Sitting of 23 April 1907

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill.—Read the third time, and passed.
South Eastern and London, Chatham and Dover Railways Bill.—As amended considered; to be read the third time.
Taff Vale Railway Bill.—As amended considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4 Bill).—Read a second time, and committed.
Brighouse Corporation Bill.—Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Standing Orders.—Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:—
"That, in the case of the Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided the powers of guarantee and of raising money and applying their funds proposed to be conferred upon the county council of the comity of Meath be struck out of the Bill unless proof be given to the Committee on the Bill that the county council of the county of Meath have approved the Bill with or without modification in the manner prescribed by Standing Order 67:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
"That, in the case of the Electric Supply Corporation Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
"That, in the case of the Great Central Railway Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
Resolutions agreed to.
Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill—Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing: Orders read.
Bill to be read a second time.—(Mr. Deputy Chairman.)

PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petition from Woolwich, for protection of the Native Races; 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 against; from Arbroath; Inverness; Kirkwall; and, Peebleshire; to lie upon the Table.

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Aberdeen (three); Ancrum; Ardrossan; Ayr; Ayrshire; Beauly; Birsay; Bridge of Allan; Broughty Ferry; Butterburn; Cadder; Castle Douglas; Cromarty; Cupar; Dalbeatie; Dalkeith (two); Darnick; Denny; Dumbarton (two); Dundee (two); Dunipace; Dunoon; Edinburgh; Fraserburgh: Gamrie and Macduff; Glasgow (seven); High Blantyre; Innerleithen; Invergordon; Inverkeithing; Inverness; Kilbarchan Kilmacolm; Kilmarnock (two); Kilsyth; Kingussie (two); Kirkcudbright Kirkwall; Kirriemuir; Larkhall; Lesmahagow (two); Lochbroom; Lochcarron; Lochee; Maybole; Nairn; Newmilns; Paisley; Pollokshaws; Port Glasgow; Portnahaven; Renton; Riccarton; Ringford; Sanday; Stevenston; Stornoway; Strichen; Stromness;

  1545
  Tarbert; Thurso; Tillicoultry; Turiff United Free Church of Scotland (two); Uyeasound; and, Westerdale; to lie upon the Table.

  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petitions for legislation; from Isle of Thanet; and, West Bromwich; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from West Bromwich, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports (Annual Series), Nos. 3765 to 3767 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 16th April, 1907, sanctioning the sale of a plot of land at Kingstown, known as Battery Plot, together with a further plot adjoining the municipal baths, to the Kingstown Urban District Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Thames Conservancy.—General Report and Accounts of the Conservators for 1906 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 124.]
  EAST INDIA (DEATHS FROM PLAGUE, ETC.)
  Address for "Return showing the number of Deaths and the Death Rates per million living in India for each of the last thirty years from Plague, Cholera, Enteric or Typhoid Fever, and Small Pox respectively.'—(Sir William Collins.)
  BOARD OF TRADE (REPORTS).
  Copies ordered "(1) of the Report of the Board of Trade on the Great Central Railway Bill; and (2) of the Report of the Board of Trade on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Bill."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Admiralty Contracts in Ireland.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state approximately the value of the contracts placed by the Admiralty with contractors in Ireland in the last financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The total value of contracts placed with Irish firms during the financial year 1906–7 is approximately £43,000. This does not include local orders for the supply of fresh meat, provisions, &c, placed by ships in Irish waters.

  Stoppages for Lost Time in Dockyard.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a shipwright who, having been summoned by telegram, was allowed to leave his work 2⅓ hours before bell-ringing, on 22nd December last, was checked five hours pay; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent employees, under such circumstances, being checked for more time than they actually lose.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.)— This man was checked five hours pay, in accordance with the regulation that workpeople leaving the yard more than two hours before bell-ringing are to be checked half a day's pay. In view, however, of the adoption of an hourly rate, steps will be taken to revise this regulation, as to prevent men being checked for more than the time actually lost. I may add that this man made no complaint to the Dockyard officers, and that, had he done so, his case would have been favourably considered.

  Building of the ''Dreadnought"—Return of Ship Fitters' Assistants to their Shops.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, at the beginning of the building of the "Dreadnought" in Portsmouth Dockyard, men were taken from the different shops and sent to work that ship; that some were put on the ordinary labourer's work known as under the boatswain, whilst others were sent as

  1547
  riveters, drillers, caulkers, and chippers; and, seeing that, after the "Dreadnought" was finished, the men from the blacksmiths' shops and hosemakers' and plumbers' shops went back to their respective foremen, will he explain why the ship fitters' assistants under the chief constructor were not similarly treated, but are still distributed about the yard.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The facts are not exactly as stated, as the men still detached from shops include some taken from other than fitters' shops, the requirements of the service not having permitted of the return of all the men to their previous duties. Their case will be considered when the condition of the work permits.

  Post Office—Limited Competition for Male Learners at Dublin.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General under what circumstances a limited competition for male learners has been announced to be held in Dublin in April; is he aware that the limits of age are such as to prohibit postmen and those serving for some time as auxiliary sorting clerks and telegraphists from competing; and will he say for whom the vacancies are intended.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A limited competition for male learners at Dublin was held on the 17th instant to fill vacancies which at present exist in the class of learner. The competition is restricted to telegraph messengers and other unestablished persons with at least one year's continuous service in the Post Office. The officers to whom the hon. Member refers are not required to pass through the class of learner. As I explained to the hon. Member for West Wicklow on the 12th ultimo, they will, in due course, be permitted to take part in a limited competition for direct appointment to the class of sorting clerk and telegraphist.

  Direct and Indirect Taxation in Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the relative percentages of direct and indirect taxation in Great
  1548
  Britain and Ireland in the past financial year, and what he estimates those percentages will be under his new proposals next year.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The relative percentages of direct and indirect taxation for the two years are estimated for Great Britain and Ireland respectively as follows —

  1906–7.

  Direct Taxes.

  Indirect Taxes.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Great Britain

  52˙7

  47˙3

  Ireland

  27˙3

  72˙7

  1907–8.

  Great Britain

  51˙9

  48˙1

  Ireland

  27˙0

  73˙0

  Officers' Extra Pay for Brevet Rank on Sea-going Ships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total increase of pay and allowances, including any pay of extra staff, due to officers being given brevet rank in seagoing fleets.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The total increase of pay and allowances, including the wages of additional domestics, amounts to approximately £3,460 a year; but it must be distinctly understood that this does not represent any additional cost to the nation, but only the difference between the ordinary pay and allowances of the four officers in question and those attaching for the moment to their acting rank, which is determined by the importance of the station.

  Separation of Executive and Judicial Functions at Sind.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that in March, 1904, eleven resident magistrates were appointed in Sind to form a separate service, and that a protest was received from the Sind Hindu Sabha, on 27th November, 1906, against recent orders amalgamating these appointments with the Revenue Department; and whether, considering the desirability generally of separating judicial and executive functions, he will

  1549
  consider the expediency of reverting to the arrangements of 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no information as to the recent orders mentioned, but I will inquire.

  Payment of Deputy County Court Judges in England and Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a statement showing the total amount of daily remuneration for the five financial years ended 31st March, 1906, paid to deputy county court Judges in Ireland and England respectively; the average daily remuneration paid to each deputy county court Judge for the same period in Ireland and England respectively; and whether such daily remuneration has been paid in every case by each county court Judge for whom each deputy was acting.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) Deputy county court Judges are paid ordinarily by the county court Judges out of the salaries of the latter, and the Treasury has no knowledge of the amounts so paid throughout the year. I regret, therefore, that I am not able to give the information asked for in the first two parts of the Question. As regards the last part, in certain eases where there is a vacancy for the judgeship or where the Judge is absent from his circuit on duty elsewhere, the deputy is paid out of the Votes for county courts.

  Appointments to the Colonial Audit Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state under what authority and under what regulations the Colonial Audit Branch in London was formed under the Comptroller and Auditor General in 1889; under what authority was the power of making clerical appointments to this branch conferred on the Comptroller and Auditor General; whether the Comptroller and Auditor General had power conferred on him of nomination to appointments as auditors in certain Crown Colonies and Protectorates abroad; if so, under what authority; what authority fixed the salaries of these nomination appointments at home and abroad; and whether the cost of housing of the Colonial Audit
  1550
  Branch in London was paid for out of Imperial funds from 1889 to 1906, without any appropriations in aid being received from the various Crown Colonies and Protectorates in respect thereto.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Colonial Audit Branch was formed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, at the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and with the sanction of the Treasury, to undertake the audit of the accounts of various Colonies. In accordance with regulations framed with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, all appointments to the Colonial Audit Branch, both at Home and in the Colonies, were vested in the Comptroller and Auditor General. The salaries of the staff in the Colonies were approved by the Secretary of State for the Colonies; the salaries of the staff at headquarters were fixed by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the scales generally in force for the main office. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question the hon. Member is referred to the Answer given him on 7th March, 1906.†

  Treasury Grants to Upkeep of Government Department Luncheon Rooms.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant a statement showing the special Treasury allowance to each Government Department towards the cost of the upkeep of its luncheon room, where there is one; the total cost to the State, including housing accommodation, fire, light, etc., of each of such luncheon rooms; the names of the Government Departments in which the staff has the option of lunching outside the building; and the names of the Government Departments in which the staff is not allowed such option, with the reasons for this prohibition where it exists.
  (Answered by Mr, Runciman.) The information for which the hon Member asks would take much time and labour to prepare, and I venture to doubt whether any proportionate result would be achieved. The Answer to the first part of the Question, however, can be readily obtained from the published volume of the Civil Service Estimates.
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 432.

  The Colonial Audit Branch.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the terms on which the Colonial Audit Branch was recently amalgamated with the Exchequer and Audit Department; whether the Comptroller and Auditor General is allowed the right to transfer auditors from the various Crown Colonies and Protectorates to the newly amalgamated Colonial Audit Branch and Exchequer and Audit Department; whether one of these auditors with a salary, with allowances of nearly £500 per annum and only seventeen years service, who was neither a civil servant nor a university graduate on his first appointment to the Colonial Audit Branch, and who did not pass a Civil Service examination on admission to the branch, was recently transferred from Gibraltar to the amalgamated Departments in London; if so, whether he is now in receipt of nearly £500 per annum with allowances out of imperial funds, ranks higher, and receives over twice the salary of his fellow clerks of the same length of service who secured their appointments after success in Civil Service open competitions; if so, whether such procedure is in accordance with the terms on which the Colonial Audit Branch has been amalgamated with the Exchequer and Audit Department; and for what reason was this official transferred from Gibraltar to London and another official sent from London to Gibraltar in his stead.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The essence of the new scheme is that the appointment of auditors and assistant auditors in the various Colonies concerned will be made from the staff of the Exchequer and Audit Department, and transfers will consequently take place between members of the staff at Home and in the Colonies. The transfer referred to was carried out in the interests of the public service and without detriment to individual prospects.

  Guaranteed Irish Land Stock.
  MR. HAYDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state of £12,756,120 guaranteed land stock, 2¾ per cent., redeemable not before 5th August, 1921, how much has been exchanged for Consols, and at what
  1552
  price; how much has been purchased by Government, and at what price; how much has been extinguished, and at what price; how much is in hands of private investors; how much is lodged in court to the credit of estates sold under the Land Purchase Acts of 1891 and 1896, still unallocated; and what is the total outstanding amount of above stock now and by whom is it held.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)—

  At 31st March, 1907, the total amount of Guaranteed Stock, issued under the Land Purchase Acts of 1891 and 1896, was

  £

  13,635,373

  of which there has been cancelled, as the equivalent of a similar amount of cash

  894,595

  Leaving still outstanding

  12,740,778

  Of this balance the National Debt Commissioners have given Consols in exchange, stock for stock, to the nominal amount of

  £7,950,000

  and have, on balance, purchased at an average price of 96¼

  1,068,030

  9,018,030

  Leaving a balance of

  £3,722,748

  which is held by the public and other Government Departments. I have no information as to the stock held otherwise than by the National Debt Commissioners.

  North China Campaign—Special Promotion for Naval Officers.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the captain and paymaster of H.M.S. "Algerine" and the captains of His Majesty's destroyers "Fame" and ''Whiting" received special promotion for their services in the North China campaign of 1900, and if the engineer officers who were in charge of the machinery of those vessels have

  1553
  received any reward or recognition; and, if not, whether he will secure equal treatment in such matters in all branches of the Navy.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The captain and assistant paymaster of the "Algerine" and the commanding officer of the "Fame," were specially promoted for services in North China, 1900. The commanding officer of the "Whiting" did not receive promotion. The engineer officers of the "Fame" and "Whiting" have not received reward or special recognition. All branches of the Navy receive equal treatment in this respect, according to the nature of their services, which are carefully considered by the Admiralty. It may be mentioned that several engineer officers received special promotion for war service in South Africa and China.

  Pay of Chargemen in Portsmouth Dockyard.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether chargemen of labourers in the different departments of Portsmouth dockyard receive the maximum rate of pay as skilled labourers, namely, 28s. per week and 1s. per day charge-money, with the exception of the department under the chief constructor, where they receive 25s. per week and 1s. per day charge-money; if so, will he state the reason; and whether their Lordships can see their way clear to make all the departments identical in this respect by being paid the higher wage.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The hon. Member would appear to have been misinformed as to the facts of the case, as there are established chargemen in the constructive department receiving the maximum rate of pay.

  Waterford and London Mails.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether letters for London and the South of England, posted in Waterford and district after the departure of the 3.40 p.m. train which runs in connection with the night mail service by Holyhead, are despatched by the train leaving Waterford by the Rosslare and Fishguard route at 10.35 p.m.; and, if so, will he
  1554
  say at what hour are letters despatched by the 10.35 p.m. train from Waterford by Rosslare delivered in London on the following day.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There is a despatch of letters from Waterford to London by the Rosslare and Fishguard route by the 10.35 p.m. train; and the letters for the London town districts fall into the deliveries commencing about or soon after 11 a.m. on the following day.

  Board of Trade Advisory Committee on the Merchant Shipping Act.
  MR. JENKINS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state how many members have been appointed on the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade under The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906; how many of the members are ship owners or persons interested in shipping; how many are shipbuilders, and whether they are also owners or share-owners in shipping property; whether he can state if Captain Trenery, who has been nominated by the Merchant Service Guild, is a shore superintendent of the Johnson Line of steamers; whether Mr. Shera, one of the members of the Committee, was formerly superintendent and engineer for several shipping companies; how many members of the Committee personally represent seamen; and whether he will take into consideration the appointment of additional representatives on the Committee who have no interest in shipping property.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The Advisory Committee to which my hon. friend refers consists of nineteen members. Of these five were nominated by the Shipowners Parliamentary Committee, and two are shipbuilders or naval architects. Captain Trenery was nominated by the Merchant Service Guild as a representative of masters and officers; Mr. Shearer and another gentleman represent the marine engineers; and two representatives of seamen and one of firemen were nominated by the Seamen and Firemen's Union. The remaining members of the Committee are two underwriters, a second representative of masters and officers, and three nominees

  1555
  of the Board of Trade, of whom one is lily hon. friend, the Member for Limerick City, and the other two are shipowners. I know nothing with regard to the private interests, past or present, of the individuals nominated by the various bodies to represent them on the Committee, the composition of which was decided at a meeting at the Board of Trade at which representatives of seamen were present. I regard the Committee as fairly representative of the interests concerned; and I am not prepared at present to add to the number of its members.

  Income-Tax Returns.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his scheme making it compulsory on every man to make a declaration and send back a return, on the well-known buff form, of his total income, though it may be taxed at the source, is to be the total amount of such income, or whether the whole of the items are to be given of the hundred and one sources, however small, from which it may be composed.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Returns of total income, whether taxed at the source or not, will, as hitherto, only be required from persons claiming relief. I only propose to compel the taxpayer to return on the "buff" form what he is asked to return upon it now, viz., income upon which he is assessable, and if he has no such income to make a "nil" return.

  Labourers' Cottages at Cootehill.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Cootehill No. 1 Rural District Council have rejected a number of agricultural labourers' representations for cottages on the ground that the labourers applying reside in the urban district of Cootehill; and, in view of the fact that these men are compelled to live in the town owing to want of accommodation outside, and that they are employed by farmers in the rural district, will the Local Government Board's attention be directed to their claims.
  1556
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It appears from the rural district council's minutes that of 108 representations lodged ninety-six were approved by them. Twelve representations in the Cootehill electoral division were apparently rejected on the ground that the applicants are residing and working in the urban district of Cootehill, and that the urban district council should proceed in such cases under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. Any applicant aggrieved can appear before the Local Government Board's inspector at the local inquiry into the scheme of the rural district council, which will be held in due course.

  Reinstatement of Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Thomas Brady.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement of Thomas Brady, who was evicted from the estate of E. P. Smith, Bellamont Forest, Cootehill; were agreements for the purchase of this estate signed as far back as November, 1905; was it agreed at the time of sale that the evicted tenants were to be restored; and will the Estates Commissioners explain the cause of delay in the above case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Thomas Brady, who appears to be the son of Thomas Brady who was evicted in this case. As the latter is still alive the son is not eligible for reinstatement under the Act. The Commissioners are not aware that it was a condition of the agreement for sale of the estate that the evicted tenants should be reinstated but inquiries on the subject will be made before the advances are sanctioned. The purchase agreements in the case were lodged in September, 1905, and the estate has not yet reached its turn to be dealt with.

  Return of Local Contributions.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return of Local Contributions of which notice stands upon the Order Paper.

  1557
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I will offer no objection to the granting of this Return, but it will take some time to prepare, as the particulars will have to be obtained from local authorities.

  Condition of Irish Cattle.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, some time since, unfounded allegations were made respecting the prevalence of tuberculosis amongst Irish cattle, mainly cows; whether he is aware that those allegations have been disproved; whether, in conjunction with and the co-operation of the Board of Agriculture of Great Britain and the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, he will inquire into and prevent the practice of certain dealers purchasing English cattle and selling them as Irish on account; of the superior healthy character of Irish cattle; and whether he will consult with the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland and the President of the Board of Agriculture of Great Britain, and have an arrangement made, that the Irish national trade mark shall be branded on all cattle exported from Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Department of Agriculture are aware that currency was given some time ago to a statement that tuberculosis is prevalent among Irish cattle. This statement appears to have expressed the personal opinion of its author. Tuberculosis is not scheduled under the Diseases of Animals Acts, and no comprehensive statistics are therefore available. The Department, however, are not aware of any reliable evidence which would go to support the statement referred to. The general reputation of Irish cattle as to healthiness is undoubtedly high. Inquiries are being made as to the alleged practice mentioned in the second part of the Question, and when the result of these inquiries is known, the Department will be in a position to consider what action can be taken in the matter.

  War Office Contracts in Ireland.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he can state approximately the total value of contracts made directly
  1558
  by the War Office with contractors; the names and amounts of any such contract placed with contractors in Ireland; the average strength in officers and men stationed in Ireland; and the average cost of victualling per head per year.
  (Answered by Mr. Buchanan.) The total value of the contracts, concerning which the hon. Member desires information, made direct with Irish firms (eighteen in number) amounted to about £64,000 last year; the total for all similar contracts was £1,200,000. The specific information required as to names and amounts cannot be published. The average strength of officers and men stationed in Ireland, including Militia recruits, is about 28,000. The cost of victualling per head of these troops (excluding officers) is about £8.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Cadets.
  MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the statement of the First Lord that the cost of the thorough education given to naval cadets at the two Naval Colleges obliges the Admiralty to call upon the parents for a substantial contribution towards it, upon what principle a reduction in the charges is made in the case only of officers of the Navy and Army who can show that the fees paid are a serious burden; whether the present system restricts the area of selection; how large an additional sum would be involved if the whole cost of this education were placed upon the Navy Estimates; whether he is aware that in the United States Navy a system of nomination of cadetship is adjusted to democratic conditions by the State's undertaking the whole cost of the cadet's education and training until he attains a rank in the service at which his pay enables him to support himself.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The reduction of fees in favour of a limited number of sons of naval and military officers in poor circumstances has long been an established custom in the entry of cadets for the Navy. As regards the area of selection, the number

  1559
  of candidates is roughly three times the number of vacancies. The additional cost in the present year if the whole charge wore placed upon the Navy Estimates would be £55,000. As regards the last part of the Question, I believe it is a fact that in the United States the whole cost of the cadet's training is borne by the States from the time of his entry at an average age of eighteen.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Have the Admiralty received any offers from local bodies or other authorities in response to the appeal made by the First Lord?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Not so far as I am aware.

