers.]
*SIR CHARLES DILKE: Subject, of course, to the quality of the short-service troops at home.
*MR. ACLANDsaid he ought, in answer to the jeers from the other side, to say
252
that he was simply expressing his own opinion and his own hopes for the future, and he hoped the opinion of many of those behind him. With regard to the vexed question of the adjutants, he might say that what was intended, or what was hoped, was more perhaps an ideal of the General Staff to which the battalions might be educated than anything which it was intended to rush upon them whether they liked it or not.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Government, or giving his own opinion?
*MR. ACLANDsaid in this case he believed he was speaking for the Government.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It is just as well we should know.
*MR. ACLANDsaid he thought it might be understood that that idea of the General Staff was based upon good reasons. It was based upon the main idea which had dictated so many of the improvements and modifications made since the war, on the distinction between command and training on the one side and administration on the other. There was no expectation that, in the Territorial Army, the adjutants would do the whole of the work now done by the Regular adjutants. It was rather intended that they should do the clerical work which was now done by the Regular adjutants, and that the work of training should be done from outside. It was believed that they would get better results if they had instructors from outside rather than adjutants from the inside. He was sure that many battalions would be glad to have their orderly room work done by one of their own officers, and to have the whole machinery of training external to the battalion itself, and not done by one of the officers of the battalion. Of course, all battalions were not ready for that, but he was glad to know that there were many battalions which believed that the system was perfectly practicable.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can yon name one of them?
*MR. ACLAND: gave as an example the Lanark Artillery Volunteers. On the question of cost it was stated in the Memorandum that the matter of allowances was not absolutely settled. When they came to the figures they found what would be received by an ordinary trooper of the Yeomanry at present and under the new scheme. Assuming, for the sake of argument only, that 1s. a day was given for the messing allowance, then the figures were these. The trooper would get under the new scheme 10s. 8d. a day for fifteen days, while under the old scheme he would receive 10s. 9d. for eighteen days. Surely, that was not a very great difference, and surely they would not have the Yeomanry entirely destroyed owing to a small change of that sort. It would be seen by the noble Lord the Member for the City of Oxford that the sum of 10s. 8d. a day for fifteen days was very considerably in excess of the 7s. a day, which, as had been truly said, it now cost to keep man and horse. With regard to the officers of infantry, and in reference to the question asked by the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone, it might be interesting to compare the allowance which would be received by the ordinary captain of infantry of the Home Force in the future, with what he received now. In future he would receive 19s. 8½d. a day as compared with 8s. at present. Surely that was a very considerable improvement, which should do a great deal to encourage men to take commissions in the Territorial Army. In the case of a captain of Yeomanry, the new figure was £1 2s. 5¼d. a day compared with the old figure of £1 3s.—a loss of only 6¾d. He hoped that they would not lose the splendid Yeomanry officers they had at present for the sake of the 6¾d. a day which they might be asked to lose. Someone had said in the course of the debate that they could not afford to be patriotic in these days, but he thought that there was still a great deal of patriotism knocking about. He found, in a small way, that people were very willing to be Volunteers if only they saw that the force was encouraged and treated seriously. A man did not make strict examination as to whether; the sixpence he might spend on a railway; journey to attend drill would be repaid or
254
not. He belonged to a battalion which consisted mostly of ordinary Civil Service clerks, many of them with pay no higher than that of a good many working men, and they would go, at Easter, for instance, from London to the neighbourhood of Hastings on their bicycles for four days outing, and would receive absolutely no grant at all. It cost each man 12s. 6d. for the four days, yet all were perfectly willing to pay it for a good turn out. There were thousands of similar cases throughout the country, and there was not that absolute lack of patriotism which would compel them to pay market rates for every single hour of time which they might ask a man to give up. He might say a word or two in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, who, as a commanding officer, had a great reputation among Volunteers. Over and over again the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the course of his speech on the previous day had talked about the destruction of the Volunteers. He must know perfectly well that there was no such destruction intended at all, and he appealed to him not to talk about the destruction of Volunteers when he knew perfectly well that the word did not apply in any shape or form. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knew quite well that the conditions would be in future very much what they had been in the past. If they could make things rather more serious in connection with the Volunteers, so much the better, but there were no revolutionary conditions which could be interpreted to mean the destruction of, or even serious interference with, the Volunteers. The Bill, in many parts of it, was not new at all. Clauses had been taken which had been in Volunteer Acts before. Clauses 23 and 24, as to trial of offences and penalties, contained no new and terrible system of courts-martial for trifling offences or anything of that kind, as he rather gathered the hon. and gallant Gentleman had intended to convey on the previous day. Let them take part of Clause 24, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had particularly mentioned. It stated—
'Provided that a man who has been dealt with summarily by his commanding officer shall be deemed to have been tried by a court-martial."

255
That was taken simply and bodily from Clause 43 of the Militia Act, and it was the legal way of conveying the fact that a man, who had been dealt with by his commanding officer, could not possibly be tried again by court-martial for the same offence, which had been washed out, and summarily dealt with. He agreed that the words were not the best that could be devised, but possibly better words could be suggested in Committee to make the point clear.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked, if the hon. Member contended that the clause he had read applied at the present time in any shape or form to the Volunteer force; was it not an entirely novel thing?
*MR. ACLANDsaid it was not a novel thing at all under the Militia Act. There was nothing in the clause which was not perfectly well known in the Auxiliary Forces at present. He thanked the House for listening to him so patiently.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that those who had followed the debates on this new scheme must have been struck with two things: (1) how very little interest was taken in the debates on the matter; and (2) [how curious it was that in the House of Commons as at present constituted they were almost entirely without any expert knowledge upon military matters. In all matters affecting trade, commerce, or education, they always found in the House some great critic whose opinion had some influence with the country; but there was not in the present House of Commons one single professional soldier whose opinion carried weight outside the House. [An HON. MEMBER: What about you?] Although he knew more about the subject than most people he did not claim to be an expert, and there was in the House little or no expert opinion on military matters which was of any practical value. There was a certain amount of trained civilian opinion, but that was not expert opinion, and the House, when considering Army discipline and treatment, would do well to recollect that they were acting without the slightest expert guidance. When this scheme was first put forward he was
256
considerably attracted towards it, largely by the provision of the expeditionary or striking force, and what appeared to him to be the courageous treatment of some of the weak points in our present military system. He was attracted to it because he thought he recognised in it the conception of a national Army based upon a local system; but he had since altered his opinion. How did this scheme affect that part of our Army which was kept and meant for fighting, and upon which our national and Imperial existence absolutely depended? That was a vital point. First of all, he recognised that they started under this scheme with 21,000 less effective soldiers than before. He regretted that step, because he thought it was a great mistake, and unless it could be shown that there was something to make up for that loss, on that ground alone he would be inclined to condemn the scheme. He did not find any fault with what was contemplated in the first instance, but did the scheme provide what was foreshadowed? What did the scheme put forward? In the year 1906 they had 78,000 British troops in India, and 52,000 in the Colonies, or in round numbers 130,000 British troops. The new scheme undertook to maintain in fighting efficiency that number of troops in India and the Colonies, but he would make every allowance and place the number at 100,000. But the new plan also undertook to provide an expeditionary force of 167,000 men. Placing the number at 150,000 it meant that the new scheme would have to maintain, keep up, and equip with war material 250,000 men for service outside our shores. That was not an inadequate provision, and if the scheme really provided that number he would give it his blessing instead of his ban. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean and the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, seemed to think that the striking force was too large, but he did not agree with that view, although he was aware it was held by his leader. But did this scheme really provide 250,000 men? In that total, and especially amongst the 150,000 for the expeditionary force, would be included the whole of the first-class Reserve, and he wished to know how they were going to maintain that force

257
at full strength after it had left these shores. It was proposed to keep up this force partly with the 130,000 men who might be called non-combatants, or semi-trained men, who would have to be kept under strict discipline, or else they would have all the trouble which resulted from employing semi-trained men. If those 250,000 were actually facing the enemy what would be the annual wastage? They would be sure to require at least 25 per cent. to keep the force up to strength, and that would mean another 62,000 men annually. How did the right hon. Gentleman's scheme provide for that total? He did not think they would be able to provide 20,000 from the sources which the Regular Army had at its disposal. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to conceive the position the officers would be put in. They selected some of the best men possible for the purpose of training, and then when they could be useful for the only purpose for which soldiers existed they said, "No, we retain you at that work.'' It could not work, and no officer worthy of the name would remain in the service if he was not to be free to go to the front with his own regiment. He had a suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman for what it was worth. He could conceive that these Regular Army officers might be replaced by other officers recently in the Regular Army, whose term of service was over and who might be expected to carry on the work effectively. That was one of the points which was not in the scheme.
*MR. HALDANEsaid that if war broke out, those officers might eventually be replaced by what were called Reserve officers—officers who had been in the Army and were now in the Reserve— and the four captains who belonged to the training battalion would, as had been explained, probably go to the front in command of drafts or in some other capacity.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid it was satisfactory to be able to extract explanations from the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. HALDANE: I said so before.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid it was probably his fault that he did not know, but the right hon. Gentleman, would allow that in a large scheme of this sort it might sometimes be necessary for him to repeat his explanations. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had answered his point. At all events, the officers thus employed would be permitted to go with their regiments to the front, and their places would be taken by others. So far so good. But would these training battalions be able to provide men fit to take their place in the fighting line? They had got to deal, so far as he could make out, very largely with the type of soldier who used to go into the Militia regiments. The question was whether they would be able to evolve out of comparatively bad stuff a soldier able to take his place in the fighting line. He was doubtful on that point. If these training battalions were not able to provide enough men, on his own showing the right hon. Gentleman would fall back largely on what might be provided by the new Territorial Army. That was the other source to which he looked for the maintenance of the fighting force in the field. In order to create that fighting force the right hon. Gentleman said, quite frankly, that he gave up the present system of Auxiliary Forces. The right hon. Gentleman had with reason much to say in favour of the better theory which the new scheme introduced. But they had to recollect that in practice the system he distrusted had at all events, given us, though with some difficulty, a certain amount of good fighting stuff which had enabled us to win, even though victory had not been achieved so quickly as we should have liked. The right hon. Gentleman had to satisfy the House that under this scheme he would get men and officers from the Territorial Force to which he looked for the reinforcement of the Line. He had also to satisfy them that the scheme would result in such a reduction of expenditure as would make it worth while for the country to accept it as an economical and efficient system. He thought the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was based upon an error. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to lay down that one of the duties of the Territorial Army was to find men for the expansion of the

259
Army in the field. He definitely said that by expansion he meant the addition of units to the fighting line. That was not, and it ought not to be, the function of the Territorial Army. The function of the Territorial Army was not to find units. Generals who had served in the field would state that when they asked that the strength should be maintained they wished to get it from units which they already had, and not from units with a different training and character. He believed the duty of the Territorial Array would be to find not so much units as drafts. If they asked it to find units they would be asking it to do what it could not accomplish. He had not seen in this scheme—although he could conceive that it might be brought into it—that this Territorial Force should be affiliated more closely with the Regular regiments. If the Territorial Force was to provide additional strength to the fighting line, it should be remembered that not a single man need go into the fighting line unless he chose to do so. The members of the force were not asked under the scheme to make a declaration a long time beforehand. It might happen that at the time when stress occurred they would have to ask the question whether they would or would not go, and it might be that they would not get the response which they wished. He did not think it would be a satisfactory position for the country to be in if they were dependent on the Territorial Force to make an efficient fighting line in the moment of emergency and difficulty. Surely if the scheme was to go through it would be better to have an arrangement that a certain percentage of the force should be under obligation to serve—say 200,000 out of 300,000—and upon whom they could rely at a pinch to go abroad. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Yeomanry and the Volunteers to give up a great deal of time, a large amount of pay, and also something of the peculiar position which they were proud to hold in the Auxiliary Forces. He was not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers recognised the extraordinary differences in the views taken of this question by the Yeomanry regiments. A few days ago he was consulting with the representatives
260
of two distinct types of Yeomanry. One of them told him that the men of his regiment, so long as they were thoroughly well found and made comfortable in camp, did not expect or wish to take away any money in their pockets except £5 per horse. His other friend said that was exactly what his men would not do, and that unless each man was able to put into his pocket 4s. per day, however well he might mess him, he would not get one of the men to come out. It was a question whether the right hon. Gentleman would find the response which he so fondly anticipated. The Volunteers were not asked to make so much difference in their status, but still they were asked to sacrifice a great deal. He wondered how the theory of absolutely equal treatment was going to be carried out. Could they ask the members of the force to accept exactly the same arrangements in time of peace as to food, dress, and other matters? He doubted it, and yet the whole scheme depended for its practical result upon determinedly sticking to equality of treatment throughout; otherwise the democratic and homogeneous Army broke down before it had been created. The men in the Territorial Force, representing what the Volunteers now represented, would be men earning a considerable amount of wages, and they would be earning exceptionally large wages at the time of a threat of war or of actual war. They would belong to certain industries working at full time or extra time, and they would have not only large wages but the chance of promotion. Surely it was essential that none of these men should suffer by the fact that they gave their services to the country. Surely they ought to arrange that the men should get full compensation for the wages or the promotion they lost. The men should be trained before war was imminent. To postpone the training until war had broken out would be a mistake. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was not practical, and he would be open to the charge of setting-up a bogus force on which the country could not rely in time of danger. He knew that there was a school of thought which believed that comparatively little drill and a spirit of patriotism