  Brevet Bank Pay and Allowances.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what is the total increase of pay and allowances, including any pay of extra staff, due to officers being given brevet rank in sea-going fleets.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The total increase of pay and allowances including the wages of additional domestics, amounts to approximately £3,460 a year; but it must be distinctly understood that this does not represent any additional cost to the nation, but only the difference between the ordinary pay and allowances of the four officers in question and those attaching for the moment to their acting rank which is determined by the importance of the station.

  Command of the Maltese Garrison.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in the future, the Governor of Malta will continue to command the troops stationed in that island, in view of the fact that it has been decided to appoint a General Officer to command all the troops stationed in the Mediterranean.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,: The functions of the Governor and his title will be unchanged. He will command the troops in Malta as at present. He will, of course, be subject in this command to the authority of the Commander-in-Chief of the Troops in the Mediterranean.

  Eastern Command Auxiliary Forces.
  MR. A. L. LEVER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, having regard to the falling off in the number of Auxiliary Forces, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers, which go to Colchester for their annual training, and in view of the special facilities offered for musketry by the existing ranges, and for manœuvring and field exercises by the additional Government ground acquired in the immediate neighbourhood of Middle wick and vicinity, he will augment the numbers this year so that the Auxiliary Forces may participate in the advantages to be derived from a standing camp.
  MR. HALDANE: The arrangements for the training of the Auxiliary Forces in the Eastern Command have already been made for this year by the General Officer Commanding in Chief, and I am afraid that no changes can now be made.

  Survey of India
  DR. HAZEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, what are the duties and salary attached to the office of mathematical expert to the Survey of India; when was the office created; by whom is the appointment authorised to be made; and what is the process of selection adopted on the occurrence of a vacancy.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The expert is required for the difficult mathematical operations which the work of the Survey involves. One such post has existed since 1885. A second has now been created as the work has increased. Mr. Hunter's salary commences at the equivalent of £600 a year and will rise in the course of eighteen years to £1,280. The appointment rests with the Secretary of State in Council, and was made after full inquiries as to possible candidates both of British or Indian nationality possessing the requisite qualifications.
  DR. HAZEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, what are the age and University distinctions of Mr. J. H. Hunter, who has been recently appointed to the office of mathematical expert to the Survey of India; and whether any attempt was made to secure the services

  1561
  of one of the distinguished mathematicians of Indian nationality who have taken the highest honours at the University of Cambridge and elsewhere.
  MR. MORLEY: Mr. Hunter was bracketed twelfth wrangler in the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos, 1903, and obtained a first class in the Mechanical Science Tripos, 1904. His age is twenty-six. I have already said that the qualifications of such mathematicians of Indian nationality as were available were duly considered. I may perhaps say that the office was offered to, and declined by, an Indian who had taken a high degree at Cambridge.

  Lahore Demonstrations.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been called to the recent demonstration at Lahore in regard to the imprisonment of the proprietor and editor of an Indian paper for publishing a seditious statement, when the police, who were conveying the prisoners from the court to the gaol, were stopped by a large crowd of natives who pelted them with mud, and crowned the prisoners with garlands; also to the fact that the crowd afterwards paraded the street and assaulted every isolated European they met, until dispersed by the police; and, as this is a repetition of what happened at the second trial in February last, he now proposes to take steps to prevent the recurrence of such demonstrations.
  MR. MORLEY: The local authorities have power to deal with these disturbances and will no doubt take all possible precautions against their recurrence. The duties of Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab have just been taken up by Sir Denzil Ibbetson, one of the most experienced and trusted officers in the Indian Service.

  New Hebrides—Trade in Intoxicating Liquors.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to the recent complaints regarding the sale of intoxicating liquors to the natives of the New Hebrides, and to the statement that some French steamers recently left Sydney, New
  1562
  South Wales, carrying large stores of liquor for those islands; and whether he will take adequate steps to safeguard the welfare of these people.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to complaints that a large quantity of spirits from French sources is still imported into the New Hebrides; and they are in communication with the French Government on the subject. They have, however, no information to the effect that intoxicating liquors are imported in any quantity from Sydney, either in British or French vessels; and by a proclamation of the 28th November last their exportation from the Commonwealth to the New Hebrides is prohibited, unless a permit has been first obtained from the Comptroller-General of Customs.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if any liquors have not recently been imported into the New Hebrides from Sydney?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

  Port of Spain Borough Council.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that some time ago a petition, signed by practically the whole of the ratepayers of the Port of Spain, was presented, asking for the restoration of its elected borough council (which it enjoyed for a period of fifty years); that the prayer of the petitioners has not been acceded to, but that instead a wholly nominated town board has been set up for a period of three years, with a commissioner at a salary of £800 a year; whether, in view of Lord Elgin's statement in a despatch of 21st June last, that his decision was therefore that there shall be for two years a board, he will state why it has been made three years instead of two; and whether, at the end of the three years, the elective principle will be restored.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The petition was duly received and carefully considered. The Secretary of State's decision was intimated in the despatch to which the hon. Member's Question refers, and with

  1563
  the purport of which he is no doubt acquainted. The Governor reported that an Ordinance to give effect to the Secretary of State's decision would be introduced at the session of the Legislative Council, which opened on the 4th of February. It is not known whether the Ordinance has yet been passed by the Council, and no intimation has been received from the Governor as to whether or not it is proposed to appoint the new board for three years instead of for two years, as originally contemplated. With regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, the decision in the Secretary of State's despatch of the 21st; of June, 1906, was that at the end of two years "the question whether the existing board shall be continued or shall be replaced either at once or gradually by an elected board shall be again submitted to the Legislative Council," and it is impossible at present to add anything to that decision.

  Public Works at Tangier.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a contract for public works at Tangier has been given by the Moorish Government to a German firm; whether the circumstances under which it was given are a violation of the Act of Algeciras; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government, as one of the signatories of that Convention, propose to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: A question of this kind has been raised respecting a particular contract at Tangier. It is one which, no doubt, will be settled on the spot in accordance with the provisions of the Algeciras Act, which every Government desires to uphold.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct His Majesty's representative at Tangier to deal with the matter under Section 108 of the Act?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not see any need for special instructions on the matter.

  Youthful Offenders Bill.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the importance of preventing children and young persons from being sent to prison in default of payment of fines, the Government will consider giving facilities to the Youthful Offenders Bill.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,: The effect of the Probation of Offenders Bill which is now before this House will be to substitute in many cases a new mode of dealing with offenders for fine and imprisonment. I hope that the provisions of the Bill, if it passes into law, will be specially taken advantage of in juvenile offender cases. Much as I sympathise with the object my hon. friend has in view, I am afraid special facilities cannot be given to this Bill.

  Qualifications and Appointment of Quarry Managers.
  SIR ALFRED THOMAS: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Eifion division of Carnarvonshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any supervision is exercised by the Home Office with regard to the qualifications and appointment of quarry managers; and, if not, whether, in view of the fact that the percentage of fatalities among inside workers in slate quarries in 1905 was nearly double that in coal mines, and that there have been six lives lost in Carnarvonshire already this year, he will appoint a Committee of Inquiry, with a view to the Amendment of the Quarries Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: There are no statutory requirements at present as to the appointment or qualifications of quarry managers. This is a point which has already been noted for consideration when I can find an opportunity for amending the Quarry Act. Having regard to the complication of the existing legislation on the subject, I have-decided to consult the Chairman of the-Royal Commission on Mines, with a view to advising His Majesty to include the consideration of accidents in quarries in the reference to the Commission.

  Poor Prisoners' Defence.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act at the Central Criminal Court and at the county of London sessions; how many have been refused; and, if any, what are the grounds of such refusals.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed that at the Central Criminal Court there have been 394 applications made under the Poor Prisoners Defence Act since it came into force, of which 290 have boon refused. At the Tendon sessions it has not been possible to get out complete figures, but during 1906 there were 111 such applications, of which 107 were refused. These figures are exclusive of the applications made under the Act to the committing magistrates. The Act itself specifies the conditions on which payment can be made from public funds for the defence of prisoners in criminal cases—he must disclose his defence, and his own means must be insufficient, and applications under the Act are necessarily refused when these conditions are not fulfilled.
  LORD E. CECILasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of amending the Act in view of the large proportion of refusals.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would confer with the Attorney-General, who had more to do with this matter than he had.

  West Jesmond Off-licence Case.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the decision of the magistrates at the recent annual sessions at West Jesmond, Newcastle on-Tyne, whereby they refused to grant an off-licence to a house in the locality, and to the fact that the interested person has since secured an excise licence for the; same premises; and can he say whether he intends to introduce new legislation, or what steps, if any, he proposes to take to deal with such cases.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have had my attention drawn to this case, and have made inquiry about it. The facts are substantially as stated in the Question. The sale by retail of intoxicating liquors without a justices' licence, of which this appears to be an instance, is a matter which has already occupied my careful consideration in connection with the proposed Licensing Bill.

  Medical Examinations of Workpeople.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a paper read before the English Ceramic Society by Dr. Shufflebotham, an acknowledged authority in lead poisoning, in which he urges that certifying surgeons should be provided with a private room in each factory for the periodical examination of workpeople, to avoid the present superficial examination in semi-public offices; and whether the Home Office will inquire into the conditions under which these examinations are carried on with a view to possible improvements.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not myself seen the paper referred to, but in the covering letter issued with the Earthenware Special Rules of 1901, manufacturers were informed that arrangements should be made to allow due privacy for the medical examination required under the rules. The health register in use at each pottery contains the following instruction:—"In order to secure due privacy it is requested that the surgeon may have the exclusive use of a room or office while he is conducting the examination." The Medical Inspector of Factories has made special inquiry into this subject, and I learn that one of the four certifying surgeons in the Staffordshire potteries had no complaint to make of unsuitable rooms being provided for his examination of workers or of want of privacy; and in the very few cases mentioned by the other surgeons, in which the intervention of the medical inspector was necessary, there was no difficulty in securing better conditions. As regards the alleged superficial nature of the present examination, I may point out that all that can be done on factory premises in the way of physical examination is to observe the objective signs of absorption of lead into the system, which are very few, namely,

  1567
  blue line on gums, anæmia, and weakness of fingers or wrist. In cases where the certifying surgeon considers a further examination necessary he arranges for the workman to attend at his surgery.

  Clare Lunatic Asylum Sewerage Scheme.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade will he inquire into the cause of delay in not returning plans of sewerage from the Clare Lunatic Asylum to the inspectors of lunatics, in order that the sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant be obtained to carry out the works, those plans having been forwarded to the Board of Trade eight months ago, and notices published in the Dublin and local papers over four months ago, asking for any objections to the sewage works being carried out, and stating that within twenty-one days the Board would proceed in the matter; whether he is aware that a serious epidemic of typhoid fever broke out at the asylum owing to the alleged defective sewerage, by which several of the patients lost their lives, and the sanction of the Board of Trade became necessary owing to the fact that the sewers are to be carried over a small stream subject to tidal influence that runs dry in the summer season; and that the principal owner and occupier of the adjacent lands gave his sanction to the project months ago.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The first communication in this matter from the Dublin Office of Lunatic Asylums was received in August last, but it was not until October that the necessary plans were forwarded to the Board who, in the same month, gave instructions for the application to be advertised. The Lunatic Asylums Office, however, demurred to the newspapers prescribed by the Board for the advertisement, with the result that proofs of the advertisement were received only on 5th January last. On receipt of these proofs the owners of property adjacent to the site of the proposed works were at once consulted by the Board of Trade, but one of them—though written to more than once—neglected to reply, thus causing delay. The Board of Trade have now informed the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums that they are prepared to consent to the works on certain conditions. I
  1568
  have no information as to the matter referred to in the last part of the Question.

  Cost of Post Office Services in Scotland.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the amount of revenue for Post Office services in Scotland for the five years ending 31st March, 1907, and the cost of the said services for the same period.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The information for the year which ended on the 31st ultimo is not yet available. For the four previous years, it is as follows:—

  Year

  Revenue.

  Expenditure.

  £

  £

  1902–3

  1,798,000

  1,427,000

  1903–4

  1,866,000

  1,445,000

  1904–5

  1,912,000

  1,479,000

  1905–6

  2,004,500

  1,581,000

  Wage Receipts.
  MR. WILKIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that a receipt for wages, even if over the amount of £2, does not require a stamp to be affixed, he will issue instructions that the custom of causing post office servants to so affix stamps to their wages receipts be discontinued in the future.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTOX: There is no foundation for the premiss that a receipt for wages of £2 or upwards is exempt from stamp duty.

  Royston Head Teachership.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the two members of the West Riding education authority who reported upon the head teachership of the Royston School, have for some years been members of the staffing committee, one of them being the chairman, and are consequently specially experienced in making the staffing appointments throughout the Riding, and that their clerk had previously been a school inspector, and

  1569
  was consequently specially experienced in dealing with children and testing the efficiency of teachers; will he say whether the Board of Education has ever issued any regulations that the duration of visits to schools shall exceed forty-five minutes; that more than fifteen minutes shall be spent with the children in the school; and that more than six questions in geography and mental arithmetic shall always be asked of the children.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): I understand that the facts stated in the first portion of my hon. friend's Question are correct, but I have no information as to the accuracy of the conclusions which he draws from them. The Board have no jurisdiction to determine what evidence a local education authority may require upon which to base a decision as to the educational unfitness of a teacher, and they have not, therefore, issued any regulations on the subject.

  Elementary School Rifle Corps.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the Board of Education is in favour of having rifle corps attached to public elementary schools; whether instructions have been issued to inspectors to suggest to head masters of public elementary schools that their influence should be used during school hours to induce boys to join such rifle corps; whether the Board of Education is aware that at Galley's Field Upper Standard School, Hartlepool, targets are exhibited in the school, and boys have been taken out of school before the time for closing shown on the official time table for the purpose of receiving instruction in sighting, and for practising shooting on the rifle range; and that boys have boon reprimanded in school for being absent from such instruction.
  MR. MCKENNA: No instructions have been issued to inspectors of the kind suggested in the hon. Gentleman's Question, and I should not favour the issue of such instructions. The Board have no information as to the incidents referred to in the latter part of the Question, but I will cause inquiries to be made.
  MR. BYLES: Is it not the fact that at Lewisham forty out of forty-five elementary schools joined the Schools' Rifle Association?
  *MR. SPEAKER: This Question relates to Hartlepool, which is a long way from Lewisham.

  Board of Agriculture Offices.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is now able to state whether the Government propose to take any steps to improve the existing accommodation of the Board of Agriculture.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Mr. HARCOURT): The First Commissioner is considering the matter; but regrets that he is unable to make any statement on the subject at present.

  New Government Buildings at Whitehall.
  MR. LANE-FOX: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what Government Departments are to be accommodated in the new buildings in Whitehall; and what is to be the eventual use to which the old War Office in Pall Mall is to be put.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Education and the Local Government Board will be accommodated in the new public offices as soon as they are ready for occupation. The most westerly portion of the old War Office, Nos. 80, 81, and 82, Pall Mall, is occupied by the Barrack Construction Department. The two houses adjoining, Nos. 83 and 84, will be occupied by the Office of Woods pending the rebuilding of their offices in Whitehall Place. All other houses have been surrendered to the Office of Woods, and the eventual use of these premises is a matter for that Department.

  Licensing Compensation Appeals.
  COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the delay of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in dealing with appeals under the Licensing Act, 1904, in respect of compensation in cases where the renewal of licences has been refused by the county licensing authority;

  1571
  whether he is aware that, in consequence of such delay, eighteen licensed houses in Monmouthshire, which twelve months ago were declared unnecessary or unsuitable, still remain open for the sale of intoxicants; whether the machinery for dealing with the large number of similar appeals from all parts of the country exists in the office of the Commissioners; and whether he will take steps to render operative the Licensing Act, 1904.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: In six of the eighteen cases in question the full details required by the Board of Inland Revenue have not yet been obtained from the claimants, and it is not desirable to deal with cases from any district otherwise than together.

  City of London Charities.
  SIR D. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, during the year ended 31st October, 1906, distributed out of moneys received by them from the Trustees of the City Parochial Charities to the churches of St. Mary, Aldermary, and St. Peter, Cornhill, the sums of £250 and £100 respectively, for repairs to their organs, in addition to the annual sums which they are authorised to pay for the maintenance of the fabric of the said churches, and for the ordinary cleaning and repairs of the said churches and the ornaments thereof by the Central Scheme of 23rd February, 1891; if so, by what authority, having regard to the terms of the City Parochial Charities Act, 1883, and the said Scheme, are these payments justified; and whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, during the year ended 31st October, 1906, made an additional annual grant of £60 to the church of St. Alban, Wood Street, out of moneys received by them from the Trustees of the City Parochial Charities, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 49 of the Central Scheme of 23rd February, 1891, forbidding such increases.
  MR. TOMKINSON: The grants voted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1906 out of the residuary income of the City Church Fund paid over to them by the Central Governing Body of the City Parochial
  1572
  Foundation are set out in the Appendix No. 32 to the Annual Report of the Commissioners recently presented to Parliament, and they include the three grants mentioned in the Question. The annual sums authorised by the Central Scheme of 23rd February, 1891, to be paid for repairs of the fabrics of (amongst others) the churches of St. Mary, Aldermary, St. Peter, Cornhill, and St. Alban, Wood Street, and for the maintenance of the services of those churches, are payable by the Central Governing Body before any residue of income becomes payable to the Commissioners. There is nothing in the City Parochial Charities Act, 1883, or in the Central Scheme of 1891 to preclude the Commissioners from making to churches entitled to payments from the Central Governing Body other grants out of the residuary income paid over to the Commissioners. The grants in the cases of St. Mary, Aldermary, and St. Peter, Cornhill, were voted by the Commissioners in the exercise of their discretion in the application of the residuary income within the limits prescribed by the Act of 1883. The expenditure upon the organs was of an altogether exceptional nature. In the case of St. Mary, Aldermary, the repairs have been completed at a cost of over £1,200; in the case of St. Peter, Cornhill, the projected expenditure is not less than £1,000. The grant of £60 towards the maintenance of the services in the church of St. Alban, Wood Street, was made by the Commissioners in pursuance of an Order in Council of 1894 relating to-the Union of the Benefices of St. Alban, Wood Street, and St. Michael, Wood Street. By this Order the Commissioners were directed out of such moneys as should from time to time be received by them under the provisions of the City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883, to make such a grant as would raise to £220 per annum the funds available for the maintenance of divine service in St. Alban's Church, which was thenceforth to serve as the church of the united parish. The grant of £60 raises the provision of £160 per annum under the Central Scheme of 1891 to the sum of £220 so fixed. The church of St. Michael, Wood Street, was demolished, and the annual payments of £45 and £250 directed by the Scheme of 1891 to be made by the Central Governing Body out of the City Church Fund for

  1573
  the benefit of that church ceased and fell into the residuary income payable to the Commissioners.

  Kilshanny Evicted Tenant.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mary Organ, of Carrowerah, Kilshanny, West Clare, aged eighty-four years, was served with an ejectment on 7th December, 1906, and secondly served on 15th January, 1907, and evicted on 8th March, 1907; and that the landlord, Lord Inchiquin, or his agent, Mr. Edward O'Brien, was offered two years rent as a settlement, and declined; if he will inquire of the Estates Commissioners why they did not reply to the tenant's application for reinstatement; and is he aware that a gamekeeper is grazing the evicted farm without the consent and against the wish of the tenant.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Estates Commissioners have not received a formal application for reinstatement from Mrs. Organ, but have received a letter from her in which she states that she was evicted on 8th March last, and asks for the Commissioners' assistance in the matter. The Commissioners have hitherto limited their intervention to the cases of evicted tenants who were evicted before the Act of 1903 was passed, and they do not propose to inquire at present into cases of eviction since the passing of the Act. Such cases will only be inquired into in connection with the sales of the particular estates on which the evictions took place. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the facts of the particular case.

  Athenry Outrages.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received police reports upon the occurrences of 13th March in the neighbourhood of Athenry when shots were fired into the house of a man named Tierney and stones were thrown into the dwelling of Mrs. Raftery; whether the last named was injured by this assault; and whether these persons are now protected from a repetition of such attacks.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply to each part of the Question is in the affirmative. The police are paying special attention to the locality with a view to the protection of the persons referred to.
  *MR. JOHN ROCHE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more crime is committed in the Brigg Parliamentary Division than in any four counties in Ireland.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Ballinageeragh Rioters.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenent of Ireland whether he has received police reports to the effect that, for a considerable time past, a number of men in the district of Ballinageeragh have been hiding from the police in order to escape arrest from warrants issued against them on a charge of riot at an eviction; whether repeated efforts have been made, under circumstances of hardship, to execute those warrants; and whether he is taking steps to ensure that the King's writ shall run in county Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether he is aware that the persons referred to in the Question have voluntarily surrendered to the magistrates some days ago, and that the case is now sub judice?
  MR. BIRRELL: That is practically what I was about to say. The offence referred to, which took place in September last, consisted in a riot on an evicted farm, but not at an eviction. Five of the offenders were dealt with at the last winter assizes. Others against whom warrants were issued succeeded in evading arrest, being assisted by the difficult and mountainous nature of the country. Two of these have recently been apprehended, and twelve have surrendered to the police; and the case against all these persons is now Sub judice. The two remaining accused persons are believed to have left the country.

  Munster Rents.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the average reduction given on

  1575
  the fixing of second-term judicial rents by the Land Commission, first, in Munster, and, secondly, in all Ireland during the past twelve months; has it been the invariable practice of the Land Commission valuers to appreciate the land as they found it without making any allowance for the outlay of the tenants and the improvements effected by them; and whether, seeing that the terms suggested in the Land Conference Report were based upon second-term rents reduced by 22 per cent., do the reductions at present obtained by tenants bear any approximate relation to this figure.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Land Commission that during the twelve months ending 31st March last the average reduction given on the fixing of second-term rents was, in Munster 19 per cent, and in all Ireland 18·6 per cent. In fixing fair rents the Land Commission pay due regard to the provisions of the Land Law Acts as judicially interpreted by the Supreme and other Courts in numerous decisions. Section 1 of the Land Law Act, 1896, requires the Court, when fixing a fair rent, to record in a schedule, unless both landlord and tenant shall other wise request, certain particulars, including the improvements made wholly or partly by the tenant or at his cost, and the deduction from the rent made on account of such improvements. This statutory direction is, the Commissioners inform me, invariably obeyed.

  Queen's County Evicted Tenants.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say what is delaying the reinstatement of John Tynan to his holding at Deny Keeran, Raheen, Mountrath, on the estate of Sir Kildare; Burrows; and whether, in view of the fact that Michael Dillon, an evicted tenant upon the Sheane estate, also in Raheen parish, has been reinstated, although the sale upon the Sheane estate was subsequent to that of the estate of Sir Kildare Burrows, he can explain the delay in dealing with John Tynan's application.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are in negotiation with the owner for the purchase of the holding in this ease, with the object of reinstating the
  1576
  evicted tenant. The Commissioners have not yet been able to come to an agreement with the owner as to price, but are making further inquiries in the matter. There has been no undue delay in the case.

  Albemarle Estate Evicted Tenant.
  MR. THOMAS F. SMYTH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to-the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Thomas Scollen, Corlishen, Drumsna, for the farm of land in Corlishen, on the Albemarle estate, in county Leitrim, from which his father was evicted about twenty years ago; and, if so, will an inspector be sent to investigate the case.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estate Commissioners have received the application in question and have had the case investigated. The present occupant of the evicted farm is unwilling to surrender it, and as the Commissioners understand that the evicted tenant received compensation when leaving the holding they have decided to take no action in the matter.

  Dublin Civil Servants.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what functions are exercised by Sir E. W. A. Holmes, K.C.B., Treasury Remembrancer at Dublin, with reference to applications for promotion forwarded to the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury by the heads of Irish Government departments; whether he is aware that a feeling exists among Dublin Civil Servants that their advancement is in no wise proportionate to the increases granted to Sir Robert's personal staff; whether he will state, with reference to Messrs. J. T. Drennan, H. P. Boland, and E. Fahey, who were successively personal clerks to Sir Robert, what would be the present amount of their salaries it those of them who were entitled to annual increments received them, but no other promotion, from the date of their first appointment to the Treasury Remembrancer's office; what is the amount of the present salary and allowances of each of these gentlemen; whether there are any other instances in the Dublin Civil Service of either temporary or permanent clerks receiving such rapid advancement as has been given to these clerks; and whether he can

  1577
  arrange that other Dublin Civil Servants can be afforded equal opportunities to Sir Robert's staff when opportunities for promotion arise.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have made inquiries respecting the substance of this Question, and I am satisfied that there is no foundation for the insinuations which it contains against an officer of high distinction who has earned the confidence of successive Boards of Treasury. The hon. Member has put to me several Questions containing reflections on the personal character of public officials, for which I have found no evidence, and I must take this opportunity of adding that I shall in future decline to answer further inquiries of this kind.
  MR. DELANY: May I be allowed to ask the Prime Minister whether he will provide a gramaphone for the Treasury Bench in order to answer such Questions?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  At the end of Questions:
  MR. DELANYasked Mr. Speaker whether it was in order for any Minister to refuse to answer Questions placed on the Paper regarding his Department or to announce in anticipation that he declined to answer in future Questions put to him.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the Secretary to the Treasury refused to answer any Questions the hon. Member might put to him, but only certain Questions of a particular character. He said that if Questions of that character were put he would not undertake to answer them. I cannot compel any Minister to answer; he must use his judgment in each case as to whether an answer is desirable or not.
  MR. DELANY: To whom shall I in future address Questions in order that I may get an Answer? Is it to be to the clerks at the Table?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The only duty of the clerks at the Table is to see that the Question is framed according to Parliamentary traditions and order. It remains with the Minister to decide upon public grounds whether it should be answered or not.
  MR. DELANY: Am I to consult the Secretary to the Treasury as to whether a Question I wish to ask him is of the character he approves?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Dublin Post Office Employees Grievances.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to complaints with reference to the treatment meted out to his employees in the Dublin office; is he aware that the annual increments of several officers have recently been stopped for such offences as a hasty word over the wire to a clerk of equal rank; was it with his sanction that an officer has been fined £5 4s. who had not a single late attendance in the course of a year, and who only had five minor irregularities in the year's work; is he aware that such an officer would have been granted his increment quite readily a few years ago; and whether, in the interests of contentment and goodwill amongst all classes in the postal service, he will take steps to secure a cessation of such treatment.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have no reason to think that the post office staff at Dublin is treated differently from the staff at other offices, or that the present treatment is different from that accorded in the past. The annual increments of certain officers at Dublin were recently withhold because they had committed serious irregularities, precluding the grant of the necessary certificate of a year's approved service. The particular officer who appears to be referred to is one of these. He was not fined, but in view of his record his increment of 2s. a week could not be allowed in ordinary course. He appealed to me, and I personally considered his appeal, and confirmed the decision.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I hope very shortly.

  Colonies and the Tariffs.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any foreign country that gives as favourable treatment to British self-governing Colonies in the matter of tariffs as is given by the United Kingdom; and, if so, what is that country.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I presume that my hon. friend in asking this question is adopting the not unusual course of expressing by a question what is really his own opinion. I am not aware of any country which, on the whole, gives as favourable treatment to our self-governing Colonies as this country.

  Defence of the Colonies
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the obligation of this country to defend the self-governing Colonies has ever boon in any way defined by agreement or otherwise; and what is the reciprocal obligation which the Colonies have undertaken for the defence of the United Kingdom.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The obligation upon this country to defend the whole Empire is independent of any written agreement or treaty. No obligation on the part of the Colonies to participate in the defence of the United Kingdom has been made the subject of definition or of formal agreement. Judging from past experience, however, there seems to be no doubt that the Colonies recognise the obligations to assist in the defence of the Empire as a whole.

  Assistant Clerks.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will state when the Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the case of Assistant Clerks (new class), for which a petition signed by a majority of the Members of this House was presented to him on the 25th ultimo, will be appointed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The pay and conditions of service of the Assistant Clerks have repeatedly received careful consideration in the last few years, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by referring the subject to a Parliamentary Committee.

EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, etc., with an Amendment.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 125.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 125.]
Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, 1st July.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
George Smith Clark, esquire, for the Borough of Belfast (North Belfast Division.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES AND CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on the three Standing Committees for the consideration of all Public Bills not relating exclusively to Scotland, which may be committed to a Standing Committee.
Standing Committee A.
Mr. Adkins, Mr. Arthur Allen, Sir William Anson, Mr. Arkwright, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Ashley, Mr. Baker, Mr. Godfrey Baring, Mr. Beckett, Sir John Bethell, Mr. Boland, Mr. Cave, Sir Frederick Cawley, Mr. Evelyn Cecil, Mr. Chance, Mr. Cobbold, Sir William Collins, Mr. Harold Cox, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Timothy Davies, Mr. Devlin, Mr. Arthur Dewar, Sir William Foster, Sir Christopher Furness, Mr. Secretary Gladstone, Mr. Glover, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Mr. Gwynne, Mr. Harrison-Broadley, Mr. Alexander Harvey, Mr. William Edwin Harvey, Captain Hervey, Mr. Hodge, Mr. William Hope, Sir John Jardine, Lord John Joicey-Cecil, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Lloyd Morgan, Mr. McKillop, Mr. Mansfield, Sir Henry Norman, Mr. Nussey, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Partington, Dr. Pollard, Mr. Thomas Richards, Mr. Rickett Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Rothschild, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr.

1581
Herbert Samuel, Mr. Seaverns, Major Seeley, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Smyth, Sir Benjamin Stone, Mr. Theodore Taylor. Mr. Waldron, Mr. Walrond, Mr. John Ward, and Mr. Cathcart Wason.
Sanding Committee B.
Sir John Baker, Captain Balfour, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Bright, Mr. Burns, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Byles, Viscount Castlereagh, Lord Robert Cecil, Sir Francis Channing, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Clynes, Major Coates, Mr. Cochrane, Dr. Cooper, Sir Edwin Cornwall, Sir Henry Cotton, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Vaughan Davies, Mr. Evans, Mr. Ferens, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Haddock, Mr. George Hardy, Mr. Harwood, Mr. James Haslam, Mr. Hazleton, Colonel Ivor Herbert, Mr. Higham, Mr. Hooper, Mr. Hutton, Mr. William Jones, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kettle, Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Lane-Fox, Sir Joseph Leese, Sir Francis Lowe, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. Massie, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Mond, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Murray, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Nolan, Mr. Parker, Mr. Paulton, Sir Francis Powell, Mr. Charles Price, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Richardson, Mr. John Robertson, Mr, Rogers, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Soares, Mr. Austin Taylor, Mr. David Alfred Thomas, Mr. Walton, Mr. Walsh, Sir Thomas Whittaker, Mr. Wolff, Mr. Wyndham, and Mr. Yoxall.
Standing Committee C.
Mr. William Abraham (Cork), Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Alden, Mr. Harmood-Banner, Mr. Barran, Sir John Benn, Mr. Billson, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Brace, Mr. Bramsdon, Mr. Carlile, Mr. Cheetham, Mr. Herbert Craig, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Cross, Mr. Cullinan, Mr. Dickinson, Sir Frederick Dixon-Hartland, Mr. Dolan, Sir George Doughty, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. James Duncan, Mr. Clement Edwards, Mr. Everett, Mr. Denison Faber, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Hart-Davies, Mr. Hayden, Mr. Healy, Mr. Idris, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Lehmann, Mr. Lloyd-George, Colonel Charles Long, Mr. Walter Long, Sir Philip Magnus, Major McMicking, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Napier, Mr. Paul, Earl Percy, Mr. Pickersgill Mr. William Priestley, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Rees, Mr. George Henry Roberts, Sir
1582
George Scott Robertson, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Soames, Sir Albert Spicer, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Verney, Sir Howard Vincent, Mr. Vivian, Mr. Walker, Mr. Warner, Mr. George White, Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Osmond Williams, Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and Mr. Young.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee that they had nominated Committee A as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee that they had selected the following eight Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Four Standing Committees to be appointed under Standing Order No. 47:—Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Sir William Holland, Sir David Brynmor Jones, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), and Mr. John William Wilson.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Army (Annual) Bill, without Amendment.

NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS.
LORD R. CECIL: in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the early notification of births, said that he had taken the unusual course of asking leave under the ten minutes rule, because of the very great gravity of the evil with which the Bill, however imperfectly and however modestly, attempted to deal. At the present moment 120,000 infants under one year of age died in this country every year, and it was no exaggeration to say that of these 60,000 might be saved if proper measures were taken. Such a state of things required the very earnest consideration of the House, for it amounted to this, that out of every 1,000 children born in this country 145 died without reaching the age of one year; and there were particular localities in which as many as 250, 300, or even 400 out of every 1,000 born died at that early age. It was no exaggeration to

1583
say that half of them might be saved; for the rate in some of our Colonies was no higher than seventy per 1,000, and in some of our own counties it was not higher than eighty-four. The seriousness of the question was not diminished by the fact that while the general death-rate in this country had been much diminished as the result of sanitary measures, the infantile death rate remained practically stationary. That he attributed mainly to two causes—neglect by mothers of their own health before the birth of their children, and neglect of the children's health immediately after they were born. He did not suggest for a moment that the neglect was due to wickedness or even to carelessness exactly, but it was in most cases due to ignorance, which was a far more potent cause of infantile mortality than the more commonly assigned causes of parental poverty and intemperance. Something could be done to remedy this state of affairs by the provision of skilled assistance to mothers in the early days of motherhood, and many health societies throughout the country had charged themselves with this duty. Remarkable results had been achieved in Huddersfield from the creditable efforts of the ex-mayor. But under the existing registration law six weeks might elapse before registration, and one-third of the children dying in the first year of life died in the first six weeks; so that these children were dead before the societies to which he referred could know that they had been born. It was solely with a view to remedy this defect that he had been asked to introduce this Bill. It provided that within forty-eight hours of the birth of every child a notification of that birth should be given to the medical officer of health. Notification was to be made in the simplest way, it being specially provided that it might be made by post card, and the duty of notifying a birth was thrown, in the first place, on the father of the child and, failing him, on any one who had been in attendance on the mother. The Bill further required that notification of children stillborn should be made as well as of those born alive. He urged the House to consider the seriousness of the evil the Bill was designed, he would not say to cure, but in some degree to mitigate. This was a non-Party question, and he ventured to hope that the Bill would be regarded as absolutely non-contentious.
1584
It was supported by hon Members in all quarters of the House, and he hoped its promoters would have the sympathetic support of the Government, and that the measure might be passed into law before the close of the present session.
Motion made, and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the early Notification of Births,"—(Lord R. Cecil)—put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Shackle-ton, Mr. Verney, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Masterman, Mr. Sherwell, and Mr. Tennant.

NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS BILL.
"To provide for the early Notification of Births," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

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. REESsaid that on a previous occasion he indicated that the scheme of the Secretary of State for War had been received with favour in his constituency, and particularly that portion of it which referred to the Volunteers and the Territorial Army. But since then the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had referred to the

1585
provisions of the Bill as affecting India, and had argued that a striking force of 167,000 men was larger than was needed, seeing that we were now on good terms with Russia, whose armies, moreover, could not quickly get into India, so that in case of difficulty there would be ample time to make any arrangements that might be required for the protection of our Eastern Empire. With all due respect for the great authority of the right hon. Gentleman, he submitted that the views expressed by him were not those entertained by military experts connected with India. The voice of the right hon. Gentleman, as that of one who was, in respect of every attribute but ago, an old Parliamentary hand was no doubt entitled to much weight, but so also were the views of those who spoke with great knowledge of India, and surely what was sauce for the old Parliamentarian should be sauce for the old soldier. Each in his own field was entitled to equal weight and consideration. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to look forward also with equanimity or satisfaction, to a diminution of this force of 167,000, but he submitted that in the absence of any provision for expanding it for six months after a war had broken out it was highly inexpedient that there should be any such reduction. The right hon. Gentleman had rightly said that the basis of the numerical strength of the force was the number of units actually existing at home to find drafts for India, and he had referred to the danger that existed lest the cost of the Army should lead to insistent demands for the reduction of the Navy. But he remembered that on a preceding occasion the right hon. Gentleman supported a proposal for a reduction of the Navy, and in view of that he hoped that his authority would not be given in support of reducing the striking force provided for by this scheme—a force which would not be at all too large for the next few years. The fact was that the Army at home chiefly existed for the purpose of finding drafts for India, and anyone who had not seen the Army in India had never seen the British Army. The one was the substance, the other the shadow. There was one other matter to be considered in connection with the question of reduction, and that was the effect upon the people of India themselves and throughout the East. That was very
1586
well illustrated by a recent incident. A cordon of police was placed in one of the best educated districts in India for plague purposes, and it was immediately reported among the natives that British rule had ceased to exist south of the cordon, which was designed to prevent the spread northwards of news of the catastrophe, while actually in one village the watchman went round proclaiming that a new reign had begun and that the possession of the country had changed hands. Absurd as the story was, it proved how a reduction of our Army might be viewed by the natives. We were, therefore, bound to have regard to the potential as well as the actual result of any such dealings with the British Army. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had several times argued that the Cardwellian system was not suited to our requirements, but at any rate it had sufficed up to the present to keep up the supply of white troops up to the standard which was declared to be necessary immediately after the Mutiny, and had been found necessary up to the present moment. We wanted not so much great masses of troops in India, but it was requisite that they should possess staying power and power of expansion. If the House should feel that it was keeping up for the sake of India a force larger than was needed for English wants, and involving a burden greater than the taxpayer should be called upon to bear, he would beg hon. Members to remember what were the functions of the force, what it did in the South African War (when it saved Natal), and what it had done in China, Abyssinia, Tibet, Egypt, and Afghanistan. When they got down to the number of sabres, bayonets, and guns in the expeditionary force, deducting the non-combatants, it seemed after all to be very moderate in size. But the right hon. Baronet appeared to argue that this force involved enormous expenditure, and that this expense was annually growing in India. But there had, however, been a decrease of half a million in the Estimates, despite the extra outlay on quick-firing guns and officers, and the increase in the forces in India in the last few years was by no means commensurate with the increase in the area of the Empire and the increase in its population. In his opinion European troops could not be reduced in India, for we had potential enemies on