261
could make a good soldier; but old-fashioned soldiers like himself did not agree with that.
MR. JOHN WARD: What about the Boers?
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he did not want to go into all the arguments about the Boer War; but he maintained that if we had had a more disciplined Army there would not have been so many disgraceful surrenders as there were in that war. If the present scheme was to stand good these men were only to be drilled after war had been declared. But who was to drill them? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would depend on Reserve officers for drilling the third battalion recruits; but that did not appear in the Bill. Nor did he see any arrangement in the measure for making musketry training effective. Again they could not rely on having efficiency of training for those recruits unless there were professional adjutants attached to each territorial regiment. It must be borne in mind that those adjutants were changed every four years and came fresh from the Regular Army with all the knowledge they had learned there. He admitted that many Volunteer officers were competent to drill their men and to command them on parade; but they were not equally competent as Regular officers to enforce discipline. They had already been told that the provision of officers was inadequate. He believed that that was so. He would not say that some officers should not be promoted from the ranks; but he doubted the wisdom of making that system universal. He thought it was the late Lord Palmerston who said that he had the greatest reliance on well trained troops under well-bred officers. Was the right hon. Gentleman sure that he would get good, real work out of the county associations? He was frightened about these county associations. Already as much work as they possibly could do was put on county gentlemen; and he confessed he saw difficulties in the composition of the county associations and the duties to be assigned to them. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that they were to be
262
the recruiters for the Territorial Force and to be the contractors for the supplies of that force? If so, there would be great pressure put on them to give the contracts into the hands of local tradesmen. He would not let the county associations interfere with the raising of the soldiers of the Territorial Army or with their treatment as soldiers; but when they were soldiers no longer the county associations might look after them and their wives and families. The right hon. Gentleman had received a considerable amount of support in the country for his scheme from the idea that it would lead to economy. That idea had been considerably exploded in the course of the debate; but if it was to be an economical scheme it would be a rank and hopeless failure. His contention was that it would lead to largely increased expense. It was said by some people that a cheap and effective Army could be based on an appeal to the manhood of the country for national service. That was a cheap, tawdry, and paltry pleasure to indulge in when speaking from platform in the country and arguing that the cost of the Army should be reduced. That was where democratic speakers always seemed to him to break down so hopelessly. He had tried to see what merits there were in the scheme. He admitted that there was a theoretic symmetry about it; but it was not practical. He thought that it was an imposition, and that the chief victim of that imposition was the right hon. Gentleman himself. Like many people who fell in love, the right hon. Gentleman saw nothing but perfection in it. He would have to acknowledge, however, that in many cases, he had not provided for efficiency and also that he could not get the fighting efficiency he desired at the cost he proposed. The right hon. Gentleman was, in fact, conducting an Army on Christian Science principles as expounded by Mrs. Eddy; but that would not do; and it was rather unfair to put his scheme before the country as a solution of the great problem of Army reform. Like many other old soldiers he was sick to death at all the squabbling over the Army, and he could wish that it should be taken out of the hands of

263
the country and even of the House of Commons and put into the hands of the best military experts. Apparently, however, that could not be; and year after year they were face to face with some wretched squabble about getting economy with efficiency. That they could not get. Therefore, it was with considerable reluctance that he would have to give his support to the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Dover.
*MAJOR DUNNEsaid he rose to support the Second Reading of the measure now before the House. He thought that one of the most important underlying features of the Bill was that the right hon. Gentleman would by this scheme bring the different elements of the people of the country into a deeper sympathy with our military organisation. He did not think that it was understood how little sympathy there was with the military forces in this country. It was only when outbreaks of war took place that the country seemed to find out that we had an Army. Whoever, for instance, in times of peace heard of a public man making a speech from a public platform about the Army? Abroad, a state of affairs such as he had described was impossible, because in all European countries there was hardly a single family which had not a member either now serving in the military forces or who had served. Consequently the interests of the whole population were directly affected by anything which affected the efficiency or well-being of the Army. It was not so very long ago that soldiers in uniform were refused admission to certain portions of places where public entertainments were held, and if the population of the country were in sympathy with the military forces such a thing could not take place. The right hon. Gentleman, hoped, however, to bring the Army and the population into greater sympathy with each other, not by conscription, but by means of the county associations. He hoped that very great interest indeed would be aroused by carrying the principle of local self-government into the affairs of the Territorial Army, so that the Army and its efficiency would be brought
264
more nearly home to the different sections of the population throughout the country. If that were done, a vast set forward would be given to an increase in numbers and to the general efficiency of the Territorial Army. If the scheme was to be a success, however, they must get in all those who might be interested in the subject; not only the Lord-Lieutenant and the landlord, but the farmer and the employer of labour, so that all classes of society should unite. Until they could get them to unite, he did not think the scheme would be a success. He would point out one way in which the efficiency of the Territorial Army would be increased by the appointment of these county associations. He happened to have been a staff officer of a Volunteer brigade, and he knew the difficulty that corps had in obtaining sufficient ground to manœuvre over, and therefore derive benefit from the fortnight's or week's Volunteer training which took place in each year. If, however, they could enlist the sympathies of all the landowners and farmers and of the other people whose land was wanted to practise upon, he thought a great step would then have been taken to increase the efficiency and the value of the Volunteer training, whether it was eight days or a fortnight, or whatever it might be, short or long. Therefore he thought that not only would they gain in efficiency by setting up these associations, but they would bring the civil population into closer sympathy with the needs and requirements of the Territorial Army. On the 28th February last, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said, that—
"His personal feeling was one of strong suspicion that by this scheme they would strengthen the military spirit and thereby increase the risk of war."
He thought it was an established fact now that the risk of war was certainly not increased by universal service. He was not advocating for one moment the, question of universal service, but by bringing home the responsibility to each man of knowing what fighting meant he certainly thought they did not run the risk of anything in the shape of an aggressive policy, and that if many of those who shouted themselves

265
hoarse on Mafeking night had known that there was any probability of their being called upon to make their words good, the country would have evinced a more sober spirit on that occasion. It was an established fact that in all countries where conscription and universal service were enforced it had a distinctly sobering effect upon the warlike spirit of the country. The only exception that he could think of would be that of an entirely autocratic empire where they had a standing army at the call of a despot. That might, of course, lead to an aggressive policy, but in countries under freer institutions that would not be so. "Defence not defiance," was the present motto of the Volunteer Force, and he was sure that that motto would be quite applicable to the new Territorial Army which it was proposed to set up Tinder this scheme. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil also said on the same occasion in regard to a proposal to look after Reservists and discharged soldiers, which was one of the functions put upon these county associations, that—
"He protested against the present tendency to give preferential treatment in the matter of employment to men who had served in the Army."
He maintained that nothing that they could do for men who had been in the Army and who were either Reservists or discharged soldiers could be looked upon as preferential. These men had volunteered to give seven years of their lives at that period of all others when it was most important for them to start a career, and the work of the various associations now existing was to make up to them the long start that the rest of their fellow workmen had obtained in setting themselves up in life and in qualifying themselves for the various professions and employments in which they engaged. Our soldiers had lost seven years in the race of life, and all they asked was that these associations should make up to them the loss of those valuable seven years. The term "preferential employment" was not, he thought, a correct term to apply to the small aid which was and would be afforded to our discharged soldiers and Reservists. He would like in conclusion to say one word upon what
266
he thought might possibly be the effect of this Bill on the numbers of the Territorial Army. He thought the immediate effect would probably be that the present number of the Auxiliary Forces would be reduced on account of the six months training when embodiment occurred. On the calling out of the Regular Army when war broke out certain trades were extremely active, especially those engaged on Government contracts. In the case of large engineering firms like Armstrong's, which had a battalion of Volunteers formed of their employees, it stood to reason that the majority of those men would be among the most active and keenest workers in the firm, and the effect of this proposal would be that the employers would be rather inclined to discourage their men from joining Volunteer battalions connected with their own works. In order to meet that difficulty there would have to be great elasticity and great differentiation between the calling out of the different forces, both as regarded locality, the units, and also the men. He thought, moreover, that men employed on the active service of keeping troops supplied with the necessities of war were serving their country equally satisfactorily with the man who went and did six months training and shoudered a rifle when called upon. Therefore, no stigma of not having fulfilled his patriotic, duty should be cast upon one who did not leave his business, in order to enable the Government to furnish the materials of war.
*MR. J. WARD,referring to the remark of the right hon. Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire that there were no great military experts in the House, and that it would be much better if the military experts Were given an opportunity of entirely deciding technical questions of this kind, supposed the right hon. Gentleman would agree that one could easily get military experts of equal standing who would give equally important declarations in favour of the scheme and against it. It was not a question for military experts, it was a question whether the attempted reorganisation appeared from a common sense point of view to be better than the system of organisation which prevailed

267
at the present time. He did not suppose that whatever was said by Labour Members would prevent the Bill becoming law, and he warned hon. Members with whom he was closely associated not to deprive themselves, by open hostility at the commencement of the debate, of the right to attempt to mould the Bill in a democratic direction. There might be many things said in favour of the proposals even from their point of view. He was an advocate of peace and did not believe in war as a means of settling international disputes. He wanted to see a reduction in the cost of our standing Army, and he saw nothing in the Bill to prevent him pressing the War Minister in that direction. Reference had been made to the suggested increase of the striking force. He thought the Bill had nothing to do with the striking force at all, and therefore the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean on the previous day, when he had attempted to enlist the hostility of the Labour Members against the Bill on the ground that it was to increase the standing Army, had not much force. He had read the Bill carefully and he saw no such suggestion in its clauses. There might be that idea at the back of the minds of the gentlemen who advocated it, but the House of Commons would be able to defeat their proposals when they were brought forward absolutely independently of the scheme contained in the Bill. This was a Bill to codify and unify the organisation of the voluntary forces for home defence, and he thought the Bill and its proposals would be just is necessary with a striking force of 67,000 as with a striking force of 167,000. The first thing they had to do before they proceeded to reduce the standing Army or the striking force was to perfect and unify as far as they could the Auxiliary Forces on which they had to rely for home defence. Therefore, the scheme, instead of preventing a reduction of the cost of the standing Army, would, in his opinion, greatly assist economists in the future in attempting legitimately and properly to effect such reduction. He was not alone in that view. The criticisms of the late War Secretary indicated that he held a similar view,
268
and as the right hon. Gentleman was a military expert of renown he (Mr. Ward) was in good company. It must not be taken that all supporters of the Bill favoured a large increase. He thought it would be quite possible to support the Bill and still to ask for a reduction of the standing Army. He was compelled, however, to make one or two important criticisms which were of such a character that he would have to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill if some alteration were not made in it. The fostering of the military spirit among the boys of our schools vitiated the whole principle of the Bill. They ought surely to be, able to rely on grown men to defend the country in time of war, and in time to come he thought they would find plenty of men for that purpose. With all due deference to the ex-Minister for War, he also thought they would have sufficient courage to meet the enemy in the field. The history of the world showed that the great military nations had been composed of either large agricultural or large rural populations. But though town life did, no doubt, enervate the youth of the country, he had no hesitation in saying that we were as good fighters to-day as at any time of our history and that we were not quite the cowards the right hon. Gentleman would seem to suggest. The suggestion that it took years of training and discipline before a Britisher could be got to face the guns in the field of battle was, he thought, not quite true. The fostering of cadet corps in our colleges was not necessary to the Bill in any shape or form. Had the Minister for War devoted his attention to destroying the triple organisation of the Volunteers, the Yeomanry, and the Militia, and unified those forces without attempting to interfere with the school life of the children he would have erected his purpose to a greater extent than he would do by the proposals under discussion. The introduction of this into colleges and public schools and the attempt to establish such institutions as the source from which all our officers should be derived was an attempt to fashion a national Army on a social class basis, and the two principles appeared to him to be antagonistic. It was proposed to draw officers from

269
the great colleges and educational centres which were the special preserve of the rich and well-to-do. They could never make a national Army by excluding the poor merely because they were poor from the higher positions in the new military organisation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Newport Division of Shropshire had said quoting a speech of Lord Palmerston to prove his contention, that it was absolutely necessary to have well-bred officers. That he did not dispute. The only question was what was meant by the term "well-bred." He asserted that there were soldiers in the ranks who might not have all the cultured and polished drawing room manners that some of our officers possessed, but who, from a military point of view, were equal to any officer in the British Army. Under these circumstances he did not think the quotation was either apt or one which solved the problem. As every one knew, an Act of Geo. III. abolished the sale of offices in every department but the Army. Up to 1871 all the higher offices in the Army were bought, sold, and retained as private vested interests, therefore it was a question of money, not of breeding, up to that time. There was an unfortunate tendency in the present day, especially in Government Departments, to separate into distinct classes the supervisors and the supervised. He was very much afraid that this snobbishness, especially in the great services of the State, the Army and the Navy, this attempt to prove that it was utterly impossible to maintain discipline unless officers were drawn from one class of society and the common soldier from another, this separation of interests, this dividing into castes the Services which ought to be welded together as a whole, was probably the cause of many of our serious disasters in recent campaigns. Now that they were making an attempt to reorganise the forces, it was the business at least of Labour men who represented working men on whom the country had to rely for their fighters —he supposed no one would contest that—to put forth their views on the subject. If members of the working classes were prepared to join the ranks and to risk their lives for the defence
270
of the Empire, they were entitled to a share of the highest offices, provided they had the necessary ability to attain to them. He did not say for one moment that a man should be appointed who was incompetent or without the necessary ability. That was not the suggestion of those who represented the interests of labour. He understood perfectly well that a very strict examination would be necessary; that men would have to qualify themselves for the positions; but once they were qualified, mere social rank should be no bar to their appointment. Unfortunately, at present, the tendency was in the opposite direction. A Return was published in 1885, and it had been brought up to 1899, showing that the number of second lieutenants appointed from the ranks in fourteen years was 343, quartermasters 597, and riding masters 56, total 996 in fourteen years, or 4 per cent. A Return which had recently been issued giving the figures for 1899 to 1902, showed that the percentage had fallen to 2 per cent.; so that it was now twice as difficult for a ranker to rise to commissioned position as it was only a few years ago. ["No."] The hon. and gallant Member opposite said it was not so, but the figures spoke for themselves. Complaint had been made that recruits would not join in sufficient numbers, and that recruits when they were secured were not of the right quality and standard. He believed there was a great deal in that, and he was afraid it would always be so as long as there was no opportunity for the ranker to rise. It might be said that at present he had the opportunity, but he was afraid that the Returns which he had quoted showed that very few got the chance. It was useless on this question merely to express sympathy or a pious opinion. There must be some definite percentage of promotions open to those from the ranks. He was certain that the Secretary for War would be in a position to attract an entirely different class of men if recruiting officers were able to say that there was a definite percentage of higher appointments open to the humblest soldiers of the Army. In France that principle was adopted, but the percentage there was much higher than he would venture to suggest for this country. He