1587
frontiers now almost, including Persia, Beluchistan, and Mesopotamia, against whom provision must be made. Our Army in India was now based on the standard decided on at the close of the Mutiny; no regard had since been had to the increase of territory and population, and he would view with great anxiety any change which tended to reduce that standard. The Army in India ought not to suffer from experiments made at home, and he was glad to hear that, during the next year, there was to be no alteration either in system or in numbers in India. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said he wanted a democratic Army. Might he substitute the word "national" for "democratic?"
*SIR CHARLES D1LKE: I protest. The hon. Member is putting certain statements into my mouth and I cannot recognise any of them. When I was alluding to the Indian Army and the striking force I quoted a statement by the Leader of the Opposition in which the inapplicability of the force to India was pointed out. Again, I made no demand for a democratic Army, but I pointed out that the Secretary of State had used that term and I said I could not find it in the scheme for officering the Army.
*MR. REESsaid he had evidently misunderstood The Times report, but he had had the advantage also of hearing his hon. friend. He stuck to his point that this force was not too great for the calls which might be made upon it. He thought it a very distressing thing to try and introduce into this subject the question of democracy. They must remember that when war broke out every class sent its sons into the field, and in this connection he would like to quote some words by Colonel à Court Repington, who said—
"The realtor Army must, retain its present place if England is governed by sane men. We must resist to the last all further attempts to reduce the regular Army at home or abroad, because it is indispensable for foreign garrisons' reliefs and drafts, and a second line Army can only supplement it and can never supplant it."
Under the Government of Mr. Gladstone, when Mr. Cardwell was War Minister, seventy-one battalions were maintained
1588
at home in order to keep up the Indian Army, and that was at a period when the Empire was neither so rich, so extensive, nor so populous as now. How then was it possible now to justify any reduction? The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had given a general support to the arguments of the right hon. Baronet, and if he understood him rightly he had argued that in six weeks we could under our present system of fourteen days annual training—one half of which depended on the good will of employers—get an Army as good as that of the Swiss which was based on sixty-five days compulsory training every year, and was moreover a conscript army.
MAJOR SEELY: If the hon. Member will forgive me I should like to say that he is misrepresenting me, unintentionally no doubt. What I said was that the Army proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would with six weeks training subsequent to mobilisation be as good as the Swiss Army.
*MR. REESsaid he could not even agree with that. He had consulted a good many soldiers on the point, and all experts disagreed with the view of the hon. and gallant Member.
MAJOR SEELY: It is simply a question of arithmetic.
*MR. REESsaid it was a military and not an arithmetical question, and depended on many factors other than arithmetic. Any attempt to represent the amateur as equal to the professional soldier and to disparage the value of and need for training was, he thought, disastrous. He must insist that with anything like our present periods of voluntary training the territorial forces of the future would necessarily need months to form and harden by training after war had broken out or after embodiment, and would not, therefore, be able to answer all the calls that might be made upon them. Further than that, the hon. and gallant Member had seemed to suggest the desirability of officers passing through the ranks as in Prussia, because he said it promoted an admirable feeling between officers and men.
*MAJOR SEELY: What I said was that if the Prussian Army was more democratic than ours it was because many officers in the Landwehr had first to serve in the ranks, whereas in our Army the number of promotions from the ranks was so small as to be a negligible quantity.
*MR. REESdoubted if the system was worthy our adoption, and was amazed at the suggestion that the Prussian army was more democratic than our own. The expression in respect of an army seemed to him most inappropriate, and could, he thought, only connote the feeling to which he referred. Was the hon. and gallant Member not aware of certain figures regarding mortality in the Prussian Army? It was entirely wrong to suggest that British officers were not on good terms with their men, or that an antidemocratic feeling was rife in our Army.
MAJOR SEELY: I never did.
*MR. REESsaid the hon. and gallant Member suggested that the adoption of the foreign system, to wit, that of Prussia, would bring about an improvement in that respect.
MAJOR SEELY: No, no!
*MR. REESsaid he despaired in that case of getting at exactly what the hon. and gallant Member meant by his reference to Prussia by way of example, and would pass from that point to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Preston. That Amendment suggested that the Bill should not be proceeded with until we had ascertained what the Colonies would contribute to the national defence. He hoped that in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that day to the effect that the obligation of England to defend the whole Empire was undisputed the Amendment would not be moved. It would be a most unfortunate thing if that subject were raised in the House of Commons at the present moment, and he hoped the hon. Member would give up the bad habit of trying to settle everything by logic. Those questions could not be settled on arithmetical or logical lines. He considered that the participation of the Colonies in any defence scheme should run on the line
1590
of each Colony defending itself, or rather perfecting its owndefences, providing as far as possible its own troops, and relying on one great Navy at the centre of the Empire. He was delighted to have the concurrence of the hon. Member for Preston in that, but he would remind him of the fate of another logician, who was in the habit of proving the worse to be the better case. The Parliament of Athens sent Socrates a dose of hemlock, and he sincerely hoped the electors of Preston would not do the like for his hon. friend, whose courage he admired, and whose abilities he envied. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil had objected to the Bill because it sought to introduce militarism into our schools, and he wished to stats that in the City of London there was a boys' shooting club, which apparently was approved by the boys' fathers. The parents were all asked if they agreed to their boys taking part in it. Out of 100 parents ninety-nine agreed, and there was only one parent who objected. He rather wondered that even one man objected to his son's being brought up to become proficient in such exercises. Was it necessary to kill, because one could shoot, and who was so dangerous with gun in hand, as the man inexpert in its use? The hon. Member had also said that the high places in the Army were the monopoly of the rich and well to do; but in view of the case of Hector Macdonald it was absurd to say that there were not means by which a capable man could rise from the ranks. Every boy in a humble station could not by legislation be placed in a position occupied by others as a result perhaps of generations of industry, ability and self restraint. To say he could was the idle dream of the idle agitator. He maintained that under the present system there was a ladder up which all could climb step by step. He had seen it largely used in Wales where, in his own constituency, boys had mounted to the topmost rung, but not so much in England. In the English ladder an all-important "Intermediate" rung was wanting. Still, the ladder did exist, and it was quite possible for boys to rise to the highest positions, if they were deserving of them. Then it was said that the Bill of the Government would interfere with the industrial

1591
relations between employer and employed. He did not know how that could be, but he did know that the hon. Gentlemen who clamoured most for reductions in the Army and Navy were the first to object to the discharges of men at Woolwich Arsenal. They could not have it both ways, and besides, if relief was given in one constituency by providing State employment beyond the needs of the State and not in others, it must produce considerable disappointment and dissatisfaction amongst those who were far removed from the throne of grace, or had not such powerful Members as other constituencies had. He did not see that any constituency had a greater claim in this respect than another, and would oppose any benefits not extended to the Montgomery district. Moreover, he did not see the justification for the complaint that this Bill would interfere with industrial relations between employer and I employed, because 60 to 86 per cent. of the soldiers were artisans, labourers, miners, and factory hands. Then the hon. Member had said that the Secretary of State for War's scheme would create a military spirit; but it was folly to suppose that a man who shot straight wanted to kill. On this point he would like to read a communication from President Roosevelt to the Senate. The President, who was the greatest living peacemaker, said—
"Nothing would more promote iniquity, nothing would further defer the reign upon earth of peace and righteousness, than for the free and enlightened peoples, who strive towards justice, deliberately to render themselves powerless, while leaving every despotism and barbarism armed and able to work their wicked will. The chance for the settlement of disputes peacefully by arbitration now depends mainly upon the possession by the nations that mean to do right of sufficient armed strength to make their purpose effective."
Those were words with which he would associate himself in regard to the condemnation which had been uttered of this military training in schools. He would give the hon. Member another passage from a speech of that great lover of peace and composer of differences between the nations. President Roosevelt also said—
"We should establish shooting galleries in all the large public and military schools, should maintain national target ranges in different
1592
parts of the country, and should in every way encourage, the formation of rifle clubs throughout all parts of the land."
He was not in favour of conscription, nor were his constituents, but they did believe in training the people to be capable of defending themselves and their country, and while he was on the subject of rifle ranges he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not forget that there was a district which had supplied him with many brave soldiers in the past, and which would do so in the future, and which badly needed a rifle range—he meant the military centre at Welshpool. As to the financial aspect of the question, he thought the House should not lose any financial control it possessed over the money voted under the present system for Volunteers; but while he was keen on maintaining such control it did not follow that a system of red tape should be introduced which might strangle the new system and bring about friction. Volunteer accounts differed from those of the Army, and there should be some elasticity in regard to the auditing of such accounts. The county associations, too, would not like their accounts to be audited by the War Office officials, and this work should be done, if possible, by chartered accountants. These associations, he felt sure, not being very amenable to pressure from the War Office, would accept the criticisms of these public accountants in a good spirit, and the accountants being in the habit of working for the public would not be liable to Parliamentary or official pressure. He noticed that nearly every speech that had been made expressed doubt about the finance of the Territorial Army, and he wished to express a strong hope that the Secretary of State would lay a Memorandum giving figures showing how the scheme was to be financed. If that were done it would conduce to the better understanding of the subject, which hon. Members like himself were not able to make out without assistance. The Bill dealt with a subject which was too serious to be left to experts alone, and no Member could divest himself of personal responsibility. His own responsibility was great, as here presented a district which had provided many good soldiers to the Line and to the Auxiliary Forces,

1593
and would, he hoped, continue to discharge that valuable function.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD (Leicester)said that up till now much time had been occupied in listening to the opinion of experts, and in the main it seemed that one high expert had spent his time in flatly contradicting the statement made by the high expert who preceded him. This was the third Army scheme which the House of Commons had had to consider in recent years, and every Minister responsible for the schemes that had gone before had, he believed,one after another, informed the House that he was introducing his scheme with the full concurrence and support of his expert advisers at the War Office. In some ways, therefore, it was exceedingly embarrassing for amateurs like the Labour Members to make up their mind as to how they were going to vote. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member who had just addressed the House had said, that the question of Army organisation was not altogether a question for experts; but he thought they would feel a little more comfortable in their minds if the experts who professed to know more about these questions and how an army ought to be constructed, would kindly through the life of one Ministry, and also, he might venture to suggest when one Ministry Gave place to another, show some consistent point of view, and produce a scheme which, although it might vary in details, was nevertheless constructed upon the same fundamental idea as that which had preceded it. He had done his best to follow this question, more especially as the illness of his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr prevented him from being there to speak on behalf of the Party; but in his (Mr. Macdonald's) search for knowledge and consistency he found himself in the position of Japhet when he commenced his search for his father. The opinions were conflicting and contradictory, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, if he read his speech aright, suggested that even the figures presented from actuarial sources recently in connection with the scheme were open to very grave suspicion in
1594
regard to their accuracy. All he could say by way of consolation was that that might give a glint of hope to those who wanted a further reduction of armaments-that when they saw a Labour Party in power it could go to the War Office and be able to produce a scheme dividing the Army by half, and their War Minister would be able to rise in his place on the Government bench and inform hon. Gentlemen opposite to him that his scheme for reduction of the Army to half and of the expenditure to one-third or one-fourth had been produced with the full concurrence of the experts at the War Office, in whose hands the military destinies of the country rested. There was only one thing of which he was perfectly certain, and that was that if ever the time came when a Government sitting on those benches was responsible for the production of a scheme for conscription, the military advisers at the War Office would honestly produce a scheme with which Ministers would agree, and before he sat down he was going to express the suspicion that the scheme before the House was perhaps the first stage towards that most undesirable end. He did not desire to take up the time of the House in offering expert criticisms. He was not competent to do so, but he did hope before the Second Reading of this Bill took place they might have some clear ideas conveyed to their minds on these matters. Up to the present they had not had any information of that kind and they were still in the dark. They had no guarantee that, if by any accident the present Ministry were to disappear and another Ministry were to make itself responsible for another Army scheme, within six months a totally different set of proposals would no be brought forward, and they would be asked to vote upon them. But without wasting words, he desired to say they associated themselves with the criticisms made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean as to the size of Army that was needed. They were not at all convinced that it was necessary to increase the personnel of the Army at the present time, and he thought if the officials at the War Office had been pressed a little more they would have given evidence in

1595
favour of the doubt the Labour Members felt. Surely by this time every reasonable man must have come to the conclusion that the game of " beggar my neighbour," of adding battalion to battalion because some other country had done so, or some other country threatened to do so, was ridiculous, and that the time had come to try to meet the difficulty, not by an increase of armaments, but by a diplomatic understanding as to the strength of those armaments. The Party to which he be longed was an international Parliamentary Party, charged with the task of helping to a solution this great question in every Parliament in Europe, and the Labour and Socialist Party would be betraying itself if the Labour Members allowed a Bill increasing the personnel of the Army to go through the British House of Commons without making a protest by voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. They were not in favour of " a nation in arms." It was a grandiloquent expression and looked patriotic. One had to disclaim that expression because so many people were of opinion that unless one was in favour of " a nation in arms " he was not a patriot nor a lover of his country, and did not appreciate the great traditional and spiritual inheritance that the past had given to him. He denied the accusation, which was false, because those who declined to echo that cry did so or the reason that they were convinced, by a study of the history of European countries and of contemporary politics at home and abroad, that it was not going to solve one problem that faced us as a power in the world and was not going to help us to keep the flag of the country high or to keep it clean as they desired to do. He wished to offer some criticisms on the Bill, not as a military expert, but as one who was interested in the civil politics of the country. The problem of the Army was even a greater civil problem than a military one. It was one which interested every Member of the House, even though they had not the honour of being, as he had not, an officer in the Yeomanry or Militia. The first objection which the Labour Party took to the Bill was that it virtually destroyed the civil character of the Volun-
1596
teer Force. They were quite willing to admit that the Volunteers might to a large extent be open to the charge of having played at soldiering. He did not resist arguments pointing out that in its present condition the Volunteer Force was not a Force upon which we could rely in the case of invasion. They were perfectly prepared to support any proposal for improving the character and efficiency of the Volunteer Force. But that force could very properly make this claim-that it had never been appreciated by the War Office-never had a chance of showing what it could do as a Civil Force. The War Secretary sought to increase the military character of the Volunteer Force. From a legal point of view little or no change was to take place, but from a human point of view a revolution was to happen by the status of the Volunteer as defined in the Bill. The Force was now confronted by some serious obstacles which went to erect a very formidable barrier against its popularity. From inquiries he had made he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman would find that response to Volunteer recruiting which was necessary fto carry his scheme into successful operation. He hoped he was wrong in that belief, because the effect, if he was right, would be so serious that he would much rather find that his view was wrong. If this new scheme broke down there would be no bulwark against conscription. The right hon. Gentleman was like a gamester who played for very high stakes, but unlike a Scotsman, who left himself three or four chances of retrieving his first bad fortune. If the right hon. Gentleman lost he was done for, because it was absolutely impossible for him to hope to retrieve and reconstruct the Volunteer Home Defence Force on lines more free and easy and more liberal than those he had laid down in this Bill. He was like a general who was so confident that he could win a battle that he cut himself off from his base of supply. If he won it was all right, but if he lost he was annihilated, and the enemy chewed him up. As he had said, if the right hon. Gentleman's scheme broke down and the Volunteers did not enlist there was

1597
nothing between the country and conscription, and he had handed himself over to the National Service League and its propaganda. The Labour Party held a very strong objection to the county associations. They would be a union of influences mainly political and social. The county associations would change the political and social centre of gravity in our counties. He thought the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the appointment of Justices of the Peace, and some petty honours, knighthoods, and so forth, should be given to gentlemen who showed themselves active in regard to these associations.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said he referred to Deputy-Lieutenants.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that if it was confined to Deputy-Lieutenants he could not make the point he was going to make. He had misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, and he would not pursue it. They were to have the county associations, which would be necessarily political and social, and which, when they were in full working order, would become a new nucleus of political and social influence. He was bound to say that he could not see why the right hon. Gentleman did that. From the point of view of a democratic Government, he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not keep his weather eye open, and suspect the operation of those organisations. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to recreate a form of militarism which did not now correspond to the industrial condition of the country; he wanted to face a modern problem with a mediaeval idea in his mind. No Member of the House was more qualified than the right hon. Gentleman to see how very absurd that proposal was. Modern problems must be faced by modern methods; and the industrial basis which should be taken by the right hon. Gentleman, whatever machinery he cared to create, must be an industrial basis corresponding to existing facts, and not a basis which assumed the old-fashioned relationship between the hall and the village. He was really rather surprised, when the right hon. Gentleman
1598
was delivering his speech on the introduction of the Bill, to hear him talk of the country gentleman's relation to the village. He dealt in that speech with an idea which had gone; whether they liked it or not, they could not bring it back. His colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer had knocked another nail into the coffin of that state of things last Thursday, in introducing his Budget, and he hoped that more nails would be knocked into that coffin before this Parliament ended. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War could not indeed draw on that dead organisation, or upon a state of things which had been condemned, and would be condemned so far as it had any vitality in it; he could not trust to that as a basis on which to place the most important part of the mechanism which he brought into existence by his Bill. It ought to be modified. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the appeal made by his hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh, who desired some sort of assurance that the county associations, at all events as at present proposed, might not be regarded as an essential part of the Bill. Then they came to the question of the officers. An interim Report had been presented the other day on the supply of officers, and he thought they had received a warning of what was going to happen. When they saw a proposal made, an exceedingly curious proposal, that officers were to be created at the London School of Economics, he thought they must have been rather more amused than edified by it. If Punch had made the suggestion, it would have been laughed at, because it was laughable. The fact of the matter was, they were getting a little bit lax in their method of discovering ability. The method they were adopting now was that any man who passed any examination apparently was able to do anything. It was really about time, in a democratic Parliament at any rate, that they showed some discrimination in that respect. He was not going to deal with the appointment of officers in the Regular Army; it did not arise that day; but if the system was bad for the Regular Army, as he thought it was, it was ten times worse for the Home Defence Force. The whole idea of the Home Defence Force

1599
was the hearth and home idea. They had never used their opportunities in giving the Volunteer Forces some interesting work to do. Every corner of the country was full of problems of defence; every little wood, every little ditch, every tree, every irregularity of the ground, presented exceedingly interesting problems for an officer who knew how to handle his men, and how to occupy them with work which would be really interesting for them to do. They had been told that this was just beginning. What he would suggest to his right hon. friend was that if he wanted a test for officers-and of course there must be a test-why not create a class for officers on the spot? Why not take a leaf out of the book of our late enemies in South Africa? Why not give the ordinary farm labourer a chance of showing what he could do as a tactician? Let them put a man down twenty miles away from his home, on a dark nigh and tell him to identify the objects so far as he could see them. Let them give him the problem of bringing in twenty men to his own house, on the assumption that an enemy was following up behind him, and, if he did it, then make him an officer. What did it benefit that a man had been to Eton or Harrow, or that he went to a middle-class school? The only test imposed by a middle-class school was that the man's father had plenty of money to pay for his education. Surely the dead hand was not going to lie heavily on His Majesty's Government-His Majesty's present Government at any rate. These were the lines to go upon instead of those of the interim Report which was simply crammed full of social prejudices. Let them strike out some other method and select their officers as the Boers selected theirs. He had seen Boer officers living in the humblest huts, and whose wives and daughters served at table-men who had added chapters to the history of South Africa that would never tarnish. These men had not been sent to universities, and they were all the better for having been kept from secondary schools. If the Home Territorial Force was to be built up on the ideas of this interim Report, and on certain clauses of the Bill, they were going to have a force for show, and, not for
1600
fighting. The Labour Party wanted a force for fighting, and not for show. Their next objection was to the cadet corps. What happened was this. A youngster, a boy, a child, joined the cadet corps. They taught him certain drill, certain arts of war, and when the time came that he had to leave the cadet corps, he was sick of the whole business, and he did not join the Volunteers or the Regular Army. From the military point of view he thought that was a great danger. If they were going to depend on keen intellectual interest in this business, if they were going to create a hearth and home defence force, then let them not sicken the population too soon. Youths, after they had left the cadet corps, would consider that they had done their part, and were not called upon to enlist as adults either into a striking or into a defence force. If they followed the mind of a child who went into the cadet corps they would find that it was influenced very largely by tinsel considerations. The problem was an exceedingly simple one for it; it believed in force; candidly and honestly the child believed in force. It believed in the force of the Empire, and it was at its early age and development incapacitated from remembering the power of diplomacy, the power of peaceful means, in piloting a country successfully through dangerous situations. So, if the cadet corps was bad for military purposes and for the true military spirit, it also poisoned the springs of politics at the very source. He ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when they got into Committee he should remove this clause which made the cadet corps essentially a part of the Home Army. His final point was the relation set up by the Bill with the workshop. He thought that for the first time in the history of Volunteers, the uniform was to appear in the workshop. He thought the men in workshops would resist it. The right hon. Gentleman believed that the employers would meet him and give him facilities in order that the Volunteers might be adequately trained. He did not believe it. The condition which this Bill sought to impose was worse than conscription so far as industry was concerned. Under conscription we would have say 1,000,000 men always out of the labour market,

1601
But those in it were steadily in it. The employer could, therefore, gauge the producing force of his workshop. But suppose they told employers that a number of their workmen were required to be taken out for ten days or a fortnight's training; such a proceeding would paralyse industry. The workshop could not go on, and especially where labour was subdivided minutely. Where a man worked through the whole process the difficulty would not be great. Let them take a boot and shoe factory, where sores of men worked apart from each other, but completing each other's work, ask the employer to allow 100 of these men to go out for ten days at a time. It would be better to close the factory doors and have a holiday during the whole period of training, because, as a matter of fact, it would pay better to do that, considering the manner in which the industry was organised. In these circumstances, an employer would be likely to object, and refuse to allow his employees to join the Territorial Force. Some employers might make it a condition of employment that a man should be a member of the Territorial Force whilst other employers would debar every such man from work under them. It was impossible for the Labour Members to move the Amendment which they had on the Paper, but they still held to it. In their opinion, the Bill sought to introduce militarism into public schools. They objected to that. It sought to make the training of officers for positions in the Army practically the monopoly of the rich and well-to-do classes. They objected to that. It sought to interfere with the relations between employer and employed-he agreed with what others had said on that point-and it gave preferential treatment to men who had been soldiers. They objected to that; and they could not possibly vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.): Although there are many points on which I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken, I am quite sure I am in agreement with everybody who heard him when I say that the House has listened with admiration to the exposition he
1602
has made on behalf of those with whom he is associated. We listened to him with unqualified admiration, though some of the views he expressed were, I might say, almost offensive; but seldom have they been put in so agreeable and attractive a form by the representatives of hon. Members below the Gangway as they have been by the hon. Gentleman to-day. I listened to one remark of his with some alarm, when he described the condition of the landed interest and the total disappearance of the relations between the landowners and those among whom they live. I am not prepared to admit the complete accuracy of his description. He told us that a blow had been struck at them, the other day, in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he hoped other blows would follow. I listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer very closely from beginning to end, and I confess that I did not discover that it contained this attack upon the unfortunate class to which I have the honour to belong. I do not think the hon. Gentleman himself, though he may be inclined occasionally to paint our sins in deeper colours than I think are quite justifiable, will forget that we belong to that class which pays the increased death duties under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scheme. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that in the greater part of the country districts there does no texist to-day those old and friendly relations between the squire and his neighbours that have led to their jointly taking part in local work and in national defence; I believe that they do exist, though in an altered form, yet in a very strong degree, and that in the future, as in the past, they will lead them to do their best in regard to any well-considered scheme that may be adopted. It has been suggested in one or to speeches in the course of the. debate, and also outside the House, that some, at all events, of the criticisms which have been addressed to the scheme of the Secretary of State from this side of the House had their foundation in Party feeling. If any idea of that sort exists, speaking for myself and also on behalf of those for whom I think I am entitled to speak, I may say that no Party feeling whatever has entered into

1603
any of the criticisms which we have passed. There are many reasons, but I will give two. In the first place there is a desire, almost a passionate desire, amongst those on this side of the House who have taken an interest in the problem of national defence, and realised its difficulties, to see the question raised above the level of Party politics, and to seek and find some scheme which might be regarded as offering at all events some working foundation on which might be placed eventually a really efficient and complete system of national defence. For that reason alone, therefore, there is no Party feeling in any criticisms which we offer. The second reason is that it is largely felt by many of us that the Secretary of State has given an immense amount of labour and trouble to the development of this scheme, a circumstance which should make it impossible for us to attack him as a Party opponent, however necessary we may think it to offer criticisms after a careful examination of his proposals. Therefore, I hope there will be no suggestion that in our criticisms we are actuated by other than a sincere desire to see that we get a scheme which is likely to last and to be effective. So far we know little of what the scheme of the Secretary of State is going to do. He can know but little himself, because it must be decided, as other schemes have been, by experience of its working. A great part of the work done by the Secretary of State under his proposals is of a destructive character in connection with our existing Army, and I do not at all share the view of the hon. Member for Leicester that that work of destruction has been inefficient. The reduction which the right hon. Gentleman has thought necessary is such as, I think, must have a bad effect upon the future of our Army, when regiments which have a part in our history find that their existence has come to an end. Take a regiment like the Northumberland Fusiliers, or the Warwick Regiment, whose history has been magnificent, whose record has certainly never been exceeded, and who assuredly might have looked forward to retaining to the end their place in the list of the Army. They are gone as part of the scheme of reduction. I am not going to say more than
1604
one word about that part of the scheme, not because I do not take great interest in it, but because I am anxious to say something about the territorial branch, or auxiliary branch, as it has been called, and do not wish to take up more time than is absolutely necessary. I confess that one of the great difficulties in the way of providing a sufficient army hitherto has been to find enough of both officers and men. With the inevitable surroundings of Army life, I cannot see what there is in the scheme of the Secretary of State to improve that position of things, or to give us either more officers or more men. As the immediate result of the reductions which have already been made, there will be in Aldershot, in the course of the next few weeks, fifty or sixty officers unattached, who have lost the regiments to which they belonged, and who are now wondering what will be their fate in the future. Is it likely that this will encourage other men to join the Army? Is it likely that it will lead to a larger provision of officers than we have had hitherto? It seems to me that there is every indication that this part of the scheme will be a deterrent rather than an encouragement. For that reason I say that the greater portion of the work that the right hon. Gentleman has done so far is rather destructive than constructive. Coming to the constructive part, the great Territorial Army scheme, I disagree with much that the hon. Member for Leicester said, but I think the Secretary of State must have listened not merely with interest, but with grave interest to his description of what, from his point of view, will be the inevitable result of this new system of dealing with the great Volunteer Force of the country The idea of the Secretary of State is to produce, instead of a Volunteer Army, a Territorial Army, in which are to be merged the present Militia, Imperial Yeomanry, and Volunteers. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he was speaking the other day, said that the real difference between the two Parties on this question was that the Government proposed to establish their Force upon two lines, whereas our policy was to establish it upon three lines. I have no objection to that description of the difference, because I believe it to be fairly accurate, and I believe myself that

1605
the three-line system is the one to which you will have ultimately to have recourse, whatever method you adopt for the organisation of the Territorial Army; because you have to deal with three totally distinct and different kinds of men and officers. I put on one side the Regular Army, the professional soldier, whether officer or man. Whether the Militia be an effective Force or not with its present position, you have in that Force and in the Yeomanry and Volunteers two classes who are totally different in every respect, and I do not believe that you will be able, certainly not by mere appeals to patriotism, to weld those two totally different classes into one single Force. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us that the reason for this two-line as opposed to a three-line system was to be found in economy of administration; he said it was likely to be more successful and more economical. He did not tell us in what way it was going to prove more economical, and there are already significant signs that many of the anticipated economies in connection with the organisation of the Force will have to be abandoned. We shall hear, when the Secretary of State speaks presently, what his decision is upon this matter, as no indication has been given of how these great economies are to be effected by adopting a two-line instead of a three-line system. The case I desire chiefly to put to-day is that of the Imperial Yeomanry, but before I go into that I desire to ask the Secretary of State a question which he may be good enough to answer when he speaks this evening. As he will remember, he left the position of the Irish Militia regiments and of the Irish Imperial Yeomanry regiments, the North of Ireland and South of Ireland Yeomanry, rather vaguely described in his original speech. It may be our fault, but at all events there does exist some doubt as to the effect of the scheme on the Irish Militia and these two Yeomanry regiments, and it would be a very great kindness to the officers and men connected with those regiments if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what the precise effect of the scheme will be so far as they are concerned. What is it that it is proposed to do with the Imperial Yeomanry? I
1606
have listened to a great many speeches from the other side of the House in regard to the system instituted when we were in office, and upon the policy and action of Mr. Brodrick and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. Whatever may have been their shortcomings in regard to the Army, I can safely say, speaking from my own experience of the Yeomanry, that those two right hon. Gentlemen did wonders for that force, that they put it altogether on a new footing, and that the Yeomanry responded, I think, admirably and honourably to the calls made upon them. What are the Government going to do? They are going, in this new territorial scheme, entirely to remodel and alter the constitution of that force. The hon. Member for Leicester warned the Secretary of State that he has put all his money on one horse, and asked what he would do if that proposal broke down and he was left without the new Territorial Army. He suggested that you are going to get men on terms very different in all respects from those under which they are enlisted at the present time. The Secretary of State has laid stress-and I think rightly-upon the necessity for sufficient training and the making of the men of this force thoroughly efficient. I do not think you can exaggerate the importance of the extra training which they are to get, and I am sure they will respond to any demand you make upon them in order to become thoroughly efficient; but there are certain conditions which, if imposed, will make it impossible for these men to join. It is sometimes said that the condition of foreign service would be very distasteful to the men. I do not myself believe that. I do not believe that if you decide to impose on these men upon joining the Volunteer Forces conditions as to service abroad in time of national stress and peril you would prevent one recruit in 500 from joining. It will be necessary to give to the men in sufficient numbers the training which they require to make them efficient. I am convinced that the experience in the future will be the same as that in the past. In the case of war these men would join for service abroad in the largest possible

1607
numbers. When the Imperial Yeomanry were called upon to find recruits in 1899 and 1900 the conditions were different. They had their wives and families and other dependents to support and it was impossible for them to leave. Many of them were farmers or tradesmen, and at any rate their conditions were such that they could not leave. But the immediate result of the reforms introduced by my two right hon. friends was to alter the character of the men who joined the Imperial Yeomanry. It was made possible for men to join because they were no longer called upon to pay considerable sums out of their own pockets. But if you require these men to pay their expenses out of their pay and allowances, if they are to be reduced to the position of ordinary soldiers on the outbreak of war, if they are to be liable for service abroad, not going in squadrons or companies of their own regiments, but in order to reinforce the Army at the front, if they are to be taken into camp for six months, I am convinced that the great majority of the men will regard these as impossible conditions and refuse to undertake a liability far more serious than they should accept. Presumably -and I believe it is the case-you get a better class of men to join these Auxiliary Forces under other conditions. I remember discussing with four or five Volunteer officers who were extremely well aware of the feeling in their battalions whether or not there should be some system of compulsory service for the Auxiliary Forces alone. They were opposed to it. They said " We get as a rule the best men in the class that provides recruits to the Volunteer Force, but the moment you make it compulsory you will have a great many men of an inferior class who will come in because they are compelled, and you will be better without them." I believe that is the view of the men themselves who join the Auxiliary Forces. They come in now because they are the very best class of men in their respective trades. I do not care whether he is a farmer, a small tradesman, a carpenter, a blacksmith, or whatever he may be, what are you going to do in regard to this condition of prolonged training in camp? The best man will have
1608
his work doubled or trebled when war breaks out, when every sort of supply is called for to double or treble the usual extent. He is the man who would be earning much higher wages than in ordinary peace time. He is to be penalised by being brought into camp, while the man who is his inferior, not only as a soldier but as a workman, is to be given an opportunity of getting increased earnings. I believe that condition will militate very seriously against your getting the necessary number of men. Now I come to the question of pay and allowances. We have heard a great deal in this debate about patriotism. We have been told that if an appeal were properly made to the patriotism of the men of the Reserve Forces they would come. Patriotism is all very well, but a man has to think of his wife and children and other dependents before he volunteers. He is engaged in civil life in a trade or other occupation, and he must think not only of what his earnings are, but of what his expenses are going to be. The old Yeoman was obliged to pay out of his pocket towards the cost of his training. Under the present system he does not do so. The pay, and the allowance given for forage for his horse, enables him not only to pay his expenses, but in some cases, if the management of the regiment is prudent, to go away with a small amount in his pocket. You are going to change all that. You are asking a man to accept the conditions of the Regular soldier. I venture to say that you are making a demand upon him which is altogether unreasonable, and which he cannot meet. Not only has he to make himself as efficient as he can in fourteen or eighteen days training in ordinary years, but, if war breaks out, he has, in addition, to live the life of an ordinary soldier in respect of his camp food, messing, etc. If you draw a comparison between the Regular soldier and the Volunteer, say, in the case of a regiment of cavalry and a Yeomanry regiment, you can realise the difference. In the case of the Regular regiment the manoeuvres go on perhaps for two or three days when the soldier has hard work, and then there are two or three days off. But the Yeoman, if he is going to learn anything at

1609
all, must work every day at his training whether wet or dry, from early morning till late in the afternoon. At the present moment the first thing everybody connected with Volunteer regiments asks when he enlists is whether his work is to be that of a soldier or whether he has to do other duties which he does not care about. I do not believe that you can, in reason, make the standard of proficiency too high. But if you call upon men to discharge duties which are only discharged by soldiers in the Regular regiments, I do not believe that you will get them. I believe the numbers will fall off in a way that will startle you. Quite recently a meeting of commanding officers was held, and a series of resolutions were passed, all of which pointed in one direction. These men, after all, speak with personal experience of the work they have been engaged upon. They know what it is to get recruits. I will undertake to say that there is not a greater anxiety for a commanding officer in connection with a Volunteer regiment than the ascertaining each year whether he is going to get a sufficient number of recruits to keep his regiment up to the establishment. It has been extremely difficult in times past. I believe if the Secretary of State could see his way to leave the Imperial Yeomanry alone in the matter of pay and allowances, the force would continue to improve and increase in numbers as he desires that they should do. But if, on the other hand, you go in the teeth of the opinion, I believe, of the great majority of officers who have served in the force, and of the views held at this moment by the commanding officers and certainly by all those who were present at the meeting to which I have referred, you will only have yourselves to thank if the scheme breaks down. The figures as to the number of Yeomen and Volunteers who volunteered for service in the late war vary a little because there is great difficulty, as the House knows, in getting at them. But I believe that something like 70,000 offered to go and that over 30,000 went. I believe that if you give the men the necessary training and fit them to go abroad they will do in the future what they have done in the past.
1610
If you are going to impose these conditions which, I believe, are not necessary, you will get rid of the force. The Imperial Yeomanry have been more than once laughed at by some hon. Members who have spoken of them as men who did not work hard enough and who played at being soldiers. I regret that I am no longer on the active list, owing to age, but I make the suggestion on the part of my successor in command of my regiment, to those who think that the yeoman's life is one of play and amusement that they should get recruited in my regiment, and after three weeks' training they will come away strongly convinced that the yeoman's life is not one of play or ease. That kind of criticism comes from those who do not know what the Yeomanry has been doing during the last ten years. The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs said that it would be unfortunate in the way of Army reform if a scheme were adopted which would lessen the willingness of men to join the Auxiliary Forces. The Yeomanry have been given the opportunity of improving, and they have improved. I sincerely hope that in the attempt to reconstitute the Auxiliary Forces nothing will be done to damp the enthusiasm of these men in their desire to render a service to their country. If the chance were given them they would still further improve. There are not very many of them, but more can be got. They are men of the right material and with right desires. The officers of the Yeomanry have altered as much as the men within the last ten years. I venture to say that their knowledge of their duties, their enthusiasm in their work and their attention to detail are as great as anyone could conceive; and it is to them a matter of profound apprehension that the War Office and this House appear not to recognise these facts, but to be willing to run risks in materially altering the constitution of the force. I make this appeal on their behalf because they are at present, in my opinion, a useful part of our Army of Defence, and they can be rendered still more useful and valuable in the future. I am satisfied that, if you persevere with the conditions

1611
laid down in the scheme of the Secretary for War, in a short time you will lose this force altogether. The right hon. Gentleman is engaged in a great task of reforming the whole of the Volunteer Army. He is seeking to make of the different forces composing it one great force. I will not discuss the Volunteer or the Militia aspect of the case. Everybody knows that it is necessary to make some changes in the Militia; and the Volunteers want assistance and guidance, but not changes of a serious character. But I ask why, because it is necessary to make changes in two of the forces, it is also necessary to make changes in the one which has improved and which at the present time is not open to criticism? If that view is correct I hope that the Secretary of State for War will see his way to stay his hand and leave the Imperial Yeomanry as they are, subject to this, that he can impose upon them as high a test of efficiency as can be demanded by the greatest military authorities. You cannot strain their loyalty by any demand of that kind. What we ask is, that the right hon. Gentleman will not impose upon them financial conditions which will make it impossible for men to join the corps as at present, and conditions in regard to training which we believe will be not only distasteful, but destructive.
MR. BENNETTsaid that he had served in the Volunteers, both in the ranks and as an officer, and both in peace and in war. The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, had said that during the Easter recess he took pains to go among his constituents to ask their opinion in regard to this Bill, and he found that the Volunteers in his part of the country were more or less contented with it. He was of a different opinion. He had gone into the question locally and he found that recruiting had fallen off because the Volunteers viewed some of the provisions of the Bill with distrust and alarm. Before the Bill was introduced after a lecture he had delivered to his county battalion he managed to get fourteen recruits in quite a small village; and in another village he obtained thirteen recruits. But after
1612
the Bill was brought in he went to a town of 4,000 inhabitants, and after the combined efforts of a route march, a band, and his lecture, he secured only three recruits. He asked the reasons for the change and was told that the Volunteers to a considerable extent mistrusted and felt some alarm at various provisions in the Bill. He did not think that some hon. Gentlemen realised the existing difficulty in getting recruits. There was one well-known battalion in the West of England which gave a bonus of 10s. to anyone who raked in a recruit. Of course that practice was not universal. He would give some of the criticisms of a few Volunteer friends on the Bill. The suggested abolition of the Regular adjutant was simply spreading dismay. After all, despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Leicester, considerable weight should be given to the opinions of experienced men in regard to Army reform. He did not think that the existence in a Volunteer battalion of a professional soldier who knew his work could be seriously objected to. He was worth more in promoting the efficiency of the battalion than all the other officers put together. Another objection to the scheme was that the number of Regular drill instructors was to be enormously decreased. At present there were 2,005 Regular drill instructors, but so far as he understood, the number was to be reduced to 1,453. The Secretary of State in one of his speeches had alluded to the possibility of the drill instructor going round on a bicycle to drill different companies in a county battalion. His own opinion was that to reduce seriously the number of Regular drill instructors would reduce the efficiency of many of the Volunteer battalions. Another objection was to the rules for camp. The men might be frequently soaked to the skin during manoeuvres, and they would resent being called upon On return to camp to sit the whole evening in damp clothes. The Volunteer was as proud as any Regular soldier of his smart uniform when he marched out to the admiration of his male and female friends. Then the proposed fine of £5 for failure to fulfil training conditions had caused some mischief. But the chief thing which rankled in the minds of the Volunteers

1613
was the virtual obligation to go on foreign service. The Volunteer battalions it was contemplated were to go abroad as units. The battalion would be called out on parade; the Colonel would make a speech and ask all those who volunteered to serve abroad to step out of the ranks. Anyone could see the social and other pressure which would be brought to boar on the men to serve abroad against their will. There was the ill-starred circular of 1905 which suggested that the Volunteers should be medically examined with a view to ascertaining whether they were fit to go on foreign service. In his own battalion fifty men declined to be examined. Of course it was pointed out that during the South African War one-fifth of the Volunteer force volunteered to serve in South Africa, and one-fifteenth did serve. But that was during the war fever at a time of stress. But in 1901, when the War Office invited 10,000 Volunteers, only 1,400 responded to the call. Many Volunteers had no liking for the county associations and disliked still more the prominence given to the lord-lieutenant of the county on these bodies. The Volunteers were the most democratic section of the King's forces, and they asked that instead of this official the chairman should be properly elected by the county association. Even the supply of young officers was, in the future, to be under the control of these effete county officials, many of whom were eaten up with bitter prejudices. Everybody would have thought that at all events they would have been ruled out by the Government. He protested against any public money being expended on this secondary and separate organisation until the needs of the Regular and Territorial Forces had been provided for. The objections raised from the Labour Benches had been raised on the ground of militarism, and he agreed with a good deal of what had been said with regard to boys being taught bayonet exercise under the guise of religion by a bellicose curate not being an edifying spectacle. He objected to the expenditure of money on cadet corps and rifle corps unless it carried with it an obligation on those corps to serve. The cadet corps of schools had no military value whatever. They were run principally on ginger-beer and buns. And with regard to University
1614
cadet corps, his own experience at Oxford was that when he asked men to join the corps he had been met with the statement that they had done their part at a public school and they came to the University to enjoy themselves. So far, therefore, from these cadet corps helping the military spirit, they retarded it. The rifle clubs, he submitted, were not worth the outlay expended on them at present. Many members of the rifle corps in England were senior men, and of what value were such men from a military standpoint if they could not take the field? And it would not be fair to ask them to take such responsibility. The kind of optimism shared by some supporters of rifle clubs with regard to these military facts was expressed by the hon. Member for Stoke who informed the House that, if the foot of an invader touched these shores, a million bayonets would glitter in the morning light. A General of Napoleon's once said that they could do anything with bayonets except sit on them. He thought that the glittering bayonets would, in all probability, do more damage to those who had them than to the invader. The hon. Member had also said that if the bayonets were not forthcoming the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would be hanged. Of this he was sure—that those using the bayonets, if captured by the enemy, would be hanged. All this talk was part and parcel of the nebulous nonsense which did duty in this country for Socialism. Many Members of the House in the dining-room and the lobby and other places, having first told him that they knew nothing whatever about military problems, went on to say that invasion was out of the question. Every military expert in this country and on the Continent, on the contrary, were of opinion that, although invasion would be a difficult matter, the difficulties were not insurmountable. We in England did not face the question fairly. We must remember what the Royal Commission said with regard to the Militia, namely, that it was not in a fit condition after a training of 100 days to take the field in defence of the country. The Militia were trained for sixty-three days and then for twenty-seven, and the training the Territorial Forces were likely to get under the