271
thought it would be almost impossible to attract the best men to the Army unless something of the kind he hail suggested was done. At the present time he was afraid that they held out no inducements whatever to the best men to join the Army. The pay was very small, the conditions were extremely irksome, and the opportunities offered to a man were practically nil. The consequence was that the Army had been treated as a sort of human dust bin so far as concerned the lower ranks, which were largely composed of men who had probably failed in many other walks of life. He thought that by setting aside a certain percentage of commissions for the ranks, they would be able to attract some of the best of our youth, among both the working and other classes. At any rate, some attempt should be made to democratise the Territorial Force in the way he suggested, because the people would then be drawn into closer sympathy with at least the Home branch of the forces, than they had hitherto been. He would vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, but he hoped that in Committee something would be done in the direction he had indicated. With regard to the pay of the men, it was suggested, he believed, that they should receive a very small sum for their services. The argument had been used that the Regular soldiers objected to fight by the side of the Volunteer or Yeoman, who was receiving perhaps five times the pay. But the soldier who joined the Regular Army made that his profession for a certain number of years, and his position was entirely different from that of the man who; left his work for a few months of the year merely to perform his regimental duties in the new Territorial Army, The man might lose his employment; he might find it difficult to return to settled employment when he came back from his training, whether that had been long or short. In these circumstances the two cases were not at all comparable, and some special rate would unquestionably have to be paid to the men of the Territorial Army—a rate far above what they would pay to the men who made soldiering a profession. He thought that the scale of expenditure contem-
272
plated under this scheme would have to be very largely extended. There was one other matter he would like to mention. He had known instances where employers had laid it down as a condition that they would not engage Volunteers. He had seen advertisements to that effect. He felt certain that unless the Secretary of State took that fact into consideration, he would fail to secure the number of men that he suggested were required in his Memorandum. The Rill might possibly be amended so as to constitute it intimidation to inquire whether a man was a Volunteer, and to treat as a criminal offence the making it a condition of employment that a man should not belong to the Territorial Army; at any rate, something must be done if, they were going to get recruits and properly protect the men who joined. With regard to the proposal to place Volunteers and the Home forces under martial law, he would observe that the term court-martial had a very nasty sound about it. Among the common soldiers there was sometimes a feeling that justice was not always done by the superior officer; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he considered the policy which had been adopted in France, namely, that courts-martial should not be applied in time of peace even to the Regular forces. Courts-martial would never be submitted to by the Volunteer force of this country. Whilst soldiers and Britishers generally would be prepared to undergo the difficulties of a campaign and submit to the most stringent regulations when engaged in war, he felt certain that the class of the population from which the right hon. Gentleman expected to draw his recruits would be opposed to being placed under any such conditions as were suggested in the Bill. Under those circumstances it would have to be amended in that direction before it could be acceptable to the Labour Leaders of the House. He hoped the Bill would become law. He could quite see, as anyone could see, that it was absolutely necessary to destroy the triple organisation of Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, the organisation must be unified. The talk of invasion was to him very peculiar. It was said that we

273
should not be able to get the men in case of invasion, if there were no Territorial Army. If an official paragraph that a hostile army would be landed on our shores were published to-night, a million bayonets would gleam in the sun to-morrow morning and the Secretary of State for War would probably be hung up on the nearest lamp-post if he could not supply them. The military instinct of the nation was as good as ever it was. The Labour Members objected to the suggestion that there should be an enormous striking force, but they accepted the Bill because they knew, as the late Secretary of State for War had declared that afternoon, that this enormous striking force was imaginary and that the real object was to unify and codify the organisation for home defence.
Mr. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he had noticed small points of difference in the objections raised to this scheme in almost every speech that had been delivered. In his opinion the alterations with regard to the Volunteers were practically nil, and that view applied to courts-martial. In the discussion several notable cases of disagreement had occurred. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newport disagreed at almost every point with the Bill, but the one point upon which he did agree was that they should do away with the Militia. Other Members of the Opposition had expressed exactly the opposite view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had attacked his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abeicromby Division for the description he had given of the Swiss Army, which he stated was absolutely out of date. He might say that his hon. and gallant friend's description was quite accurate; as to drill and other matters he had de cribed them exactly as they were last year. Evidently what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had in his mind was a description of the Swiss Army as it would be years hence when the regulations now being I made had come into force. The regulations under this scheme instead of making training more frequent would extend it over fewer years, and that was practically not a material alteration. Nearly half the speakers who had taken part in the
274
debate in opposition to the Bill had mentioned six months training as soon as the Reserves were called out. Where they had got that idea from he did not know, because it was not in the Bill. The only thing provided was that they should be liable to be embodied. The Secretary of State for War had stated that probably six months would be the period required to make them into good soldiers, but in saying that I he was merely quoting the opinion of experts; there was nothing in the Bill I about six months. The great object of the Bill was that they should be able to get hold of the men when they wanted them. Great objection had been taken to the total of 160,000 men which appeared in the Memorandum. He did not think for a moment that a striking force of 160,000 men was meant. They did not want a striking force of that size to be sent off during the first month of a war; 50,000 troops would be quite sufficient for that purpose. Under this scheme he believed they would have larger striking force than they had at the beginning of the South African War, and he believed they would have a large number of reinforcements. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had said that the scheme would leave them too much in the hands of the officials, and that the House would lose its power. Surely the House of Commons would be able to stop the supplies when the War Office asked for too much, and that was really what had happened during the last few years. The country would always have that control. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newport had said that the Volunteers were going to be useless, and he had spoken at great length to show how unsuitable they were as soldiers. It was because they were not so useful as they might be that it was proposed in this Bill to alter their status and their position. He thought the great principle of the Bill had been generally accepted, namely, that there should be two lines, the first consisting of a striking force available at once. The second line was one which would take time before it was available for service, and would consist of a national Army popular amongst the people, and supported by them in the various districts.

275
That principle was so much appreciated that he believed the Bill would pass without very great modifications. He did not think the term Territorial Army was a very wise one. He hoped it would be possible to train larger numbers of men together at their training depots in order that the officers might take battalion drill and occasionally brigade drill. The more men they were able to get, together the better would be the training of both men and officers. He trusted that the depots would be made larger and that the number of men trained at one time would be increased. The most important thing in the whole scheme was its finance. Ministerialists believed that the strength of the country lay to a great extent in its financial position in the world, and, whatever might be said as to preparedness for war, if the national financial position was sufficiently weakened, large armies would never help us. Therefore they thought that the question of economy was a much more important factor in Imperial matters than hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House seemed to think. He did not quite accept the figures of the Secretary of State. So far as he could see, he believed, like a good many critics, that it would cost a good deal more than was suggested. At the same time he thought even from the economical point of view it was worth while spending a million or so extra in the way proposed. The difficulty in reducing the most expensive part of the war organisation—the Regular Army—was that we had absolutely nothing the soldier would trust to fall back upon. The professional soldier never believed in anyone but the Regular soldier. Nothing else was to be depended on. The general opinion of experts was that the only soldier who would face fire was the man who had had long training. But these experts ignored such recent experience as was presented in the war carried on by the Boers and by the success of the Japanese in the late war, who certainly in the later battles fought with men who had not had more than two or three months' training. Sufficient training could be given in a few months to the proposed Territorial Army to constitute a reliable force, and he believed that in time of emergency that reliable force
276
would volunteer by units for garrison duty, and so relieve the Regular soldiers to go to the front. He believed that once we had a good Territorial Army it would be very much cheaper to provide the foreign Army, which was our great difficulty now. Experts would always tell the country that the Reserve Forces were unreliable, but if this scheme were carried out we should have something that could be relied upon by the country and those high in authority at the War Office, and he thought that in future there might be further reductions in the expenditure on the Army. The adoption of the scheme would mean that economy could be realised which under the existing system could not be effected, when there was ever-increasing military expenditure, but no increase of efficiency.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he approached the consideration of the subject as an ordinary country squire, and in no way as a military expert. From that point of view, he was interested in the proposal for the establishment of county associations, a proposal which, personally, he thought had much to recommend it. In many counties, and certainly in the county with which he was connected, local feeling was very strong, and it was quite possible that under local administration the best use would be made of the raw material at command. There were certain matters in connection with the establishment of county associations with respect to which he should like more information from the right hon. Gentleman. In the course of the debate it had been frequently pointed out that the tendency undoubtedly was for local work to get heavier and heavier. He thought that the chief end which the right hon. Gentleman had to aim at was to make the work of the county associations as practical as possible, to keep it in the hands of county men without the introduction of other elements. These were matters which might be gone into more fully on the Committee stage of the Bill. Though local work was increasing, there would be no lack of men to undertake the duty, providing the work was responsible and attractive, and confined to county men. There was some apprehension that associations might be governed by outside military

277
men. There was also a fear that membership of an association might entail pecuniary responsibility. The fear he believed was unfounded.
*MR. HALDANEassented.
MR. VICTOE CAVENDISHsaid that there had, at any rate, been that feeling, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make it abundantly clear that there was no pecuniary liability placed upon gentlemen who composed these organisations. A Memorandum had been issued by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the scheme, and he confessed he had some little difficulty in understanding the financial proposals contained therein. It provided an approximate estimate of the cost of the Territorial Force. He understood there was nothing in that estimate for the expenditure which would be incurred by the county associations themselves for officials' salaries, rent of offices, and general administrative charges. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his reply would give the House some more information as to the cost of the administration of the county associations.
*MR. HALDANE: pointed out that there was a statement at the top of page 4 of the Memorandum on that subject.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid it was difficult to arrive at any result from that statement. Roughly speaking, he imagined that it would take about £800 per battalion. He feared that the organisation was bound to be extremely costly, and that we should not get full value for our money. What was more, the greater the success which attended the scheme, and the greater the number of county associations that were formed, the larger would be the demands upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He wished that the House and the country should have, if possible, some estimate of the probable cost of the new scheme when it came into full operation. It was very difficult to form any opinion on that point with the materials they had now before them. He had approached the question of the county associations as a country squire; he wished to approach the consideration of Clause 3 through the eyes of the
278
Public Accounts Committee. He had difficulty in understanding what the right hon. Gentleman's proposals were in regard to finance. So far as he could understand it the proposal was that the Army Council was to make a grant-in-aid or a block-grant to the county associations, which was to be at their absolute disposal. The principle of grants-in-aid or block-grants had in the past been open to great apprehension, and the practice was one which they ought not to encourage. At present the Volunteers got a block-grant for the expenses of their corps, but they were not in the same position as the new county associations would be, the latter having a considerable number of duties to discharge which the Volunteers had not to do formerly. It was admitted on all sides that the financial control which this House should exercise over all public expenditure was considerably lessened when the money was voted in block-grants; and he thought that the Secretary of State for War should let hon. Members see before the Bill went into Committee the form in which the new Estimate was to be laid before the House of Commons. That Estimate might amount to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, and they should not be asked to vote such a large sum of money without being told how that money was going to be spent. He expressed strong disapproval of the drafting of Clause 3 as it stood. It seemed to him that the greatest latitude was allowed to the county associations in regard to the spending of the money, and that the control of the House of Commons was reduced to a minimum. He hoped that the sole power of dealing with the question of finance would not be left in the hands of the Army Council. Again, it was a matter of very considerable doubt whether the House of Commons should agree to a proposal by which they would be required to vote a larger and an increasing sum of money to the county associations without having the accounts audited by their own officials. So far as he could make out there was no provision made for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The county associations were to audit the accounts themselves, and the House of Commons would have no opportunity of exercising that control which they ought to have.
*MR. HALDANEsaid that this matter had been considered very closely, and it was found that if they did not apply the system of audit proposed by the clause the correspondence of the War Office with the county associations would be interminable.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he would wait to hear the fuller explanation of the right hon. Gentleman when he came to reply on the whole debate; in the meantime he would respectfully say that the House of Commons ought to be most careful before consenting to any proposal which might be considered to weaken their control over expenditure. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's military colleagues had achieved a considerable victory over him in that regard at the expense of the House of Commons in general and of the Public Accounts Committee in particular.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. Buchanan,)said he could assure the hon. Member that the Comptroller and Auditor General would have the same control over the new grants as he had at present over the Capitation Grant.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: admitted that the present arrangement was far from perfect, but it should not be weakened. He was not a military expert, but, so far as he understood the scheme, he thought that the right hon, Gentleman had made reductions in the Regular Army before he knew what was going to be put in their place.
*MAJOR McMICKINGsaid he found himself in rather an embarrassing position, because although he was in favour of the principle of the Bill and would give it his support on Second Reading he felt great apprehension with regard to the proposal to create 140 mobile Volunteer batteries of artillery, especially when fourteen of these batteries would, be horse artillery batteries. In regard to the artillery, there were two very interesting speeches delivered in the House during the debate the previous day. He was in complete agreement with what fell from the hon.
280
Member for Fareham in reference to the artillery. As to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool he would like to say a few words. He would take the following quotation from his speech, as reported in The Times—
"If people who did not want to fight could be eliminated from the Army by the principle of voluntary service, and the requisite number of men could still be got, it followed that the Army would be more formidable than under a system of compulsion."
That was not a very convincing argument. He believed it to be true with regard to the rank and file, but it was misleading as regards officers especially for the artillery. When the hon. and gallant Member compared the Swiss artillery system with the proposed Territorial Army artillery he could see no analogy between the two. He would like to give to the House some figures with regard to the Swiss system. All artillery officers in the Swiss Army must have served in the ranks. At nineteen years of age every man in the country was examined medically and all who were fit must serve for twelve years in the Elite, for thirteen years in the Landwehr, and for five years in the Landsturm, making thirty years in all. Thus in the Swiss Army, where they had all these men, those of energy and talent strove to become officers in the force, and there was great emulation. Before a man became an officer he had to pass a recruit's course of fifty-five days; repetition course, eighteen days; non-commissioned officer's course, thirty-five days; recruit's course as non-commissioned officer, sixty-three days; and officer's preparatory courses, 105 days, making 276 days in all or nine months before he became an artillery officer. That was quite a different state of things from that which would exist in the Territorial Army. Before non-commissioned officers in the Swiss Army were selected for the officer's preparatory course they had to undergo an examination in general knowledge. Captains and majors had to attend special courses for officers of their rank to qualify for promotion. Promotion did not go by seniority only, and the pick of each rank only was promoted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman in a previous debate drew an analogy from or rather based his arguments on the experience of the

281
South African War. No doubt a great many useful lessons could be learnt from that war, but so far as artillery was concerned that war had taught us very little. If the Boers had used their guns in batteries, and if their shrapnel fire had been effective, half our artillery would have been wiped out. Our batteries as a rule had to come into action in the open against the Boer artillery in prepared positions, He would like to ask a question in regard to the special contingent batteries. He believed there were thirty-three batteries for training special contingent officers and men. They would be armed with 198 eighteen-pounder guns. Their functions would be that of training men so that drafts could be sent out for the Army over sea. Let them take a hypothetical case of our field force being engaged over sea, and suppose that at a critical time another European Power joined the enemy against whom we were engaged and a danger of raid and invasion became imminent. He would like to know what would happen to those 198 guns. Would they continue to be used for training drafts for the field force over sea or would they be used to repel raid or invasion? He did not think any War Minister could come down to the House and say, if there was any danger of raid or invasion, he proposed to send the forces of the Territorial Army into action armed with fifteen-pounders while there were these eighteen-pounders in the country.
*MR. HALDANEsaid there were not only the guns of the batteries but there were also the reserve guns, but it was impossible to forecast beforehand what would be done.
*MAJOR McMICKING: suggested that the batteries armed with these eighteen-pounder guns should be put on a four-gun basis and should be available in time of need. Anyone who had had the slightest acquaintance of the Army from within must be aware of the magnitude and complexity of the problem with which the Secretary for War was confronted. The right hon. Gentleman and his expert advisers had been hard at work for over a year obtaining a solution to the problem, and they
282
had been assisted by various Committees appointed to investigate, subsidiary questions underlying the main problem. As a result they had the Bill now before them. The scheme for its success entirely depended on the patriotic feelings of our fellow citizens. That was a high ideal, especially when it was remembered that the conditions of service in the proposed Territorial Army would be more onerous than the conditions of service in the Volunteer force to-day. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had not been afraid of a high ideal and that he had faith in the patriotism of his fellow countrymen, and he saw no reason why the 300,000 men should not be forthcoming. It was argued that it would be impossible to obtain the men, but the scheme would be a test of the free and compulsory education which the nation had been getting for the last thirty-six years. If that education had been on sound lines, if it had truly developed character, he was inclined to think that there would be no difficulty in obtaining men willing to serve. No doubt many men now serving in the Volunteers would be unable for various reasons to continue to serve in the Territorial Army. On the other hand a National Army, with a clear and definite sphere of action marked out for it, would appeal to many men who hitherto had held aloof because they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Volunteers were not and never had been taken seriously by the military authorities. Then again compulsory service had been mentioned. He himself was opposed to any form of compulsion, but there were many people who were asking why 300,000 men should be asked to bear the burden, to make sacrifices for home defence, and whether the burden ought not to be borne by the whole of our male adult population. But whatever scheme might be introduced, compulsory or voluntary, the burden would still be borne by 300,000 men; it was the quality that would vary. Provided the officers were efficient, the quality of a force composed of men who served from patriotic motives and from love of soldiering would be very much better than that of a force composed of men who were compelled to serve.