1615
conditions of the present proposals would be more or less on the same lines as the training the Volunteers now got. The Volunteers were now trained for eighty hours in four years and camp was not compulsory. As to the proposal for six months training, did any one suppose that any hostile European Power which had in its programme the invasion of England was going to hold its hand for six months before it commenced operations? Compulsion being out of the question it seemed to him that the only solution of the problem was to be found in the direction of the Volunteers. There were, of course, difficulties in the way, but it was their duty to face those difficulties and to induce the Territorial Force to undergo longer periods of training. And the only way to do that was to pay them adequately for the time they were engaged. However they were dressed or by whatever name they were called, they would still be amateurs of an inferior type, and anyone who looked at the problem from that point of view could not regard these men as an adequate security against invasion when they contemplated the difference between the training suggested for the Territorial Force and that which would have been undergone by the invaders. This problem of defence far transcended any Party limitations. Volunteers were grateful to the Secretary for War for his untiring work in the cause of Army reform and for being the first British Minister to treat the Auxiliary Forces seriously.
*MR. BRACEsaid that he accepted many of the conclusions of the hon. Member for Leicester, but he did not agree with him as to method or detail. It was necessary first to give this Bill a Second Reading, and then it would be possible to suggest Amendments in detail in the direction in which it was thought it ought to be amended. He felt that, if this Bill were rejected, they would be face to face with chaos so far as the Auxiliary Forces were concerned; and therefore it seemed to him and those with whom he was associated that, while frankly criticising the Bill, they were under some obligation to the House, the country, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War to co-operate with
1616
him in making his scheme successful. If he thought the Bill led them one stage towards conscription he would offer it violent opposition; but he looked on the Bill as containing the germs of a scheme which would put conscription further away, and therefore he supported it, reserving his right to amend it in Committee. After all, Britain was great because she was supreme in the arts of peace and commerce. This country would never be great because she happened to be great in the art of war. Rome as a nation had stood out among the Empires of the world as the first military Empire, but she had passed away in defiance of her military knowledge and military prowess, because she had failed to understand the true meaning of greatness. He recognised that, as long as conditions remained as they were, an Army, must be maintained, and common sense told them that it must be an efficient Army. He regretted the enormous expenditure on the Army at the present moment, and he had still to be persuaded that so large an Army was necessary; but he felt that in this Bill, dealing with a Territorial Force, they were called upon to consider an altogether different branch of the question. With regard to officering the Volunteers from the public schools, he asserted that a civic force ought to be based on the broad principle of democracy. It was a mistake to think that in these days the men who would volunteer would be influenced by social position. Those who came into the Force would come in with a much better social position, owing to better education, than that which they before enjoyed, and the officer who was going to win the respect of the men he would have to lead would have to be a man capable of leading them. Therefore, every man having the ability to become an officer should be enabled to rise to the highest grade. He could see no reason why the Volunteers or the Army should be placed under martial law in time of peace. He held very strongly that if a soldier was guilty of an offence in time of peace he ought to be judged, and, on conviction, punished by the Civil courts of the land. He regarded the proposal to put the Volunteers under martial law with the greatest apprehension, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would realise that it was impossible to get men with any sense of dignity and manhood

1617
to join the Auxiliary Forces if the result was to be the loss of their civic rights in this regard. Pay was also a consideration. If the best type of working man was to associate himself with this movement, the right hon. Gentleman must see to it that it was made possible for him to come out for his training and go into camp without any outlay of money. It was not a question of making money out of it, but unless sufficient pay was given to provide for his wife and family while he was doing his duty to the nation it would be impossible for such a man to associate himself with the scheme. The military force must therefore be reduced to the smallest number, having regard to efficiency. There was every desire among the workers to be in a position to protect their beloved country from invasion, but they must move on practical lines; and it was because this Bill, instead of leading to conscription, really raised a barrier against it, and because the country was in need of some scheme of defence, that he and the group to which he belonged would vote for its Second Reading, reserving to themselves the right to amend it in details.
*MR. LEHMANN: desired to say a few words from the point of view of one who was opposed both to conscription and to to universal compulsory military service. Many who favoured compulsory service opposed this scheme because they did not believe that even under the conditions set forth in the Bill there would be a sufficient number of men willing to join the military force of the country. If that were so, what did they propose? They proposed not only to bring in this comparatively small number of unwilling men, but also to force in all the rest of the unwilling to make a competent fighting force. That was a moat absurd proposition, and it was useless, because the country would never believe in it or sanction it by its votes. If they believed the country was with them on this question they had only to go to the country and get its sanction. He admitted that it was the duty of those holding his opinions not so much to devise a scheme for the defence of the country as to support such a scheme when it was devised; and it was because he thought that this Bill would provide a properly qualified military force for the needs of the country that he should support the
1618
Second Reading. The question was could we under the voluntary system obtain a Territorial Army qualified by its training to perform the duties imposed upon it under this scheme. We did not require an Army huge in numbers composed of unwilling men. He had spent some years in a Yeomanry regiment. He did not wear the glittering panoply of an officer. He had begun as a trooper and had worked his way up until he had been rewarded with the stripes of a sergeant. He looked back on that period as not the least enjoyable in his life. They had done some hard work, and he might give an instance to show that the training of the Yeomanry in these days, short as it was, had yet produced men capable of holding their own even against the Regular cavalry. He remembered n case where a Yeomanry regiment, owing to the skill which they had acquired, captured the greater part of a cavalry regiment. They had twelve days of training together, and at the end of that time, owing to the admirable zeal of their officers, and not least of the Regular Adjutant, they were, he would not say qualified to bear comparison with the Household Cavalry, but qualified for most of those duties which regiments of cavalry had to undertake in the field. The spirit of that force was remarkable. He remembered the great surprise with which men after their first training received their pay. No thought of pay had entered their mind when joining, and they went into the service because they wanted military work. He believed that the Yeomanry cavalry, after the improvement which had recently taken place, were a most valuable force, and he hoped nothing would be done to check their enthusiasm. He believed it would be possible, by some slight alteration in the scale of pay, to meet all the fair demands of the Yeomanry cavalry, and thus preserve for the country a force which had done very great service in the past. They were told that under this scheme the Militia was being destroyed. If he believed that he would certainly hesitate to vote in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. The Militia was not being destroyed, it was only being altered, and it would reappear under another name, because every unit of the force was going to be taken over. There was no sanctity in

1619
the idea of the three-line system. They had the Regular Army and the Militia. Then came the invasion scare, and in a moment the country was covered with Volunteer regiments. They preferred to remain as an independent force of their own, and in that way the third line of defence arose. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having brought order out of chaos and for having given them the two-line system under this Bill. There were many points in which alterations in the Bill might possibly be required in Committee. He did not know that he was a very enthusiastic admirer of the county associations, but after considering it he had concluded that if they were to make a beginning at all that was the best way to begin, because they placed a Militia officer at the head of the county association and did their best to interest the great families of the country in the Territorial Force. He would like to know how many Volunteer regiments up to the present time had been assisted by the great families in the country. Those families had always taken a great interest in the Regular Army; in a small way they had interested themselves in the Militia, and the Yeomanry cavalry, but, as regarded the Volunteers, they had taken very little interest in them. The hon. Member for Leicester had told them that the old relations between the Hall and the village were things of the past He had himself had some experience of country districts, and he did not agree with the view of the hon. Member. In political matters the agricultural labourers and those who were at one time supposed to be the dependents of the Hall were perfectly ready to vote against its inhabitants, but in social matters he believed they were still glad to work with them. Although he thought that something better in the end might be devised to take the place of county associations he could not join with those who condemned those associations, because he believed they would form the foundation of an excellent system of local administration. He would not dwell upon such matters as rifle clubs, because he did not think there was much good to be got out of them and they were in no way a substitute for Volunteer regiments. There were other points upon which he might join issue, but on the whole, after carefully studying the Bill and listening
1620
to the objections brought against it, he had concluded that the right hon. Gentleman had produced a scheme which, in its essentials, would not only guard them against universal military service, but would properly co-ordinate the various forces of the Crown and give them, without any additional expense, such a system as they had been longing for for a good many years.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The alteration in the hours of the House must be my justification for getting up at an hour when it is not usual for the Leader of the Opposition to ask for the attention of Members. The Minister for War has a great many topics to deal with, and I do not see that it is possible for him to compress an answer to the case which has been made both by friends and foes—and, if he will allow me to say so, by friends quite as much as by foes—in the course of a rather disjointed debate, into less than an hour; and I am therefore compelled to ask the House to listen to me at a rather earlier stage of the proceedings than in other circumstances would be either useful or convenient. I rise to support the Amendment, but I do not do so in any spirit of Party feeling or with any desire to make a difficult task even more difficult than it is. I have been a close spectator, sometimes an actor, in the drama of War Office administration now for many years past I am profoundly conscious of the difficulties which beset the path, and must beset the path, of any Minister who has to deal with an Army based upon a voluntary system. I believe a voluntary system is a system this country will never consent to abandon, and my sympathy, therefore, is perennially extended to every successive Minister of War, to whatever Party he may belong. I should like to go further. I believe the changes and reforms carried out during the last ten years in the Army have been very great reforms, as they undoubtedly have been very great changes. I believe, when the history of the British Army comes to be written in an impartial spirit, it will be admitted on all hands that Lord Lansdowne, Mr. Brodrick, and my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon have each in their turn and in their measure made a great contribution to this difficult and perennial problem. But I acknowledge at the same

1621
time that one of the things which the right hon. Gentleman has set himself to do was not done by his predecessors, and still remains to be done—I mean the problem of providing for the expansion, on the best possible lines, of the Army in time of great national necessity; and, though I do not think that we who sit on this bench have the smallest reason to be otherwise than proud of the work done during the last ten years, it would not be right for us to take up the position of critics of the right hon. Gentleman from the point of view of people who have accomplished this task, which we all admit ought to be dealt with. Therefore, the House will see that when I approach the particular solution the right hon. Gentleman has proposed to us I not only approach that question with a generous sympathy based upon my consciousness of the difficulties which beset every War Minister in this country, but with a feeling that we on this bench have a special reason for not opposing any plan which we think really does solve that part of the problem which we admit was left unsolved when we were succeeded by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The House has had to listen to a great many lengthy speeches—not too long, but they have been long, and they have sometimes been long because they have discussed questions which I would venture to put on one side as questions already settled, or at all events, that may be regarded for the purposes of this discussion as provisionally settled. I am not going to say a word, for instance, about the Fleet being our first line of defence, or about the possibility of invasion in great force; I am not going to argue the possibility of raids. I am going to assume for the purposes of everything I say to-day that we may neglect for the moment the possibility of invasion in great force, that we have to admit the possibility of raids, and that the Fleet cannot do its duty as the first line of defence unless there is behind it within the four shores a military force—Volunteer or other—which would make the position of a raiding force when it landed practically untenable. I am going to assume all these things, which I have argued at great length on other occasions in the House, as matters which we may assume without further discussion. As regards the Volunteers, I may perhaps be allowed to say that I have no strong views
1622
about the particular plan proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite sure that we ought to do something to organise the Volunteers better, and I am quite sure that we ought to do something to give them a general staff, to arrange beforehand how they are to meet and deal with particular contingencies which might conceivably arise in the defence of the country, and that we ought no longer to consider them as merely a large and miscellaneous force of fairly well-trained men of whom, somehow or another, in ways unspecified and in plans unmatured, we can make good use in time of national need. I think that much may be done, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his military advisers are in the way of doing it, and in so far as that is so he has my hearty support and warm congratulations. But I view with considerable suspicion one class of encomium which I have heard on both sides, and particularly in the speeches, naturally enough, of the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters. The hon. Member who has just sat down and the hon. Member for Leicester both congratulated the Minister for War upon having introduced order where chaosprevailed before, and it has been indicated that the military system of the country was in a confused state, that we had, as it were, a very varied and miscellaneous force, whose efficiency would be immensely increased if only we gave it a different nomenclature and a different organisation. I do not agree with that kind of praise. Remember that if we are all agreed, as we are, that for all our military forces, whether Regulars, Militia, special Reservists, Yeomanry, Volunteers, whatever they may be, we have got to depend upon voluntary enlistment or voluntary engagement to serve—remember that you must make your terms vary and your conditions of service vary with the various classes to whom you appeal. The very fact that a scheme is simple is to my mind not a priori in its favour, but against it. If I am told there is a very complicated lock to be undone, if a man comes to me and says, "I am a great believer in simplicity, here is a simple key to undo it," I say, "But you do not fit your means to your end." When you are dealing with so complicated a society as our own, depend upon it, it is not good, but bad, that your system should be artificially simplified, and that you should

1623
ignore in any way the varying needs and wishes of the classes on whose voluntary assistance you must depend for obtaining the necessary body of men to defend your interests at home and abroad. And, after all, I am not sure that the plan of the Government really deserves the epithet "simple." I do not think it is simple. You have two lines of defence now before the scheme comes into operation; are you going to have fewer lines afterwards? You will have your Regular Army now, your Militia, your Yeomanry, your special Reservists, differing in their conditions of service every bit as much as the Militia varies from the Regular Army, and both from the Volunteers. There is no simplicity introduced by the scheme of the Government. It is true they sweep away an old historic force, but they do not make the new system simpler than the old. I think we are all apt to be misled by words in this matter. If we look at things, we shall see that probably the result of this plan will be to introduce a greater variety into our system than at present, because at present the War Office does perhaps too much endeavour to run all the Volunteers into one mould. If you are going to leave the county associations really to control in any large measure the force within their respective areas, you may have a different kind of Volunteer, as you may have a different kind of county association. And my confident belief is that, if the Territorial Force as conceived by hon. Gentlemen opposite comes into existence, it will be a more varied force than the Volunteers are at present. But I do not criticise them on that account. On the question of cost the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean made a very able commentary upon the scheme of the Government, in which he indicated his opinion, on what seemed extraordinarily good grounds, that the now scheme would be much more expensive than the old one, as far as the Volunteers and the Militia are concerned. I am not qualified without expert advisers to express an opinion on that point. But it is not on that ground I propose to vote for the Amendment. I propose to vote for it upon much larger and wider grounds. I certainly have no objection in principle to the county associations, but I am very doubtful about this part of the plan. I am not
1624
sure that you have not already thrown in the counties so much work upon the only class whose leisure permits them to do it that for any new and great burden thrown upon them you would find them not unpatriotic and not unwilling, but really unable from sheer want of time to carry out the new functions proposed to be placed upon them. The extremely able speech, I am bound to say, of the hon. Member for Leicester suggested to me a new doubt as to the wisdom of the course suggested by the Government. The hon. Member said that the trade unions, the organised labour throughout the country, would strongly object to a large number of the provisions and ideas in the right hon. Gentleman's plan. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leicester has better means of judging than I have, but the mere fact that a representative of the Labour Party in this House should be in a position to say that shows conclusively that if you do start these county associations you will have, and must have, introduced into it an element which I do not call Party, but which I may, without offence, call an element of social controversy. You will thus have in the very bosom of the new county associations an element of discord introduced which would be absolutely disastrous to the real success of the Volunteers. So far the Volunteers have had their rows; they have had their perennial row with the War Office; they have had their controversy with the military experts; but they have had, apart from these, which are almost an essential part of their being, great liberty and autonomy. Henceforth the various regiments, as I understand, are to be largely under the control of the county associations. The county associations themselves would be placed in such a position that controversy of a difficult and acute kind must needs break out; and this must react on the future organisation of the Volunteers in a manner that, in my judgment, cannot he otherwise than disastrous. I earnestly commend that particular danger to the right hon. Gentleman. And there is one other danger, not, perhaps, quite so serious, which should not be lost sight of. I have told the House that one thing I am afraid of is that there will not be found men of sufficient leisure in various county areas to deal with their new

1625
duties. In some counties there is a leisured class, estimable, public-spirited, in every way admirable, but I am not sure that they are admirable for the particular purpose—I mean the retired soldier. He will really have a claim to take part in the management of the work of the county associations. He will have the leisure and the technical knowledge, but I am not sure that the spirit he brings from his training with the Regular Forces is of a kind which will make him in every respect the most sympathetic or competent adviser of the Volunteer Force; and I have a little fear, not only of the trade union element introduced in its councils, if I may be allowed to say so, but also of the professional element which in certain cases will take part in their deliberations. I pass now from the civil side of the Volunteer reorganisation to what I may call the military and the formal side. On the military side the right hon. Gentleman has introduced a kind of uniformity extremely pleasing to the theorists, and by the nature of which all the Volunteers of the country are to be organised in divisions with their proper complement of cavalry and artillery. That scheme looks beautiful on paper; but is it going to help us with the Volunteers? I am not sure, and I will tell the House why. In the first place, are you sure that in a particular divisional area you will find the requisite variation of taste which will give you the number of men anxious to serve in your infantry and Yeomanry, and who will undertake the work of learning to be trained as gunners in a battery? If you do not, you will be doing exactly what should not be done, for you will be forcing into undesired and unexpected moulds the Volunteer elements which otherwise you have at your disposal. I do not see what you are going to get by it. You are going to drill in divisions, but I do not suppose they will go into action in Volunteer divisions, and if you do, then I confess that all the criticisms passed on the Volunteer artillery seem to me to be left wholly unanswered. I do not think we ought to pretend that we have the plan of what is called a national army if the artillery, from the nature of the case, is, and will always be, inadequately trained. An hon. friend, one of the Members for Hampshire, pointed out that the best Volunteer artillery regiments had an immense proportion of Regular officers,
1626
and I do not believe, without a very large infusion of Regular officers and highly-trained professional gunners, you will ever get Volunteer artillery to meet on anything approaching equal terms the highly trained artillery of foreign nations. If that is so, it is really idle to arrange your Volunteers into divisions, if by arranging them in divisions you expect them to become great self-supporting military units—units which can provide infantry, artillery, and cavalry. They will not do so, and when I have had to consider the problem of home defence against raids it has always been on the supposition that the artillery will be supplied from the Regular Army. From the Regular Army I am convinced it must still be supplied, if any good work is to be done in the matter. It may be said, however, that I, perhaps, ignore the six months training which the Bill provides with such material as we have in the Volunteers, and that truly an immense amount of good can be got out of the finest and most teachable material in the country. Are we not here again indulging in illusions? I believe that the arrangement in divisions from the fighting point of view is an illusion, and in the same way is not the six months training when war breaks out an illusion also? The question put by my hon. friend the Member for Fareham is one to which no answer has been given. My hon. friend asked; When war breaks out do you expect the Volunteers to go into camp for six months; and if you expect this, will your expectations be fulfilled? Do you expect the employers in moments of danger to say to their men, "The country is in peril; go into camp for six months"; and my hon. friend asked the Government whether, as the largest employer of labour, they were going to do that—whether they were going to tell their employés who belong to Volunteer corps that they should go into training for six months when war breaks out? The Government are not going to do that, and they would be grossly neglectful of their duty if they did do it, because a large number of men would be serving their country more effectively by working in the factories and in the Government departments and in carrying out the great work of civil employment, which, after all, is the necessary background of any military