283
All good citizens were to some extent called upon to make sacrifices, and he saw no reason why a sufficient number of men should not welcome the opportunity to render effective service for their country. Public opinion rightly directed for the next decade would do more to bring a useful territorial force suited to our needs into being than any amount of compulsion would be able to accomplish. He had spoken of public opinion, and he hoped the women of Britain would use their influence to make the scheme a success. Their patriotism was one of our greatest national assets, and they could do much to help. After all, this was a matter which intimately concerned them. The Territorial Army was essentially a force for the protection of our hearths and homes, and it was in no sense an aggressive force. When he said that he did not mean that the National Army would never be called upon to take the offensive. In war the most effective defence was that known as the defensive offensive. In certain eventualities it might happen that part of the Territorial Army would be asked to volunteer to serve abroad in order to take the offensive. To some hon. Members that might seem a strange rôle for a non-aggressive army to play. It was not so really, because under certain conditions a blow delivered at an enemy oversea would be the most effective method of protecting our own shores. Another objection was that this territorial scheme would involve the putting of the Militia, the Yeomanry and the Volunteer Forces into the melting pot, and it was said that there would be produced a mixture of unknown quality called a Territorial Army. It was quite true that the several parts of the Auxiliary Forces would be welded into a National Army organised in a scientific manner. There might be differences as to whether the number of men required would be obtained, and perhaps on other points, but surely if experts were worth anything at all they should have no difficulty in forming a sound judgment as to the quality of the force which would be created under the scheme. There was every reason to suppose the special contingent officers and men would be better trained and would reach a higher level of proficiency than the Militia had done, at any rate
284
during the last twenty-five years. He saw no reason why esprit de corps should not flourish in the new Army. In his opinion it would become broader and deeper, because each man in addition to his esprit de corps for his own regiment would develop a pride in and affection for the National Army as a whole. Whilst that Army would on the one hand encourage healthy emulation between corps, it would on the other hand obliterate invidious distinctions between different branches of the services. He again appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to move very cautiously in the creation of mobile Volunteer Artillery, and to give the matter further consideration. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War compared gunners to theologians. He at any rate was not dogmatic in this matter, having had experience by means of his sense perceptions, and could not therefore be bracketed with the theologians. If Volunteer field batteries were to be created he sincerely hoped it would be done very gradually; any step in that direction should be in the nature of an experiment.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the hon. Member for Stoke had compared the French and British officers, but without saying anything derogatory to the French officers he thought we had nothing to be ashamed of in our own officers. With one statement of the hon. Member, however, he cordially agreed. The hon. Gentleman had said that those who served in the Territorial Army should be more highly paid than those who served in the Regular Army. With that he agreed, for the reason stated by the hon. Member. It seemed to him that the scheme of the county associations was likely to be successful, and he hoped it would be, but whenever he spoke to a soldier upon the question he always received the same reply. On the previous night he asked a distinguished General Officer what he thought of the Bill and the scheme, and the reply was that it was a capital scheme, that not a man would be obtained to serve under such conditions, and that then we should have to have conscription, which was what the Army wanted. That was the view of many

285
soldiers, and it was the danger which he was anxious to avoid. Unless they were prepared to give the best terms and good pay, and to make sure that those who served in the Territorial Army were not treated in a way which they would think unfair, there would be the danger of the country saying "This is not good enough,'' and we should be driven to conscription. He strongly opposed compulsion so long as we could get a voluntary force. From the figures given by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire he understood that the Yeomanry were to receive 10s. 8d. per day instead of 10s. 9d. as at present, so that the Yeoman would be only a penny the worse off.
MR. ACLANDsaid he made several qualifications of that statement.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid that in spite of the qualifications of the hon. Member there would be a considerable difference between the payment made to the Yeoman in the future and that made in the past.
MR. ACLANDsaid the difference would not be anything like so much as the hon. Member would seem to suggest.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid in that case he wished the War Office memoranda had been a little more explicit, because the impression given by them was that the Yeomanry would suffer a considerable loss, and in consequence there was considerable unrest and discontent in the Yeomanry with regard to the new conditions suggested. He hoped the Secretary of State would take the opportunity of explaining that the scheme was not what it was thought to be in this regard, and that it afforded a much better prospect for the Yeomanry in the future than was generally anticipated. The House ought to be particularly careful in dealing with the Yeomanry, because, although men could be obtained who with a short course of training would become competent infantry soldiers, unless a particular class was appealed to we could not obtain an effective force of men who could shoot and ride. Such men were not easy to find, and unless young farmers, butchers, well-to-do clerks, veterinary surgeons, and others
286
who had an opportunity of living among and learning the habits of horses were appealed to we should not get men who with a short training would become effective Yeomanry. A horseman could not be made in a fortnight, and if the pay was reduced and the comfort of the men diminished the right hon. Gentleman would run the risk of getting the wrong class of men. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to modify his views in this matter. The question of having a Regular adjutant was most important. It was far more important to have a Regular adjutant under the new scheme than under the present system. He did not believe it was possible, especially in the case of the Yeomanry regiments, which had to cover a large area, to get men effectively to carry out the duties required for £100 a year and to carry on their civilian duties as well. Another important point was that no provision had been made for rifle ranges, which were one of the crying needs of the Yeomanry at the present time, and the provision of which would do more than anything else to make the Yeomanry effective. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the country gentlemen to find rifle ranges, and that appeal would be responded to now as such appeals had been responded to in the past. But they could not help feeling that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were doing their best to undermine and kill the patriotism of the country gentlemen by their actions in the House. Here, however, was an opportunity for them to show that they realised the influence of the country gentlemen in matters of this kind, and had a higher appreciation of it than they were sometimes willing to admit. The appeal which had been made would be responded to, but he hoped the Secretary of State would not set them too hard a task. If the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to make the conditions of those who served in the Territorial Army sufficiently good; if he was going to endeavour to run the Territorial Army on the cheap, and get a voluntary service at less than it was worth, he would not get the response he hoped for. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Newport

287
Division of Shropshire that Yeomen wished to make money out of training. If that were true at all it was in only a small proportion of cases. What the Yeomen wanted was comfort and not to be out of pocket; and he certainly hoped that he would be allowed full dress for walking out. Everybody knew the value of that. If the Yeomen were treated fairly the right hon. Gentleman might rely on having the force maintained at its present strength, a thoroughly efficient and strong force. Therefore he would press the right hon. Gentleman not to level down but to level up this and other branches of the service in order to make them strong and efficient.
*MR. A. L. LEVER: thought that the Bill was the most serious attempt made for many years to consolidate our strength and to convert the forces of this country into a real fighting machine. But it appeared to him that there was one weakness, which had been debated at very considerable length, and which he wanted to emphasise. When all was said and done they must judge of the measure, not by its strongest, but by its weakest link. The plan enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman to transform the various independent and disconnected units into one homogeneous whole must commend itself to anyone who had at all considered the subject. In fact it was a matter of surprise to him that the present system had been allowed to grow up under successive War Ministers untouched a system while it made provision for training the troops, made no provision for providing the supplementary auxiliary services, which were absolutely essential if those disunited units were ever to be called upon to take the field. The plan devised by the right hon. Gentleman was an admirable one if it could be carried out successfully, but for his own part he was rather doubtful whether that could be done unless the pay of the rank and fife was materially increased. If it failed, as he feared it would, unless they saw an augmentation in the grants, then he feared that they were face to face with an inevitable condition of things, which, if it was not to be conscription as they had it in continental countries, would be some form of compulsory training. The success of the whole of this proposal must necessarily depend
288
upon obtaining the required recruits. Now was it to be expected that under the conditions which they were offering—offering very little and asking for a great deal—that they would obtain a sufficiency of men. Even assuming that patriotism was running high, that the martial spirit was dominant, and that militarism was for the hour as it had never been before, even under those conditions he did not think that a sufficient number of men would be found who could afford to make a sacrifice of eight or fifteen days work for the remuneration offered under this scheme. Their wages might be high in certain districts and in given trades, but if they took the average wage of working men in towns and cities and rural districts he thought they would find that there was a very small margin for them to provide for themselves in such a way as to enable them to make the sacrifice that this system would involve. He acknowledged that the same rate of wages was to be granted as in the Regular service, but then the conditions existing with the men of the two services would be absolutely different. A man might enter the Army because he was unable to get work, but when he did enter the Army he would get 365 days pay in the year, whereas the man of the Territorial Army might, in civil life, be out of work, or only partially employed for a considerable portion of the year or for some portion of the year. Then he might be a married man and have his home to maintain. Was it likely that when his period of training came round, and when perhaps he was in a good job, that he would be prepared to sacrifice fifteen days pay in order to undertake the obligation on the unremunerative terms which were offered? Personally he did not think that he would, and therefore he feared that they would not get the requisite number of men. If the Bill was to accomplish the hopes of the Secretary for War he appealed to him to consider the rate of pay of all arms of the new Territorial Force. He recognised full well the elasticity that was provided by the Bill—an elasticity which, he thought, commended itself to all sides of the House. This elasticity permitted of the annual training being abandoned altogether if necessary, but the moment they did that they were in a worse position than, or in an equally bad position, as they were to-day; our

289
Territorial Force would certainly be no better than the Volunteer force was at the present moment. Then they were asked to imagine that the county associations would stimulate recruiting. Possibly they would to a small extent, but they could not possibly stimulate it to the required extent unless they had the necessary funds at their command. No one deprecated more than he did any suggestion of a raid on the National Exchequer, because he felt with many Members of the House that the first thing they had to do was to make some provision for what the people of this country had so long and so anxiously been waiting for, and which he hoped would tome in the very near future, and that was a scheme of old-age pensions. As to the question of the adjutants, he felt that if they abandoned the professional adjutant connected with the regiment they would certainly be making a great mistake. After the remarks of the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire, he understood that it would be altered, and that they would have, as it were, a second adjutant attached to the regiment. For his own part he did not care much whether the adjutant belonged to the Regular force or to the Territorial Force, but he thought he should be in any case a man thoroughly qualified to occupy the position and to carry out the duties. Therefore, he considered that before any adjutant was appointed to a regiment he should undergo some examination to prove that he was specially qualified for the position. The Bill seemed to resolve itself into a choice of one of two things: inadequate pay, which would lead us, he thought, without much doubt, to a system of compulsory training; or, adequate pay, which would lead us to the realisation and consummation of a great scheme, that would hand down the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War as that of a man who had grappled with a great and complex question and had solved it to the advantage of the nation and of the Empire at large.
MR. GUY BARINGsaid that some surprise had been expressed on the other side of the House at the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Dover, but he had no hesitation in giving that Amendment his support. Still he did
290
not wish to see the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman wrecked, because he thought there was a great deal in it of the utmost value. They on the Opposition side of the House had had two shots at Army reform, and he was ready to help the right hon. Gentleman in his shot. But he was not confident that this scheme would give an adequate support to the Regular Army in time of war; and for this reason, that the right hon. Gentleman had done away with the Militia and had not substituted for it a better force. The Government appeared to be particularly fond, to judge from the words of the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire, of the seventy-four third battalions which were to produce the draft units when war broke out. What training would the men of those battalions have had? When those men were sent to fill the gaps in the Regular force not one of them would ever have seen his officers or his comrades, and as far as he could see the men would have been trained in the depots. They would never have seen the battalions on parade, and the drafts instead of being of assistance would certainly for three months be a dead weight, and men in the battalions would have to be told off to complete the training of the men, thus putting a double duty upon them. He believed that to be one of the great faults of the scheme. He thought it would be proved, and that the right hon. Gentleman would have to acknowledge it, that that scheme was going to cost more than had been suggested, and from what he had heard in the debate he was certain that there was a school of thought which would induce the right hon. Gentleman, if possible, to finance the scheme at the expense of the Regular Army, and they would see further reductions of the Regular Army asked for. The force which had been most fiercely attacked was the expeditionary force of 160,000 men. Of that expeditionary force, his one ewe lamb, the right hon. Gentleman had every right to be proud. He certainly hoped that no attack made on the Regular force would induce the Secretary of State to reduce that expeditionary force by even one man. He had pointed out two dangers of the scheme, and now he would point to one of its advantages, namely, that it brought the Army more into popular touch. He had no hesitation in saying that a soldier

291
in time of peace was thought very little of, and military opinion carried little weight. The ordinary man at an election meeting would sooner listen to a politician than to the warnings of any soldier. He thought this scheme would do away with that state of things, and that in future authority in military matters would come from the people. When that came about he believed they would have the national defence of the country nearest to the people's hearts, and the voice crying in the wilderness would not be that of men like Lord Roberts, but that of men like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil.
*MR. REESsaid that possibly the Secretary of State for War would like to hear from a Member who had recently visited his constituency what sort of an impression the scheme had made upon a well-known military district. Welshpool was a district famous for soldiers in the past, and it had provided a great many men for the Auxiliary Forces, as well as large contributions to the Regulars. The march of Shropshire and Montgomeryshire, which gave the great Lord Clive, could and would find many a good soldier yet. He thought it was most important to know what the Volunteers and the class which supplied them thought of this new scheme. He was glad to be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman, after having been at great pains to find out, that they thought very well of his plans in his constituency, and the Volunteers in particular seemed to be extremely well satisfied. The people he represented were high spirited and patriotic, and did not look upon soldiering as a degrading profession. They were not in favour of conscription, but they were in, favour of a system under which men who were strong and well enough to serve should have an opportunity given to them of serving their country under a voluntary system. Consequently they approved of the scheme in so far as it related to the Volunteers. He did not find in his constituency the state of things which the hon. Member for Walsall said existed, namely, a total want of interest in such a subject as this. In the Montgomery district he found the keenest interest taken in what was contemplated under this scheme for the Volunteers, but he was not in a position to say that he found that the Militia were as
292
pleased with the scheme as the Volunteers. He was not competent to go into details of this question such as a soldier might discuss, but he might, he thought, venture to state that both the Militia and the Volunteers were anxious that the professional adjutant should be retained. He thought opinion was pretty unanimous upon that point. In view of the feeling engendered when the Cardwell reforms were introduced he expressed the hope that the present nomenclature would in some way be retained as far as possible, because he thought it was essential that names should be retained which would preserve as far as possible the individuality of the present regiments which was precious to the members of those particular regiments, because esprit de corps, and proper pride in individuality were conducive to discipline and to everything else that went to make a good fighting battalion. He did not know what the Secretary of State for War's intention was in that respect, and he was afraid that a Question which he put on the Paper recently was not very adroitly put, because he did not succeed in getting the desired information. If the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that there was a strong feeling on this subject, his object in raising it would have been attained. With regard to the Yeomanry, he believed there was a feeling existing such as had been referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newport, that it would be a great pity to deprive them during the period of training of anything which would tend to make that time a pleasant outing as well as a useful military training. He was inclined to think the Yeomanry would rejoice if the more stringent canteen regulations, or whatever they were, would be modified and matters left more upon the present footing. He was himself a supporter of the Bill, and he mentioned these matters because he knew the Volunteers in his own district favoured the scheme and were quite ready to come forward to make it a success in a public spirited manner. He thought it only right to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he believed, though he did not feel here upon such firm ground, that the other two branches of the force also shared this feeling but with reservation, and in his county he believed the men would come forward to serve their

293
country under the new scheme. It had been suggested to him by gentlemen well competent to express opinions that some little extra privileges might be given to Volunteers, and one of the things suggested was that those who joined under the new scheme should be exempted from jury service Another suggestion was that a bonus of something like £5 should be given to them, such as was given to Regulars when they took their discharge or went into the Reserve. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider those two suggestions he would be greatly obliged to him. He had heard some doubts expressed us to the value of these county committees, but so far as his own inquiries went, he would like to inform the House that he had heard nothing but good of them, and the general belief which had been expressed was that they would be very valuable recruiting agencies. He believed that employers would be ready and willing to give, within reasonable limits, and subject to certain remarks he had to make, such extensions of holidays as might be required, and they were quite ready to fall in with the spirit of the new scheme. Of course, after all, success must depend upon the Volunteers themselves. With regard to what the hon. Member for Richmond had said about the Lancashire Artillery Militia he thought it was only fair to state that that was not a representative, but a hybrid corps, in which there were a great many artillery men and officers from the line, and he was afraid the House would be likely to be misled if it took that corps as a typical Artillery Militia corps. He would not urge at the present time upon the House and the country the great expense which would be incurred by arming the Artillery Militia with a better gun, and he could not see against whom they were likely to have to use it, so long as they kept the Fleet up to the proper mark. But it was necessary that all branches of our Army, Regular or Auxiliary, infantry or artillery, should learn to shoot straight and that there should be no savings effected in the supply of powder. The greatest peacemaker living, President Roosevelt, said that the best way to keep peace was to learn to shoot straight. He thought it was highly necessary that practice with the guns should be developed as much as possible.
294
The other day he was reading a recent account of the Chinese Army. It seemed that upon one occasion a perplexed general invoked the aid of the god of war, and instead there appeared someone more like the god Bacchus. The colonel said that what he wanted was the god of war, but he received the reply that the god of war was otherwise engaged, and that the visitor was the target god, and as none of the Chinese artillerymen or other soldiers had ever done him any harm in their lives he had come to see what help he could give the general in his turn. They did not want the target god in this country to be on the best possible terms with the artillery of the Territorial Army or any other force, and he believed that money should be forthcoming and arrangements should be made for a proper and sufficient practice for the artillery of the Territorial Army. There was one other matter which he would like to mention, and that was the references to India made in the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean.
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, further proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND LAND PURCHASE.
*MR. TOULMINrose to call attention to the powers of purchasing and holding land enjoyed by local authorities, and to move a Resolution declaring that, in the opinion of the House, a measure was urgently needed enabling local authorities to acquire by agreement or compulsorily land needed for the requirments of the inhabitants, the purchase price being definitely based upon the value at which such land was assessed for purposes of taxation. This question, he said, lay at the root of all the social questions with which they had to deal. There was too much rather than too little evidence on the question, the inquiries held from time to time into small holdings, rural housing, and town holdings, and other matters, having shown how the inability to buy land affected the whole of the local authorities of the country. Most students of the question were familiar with their Reports. Nor was it necessary to give the House

295
statistics of overcrowding in towns and in the country districts. The difficulty arose from the nature of the land, which was different from every other necessity of life. It was the basis of all life and industry; it was indispensable to all men and could not be made by any man; and position was of the essence of its value—it could not be moved; water, building materials, and food could be brought in to supply a scarcity. The possession of land also gave an arbitrary power over the persons and the property of the inhabitants which it was the duty of the State to diminish rather than protect. This power was intensified in cities. In a debate which took place in that House in 1890 the present Lord Chancellor said—
"Urban land had a special increment in value which arose solely when it became vitally necessary in the interest of a, congested population, and it was that which differentiated it from all other classes of property."
It was this vital factor in modern life which was left in the hands of private owners to withhold from use at their own irresponsible will except after long and costly processes for some definite scheme. The evils of the existence of this tyrannical power became more unbearable as cities grew. Industries and labour engaged therein centred more and more in cities. Almost all cities and all industries lived, as it were, in a hostile country. Every town was beleaguered, was in a state of siege, and if it desired to expand its dwellings or works it must pay ransom to the surrounding landholders, who, as such, preyed only on its vitality and did not increase, its prosperity. These things had been said before by, he believed, every member of the Ministry from the latest recruit on the Treasury bench to the Lord Chancellor and the Premier. In his great appeal to the country the Premier said that the land should become less of a pleasure ground for the rich, and more of a treasure house for the people. One might transpose the statement and say that the land should become less of a treasure house for the rich, and more of a pleasure ground for the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had in a speech denounced the present system which enabled a landowner capriciously, or from a mistaken sense of his own interest, to refuse to allow the use of his land for building and other purposes, though it was absolutely
296
necessary for the due development of the community. The right hon. Gentleman had further stated that there was no power vested in the community to obtain the land which was so essential to its life and health, and that while the land was lying idle it did not contribute, under our law, a single penny to defray the growing expenses of the community. Even if the owner did sell, it only widened the lines of circumvallation within which the poor must dwell. The poor man must live near his work, but the rich man could daily escape to cheaper land. Again, if the landlord did sell, it was not by one single indemnity but successive indemnities, inch by inch almost, that the right to live and the right to work was bought. If the community by one great indemnity on any reasonable basis could ransom its life from the restraining bonds in which is was held the cost would be soon recouped. The Secretary of State for India, in supporting the Motion by the present Lord Chancellor in 1890, said that if Mills's advice had been taken in 1870 or so "enough would have been intercepted to meet the demand of a great society like the Metropolis." He would instance one or two cases to show the difference to the city possessing land instead of being in the hands of such a landlord as he had described. In 1635 Lord Molyneux purchased the lordship of Liverpool for £450, and speedily began to assert his rights. The corporation resented this, and bought of him a lease of 1,000 acres in Lord Street district for 999 years, at a fixed rental of £30. Recently a small plot at the corner of Exchange Street was sold at a rate equal to £1,093,840 per acre. Fifty years ago the annual value of this 1,000 acres was estimated to be £50,000. In 1837 Liverpool owned an estate worth £3,000,000; in the last forty-five years that estate had doubled in value. The result of this far reaching policy had been that last year Liverpool had an amount of £147,000 from land and buildings to set against the rates, amounting to a reduction of l0d. in the pound. In his own town of Preston the burgesses obtained certain rights under King John, they were continued under Henry II. at a fixed rent, and the inhabitants bought the fee farm rent from the Commonwealth for a comparatively small sum. It was bought over again from Charles II. with impartial loyalty. That land had been

297
of tremendous value to Preston for their parks, electricity works, destructors, etc., and there had been a constant check on land speculation. In the parish of Plumstead an estate of 250 acres was valued in 1845 when the income was £750, at about £15,000. An increase in the Government works at Woolwich necessitated additional house accommodation and this increase was inevitable, and not speculative. If the locality could have purchased the estate what would have been the position now? The income was now £15,000 per annum. By 1915, when the seventy years leases expired the landlord would have received about £1,000,000 in additional rent, and in less than ten years he would get property worth £1,000,000 by reversion. The descendants of the men who built the property would have nothing. He would like to refer to what had taken place in New Zealand. There large estates were given over to sheep and a few hired labourers. Many owners sat down and waited for the Government to build roads, railways, and bridges, when they would be able to realise at a profit. The Government met the emergency. Measures were taken to prevent that being done, and where there were formerly a few hired shepherds there were now hundreds if not thousands of settlers. What were the present powers of local authorities? Generally it might be taken as a working principle that Land was only to be acquired by corporations under the authority of a statute, and then only sufficient for a specific purpose. The power given was only compulsory where the object to be attained was of great and pressing importance, and where there would be obvious difficulty in getting land by agreement. In other cases the power was generally merely given to purchase land in the open market. In almost every case these powers had, for some reason or other, been very jealously limited by Parliament, and care always seemed to be exercised to prevent local authorities taking more land than was strictly necessary for their immediate purpose. What was more, an owner was able to force the local authority to purchase the whole of his property; but the local authority was bound to sell the surplus. There were also certain special powers for allotments, housing, small holdings, etc., but the Acts
298
were full of restrictions and of provisions which obstructed their working. If land was bought for one purpose, the whole process had to be gone over again if that land were devoted to another purpose; whereas a private owner bought land out and out. The one thing which seemed to be denied to the local authorities was the exercise of foresight and intelligent anticipation of future needs. However inevitable expansion might be, land could only be acquired by local authorities by a definite scheme and plan backed by Provisional Order or Bill, with full notice to everybody and after the civic war of the arbitration court. Let them take some cases of the expense of purchase. The Glasgow Corporation required for an improvement sixty yards of ground. £700 was asked for it, and £122 was awarded by the arbiters. The expenses of the purchase, however, paid by the Corporation amounted to £1,052—£407 for the claimant, £365 for the arbiters, and £280 expenses incurred by the corporation. There was another case in which £1,000 was claimed, and £279 was granted; while the expenses amounted to £460. Efforts had been made to reduce these costs by limited arbitration. At Bury a couple of cottages; were bought for widening a roadway, at a cost of £115; and the arbitration expenses reached £43 14s. 4d. Then in the case of the Water Board there wore eight arbitrations, and it was agreed that only one arbitrator should sit; no counsel or solicitors were employed, and only one witness in each case was called. Yet the cost of buying land to the value of £10,525 reached £836. In another case a farm was bought for £1,670, and the cost of the purchase amounted up to £288. A small country public-house was valued at £1,780, and the arbitration expenses amounted to £608. However absurd the claims of the owner might be, the corporation had always to pay the cost. In regard to the expense of purchase of land in the country, he would take the case mentioned by Sir Edmund Verney, who said—
"We have a system of land encumbrances built up during many generations by the must skilful lawyers the world has ever seen. With the result that, when u labourer, or a farmer, or a small capitalist wants to buy a plot of land for a small holding, be finds even a willing landowner helplessly enmeshed in settlements, mortgages, charges, and claims, which choke his every effort."

299
Of this Sir Edmund Verney gave the following amusing example—
"A few years ago after selling a row of four cottages with small gardens attached, I went to the solicitor for my money, and he presented me with his bill showing that the expense of the sale had not only swallowed up the whole of the purchase money, but that a sum of £25 was still owing to him."
Those difficulties would always exist until a sound Valuation Bill was brought in, and passed into law. A good many people thought that a Valuation Bill might supply a basis—not fix—but be a basis for the actual price to be given to the owner of the land purchased, be a factor in determining the purchase money. Neither the national nor local taxation assessment bore any relation to the price the public had to pay for land. Valuation for death duties bore no relation to the price which the nation must pay if it found that it wanted a site for a barracks, say on Salisbury Plain. Assessments for local taxation bore no relation to the price of land if that were required for water works. A Valuation Bill had been promised which should secure a separate land valuation bearing a just relation to the value of the land, and the price to be paid for it. There would necessarily be certain expenses for severance and removal; but the dominant factor should be the valuation for local and national taxation. That would enable the public to purchase land at a fair value. If the assessment was not fair, let it be made fair. He and his hon. friends who supported the Resolution were not proposing that the landlord should be taxed out of existence, though that charge was sometimes made against them. But even that might not be inequitable if the process was sufficiently long drawn out. However, he would not argue that point now. What they wanted was that the purchase should be made at a fair price. No raven on a withered branch need croak "confiscation" at the resolution he had moved. But if confiscation was mentioned they must look at both sides. When Leeds was undertaking a great waterworks scheme, the city required 400 acres, which had been rated at 10s. an acre. But the price asked for that land was very nearly £200,000, or at the rate of 998 years purchase. The effect of that was to decrease the chance of employment and to increase the cost of living in Leeds. There was nobody in Leeds who had not
300
some part of his earnings confiscated by such a price. The Postmaster-Generalin a recent speech said that—
"The existing state of things was confiscation of the property of the community by a few individuals."
SIR F. BANBUKY: Might I ask what Leeds did pay for the land?
*MR. TOULMINsaid he could not say.
SIR F. BANBURY: What they asked does not matter.
*MR. TOULMINthought it did matter. It showed what the landlords thought they were entitled to extort from the community. He would not ask at the present moment how those landowners had got this power, or on what terms they had obtained the land. He made no charge against persons, but he did charge the House of Commons with too long allowing this question to remain unsolved. Another charge which was made in regard to the change which he advocated was that if the powers of public bodies were extended they would be more than ever open to jobbery. He ventured to suggest that the more the plunder, the more the corruption; and that if the plunder were decreased, the jobbery would decrease. The experience of other countries proved this, and that the extended powers given to local authorities for the purchase of ' land rather tended to extinguish the mere speculator. It was feared that there might be wholesale land speculation by local authorities. He did not think that was well founded, because local authorities were rather difficult to move, than prone to rush into rash ventures. He maintained that our municipalities and county councils were conservative in action. In his opinion, land reform should take the direction of increasing the powers of the local authorities who could safely be trusted. In the cities they had vaster problems to face than were recorded in any previous age. Our civilisation would either sink or develop into a finer flower than the world had ever yet known. With its attention distracted in a hundred ways, the House of Commons could not be the directing force. That must be found in the patriotic labours of the foremost citizens of great cities whose hands the House