1627
endeavour whatever. If it is true of the Government, is it not then going to be true of the enormous number of great employers of labour in the country? There is no possible answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Leicester. He pointed out that under the terms of conscription you could, without disorganising labour, make enormous drafts on the manhood of the country because the employer knew exactly what he wanted. Every one in Germany, for example, knows that every adult of good physique between certain ages will be called upon to do military service, and knowing that he makes his arrangements accordingly. But if you organise your factories and workshops on an ordinary business basis, and then when war breaks out you suddenly find that a foreman in this department, an expert in that department, a clerk in a third department, have to go into camp for six months, there is a disorganisation of labour, compared with which the loss of labour under compulsory service sinks into insignificance. The hon. Member for Leicester put that point with extraordinary force and clearness; but no answer has been given to it, and I do not believe that any answer can be given. If that is so, are we not cherishing a pure illusion when we draw a picture of the country being suddenly covered with camps and every man of the age included in the Territorial Army leaving his employer and going out to train for six months? It cannot, will not, and ought not to be done; and therefore do not let us assume that we are creating a system under which it will be done. Nothing can be worse for us than to cherish illusions of this character and to suppose that we are creating that which cannot be created, and which, if we could create it, ought not to be created. When the right hon. Gentleman creates a Territorial Army it is not that a million bayonets may flash in the sun because some invader has landed. It is that he may find some machinery for feeding, in case of a great war, the Regular forces of the Crown outside these shores. That is his object. I do not undervalue the Volunteers from that point of view. They did good service in South Africa, and nothing in this Bill that I can see is likely to make the Volunteer more anxious to serve abroad in future
1628
wars than he was in the South African war. On the whole, I believe that that War had the warm sympathy of the classes from which the Volunteers are drawn, and I do not believe that you will get a larger proportion of Volunteers to help you abroad in future than you have had in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman can point out anything in the scheme which is going to give a larger proportion of Volunteers serving abroad either as drafts, Regular battalions, or new units, it will have my hearty support; but so far I have wholly failed to find it. While, therefore, I have no vehement objection to this part of the scheme in principle, I am afraid that it will, if carried out, give us an illusory organisation and not a real organisation, the image and pretence of a great Army complete in all its various departments, and not in reality an Army capable of meeting other Armies on equal terms, and that it will introduce in the local management of the Volunteer forces some elements of social controversy and discord which happily have hitherto been wholly absent from their counsels. I now come to the more important part, from the second line to the first line of the Army service. All of us admit that we have a great responsibility and that we must have an Army. I am not going to quarrel about the size of the Army. I see nothing to quarrel with in the general view which the Government hold as to the magnitude of the interests we have to protect and the magnitude of the force we should have to protect them. What are the conditions preliminary to having such a force? I do not know whether my enumeration exhausts them, but there are three which ought never to be forgotten. We ought to be thoroughly provided with all those elements in our force which cannot be improvised. There are some things which I believe, with the Member for Abercromby, you can get under great pressure, not perhaps of the best, but of good quality, pretty quickly; but there are some things you cannot get, and you must not think you can get. You cannot get a trained staff, or highly trained and competent officers. You cannot under any circumstances get either guns or gunners; they all take time. And I would venture to say you cannot even get, or it is very difficult to get, adequate cadres. Starting a new regiment is a very serious responsibility; it ought only to be brought into life with

1629
caution, and ought to be destroyed only after careful consideration. That is the first condition. The second is that you should have a sufficient number of units; that follows. The third thing is, you must have a sufficiency of drafts, and other means of repairing the tremendous wastage of war, a wastage which in some climates is horrible to think of, but which we must not blink, but must steadily face when we are considering what is necessary. Having laid down those three conditions, which I do not think will be dissented from, I ask myself how the policy of the Government has dealt with them. I am not going to deal in detail with the regiments in the Regular Army, but I must be allowed to say that that policy has destroyed three of the things which I say can hardly be improvised. It has destroyed ex hypothesi, and from the nature of the case, a number of cadres. That is what the reduction amounts to in the main. It has thrown out of employment—practically limited the number of officers whom we shall have; and, above all, it has reduced the artillery. I frankly admit that I complain of the right hon. Gentleman's method of treating the artillery in all his speeches. I believe it to be perfectly true that he has done a good deal to improve certain classes of men and officers who have worked in the artillery, but nothing can get over the fact that he has diminished their number by 4,000.
MR. HALDANE: I have said that I intend to do it as soon as I can organise the divisional brigade ammunition columns for the purpose, but as these have not been organised yet not a man of the 4,000 has been taken off.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am discussing the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, and I thought the plan was to diminish the artillery by 4,000.
MR. HALDANE: By substituting a larger number trained on a Militia basis; but, as I said, I have not yet been able to work that out.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see the point. His plan to increase those services connected with the Militia which can be properly worked on a Militia basis may
1630
be very desirable, but those are the very things which can be improvised, provision for which is not absolutely necessary in time of peace. But the trained men whom he is going to get rid of cannot be improvised, they will not be given you by six or even twelve months training when war breaks out, and I fear, therefore, in that connection that he has not carried out one of the most important canons which I have ventured to lay down. I put the artillery in the very first rank of the things you cannot improvise. One other point. There is a controversy between my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon and the Government as to whether we shall really possess 115,000 Regular first-class Reservists. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was good enough to speak to me privately, and to assure me of what I did not need to be assured, that he had done his very best to prepare an accurate statement, and he used some arguments of a very interesting kind. But since then this plain point has been brought to my notice by my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, which I think every one in the House will understand. The actual first-class Reserve at the present time is 113,000 men, broadly speaking. That Reserve is the product of a Regular Army, which is larger by ten battalions that the Army of the future, and which was organised on a three and nine years basis, which, of couse, produces Reservists much faster than would the new Army. Yet we are asked to believe that a smaller Army on a less rapidly Reserve-producing basis is going to give us bigger Reserves than the one which now exists. And remember that those regiments which have only produced 113,000 men at the present time have been in existence seven or eight years, a period long enough to give the full measure of Reservists. How on earth is it possible for the Army of the future, differing for the worse in every particular from the Army of the present as far as Reserve-producing is concerned, to produce a bigger first-class Reserve than the present Army? That is a very great difficulty, into which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will inquire, and I hope his reply will be as clear and brief, if possible, as has been the argument which I have respectfully addressed to him. I come to the way of dealing with the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me said the Militia were not

1631
destroyed; they were only transformed. Sir, they are destroyed, and destroyed for the very purpose for which the Militia really exists; and the Government do not pretend that these Militia battalions, transformed into Volunteers or territorial units, are going to perform the function in the future which the Militia has performed in the past. Are we wise to abolish the Militia? I think we are not wise, and that not for historical but for strictly military reasons. The hon. and gallant Member for Abercromby admitted that the Militia had done admirable service in South Africa, but said they did it, not because they were Militia, but because they were, Englishmen. Sir, they did admirable service, not because they were Englishmen, but because they were Militia; if they had not been organised as Militia battalions, they could not and would not have done the kind of service which we asked from them, and not in vain, when that great national crisis occurred. The war broke out at the end of 1899, and before April, 1900, was concluded we had got thirty-five Militia battalions out of the country taking the place that would otherwise have been occupied by Regular units. That was an almost incalculable advantage. The Militia are perfectly ready to take the obligation to go abroad, and I think everybody would support a Bill throwing that obligation on them. But you are deliberately going, nominally in the interests of efficiency, to deprive yourself of that which cannot and will not be given you by your seventy-two new battalions of special Reservists. I do not criticise the constitution of the new battalions of Reservists, though I think there are criticisms that might be passed on them; I content myself with one comment—that they cannot be used for the very purpose for which they are most required. The Government say that drafts are what we most require, and that unless they are given a machine which will provide drafts they must abolish everything useless for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman is a disciple of the Cardwell scheme, a greater believer in it perhaps than I am myself. The Cardwell scheme was that when the two twin battalions were sent abroad a large depot should be formed which should feed those two battalions in the field, and that is, I believe, one very good way of dealing
1632
with the question of drafts, which I quite admit has to be dealt with. But in order to deal with drafts in a way not contemplated in the Cardwell scheme, are you seriously, in cold blood, going to abolish regiments which do the duty of Regular troops in certain situations? If we had, through some unhappy fate, to defend the North-West Frontier of India, your Militia battalions would take the place of Regular battalions in garrisons in the Mediterranean; some of them might even take the place of Regular troops in the heart of India itself. The very existence of this force, especially reformed and modified as it ought to be reformed and modified, would enormously increase the efficiency of your Regular Army, because it frees your Regular Army to do that which only Regular troops can do, and it puts troops loss efficient and less costly to do less important work like guarding the lines of communication. It is impossible for me to believe that that does improve the efficiency of the Regular Army, and that it does improve our possibility of waging a great war. It does not. I agree that the problem of reforming the Militia, which will have to be undertaken as an alternative to this scheme if it is abandoned, is a very difficult problem. But do not let us put it out of our power to reform the Militia by destroying the Militia itself. In the great wars in which we have been, engaged in the past, the work of the Militia in our own lifetime has been done by the Militia cheaply and efficiently. No one who has had experience of these great wars would say that that work could or ought to be done by the Regular Army. If the Volunteers do not do it the Special Reservists cannot do it. The Special Reservists are not intended, and are not organised, to go abroad; their whole theory is that they cannot fight as units. The only thing that is left then is the Militia, and the Militia you intend to destroy. These are the reasons why I feel that I cannot be responsible, directly or indirectly, for the plan of the Government. Even by the friends of this scheme it has been admitted that the Government are risking the very existence of the Volunteers. It is admitted even by those who have asserted with the most ardour that they will vote for the Second Reading, that unless the terms of the Yeomanry engagement are changed the Yeomanry will go; and

1633
unless the severity of the discipline in the Bill be altered the Volunteers, even if they do not go, will at all events cease to come. Your scheme, therefore, threatens your home Army—what you not very accurately call your citizen Army; it destroys drafts for your Regular Army; it throws upon Regular units responsibilities and labours which ought to be undertaken by a less costly and less highly-trained force, and which there is no possibility of this House ever consenting to see carried out by an augmentation of the number of the Regular battalions in the service of the country. If that view be accurate, however anxious we may be—and we are all anxious—to help the right hon. Gentleman in carrying through any well-considered scheme, I think he will feel with me that we on this side of the House have no choice but to take the only constitutional method of dissociating ourselves from any responsibility for this schene which, with so much ability and faith, he has developed before us, by voting for the Amendment of my right hon. friend.
*MR. BELLOCsaid he would not have ventured to intervene in the debate, in which so many experts had taken part, especially men who were engaged with the recruiting of the Auxiliary Forces of the country, had there not been one particular point in the Bill in regard to which he had a certain amount of personal experience and of the extreme importance of which he was thoroughly convinced. The point upon which he wished to speak had reference to the artillery and especially in regard to one department of it, the recruiting of the drivers of that force with a view of replacing the wastage in war. As he had said, his only excuse for troubling the House was that he had had practical experience in the French Army of driving guns. He knew what it was to drive a gun, and he wished to speak upon certain points of which he had knowledge, the first being the great importance of having a sufficiency of trained artillery drivers, and the second was to urge the supreme importance of that particular arm. This latter point was the one upon which he wished most to insist. The one great war of modern times in which the opposing forces were nearly balanced
1634
in numbers and intelligence, the only war of that character which had taken place in Europe recently, was the Franco-German War of 1870. If they considered that struggle it could be proved that it was the superiority of the German artillery which decided the decisive actions. He would be prepared, were the task a sufficiently useful one, even with regard to actions he had not closely studied, to say beforehand, from his intimate knowledge of that great campaign, that it was the artillery which decided the whole thing. He would take one particular example, that of the fight before St. Privat on the 18th August. The strategical effect of that battle was this. If the two main French armies could have effected a junction it would probably have changed the current of the war, but their junction was, after three days fighting, which were known collectively as the Battle of Gravelotte, prevented by the taking and capture of the village of St. Privat by the Germans. From half past ten in the morning till dusk of a summer's day practically the whole of the fighting was done by the German guns which were directed against the French position at St. Privat. It was this last bit of fighting before St. Privat, in which the French artillery was outclassed by that of their opponents, that did more than anything, in a battle which decided the fate of Europe, to influence the fortunes of the day. The guns did the work. He knew very well that there was a certain amount of prejudice, not among the learned Army experts, but among the journalistic exports in regard to the full value of artillery. One was told that it made a noise, and it certainly did do that. Then one was told that the effect of it upon any Army was only a moral one, but it would be found that in the best Army schools, certainly in Italy and France, and at last even in Germany, the importance given to artillery to-day was over-whelming. In this country, however, a long succession of campaigns fought against enemies who, though by no means despicable, were not armed with gun, and which were fought under conditions in which we should never fight in Europe, had left in us something of a prejudice against the value of artillery. He, however, was convinced personally by his reading and experience, and by the

1635
traditions of his family which were not slight, that notwithstanding the considerable changes in artillery during the last thirty years, there still remained as one of its most important elements the simple human factor, the driver. The gunner who laid the guns had varied in his importance, but the driver must be highly trained, and there should be a sufficiency of that class. Although the functions of the gunner had altered, those of the driver remained the same to day as in the past, and he was often in greater demand than he was before and was put into a position of greater danger. The driver always had to be fairly near his gun, otherwise the carrying of ammunition to it would be cumbrous. We certainly, if unhappily we became engaged in a great war, would be involved in a very heavy loss indeed if we had not a sufficient number of trained drivers for our guns. This was a matter of which a man could only speak from personal experience, and he said that to drive a gun was an exceedingly difficult matter. Three men had to deal with six horses, each leading one and riding another, drawing a gun weighing about two tons, and it had to be taken through all sorts of country. He could not describe to the House what it meant to go through a small ditch with a hedge on the other side, with two tons behind one, leading one horse and riding another. It was a work which no amateur could undertake; it required special training for years. He himself had never been allowed to take charge of the wheelers or the leaders, but had only had the other horses, and he had never heard of any man being made a competent driver of the wheelers or the leaders who had not had at least two years experience and training of a very arduous sort. Even these two years stood for training very difficult to give under Volunteer discipline, and which could only be given under the conditions which conscription afforded. We had at the present moment the heaviest field gun in the world, the 18-pounder. It was a matter of some importance as to whether we had done right or wrong in choosing so heavy a type, but anyhow we had behind the horses a greater weight than any artillery in Europe, and we wanted if anything greater skill added to that which we had at this moment. So important and minute was the proper
1636
training of a driver that if possible a man should be got to know his horses, and, save for feeding them, which was done by the stable guard, should learn to know his horses by every method in which man and horses could be kept together, in order to become acquainted with each other. They should be kept together throughout. The losses among these trained men would be immensely heavy at the beginning of a war, and where that occurred it was utterly irreparable unless we had a very large trained Reserve. At the battle of Sedan the battery to which he was subsequently attached lost every commissioned and non-commissioned officer except one non-commissioned officer who saved his piece. The proportion of loss in killed and wounded, officers and men, upon that occasion was 75 per cent. Artillery duels would be even more serious now than they were in 1870, and if the loss was irreparable we should lose the pieces and the battle. If it was said that our military system, historical tradition, and social condition, were such as to make us largely rely on auxiliaries who were only partially trained, there was the example of Austria which also depended to some extent on a Reserve not trained. But the great Reserve of Austria-Hungary was the artillery, and the artillery was well trained and was jealously reserved for the profession. There was another and sentimental aspect of the matter, an aspect that ought to be dear to every Englishman. English drivers at the present moment had deservedly the highest reputation in the world. Service, long service, and tradition had been responsible for that, as also the fact that their officers escaped the regimental system. The regimental system did not obtain in the artillery, and promotion was out of a larger body. They had that reputation in foreign armies. During a period when foreign opinion was directed with peculiar bitterness against this country he heard in a foreign tongue enthusiastic praise of the action of our drivers at Colenso. There had hardly ever been a more gallant act than that of Lord Roberta' son and his comrades. They did not get a thing like that done unless there was a magnificent professional tradition behind it. He did not believe they could get a reserve of drivers trained on a Militia basis worthy and able to take the place

1637
of the trained drivers we should lose at the beginning of a great war.
*MR. ASHLKYsaid that on broad principles he was entirely at one with the right hon. Gentleman, but when they went further he did not agree. In the last few years several doctors had prescribed for the Army, and now the right hon. Gentleman had come along and said it had been treated quite wrongly, its system had been built up too much, and what was required was a little lowering medicine together with a little amputation. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been wise in considering this scheme if he had realised that these constant changes had had a very bad effect in deterring fathers from sending their sons into the Regular Army. They had also had a prejudicial effect on the Auxiliary Forces in preventing recruits from joining. The Bill, however, was before the House, and, that being so, it must be considered. When the right hon Gentleman came down and said that for fourteen months he had not scorned to live laborious days, and that this was the scheme his labours had produced, it behoved the House to give the Bill a respectful consideration. The light hon. Gentleman had informed them in one of the numerous memoranda with which he had inundated the House that he aimed at having a force of 300,000. He had, therefore, reduced the Auxiliary Forces by 74,000 men, and was apparently saving a million sterling. That was no doubt gratifying to those who considered that we ought to reduce our expenditure at all hazards. It was not so to him. But the right hon. Gentleman had quite forgotten that these auxiliaries would require guns, equipment, drill halls, rifle ranges, and other things, all absolutely necessary, and finally there was the expense of the cadet and rifle corps. That, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement on the 25th February, would entail a cost of.£1,500,000, which, added to the £2,900,000, came out at£4,400,000. So that what the right hon. Gentleman had really done was to reduce the Auxiliary Forces by 74,000 men and increase the cost by £400,000. What was his proposal with regard to the Yeomanry? At present we had 26,000 effective Yeomen recruited from a class of
1638
men nearly all of whom had a grammar or higher school education, who with sixteen days training had picked up a surprising amount of knowledge, and who surprised the inspecting officers by the excellence of their work. Their pay was now to be decreased to an alarming extent. The Yeomanry did not go out to make money, but it was quite a different thing to ask them to come out aud serve the country and pay for it out of their own pocket. The right hon. Gentle man had said he proposed to relieve the financial liabilities of the commanding officers of the Volunteers, and start them fair to do their work. That was a most excellent proposal, but why should the commanding officers be freed, and the wretched Yeomanry and Volunteer privates docked of their pay? They were to be paid a sweating wage, and the result would be that only an inferior class of recruits would be obtained. It would be impossible to keep up the Yeomanry with such inferior material. He would say very little about the Militia, as their case had been so well put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. But he must say one word with regard to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby division, in reference to obtaining recruits for the Militia. He know that it was difficult to get recruits, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that the only place where recruits could be found was among the miners of the north of England and in Scotland. Did the hon and gallant Member recollect that there was a large floating population in London who filled the ranks in a great many of the Surrey, Middlesex, and Home County regiments? Had he considered the miners in South Wales, who formed some excellent engineering corps? Above all, the hon. and gallant Member had shown a surprising ignorance of the conditions in his own constituency. Had he ever heard that there were 30,000 dock labourers in Liverpool, of whom only 15,000 were in permanent employ; a great many of whom, with others, had joined the Militia regiments, of which they were very proud? The steamers which sailed out of Liverpool had a large number of stokers on board, many of whom spent their annual holiday by joining the Militia regiments, getting the benefit