301
should not tie. This was not a political move on the part of himself and the supporters of the Resolution. The problem was pressing on every growing municipality. Five hundred and fifty rating authorities had joined to support the committee working for the taxation of ground values, and they were looking forward to a Government Valuation Bill. The House had no time to ascertain the needs of localities; the localities themselves must have powers to deal with the evils in their midst. In cities power should de given to the local authority to foresee their development, to lay out the land which would be occupied in the future, to extend the industrial area, to crush the slums without imposing an intolerable financial burden on the community. In the country a career ought to be found for the labourer, who should have a public authority to ensure security for the cottage in which he dwelt. Did hon. Members ever think of the brooding uncertainty of a country labourer who was a weekly tenant, and knew not when he might lose his cottage, or where he could go afterwards? If Parliament did its duty the gross tyranny of such a case as was mentioned by the present Lord Chancellor when he moved his Resolution on land values in 1890 would be impossible. That was the case of a Devonshire village, the inhabitants of which bore the same names as were recorded in Domesday Book. The landlord considered that it was too expensive to re-build the cottages of the fisherfolk which were falling into disrepair; and half the population was driven away, because the fisherfolk did not work for the farmers on the landlord's land. If the county council were given compulsory powers to buy land they would have a ready instrument by which to fight such tyranny as that. He had passed a self-denying ordinance as to the time that he thought a Member ought to occupy in moving a Resolution such as this. He had reached that limit, and would therefore beg to move.
*MR. WALTERS, in seconding the Resolution, said it was only necessary for him to occupy a short time, because the proposer had dealt with the subject in a very comprehensive manner. He had proposed to quote a number of figures, but he would
302
content himself with giving an illustration in one concrete case. It had reference to a town of over 200,000 population, of which he had very close and intimate knowledge. He took the trouble sometime ago carefully to collect figures from conveyances and legal documents as to the value of unbuilt-on land adjacent to houses, and he found that between 1872 and 1902 the value had increased to such an extent that the increase if capitalised at 3 per cent. yielded a sufficient sum of money not only to pay the entire rates of the borough, but to leave a considerable sum of money for distribution among the ratepayers. These figures came upon him with such overwhelming force that he decided he would do everything he could to help forward the increase of power for the purchase of land by local authorities and municipalities generally. That was a phenomenal case, but, to a lesser extent, in the last fifty years, in all the large centres of population, that sort of thing had gone on, and it would continue to go on, and the improved land values would go in an increasing proportion into the pockets of private landowners unless the House of Commons intercepted at least a portion of that value. He did not blame the landlords. They only did what business men would do; they took advantage of opportunities for making money. He blamed the House of Commons for depriving local authorities and municipalities of the power of preventing these men making money. The question was, ought local authorities to have such a power? Why should power be given to local authorities for specific and not for general purposes? One strong reason why they should have these powers was that the aggregation of population in large centres was responsible for this increase of land values, while that very aggregation threw upon the local authorities a large expenditure in reference to public health and other matters. It seemed to him that if that increase in values, and the increased expenditure of local authorities were effects of the same cause, surely those two effects might be made interdependent, and the increased value of land in a large town should be used to meet at least some of the expenditure which the aggregation of population in large centres involved. The present state of things imposed a burden upon private enterprise, but always when they asked for increased

303
power for municipalities or the State, vested interests stepped in and said that to give it would check enterprise and injure trade and commerce. In this case the exact reverse would be the result, because trade and commerce were seriously hampered by the high prices which had to be paid for land, and still more by the heavy rates which had to be paid in order to deal with the problems which these large centres of population created. He need not dwell upon the housing difficulty, but he would say that the private ownership of land upon which large houses, great works, and business, premises had to be built, meant a considerable burden upon and was a serious; check to private industry. The Resolution would not involve confiscation. They were not suggesting that the local authorities should appropriate the land, but that they should pay for it. He did not think the strongest advocate of the rights of property would suggest that it was the skill and energy of the landlords which had created these values., It was the skill and energy of the community which had created them. The owner of the land might have exercised the faculty of foresight or have been wise enough to select as a father or grandfather somebody who owned land, but the increased wealth was created by the community and they ought not to allow the landowner to step in and take it. There were some cases in which the wealth was clearly purely communal or social, and there wore other cases in which the wealth was purely the result of private enterprise; but he ventured to suggest; that the growth in land values, in consequence of the growth of population, was not in any sense the result of private enterprise, but was directly the result of the efforts of the community, and was social or communal wealth, which ought to belong to the community at large. He could understand someone saying that the proposed powers would not be used with discretion and judgment, but there was the German example to refer to. There were German towns where they had actually realised the dream which he had indulged in. In regard to some of these towns, they had actually paid all the rates and had a balance to distribute among the fortunate ratepayers. That was, not only the case in Germany, but many towns in this country had promoted
304
omnibus Bills under which they had purchased large tracts of land compulsorily and had acquired powers to reclaim, develop and lease them; in those cases the process had been conducted very successfully and a considerable sum of money had been the result. It was not likely that if these powers were granted to local authorities they would enter into competition and become rash speculators. What was proposed was not that county councils or corporations should buy and sell land, going into the market buying one day and selling another, but they wanted them to take the place of the ground landlords and acquire land, hold and lease it for building purposes, the erection of houses, great works, and business premises generally. If the powers were granted they must be exercised in a satisfactory manner, because before a municipality could buy any tract of land they must formulate their scheme, and submit it to the central authority, who would consider whether it was a wise and prudent scheme, whether they were giving a reasonable price, and whether they had a reasonable prospect of making the scheme successful. He would go even further than that, and say that the powers of purchase should be limited to a sum proportionate to the rateable value of the locality. That was not a revolutionary proposal at all; it was a cautious, moderate, and even a conservative scheme, and ought to win the assent of even the most cautious Member, of the House. If the cases of any of our large towns were examined. Members would be amazed at the prices paid for sites for police stations, libraries, post offices, and for acquiring open spaces and parks, and for other ordinary public purposes — prices largely in excess of those for which the property could have been purchased a few years earlier. It was not, therefore, a matter of spending enormous sums of money, but of buying land at the right time, from the right person — from the original owner instead of from the land speculator—and at the right price. He ventured to say that if the powers thus conferred were judiciously exercised in the way he had indicated nothing could benefit the general community more, for in such a case the local authority simply became the ground

305
landlord. He would just point out one or two other incidental advantages which would come from such a scheme. It would in the first place steady the price of land in the locality. In growing towns there were alarming and rapid increases of price from the standpoint of the purchaser, although they were very gratifying from the standpoint of the vendor. Those behind the scenes knew that little arrangements were arrived at between the landowners who controlled the market, and they simultaneously raised the price of land. If the proposed power wore given to local authorities they could acquire tracts of land, and, fixing the price in a reasonable manner, steady the market and prevent other landowners from charging excessive prices. They could also prevent by compulsion land being hold out of the market. That was a very serious difficulty in many districts in the North of England, especially in Lancashire, where towns had been dwarfed and stunted because they could not buy certain estates, and instead of going forward in a natural area of development they had had to find a way round in other directions. If the Resolution were passed it would prevent the holding of land out of the market and the consequent artificial inflation of prices. The House was well aware that it very often happened that settled estates or encumbered estates became ripe for development, but the owners had no capital to make the roads and place the estate on the market. The only way of obtaining capital in such cases was by the introduction of a land syndicate. To the owners of such estates it would be a positive boon to be able to sell to a local authority who could develop them. From the point of view of the owners of many estates, such powers vested in the local authorities would be a great advantage. With regard to the method of purchase, they did not want the Lands Clauses Act method, with the 10 per cent. added for forced sale and disturbance, and its costly machinery of lawyers and surveyors, which enormously increased the cost of the land to be bought. They wanted some simple, rapid, and fair process. The method proposed in the Resolution suggested or assumed an entire revolution in the method of rating. He did not want to wait for that, he wanted power now. He wanted as soon as possible power to buy land by private
306
treaty and to hold it and lease it and develop it for general building purposes. He believed a large part of the problem would be solved if they had that power. But in addition they must have compulsory powers to bring contumacious landlords to book. If such a man knew that if he did not deal he could be made to deal, he would be a more reasonable person to negotiate with. The matter was not entirely a financial one; there were other matters to consider. However successful they might be in bringing the people back to the land the great majority of the people in this country must always be town dwellers, and therefore the towns should be made as healthy, happy, and comfortable as possible. This was largely a children's question. The present condition of some parts of our cities could not but result in the physical and moral deterioration of those who dwelt in them. The machinery he had outlined would, he believed, work an economic revolution in many of our great towns and cities, and he pleaded for its inauguration in the interests of the amenities of our crowded centres, the health of the children, and the moral and material well-being of the community generally. He cordially seconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, a measure is urgently needed enabling local authorities to acquire, by agreement or compulsorily, and by simple and inexpensive machinery, such land within or adjoining their several districts as may, in their judgment, be needed for the requirements of the inhabitants; and further that, in all such cases of land acquisition, the purchase price should be definitely based upon the value at which such land is assessed for purposes of taxation."—(Mr. Toulmin.)
SIR P. BANBURYsaid he had listened very carefully to the two speeches in support of the Motion, and the first thing that impressed itself on his mind was that the speech of the seconder differed materially from that of the proposer, who had said nothing about safeguards. The beautiful picture of "flowers and trees and green grass" drawn by the mover would not be realised, because the unfortunate ratepayer whose local authority adopted the Resolution would find the rates so

307
high under the ordinary conditions of human life in our towns that he would have to go elsewhere. The substitution of one landlord for another would not prevent overcrowding. The hon. Member had pointed to the prosperity of Liverpool, and claimed that it was due to the corporation's having bought land. But the hon. Gentleman did not complete his argument. He would complete it for him, but the result might not be the same. He would take London as an illustration. London had not bought land of its own, but London was just as prosperous as Liverpool, and the rates in London were no higher than in Liverpool.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. MACNAMARA,): You ought to have said that during the county council election.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid that though former governors of Liverpool had purchased land, yet the prosperity of London was as great as the prosperity of Liverpool, and therefore the argument fell to the ground. They could purchase property in London without buying the land, and yet the prosperity of London was just as great as that of the city of Liverpool.
SIR EDWIN CORNWALL: What part of London— Poplar or the City?
SIR F. BANBURYsaid they had to take London as a whole. It was perfectly easy to pick out one isolated part, but that would not answer. It was perfectly easy to take parts of Liverpool and parts of London, but that did not alter his argument in the least. They had to to prove first of all that London was not prosperous and that Liverpool was, and, secondly, that the rates of Liverpool were generally lower than the rates of London. He maintained that they could not do either. The hon. Member had given several instances where local authorities had incurred great expense in buying land, and had said that in some instances there had been a big loss. But that had nothing whatever to do with the power of purchasing land. The hon. Gentleman was not content with revolutionising the system of land purchase,
308
but he wanted also to abolish the lawyer. He did not know whether that would be a good thing or not; he was rather afraid to say that it would be a good thing, because of the proximity of his hon. and learned friend on his left. The question before the House was whether the local authority should have power to enter into land speculation at all, whether it should have more powers than it had at present to acquire land, and whether it was advisable to make those powers compulsory. But in any case would the local authorities be able to obtain sufficient money to carry out the powers given to them? Neither mover nor seconder had alluded to the question of finance. They appeared to think local authorities could raise any amount of money. They were completely wrong. The tremendous growth of the debts of municipal authorities made it impossible to borrow except at greatly increased rates of interest. Wore local authorities to buy simply because in 200 years time the land might become valuable? It would be difficult to find a local authority with the business capacity to buy exactly the part of the country which was going to increase in value. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that all land was going to increase in value, but local authorities who had bought land in the country thirty or forty years ago would have lost very large sums of money. Land had gone down in value all over the country. Again, what were the possibilities of municipal authorities finding large sums of money at present? The local indebtedness four years ago, excluding Ireland, was £452,000,000, and that did not include the unfunded debt of the municipal authorities. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that there was magic in big figures, and that the more they were in debt the happier they would be. He had always looked upon the reverse as the truth. [An Hon. Member: 'What about the assets? '] He would deal with that question presently. The local indebtedness of the country had increased between 1893 and 1903 by no less a sum than £73,000,000. The National Nebt was altogether £742,000,000 as against the £452,000,000 of the local authorities, which did not include their unfunded debt. What was the result? Everyone who knew anything about municipal finance knew that at present municipal authorities

309
were unable to borrow in the market, and had borrowed from their bankers to such an extent that the bankers were refusing to advance any more money on any terms at all. They had been obliged to resort to two or three years' bills in the open market, but had exhausted even that supply, and were in an extremely awkward position.
MR. CHIOZZA-MONEYsaid the clerks of a number of municipal authorities had informed him that those statements were entirely erroneous.
SIR F. BANBUTRYsaid he happened to be a director of a bank, and, although he could not reveal secrets, he could assure the hon. Member that the banking accounts of the municipal corporations told quite a different tale, whatever the chief clerks might say. Where was the profit to come in if the municipalities borrowing money at 3½ per cent, bought land at anything like a fair value? At present everybody knew that manufacturers were heavily rated, and it was said that the owner of the land on which the works were built made a profit. It was argued that if the municipality had bought the land on which those factories stood the rates could have been saved. But how could hon. Gentlemen have it both ways? If the ratepayers were going to make the profits that the landlord had made, then the manufacturers must pay just the same as they did now. Did the hon. Member imagine that municipalities could stretch the land? What he evidently meant was that they would put fewer houses upon it, and if they did that they would got less income. If in these land speculations the municipalities found that they could not make a profit, who would lose? Why, the people living in the ocher part of the town, who would gain nothing by the transaction, but would have to pay the loss incurred by their neighbours living in a better street. If a man was clever and possessed the foresight to buy land advantageously in some particular locality he might make a fortune out of it, but to suppose that the majority of our municipalities would have the foresight to do the same thing was taxing the belief of any ordinary man beyond the bounds of reason. Municipalities would be dealing with other people's money, and consequently they would be inclined to be
310
venturesome. An instructive experience of municipal land-buying was afforded by the late London County Council's investment in land five years ago in the very centre of London. London was a town that was prospering and growing. Yet this experiment on the part of the County Council had resulted in a heavy loss to the ratepayer, for the land was still vacant. In land speculations, to be successful, they wanted to know when to buy and where to buy, and it was easy to be wise after the event. He intended to divide the House against the Resolution.
*MR. GEORGE ROBERTSsaid that all those who were interested in social reform realised that the land question was one of the most important which could come under the consideration of the House. Land had been called the mother, and labour the father, of all wealth, and it was because they believed the land question to be indissolubly connected with labour that the Labour Members were particularly pleased that this Resolution had been brought under the consideration of the House. Some people were still of the opinion that the private ownership of land was justifiable, but he thought they would all agree with him when he said that social interests ought to prevail over private concerns. To-day they found that municipalities had great need for land, and the great obstacles to the acquirement of the land necessary for their needs were the landlord, private ownership, and the desire to secure fancy prices. There was a general tendency for towns to spread, and he thought the House would readily admit that that was beneficial to the health and in the best interests of the community as a whole. It was not a pleasant spectacle to see people herded together in the condition they were in at present, and he was very anxious that municipalities should be encouraged to erect houses outside their areas, to provide improved methods of transit, and in that way to improve the health of the community. At present municipalities found the acquisition of land very difficult and complicated, and consequently they were asking for further powers in order that the unearned increment which would naturally accrue as the result of the increase in the population and the development of industry should be

311
devoted to the best interests of the community as a whole, and not be allowed to swell the private profits of the land-owning class. In his opinion it was a wrong thing that people should be able to hold land in order to get fancy prices later on. That kind of extortion made the purchase of land by municipalities prohibitive. They were asking in this Resolution that municipalities should have the power not only to purchase land but to hold it in view of the probable development of a particular district. The hon. Baronet who represented the City of London seemed to think that the rates were the one thing which would alarm the people, but he could assure him that the question of rents was a very serious matter for the working classes. It was well known that the enhanced value extorted by landlords where municipalities had been obliged to acquire land was reflected in higher rents than would otherwise have obtained if the land had been secured at a reasonable figure. The demand for a reform of this state of things did not come from one section of the House only. Speaking on 10th February, 1899, Mr. Asquith propounded what he called "a simple and very intelligible programme," and referring to the first item in that programme, he said—
"In the first place you ought to give to the local authority of every urban community vastly larger powers than it at present possesses for the compulsory acquisition of land upon terms which would make it possible for the community to employ the land so acquired with advantage to its own interest."
They were glad on that occasion to be in hearty accord with that very sound expression of opinion from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He proposed to show the House how the land question vitally affected the life and health of the people. The question of overcrowding had already been touched upon, and he was fearful that even some hon. Members hardly realised the extent to which that evil prevailed in the country. Nearly one-third of the population lived in an overcrowded condition. In 1904 the Manchester Citizens Aid Association published a valuable Report on the housing conditions in Manchester and Salford, which showed that 34,000 overcrowded persons lived in Manchester, and 16,000 in Salford—a total of 60,000 people. The 1901 census showed that London had 300,000 one-room dwellers. The same
312
census figures showed that in the town groups of Scotland there were not less than a million overcrowded one and two-room dwellers. These figures pointed to a prevalent evil, and he felt that if the municipalities were invested with larger powers of land acquisition it would be a direct encouragement to them to go on with the erection of houses outside their particular areas in order to obviate the evil of overcrowding. As to the health of the community, he felt that they were beginning to understand that that was a question closely related to that of the housing of the people. They had come now to know that in consumption, "The Great White Plague," as Oliver Wendell Holmes called it, we had nature's unmistakable protest against the unnatural conditions under which masses of our people lived. The celebrated German scientist, Dr. Koch, said that—
"The overcrowded dwellings of the poor are the real breeding-places of tuberculosis;"
that—
"it is out of them that the disease always crops up anew;"
and that—
"it is to the abolition of these conditions that we must first and foremost direct our attention if we wish to attack the evil at its root, and to wage war against it with effective weapons."
It was a matter for politicians as well as doctors. Consumption was at bottom a phase of the housing problem, the housing problem was but a phase of the land question. It was not merely an urban question. He believed that in the rural districts something might be done to improve the dwellings of the agricultural population. He thought it was a saddening sight that the agricultural population in some parts were herded into little huts into which many people would not put their dogs or pet animals, while thousands of acres of land were lying idle. A few months ago, through the caprice of a landlord, a relative of his own, an agricultural labourer, received notice to quit his little house, and there was no possibility of securing shelter for his domestic chattels from one end of the town to the other, and yet all around the town there were many acres of land lying idle. The local council had no power to acquire that land in order that the people might be housed. He was glad that the latter

313
part of the Resolution indicated a basis on which such hind might be purchased. There were cases which showed how municipalities had been subject to great extortion at the hands of landlords. The Corporation of Leeds some time ago had to purchase from Lord Masham 400 acres. The rateable value of the land was £6,000; the price asked was £196,000; and the price awarded was £46,000. It might be said that, after all, Lord Masham was simply a good business man. Admitting that, he wished to see the municipality exercising equal business capacity on behalf of the community. The Government had occasion some years ago to buy some land from Sir Michael Hicks Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn. The price demanded and ultimately received was eighty years purchase. He felt that no land reformer advocating a scheme of land purchase would ever give countenance to such an exorbitant price.
MR. HICKS BEACHasked whether the hon. Member was aware that the case was submitted to arbitration. It was not a question of extortion.
*MR. GEORGE ROBERTSsaid he was not concerned whether it was submitted to arbitration or not. He was concerned with the basis of the purchase, and he respectfully submitted that eighty years purchase was a most extortionate price for the nation to have to pay. The Admiralty paid eighty years purchase for land acquired at Rosyth. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham told a Parliamentary Committtee that the land acquired by the Birmingham Corporation for the Corporation Street improvement cost £400,000 more than it ought to have done. Mr. S. Laing had estimated that landlords had extorted many millions over the value of the land appropriated to railway purposes. Interest, of course, had to be earned on that capital, and that must reflect itself in the rates charged for transit as well as on the wages of the workers. If municipalities had the power to hold land, they might be able to carry out useful experiments during periods of acute unemployment. He thought the shopkeeper of London pursued a shortsighted policy during the recent County
314
Council election, because whilst the landlords were able to extort in the shape of rent one-third, and in some cases one-half the wages of the workers, it necessarily followed that those workers had much less to spend on the other necessaries of life.
DR. MACNAMARAthought the Motion touched one of the most acute and urgent of the many problems which confronted social reformers. Whether they considered rural depopulation, overcrowding inn the great towns, lack of employment, physical deterioration, or, indeed, any one of the dozen other social and economic problems, they found themselves at an early stage of their investigation getting back to the land every time. Perhaps the House would allow him to state how the local authorities stood in respect of the power of compulsorily acquiring land. At the present time local authorities could only; acquire land compulsorily for some specific and immediate purpose connected with the performance of their statutory duties. Generally speaking, all local authorities could acquire land under compulsion for carrying out the obligations statutorily laid on them. Except in certain cases, such as electric operations and operations under the Burial Acts, land could be acquired under compulsion. All local authorities, except county councils and parish councils, could compulsorily acquire land under the Public Health Act of 1875; but in that case the Provisional Order must be confirmed by Parliament. AH local authorities, except parish councils, could compulsorily acquire land under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. Rural district councils could not acquire land compulsorily under Part 1 of the Act; but in all other cases, if the Provisional Order was not opposed it could be sanctioned by the Local Government Board. He ought to add that in all operations under Part 3 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the Provisional Order must be sanctioned by Parliament whether opposed or not. Parish councils under the Local Government Act of 1894 might acquire under compulsion land for burial grounds, public libraries, allotments, recreation grounds, parish rooms, and so on; but in these cases the Provisional Order was secured from the comity council and confirmed by the Local

315
Government Board. That was a very short statement of the existing law. As he had said, at present a local authority could only acquire land for some specific and immediate purpose connected with the performance of its statutory duties. Further, a local authority had no power to apply land which it had acquired for one purpose to another purpose inconsistent with the original purpose, although it might be no longer possible to use the land in the way originally intended. In that case, indeed, it appeared to be the primary duty of the local authority under the Lands Clauses Act and Section 175 of the Public Health Act of 1875 to dispose of any land found to be superfluous for the immediate purposes for which it was purchased. From an urban point of view some local authorities naturally enough, especially big urban authorities, complained that in the existing state of the law they were debarred from seizing favourable opportunities for acquiring, at a moderate price, land in the suburbs of their district that might ultimately be required for public purposes, and were compelled to wait until the need for the land had actually arisen, by which time, owing to various causes, such as the increase of population or improvements effected by the local authorities themselves, the value of the property had become advanced. The Town Council of Sheffield a few months since invited other town councils to join in a representation to the effect that these bodies should be enabled to acquire land, when they found suitable opportunities for so doing, and to have adequate borrowing powers without at the same time stating definitely for what particular purpose the land should be used. He understood that forty municipalities joined in that representation. That was the position of the great municipal authorities. But let them take the rural side of the problem. The House had had before it within the last two or three weeks two very remarkable Reports by Select Committees. The first was the Report of the Rural Housing Select Committee, which was presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chippenhan. That Committee reported—
"No reform in connection with rural housing can be of any effective use unless further facilities for the acquisition of land are given."
316
And then they went on to say that—
"Machinery under the Housing Acts for the compulsory acquisition of land is very complicated."
And they further pointed out that—
"Local authorities will often be prepared to pay more than the market value for the land required rather than undergo the uncertainty and delay which a resort to compulsory powers now involves."
They added—
"No solution will be satisfactory which does not enable local authorities to purchase land compulsorily for any public purpose, including housing, drainage, small holdings, etc., upon a basis of its rateable value."
The principal conclusion of this Rural Housing Committee was that the difficulty of obtaining land was one of the chief causes for rural depopulation. From that they passed to a very significant association between rural depopulation and the problem of town unemployment. The Report sot forth that—
"The Committee have had evidence to show that the greater proportion of persons in distressed circumstances in London and the larger provincial towns—the unemployed and the unemployable—are town bred and not country bred.…Out of nearly 10,000 men out of work or in irregular casual emploément, as found in Salvation Army and Church Army houses and shelters and in Rowton Houses by the distress committees, and amongst dock labourers, the percentage of town bred men ranged from 86 to 94 per cent. On the other hand, out of the total number of men employed in a selected number of larger undertakings and industries such as the Post Office, police, municipal service, railways, gas works, breweries, stores, etc, early in the year 1906, 46 per cent, were country born."
They arrived at the conclusion, first that rural depopulation sprang, to some extent, from the land problem; and, secondly, that unemployment in towns sprang to some extent out of rural depopulation. The land problem, therefore, and unemployment were very far from being entirely unconnected. He was bound to say, as he had listened to heated discussions in the House on the application of a few thousand pounds for the immediate mitigation of hardship due to unemployment, he had often felt that the real problem before them was the slow and painful process of removing causes of unemployment by wise measures of social reform, not the least amongst which was the serious overhauling of the land problem. Still on the rural side, there was a remarkable Report recently laid upon the Table by the Select Committee

317
on Small Holdings, of which Lord Onslow was Chairman. That Committee made two prime recommendations. First they said—
"That in addition to the machinery provided by the Small Holdings Act, 1892, the provision of small holdings should be assisted by the direct intervention of a central Government Department."
And they added that—
"In the event of the central Government Department, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, being unable to obtain by agreement land required for these operations compulsory powers should be conferred."
The hon. Member for Leith Burghs made an interesting reservation to the recommendations generally, in the course of which he said—
"It would indeed be an immense advantage were urban communities owners of adjacent lands like the ancient burghs of Scotland and the modern cities of Germany. The use of such land by the urban population, as in France, is with us comparatively unknown, and were the council landowner, with a regular estate policy, all communal interests in cultivation, administration, and revenue would best be served. This simple and effective machinery, while securing existing rights subject only to expropriation where necessary, would amply secure the public interest."
This interesting reference induced him to look abroad for a moment. The House was aware of the fact that for some years many German towns had adopted the policy of steadily acquiring land, and the success of the policy was so marked that a few years ago the Prussian Government issued a rescript to provincial governors to use all their influence to induce all Prussian towns to extend the policy. At the close of 1902, the area of land owned by thirty-one large towns varied from ten to 365square yards per head of the population. Only seven in the thirty-one had less than twenty-four square yards per head; six, had from twenty-four to sixty; nine had from sixty to 120—Berlin had eighty-five—five had from 120 to 240, and four had over 240 square yards per head. Since 1902 nearly all these towns had actively increased their holding. In 1892 there was a very interesting inquiry instituted in certain parts of Germany as to land owned by townships, big or little. The Burgomaster of Treis on the Moselle wrote—
"The Burgomastery of Treis consists of an area of 25,000 acres. Of these more than 12,500 acres belong to the parishes. All local needs are met from the common purse. Then
318
each burgher receives his firing on payment of half or one-third of its value, and twenty-five to thirty acres of cultivable land for his lifetime."
Sigmaringen (Hohenzollern), a place of about 200 households, had 1,050 acres of wood and 1,650 acres of meadow and cultivable land. The current local taxes were covered from the revenue, a sum of £63 was given for common purposes, a sum of £133 was devoted to paying the State taxes of the burghers, and 1,700 cubic metres of firewood were divided among thorn. Phillipsburg (Baden), with 2,400 inhabitants, had 1,017½ acres of wood and 1,285 acres of meadow and cultivated fields. Görlitz (Schlesia) a town of 83,700 people, owned 77,127½ acres from which in 1892 £33,028 went to common fund. Enkirch on the Moselle with 2,200 inhabitants had about 5,000 acres of land, wood, heath, underwood, and cultivable land. Mixtadt in Posen, in the district of Adelnau, with 3,000 inhabitants, possessed about 1,875 acres of land and had no local rates. He presented this case to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he hoped it would commend itself to them, as they were always so solicitous about the downtrodden ratepayer. He passed from this picture to the state of affairs at home. On 12th January at Newcastle-on-Tyne Viscount Ridley, speaking at a farmers' club, told them that—
"Not far from one-third of the land of the country is owned by the House of Lords in one way or another."
He wondered whether the noble Lord thought that such a state of things as that statement represented could really long continue. To his mind it represented all the dangerously unstable equilibrium of an inverted pyramid. Passing to the Resolution before the House, the proposition was that there should be increased power for the compulsory acquisition of land. The Government agreed to that proposition. It was a weighty experiment, and would have to be carefully safeguarded, Nobody desired that the local authorities should become mere speculators on the security of the rates. But the compulsory acquirement of land for the public well-being was part of the Government's policy. He dared say the cry of confiscation would be raised. It was always raised by those who were doubtful about the validity of their title deeds. But he

319
was glad that his hon. friends the mover and seconder laid stress on the fact that there was no shadow of confiscation in their policy. They all desired to pay a fair price for what they wished to secure for the public well-being, and that, of course, must always be the bed-rock of any policy involving a scheme of expropriation. The last part of the Resolution said that in all cases of land acquisition the purchase price should be definitely based upon the value at which such land was assessed for purposes of taxation. He understood the mover had in contemplation not the existing system of local taxation but the assessment which would be set up under the Valuation Bill announced in the gracious Speech from the Throne. There could be no doubt that, as the law now stood, the value at which land was assessed for purposes of local taxation would not provide a fair purchase price. On the other hand, the present practice of assessing the value in cases of compulsory acquisition was most unfair in many cases to the local authorities. He remembered that the present Lord Advocate for Scotland, speaking in the House on the 27th of March, 1903, on the Land Values Assessment and Rating Bill, quoted two interesting cases from Edinburgh. He said—
"There was a little block of land near the city forty-five acres in extent which the Water Trust sometime ago wanted for the purpose of forming filtering beds. Now the value of that land at thirty years purchase of the existing rent was £4,387, but when it was wanted for this public and necessary purpose the owner charged for it £20,000, or at the rate of 136 years purchase… There was another transaction, this time between the Town Council of Edinburgh and the Duke of Buccleuch. The city required land for the purpose of erecting new gas works in the neighbourhood of Granton bat within the territory of the borough. The ground extended to 105 acres and it was partly built upon, but the average price at which it was rated was £5 10s 0d. per acre. At thirty years purchase the amount would be £l65 per acre, or a total value for the ground of £17,300. How much had the City of Edinburgh to pay for that ground? No less than £124,000, or 212 years purchase of the rating value."
With facts like those before them they could not but say that the present practice of assessing the value in eases of compulsory acquisition was most unfair in cases to the local authorities. The new system of valuation in the promised Bill would, he hoped, provide them with a definite basis upon which to
320
work. But he would go the length of saying that he did not think even then they could take that wholly and exclusively as the basis upon which that transfer should be made. As far as he could see, having got this new Valuation Bill, and the new valuation, their duty would then be to see that the assessment of land taxation should be a very material item indeed—not necessarily the sole item—in giving them the basis for determining the price of expropriation. In that sense, and on that understanding, he could adopt the general proposition put forward in the Resolution of his hon. friend.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that throughout the debate there had been a disposition entirely to ignore the extremely large contributions made of their own free will by owners of land for the benefit and advancement of the happiness of the dwellers on the properties with which they had to do, and the fact that many of the most valuable public properties in this country had been presented free by generous landlords. He thought it was a pity, when these subjects were talked about, that they should hear of the "tyranny of the landlord" in refusing to rebuild buildings, when no attempt was made to show that there could be any real right or claim upon him to do so. An hon. Member on the Labour Benches had spoken of the "huts in which the rural population was herded." The huts in which the agricultural labourers lived on the land which he was interested in cost him, as a landlord, some £250 a piece, and paid him in rent £2 10s. a year. It was said that it would be a beneficial thing if municipalities speculated in land. He had his doubts. He doubted whether it was economically sound or whether it was good for the ratepayers or the welfare of the population within the municipal districts where the speculation took place. The financial aspect of the question had been dealt with by his hon. friend the Member for the City of London. No attempt had been made on the other side of the House to reply to that economic and financial argument. He would venture to deal with the speech of the hon. Gentleman who represented the Government on this occasion. Of course one was interested in the line which he took, but one had not been

321
able to help making a comment or two to oneself in the course of his remarks. The hon. Gentleman had held up to them Germany and France as examples of letting land around urban areas to semi-rural cultivators; but let him remind the hon. Gentleman that it was conceivably possible that any advantage which accrued to that semi-rural population might arise from the fact that rural industries there had a better chance, because they were carried on in countries in which a different fiscal system obtained from what we had in this country. Moreover, the urban authorities in Germany would probably not have ventured to make those investments in land had it not been for the fiscal arrangements under which they acted. No doubt in the legislation which the hon. Gentleman had shadowed forth he would be able to devise some arrangement which would make ownership of land more profitable than it could possibly be under present conditions. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a remark of Lord Ridley as to the ownership of land, and as to the large amount of land owned by Peers in this country; but the question did not depend on who owned the land, but on the use to which the land was put by those who were on it. If he was right in his contention, he believed that, broadly speaking, the owners of the land had used it well, wisely, generously, and farsightedly for the benefit of the whole of the community, and the fact that it was owned by one particular section did not come within the purview of this Resolution. The hon. Gentleman said he thought people only talked of confiscation when they were afraid of the validity of their title deeds: he could hardly have been serious in that. But the essence and pith of the Resolution was contained in the closing clause—
"The purchase price should be definitely based upon the value at which such land is assessed for purposes of taxation."
He rather fancied that if those words were deleted, the Resolution would be of comparatively little value to the mover or to those who supported it; yet that was the absolutely logical result of the speech of the hon. Gentleman representing the Government. It was suggested that the value of the land should be fixed definitely according to its assessment for purposes of taxation. Let them assume that a
322
certain portion of land was notoriously likely to be valuable in the immediate future, that that land formed part of an estate, and that on that estate there were certain family charges or certain mortgages; nobody would suggest that those charges or mortgages had any relation whatever to the assessed value of that land. Those charges had been placed on the land entirely with reference to the economic value, that was to say the price which the land would fetch if it were put up to public auction in the circumstances in which land was sold now. He did not suppose he was very far out when he said that land which might be let for £100 a year might be mortgaged for many thousands. But he only said that to fortify the position which the hon. Gentleman had taken up. It was quite clear, therefore, on the hon. Gentleman's own showing that the Resolution could not be supported except as an abstract proposition which was not intended to be pressed to any practical issue. In such cases us had been sketched by the mover and seconder, he thought that a good many of them would have great sympathy with those affected. They spoke of a circumvallation of the town caused by the absolute refusal of the owner to sell his land. If that wore the true condition of things he would have a good deal of sympathy with those who complained of it. Did the hon. Member really think that there were in England many such instances as he had cited? He doubted it very much. He thought they were cases which were largely used for platform purposes, or to win cheers or votes. He did not think they existed in any number, if at all. If hon. Members were going to discuss the question in a spirit of justice and fair play, he would ask them to remember that the legitimate and rightful owners of the land had also some claim to consideration, and something more than consideration, as well as the municipal authorities who were to acquire the land. Supposing that the land had been perfectly legitimately acquired by the owner, who had been perhaps rather more far-sighted than his municipal neighbours, what was going to be done in such a case? As far as he could judge of the argument of the hon. Gentleman, it was that if the private owner had exercised foresight and wisdom in the purchase of land, he was not to be

323
allowed to reap the benefit of his foresight and calculation. Not only would they deprive the owner of his harvest, due to his own foresight and enterprise, but they would put the municipality in a position to reap the full benefit of that harvest whenever it came. He could not speak of urban districts with any particular knowledge, but those who had the good fortune to live in the country and enjoy it were not likely to be backward in sympathising with their fellow-creatures who were placed in a less happy position, and there was much in the Resolution with which many on his side of the House agreed. If it was true that there was need to acquire land for public purposes, let them leave out "compulsorily," and say "by agreement." He knew that would not suit hon. Members opposite, for in the minds of some people it was not possible to do good to one class without doing harm to another. Reference had been made to the necessity of providing simple and inexpensive machinery for the acquisition of land. He might say that any reform of that kind would have the support of all landowners, but the closing part of the Resolution suggested what was practically absolute confiscation and spoliation, and, therefore, he would go into the lobby against it.
MR. HAROLD COX: moved to amend the Resolution by providing that the purchase price of land sought to be acquired should be "based upon a fair valuation." He believed that if his hon. friend would accept the Amendment his Motion would be agreed to unanimously by the House. They were all agreed that it was desirable that local authorities should be saved a great deal of the unnecessary expense they now had to incur when they wanted to acquire land for local purposes. He was afraid, however, that the mover of the Resolution had in his mind something very different, and there appeared to be behind the proposal an advocacy of the taxation of land values and the confiscation of what was called the unearned increment. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board had taken a somewhat curious line. He had explained that it was impossible for the Government to accept the last words of the Resolution as it stood, and he had ended by saying
324
that according to his own interpretation of them they could accept them. The words of the Resolution as they stood were absolutely intolerable. The price to be paid for the land should be "definitely fixed upon the value at which such land is assessed for purposes of taxation." That was intolerable. A man bought a small holding near n town, paying a high price for it, upon the expectation the value would increase. Meanwhile, he used it as a market garden and was properly taxed for a market garden. The mover of the Resolution proposed to take away that man's land paying him only market-garden value and not the higher price he had paid for it. That was absolute confiscation, whether applied to a rich man or to a poor man. What power that would give to local authorities to be dishonest! They could raise their rates and lower the assessment, taking the land on their own valuation. They could thus confiscate any land they wished. Why should local authorities be credited always with the foresight to know when land was going to rise in value? As a matter of fact, nothing was more difficult than to foresee how land was going to rise in value. He would quote the very striking case of the school in which he was educated, a school founded in the reign of Edward VI. by a citizen of London, Sir Andrew Judd. In his will Sir Andrew left the school a large strip of land in the neighbourhood of Tonbridge. Subsequently he thought he had left the school too much, and he changed his will, took away from the school the piece of land near Tonbridge, which he then left to his relations, and left to the school instead a smaller piece of land in London on which St. Pancras Station now stood. He believed his hon. friend was a business man; if he and other business men believed that land was always going to rise in value, why did not they take money out of their business and buy land with it? The answer was that in practice there was no more certainty in land speculation than in any other speculation, and the chance of loss in land speculation was a very heavy one. He argued that self-assessment would be unworkable. His object in moving the Amendment was to remove from the Motion all traces of confiscation. Hon. Members who supported the Motion believed that, by giving larger power to

325
the municipalities, they would improve the social condition of the country. To a large extent he agreed with them. But surely they should not base a public advantage on a private wrong.
LORD R. CECIL: in seconding the Amendment said that to take land and base the purchase price upon the value at which such land was assessed for the purposes of taxation would be absolutely indefensible.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 6, to leave out from the word 'be' to the end of the Question, and add the words based upon a fair valuation.'"—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 62. (Division List No. 102.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Astbury, John Meir

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Paulton, James Mellor

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Haworth, ArthurA.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Helme, Norval Watson

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Barnard, E. B.

Hemmerde, Edward George

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

Barnes, G. N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Radford, G. H.

Beale, W. P.

Henry, Charles S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Higham, John Sharp

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.)

Hodge, John

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bennett, E. N.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rendall, Athelstan

Berridge, T. H. D.

Holt, Richard Durning

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

Billson, Alfred

Hooper, A. G.

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

Black, Arthur W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Boland, John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Idris, T. H. W.

Robinson, S.

Branch, James

Jenkins, J.

Rogers, V. E. Newman

Brodie, H. C.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rowlands, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Burke, E. Haviland

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Seddon, J.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Jowett, F. W.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Joyce, Michael

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Clough, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

Lamont, Norman

Stanger, H. Y.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lewis, John Herbert

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Cremer, William Randal

Lough, Thomas

Summerbell, T.

Crooks, William

Lundon, W.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

M'Callum, John M.

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

Dolan, Charles Joseph

M'Crae, George

Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

Duckworth, James

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Ure, Alexander

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Verney, F. W.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

M-Killop, W.

Vivian, Henry

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Micking, Major G.

Wadsworth, J.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Maddi-on, Frederick

Walsh, Stephen

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Mallet, Charles E.

Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

Elibank, Master of

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Ward, W. Dudley (S'thampton)

Ferens, T. R.

Marnham, F. J.

Waterlow, D. S.

Findlay, Alexander

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Watt, H. Anderson

Fullerton, Hugh

Mond, A.

Gladstone Rt Hn Herbert John

Mooney, J. J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Glover, Thomas

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Weir, James Galloway

Gulland, John W.

Nicholls, George

White, George (Norfolk)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Hall, Frederick

Nolan, Joseph

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Halpin, J.

Nuttall, Harry

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Harcourt Rt Hon Lewis

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whitehead, Rowland

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Whitehead, Rowland

Harmswotth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

O'Dowd, John

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Harrington, Timothy

O'Grady, J.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Wiles, Thomas

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras. S.)

Mr. Tonlmin and Mr.

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

Wood. T. M'Kinnon

Walters.

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn SirAlex. F.

Craik, Sir Henry

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Crossley, William J.

Nield, Herbert

Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J. (City Loud.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Percy Earl

Banner, John S. Harmood

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Rutherford, W. W (Liverpool)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fell, Arthur

Smith Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bright, J. A.

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Smith F.R. (Liverpool, Walton)

Bull, Sir William James

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Stanley Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Fletcher, J. S.

Starkey, John R.

Byles, William Pollard

Forster, Henry William

Thornton, Percy M.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Haddock, George R.

Turnour, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hamilton, Marquess of

Valentia, Viscount

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Walker. Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Helmsley, Viscount

Willoughby do Eresby, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A(Wore.

Hunt, Rowland

Younger, George

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Mr. Harold Cox mid Lord

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Robert Cecil.

Resolutions agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.
MR. COURTHOPErose to continue the debate,
And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Postponed proceeding on Amendment to Question [9th April], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out from the word 'that,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House, though anxious to increase the capacity for expansion of the force of the Crown in time of war, regrets that the Government should make proposals which, while destroying the Militia, discouraging the Yeomanry, and imposing new and uncertain liabilities on the Volunteers, would not, in a period of national peril, provide an adequate force for Home defence or prompt support for the Regular Army in the field.'"— (Mr. Wyndham)—instead thereof, resumed.
Question again proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

SUPPLY [8th APRIL] REPORT.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th April], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a sum not exceeding £91,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.'"
Question again proposed.

SUPPLY [8th APRIL] REPORT.
Order read, for Consideration of Ninth and Tenth Resolutions.

ADJOURNMENT.
MR. J. A. PEASE, in moving the Adjournment of the House, gave notice that the Prime Minister would to-morrow move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock rule.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: thought it might be for the convenience of the House for him to say that, if that Resolution were carried, the sitting to-morrow was likely to be peculiarly long.
Adjourned at a Quarter after Eleven o'clock