1639
of the fresh air and good food while out training. He thought he had shown that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made a rather sweeping assertion. The Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was not a very popular one, because it made scrap heap of this old and historic force, which did such good work not only in the Peninsula and the Crimea, but in South Africa. Then he passed to the Volunteers, to whom the right hon. Gentleman offered pay ludicrous in amount. For fifteen days training the Volunteer was to have the magnificent sum of 1s. per day. Let them take the instance of a married man in a London corps. The majority of men in London corps were married men, and the average of their families might be taken at two each. He took for illustration the case of a married man with a wife and two children, and in receipt of 35s. a week. What would be his budget for a fortnight? He would have to pay, say 5s. a week to lodge his family, and he would have to provide 10s. a week to feed them. Therefore if he was fifteen days in camp he would have to find 30s. What did the right hon. Gentleman give him? He was going to give him 15s., therefore the Volunteer would have to find 15s. out of his own pocket for his wife and children, have absolutely nothing for himself, besides losing his wages. Was not the idea ludicrous? They were dealing not with a conscript Army, but with free and voluntary enlistment, and if men were not given money they simply would not come. Last year the corps which he had in his mind gave each man 2s. 6d. a day out of the 5s. capitation grant. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said that in some cases as much as 4s. a day had been given, but the average was from 1s. 6d. to 3s. In the corps which ho was talking about it was 2s. 6d.; therefore the man got £1 17s. 6d., out of which he had to pay 30s. for lodging of wife and children, leaving him 7s, 6d. in hand—6d. a day to provide himself with tobacco and a drink of beer after the day's work or any little thing that might be necessary. But under the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman proposed it was perfectly impossible to suppose that any man would join. Next he wanted to draw the attention of the House to Sections 6 and 8 of the Bill, because they seemed the most
1640
extraordinary sections he had ever come across. He had taken legal opinion upon them, and it bore out his view that if a man in Hampshire, say, wished to join, he could go to the recruiting officer and say he wished to join the Territorial Army, but he would not be allowed to say that he desired to join any particular regiment or even branch of the service; he had absolutely to join for general service. A successful cross-country rider might apply to join the Territorial Army-in some particular Yeomanry regiment and he might be put into a foot regiment. Did the right hon. Gentleman realise that recruiting at the present moment was not by regiment or battalion but by company? A man would say that he wanted to go into Captain So-and-So's company. Now they were going to ask him to enlist in an Army corps for the county, and the right hon. Gentleman was also going to take power to transfer him after he had joined. After having been in the Yeomanry for two years, a man might le transferred to the infantry. The only protection he had was that he was not to be transferred from Hampshire, say, to Essex or Surrey. Except in that respect, ho might be moved about at the will of the War Office. He thought that Members of the House would see the absurdity of the proposal. Was anybody going to enlist under such conditions, especially when they remembered that in the Regular Army a man could enlist into a particular regiment? He would not deal with the question of Regular adjutants, because he took it that, after what was said by the hon. Member who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman on the last day the Bill was discussed, that part of the Bill had been practically abandoned. Finally he came to the point which he especially wished to bring before the House, and that was with reference to Clause] 2 of the Bill, which said—
"Any part of the Territorial Force shall be liable to serve in any part of the United Kingdom, but no part of the Territorial Force shall be carried or ordered to go out of the United Kingdom."
That carried out the idea that the Volunteer Force was intended for home defence; but the clause went on to say—
"Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty, if he thinks fit, to accept the offer of any part or men of the Territorial Force, signified through their commanding officer, to

1641
subject themselves to the liability to serve in any place out of the United Kingdom."
That perpetuated a statute to which, personally, he had always objected when it was applied to the Militia. The truth was that the State, when it enlisted a man, ought to tell him what exactly was his liability. A man for family reasons might not want to serve abroad, though perfectly willing to serve at home. Now the right hon. Gentleman proposed that, when the first class Army Reserve was called out, the whole Territorial Force should be embodied for the period of six months. That embodiment was not chiefly intended to meet raids and invasion, because if it had been meant for that the right hon. Gentleman would have given himself power to call out a portion only of the Territorial Force, as it was obvious that in case of a war with Russia it would not be necessary to call out the whole of the Territorial Force in order to repel an invasion or a raid. Our fleet could guarantee us against that. But he believed that they might consider that the embodiment of the Territorial Force for six months was entirely to fit them for service outside of the United Kingdom. If that was so, he did not think that it was right that they should pass the Bill in the form which the right hon. Gentleman wished, because it would be enlisting men under one set of rules, and asking them to carry out something quite different. The better plan, it seemed to him, would be that, under the direction of the War Office, every county association should have the power to ear-mark certain units within their association who should be composed of men who, when they enlisted, expressed themselves as willing to serve abroad when the First Glass Army Reserve was called out; the remaining units should not be called upon to serve abroad as units, though individuals might volunteer from them for foreign service. He could not see why that could not be carried out; why should they not allow the Militia and the Yeomanry to form these foreign service units in the Territorial Army? They knew that both the Militia and the Imperial Yeomanry were ready to go abroad in their units if called upon. When they merged into the Territorial Force, why should they not allow them to consist entirely of young men willing to
1642
serve abroad in a grave national emergency, and let them be reinforced if necessary from the home battalions in order to bring them up to strength? The advantage of such a proposal was that the right hon. Gentleman would know what number he had to rely upon in case of emergency. Had he now the slightest idea of how many of the proposed Territorial Force would volunteer for Foreign Service in case a war broke out? If it happened to be a popular war he might get a large percentage of them, but if it should turn out unpopular, then the percentage would be very small indeed. Another advantage would be that a man perfectly willing to serve his country at home, but perhaps for family or business reasons not willing or able to serve abroad, would be able to enlist, secure in the knowledge that if war broke out he would only be called upon to serve his country against foreign invasion. It might be said that such people belonged to stay-at home battalions, and they would possibly be laughed at. He was aware that this had been said when the proposal was made to have two active service companies in each battalion, but there was a very great difference between two companies in a battalion and keeping a regiment of that kind in each county. They might include the Militia, the Yeomanry, and the Volunteers in this Territorial Force, and lay down that the Militia and Yeomanry should take on the liability to serve abroad, leaving the Volunteers as at present to come forward to defend their hearths and homes and have a saving clause that the Volunteers or the stay-at-home people should be allowed to Volunteer as individuals, but not as units, in order to supplement the foreign service battalion. He considered that unless the Bill was very greatly changed in Committee it would have most disastrous results, and the upshot would be that the Regular Army would be reduced by 20,000 men, the Yeomanry by 50 per cent., the Militia would be abolished, and the Volunteers irritated and discouraged.
*CAPTAIN KINCAID-SMITHsaid he would like to make an allusion to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman first of all

1643
sympathised with the Secretary of State for War in the extreme difficulty and complexity of his task. He also stated that his three predecessors at the War Office had not been able to do one thing, and that was to provide the expansive system required, and he further stated that the present Secretary of State for War had also failed in that respect. Personally he did not agree with that statement, and he was supporting this scheme because he believed that for the first time they were taking a step towards providing that reservoir of men and that Reserve which was required to reinforce the Regular professional Army in times of emergency. Whether the Territorial Army was to be filled by Volunteers or by compulsion, it was the first step towards providing that essential condition always insisted upon by the Leader of the Opposition in any scheme of Army reform. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leicester, the first part of his speech seemed to be one long complaint against the military side of the War Office. He complained that various schemes had been brought down to the House, and each time the Secretary of State for War had stated that they were backed by expert military opinion. The answer to that remark was the extreme difficulty and perplexity of the problem which they had to solve. What was now placed before them was one of the alternatives, and every alternative must be tried. There was not a single scheme which could be put forward by any member of the Labour Party or by anyone else which could not be picked to pieces in five minutes by the Leader of the Opposition, and probably by any other Member of the House. The hon. Member for Leicester's chief complaint against the scheme was that it would increase the military spirit or what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had called public spirit. To him it was immaterial what sort of spirit it was if it produced that willingness to undergo the small amount military of training required by the regulations laid down in this Bill. It had been said time after time by members of the Labour Party that the scheme was the first step towards conscription, but it was nothing of the sort The country was not going to be coerced into conscription, and no system of universal military training could be
1644
introduced in this country except with the almost unanimous consent of the nation. Continental countries had not adopted their system of compulsory military service from any love of that service or from any sense of their duty as citizens, but simply because it was necessary for their national security that they should maintain a great professional army, and if it could be proved that it was unnecessary to keep such a great standing army they would very quickly express their disapproval of it. He would like to read an extract from a manifesto by the Social Democratic Federation. The manifesto he alluded to said—
"We want no class of men set apart from their fellows, but we want a national citizen force in which while every man will be a soldier no man will cease to be a civilian. Such a force is not conscription, which can only be successful by securing that every man shall be trained in the use of arms as a civilian."
He would commend those sentiments to the Leader of the Opposition. That was an extract from a manifesto issued by the Social Democratic Federation, and it read almost like an extract from any leaflet issued by the National Service League; some of the sentiments were most admirable. He thought they might congratulate themselves upon the great value such sentiments would have in raising the Territorial Army. The point was, would they be able to fulfil the aspirations expressed in that manifesto without compulsion? The underlying principle of one of the speeches which had been delivered from the Labour Benches was that they would be opposed to any reduction in the Regular professional Army until they had some civilian Army on a semi-trained basis on which they could rely. He for one would be very much opposed to any further reduction in the professional Army until they had the Territorial Army organised on a reliable basis. He supported the Bill because he believed that for the first time it, so to speak, co-ordinated all the different Auxiliary Forces into one uniform body and made the civilian community responsible for the maintenance, and to a certain extent responsible for the organisation of the new Territorial Army. In time of peace the civilian community had not sufficiently recognised its responsibility for the maintenance of the Auxiliary Forces. He believed this scheme did

1645
provide the organisation required, and it would form a reservoir and a vast reserve of men on a semi-military basis which could be drawn upon to reinforce the Regular professional Army in time of emergency. A great many hon. Members, especially on the Ministerial side of the House, had expressed some nervousness about the increased size of the expeditionary force. He did not think there was much danger, and he was sure there was no necessity to be nervous about that. They had the men on paper and they might as well organise them on paper. The bald fact remained, however, that the expeditionary force outside the administrative departments which was on a semi-Militia basis was the same as before, minus those by which the Regular Army had been reduced. A great many hon. Members had expressed various opinions as to whether the Territorial Army would be sufficiently attractive to get the number of men required. Upon that point his opinion was absolutely valueless, and he did not think anybody's opinion upon it would be worth much. Nobody could tell whether the Territorial Army now proposed would attract sufficient men to make it a success; they could only find that out after two or three years experience. He fully realised the great difficulty in the case of working men, especially those employed in skilled trades, in giving up even the little time required under the Volunteer Regulations. He did not, however, think that those considerations would justify a great many others who were often more comfortably situated, sometimes with complete leisure, and who had not identified themselves in any way with any branch of the Auxiliary Forces. He thoroughly agreed with the principles advocated by the National Service League, but ho would like to hear a little less about the duty of the working classes in this matter and a little more about the duty of those who had a good deal more leisure. The hon. Member for the Abercromby Division had recently made a very interesting speech about the Swiss Army. He had praised the Swiss Army as a model for us to follow, in our Territorial Army. He had also referred to it as an illustration of the state of efficiency to which an Army can be raised if constituted solely on the Militia basis. He agreed with the hon. Member that it was an excellent model in that respect, but it
1646
was not true to say that as a fighting, force it would be equal without further training to the professional soldiers of other Continental countries. He thought the hon. Member had left out of his narrative what must have been the most interesting part of the information he gathered when looking at the Swiss Army. The hon. Member did not state whether in the opinion of responsible people in Switzerland the same results could be obtained without compulsion. He himself thought he was right in saying that the opinion was almost unanimous that, without compulsion, the same results could not be obtained. The hon. Member had said that we approved apparently of the Swiss Army as a model for the Territorial Army because compulsion was imposed. But that was not the reason why we approved of it. It was because the Swiss system would give us the expansible system which everyone admitted was required in this country. We did not approve of it because it was constituted on the basis of compulsion. The hon. Member had said that with compulsion in this country we should find it more difficult to get men for the various punitive expeditions which we were obliged to engage in. But even if we had compulsion we should require a regular professional Army very much reduced, and this force would always be available for these expeditions. He never believed that there could be any difference in the fighting value of a man who was forced to be a soldier and a man who came forward voluntarily, provided they were fighting for a good case and had the feeling that they were fighting for national existence. He instanced the war in Manchuria as an illustration of that. He did not think that by the greatest stretch of imagination anybody would say that the soldiers on one side were animated by the idea that they were fighting for national existence and their homes many thousand miles away. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had voiced the case of the Militia. Many people who had served in that force and who were at present serving in it naturally did not like it to be abolished. Nobody liked to be legislated out of existence, from the owners of public-houses to Militia battalions. A great many Members, no doubt, belonged to

1647
Militia battalions with fine old traditions, and pressure had been brought upon them to oppose the present scheme. But looking at it impartially, something had got to be done to reorganise the force. He believed that one of the truest statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover was that if they wished for uniformity in the Territorial Army, in the end compulsion would be necessary. He himself said, "Let us give the scheme a chance." It could only be seen in a few years time whether it would be a success. He believed it would be a success if they raised the pay of the Territorial Army to the pay of the Yeomanry. He suggested also that as an inducement everyone joining the Territorial Army of twenty-one years of age should have the franchise extended to them. If some privilege of that sort were conferred he thought the Territorial Army might be made a success, but unless they did something like that, and raised their pay to that of the Yeomanry, he did not believe they would get a sufficient number of men, so that they would be able to reject the physically unfit and yet get a sufficient number to make the scheme a success. Personally, he would be quite prepared; if the scheme did not prove a success to support any right hon. Gentleman who would come forward and say that having tried every other alternative there was nothing left but to have a small Regular professional Army for foreign service and a compulsorily trained civilian Army for home service. He believed that was a policy which would be in the end cheerfully accepted by the country.
*MR HUNTsaid that a short time ago an hon. Member, on the other side of the House, speaking as a Volunteer officer, stated that compulsion was impossible. He ventured to ask "Why?" and the hon. Member replied, "Ask your constituents." He had asked his constituents, and his difficulty with them so far had been to get anybody to oppose compulsory military training at all. He believed that if hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would take their courage in both hands and tell their constituents that it was the duty of every man to learn enough to be able to defend his country in times of great national peril, it would not only do
1648
them no harm politically, but would probably in most cases do them a considerable amount of good. The hon. Member for Leicester had told the House that he was entirely against anything like teaching children in schools military exercises, or teaching them to shoot. The hon. Member said it would have the effect of causing them to believe that force was a remedy. He himself believed that it was absolutely true that force was really the only ultimate remedy. He put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite who did not believe in force, and especially to one hon. Gentleman opposite who was now there; If it had not been for the "gentlemen in blue" how could they have prevented the seried ranks of the gallant suffragettes from invading the sacred precincts of the House of Commons? That he thought was distinctly a case in point. The only thing that really told ultimately in this world was force, and they must recognise that that was absolutely true. The hon. Member for Stoke, who was a trained soldier and must know what discipline meant, had told the House that if this country was invaded one night the next morning there would be a million dripping bayonets. He thought the hon. Gentleman who had seen much active service and had honourably gained His Majesty's medals should not tell people that sort of thing. To begin with, there were probably not a million bayonets in the country. He did not think there were a million rifles. He believed that a regiment of trained soldiers from the Continent would swamp our patriotic million of men who were armed simply with bayonets. It seemed to him that this new Army scheme would put the country in an even more dangerous and defenceless position than at the present time. It appeared that under it we should be short, counting their Reserves, of very nearly 40,000 of our best trained infantry, besides losing somewhere about 3,800 trained artillery men, with no certainty whatever of getting any other force to make up for their loss. They could not make trained artillery men in much under three years. The Secretary of State for War was built on Herculean lines of physique as well as of intellect, but he appeared to be trying to get a voluntary Army on the cheap, and that was a very difficult thing to do, even in a country

1649
like this of heavily taxed imported necessaries and also heavily taxed exports.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid that there was a point of some public importance involved in this Bill, to which there was a very wide opposition in his constituency, because one of the provisions gave power to obstruct the waterway over the river Trent by the erection of a bridge across it. That waterway was of real importance and value to many industries in that part of the country. He was informed that some 2,000,000 tons of traffic passed up and down it in the course of a year. The bridge was proposed to be erected at such a point that owing to the rapidity of the tide and the shifting nature of the channel it would prove a most serious obstruction to navigation, if it did not lead to the practical cessation of the use of the waterway. He had a Motion on the Paper "That the Bill be read a second time this day six mouths," and if some modification of the plans were not made to secure the unimpeded navigation of the river, he would reserve his right to continue his objection to the passing of the Bill. His contention was that great railway companies had no right to cripple and strangle the waterways of the country.
*THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEAULEY,)said there was no doubt that this particular Bill was of great interest to the district where the proposed bridge was designed to be placed. The Trent was unquestionably an important link in the system of inland navigation between the Midlands and
1650
York, and the opposition to the bridge represented by the numerous petitions against the Bill was not confined to one particular locality. The Trent was a most important river; and the Board of Trade had a particular interest in the matter as trustees for the public in the oversight of tidal rivers. The Board of Trade had sent down one of their technical advisers who had investigated the subject thoroughly on the spot and had prepared a Report which would be presented to Parliament within the next few days. That Report would be available for the use of the Committee upstairs, and Board of Trade witnesses would be available to be examined by the Committee. He therefore asked the House to send the Bill to the Committee upstairs, and he could assure his hon. friend that his constituents would have the fullest opportunity of bringing their case before that Committee.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed.

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 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, resumed."
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
*MR. HUNT,continuing his speech, said that it appeared to him that the Secretary of State for War, a Liberal Minister, had been obliged to go down on his bended knees to the Lords-Lieutenants of counties, Peers and country gentlemen—most dreadful people according to Liberal ideas—and beg them to subscribe handsomely, and to use all their

1651
social influence in order to make this Bill work in an economical and satisfactory way. The Liberal Party, it seemed to him, had fallen rather low when they had to face the real situation in office, considering that they began their career with such high hopes and proud aspirations. Many hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches had told them that this country would never have conscription; but some of them did not know what conscription meant. They had mixed up universal military training with conscription. Conscription meant the taking by lot or by force a certain number of men of the country who were then compelled to serve in a long-service aggressive army for a number of years and compelled to fight in any part of the world to which they might be sent. Universal compulsory military training, on the other hand, was the most democratic Army scheme that had ever been invented, and the most just. No man under it was obligod to fight except in defence of his own country. Rich and poor alike served in its ranks. He thought it was a great pity that the people of this country did not understand the difference between the two. It appeared to him as if, to a great extent, this country was ruled by words, and he hoped that in time the people would learn that conscription had really nothing whatever to do with universal military service. In regard to the Yeomanry, as far as the regiment to which he belonged was concerned, this Bill would take away from their pay something like 3s. per day. The men now got 5s. 6d. a day, but that was to be reduced to 1s. 6d., and as their messing now cost them 1s. a day, it meant that they would lose 3s. a day during the training. That was a very serious matter, because the men consisted chiefly of small crofters, gillies, gamekeepers, and when they went home from the Yeomanry training some of them took back with them as much as from £8 to £12, which was a great help to them to get over the winter. On those lines, he thought the Bill would do a great deal of harm to that class of Yeomanry. On the other hand, in other regiments the big farmers came out, meaning to have a good time as well as for patriotic feeling; and the Bill would have a bad effect on them, because they would have to pay out a considerable amount of money instead of, as at present, being able to live well on their pay. By doing away with the
1652
Militia, the Bill would make it more-difficult to get recruits for the Regular Army than at present. With the-exception of 75,000 men the rest of the National Army would be rather less fitted to face an invading Army than the Militia and the Volunteers at the present time. He thought that the War Minister had begun his training at the wrong end. If the right hon. Gentleman had begun with six months training the Territorial Army might have been very useful, but it was perfectly ridiculous to imagine that foreign nations were going to allow us six months to train our men in order to suit our convenience after the outbreak of war. He thought the Volunteers and the Militia to a large extent came from different classes, and it was quite a question whether the War Office could induce them to be mixed up together, eight or ten in a tent in peace time. The range accommodation in many of the camps was very bad, and as the time in camp was only ten clear days ho did not see how the men were going to be properly trained. Ten days clear was not more than enough to train a big battalion in musketry alone, and how they wore to be trained in that and other matters in the time he was quite unable to understand. There was another point which he thought would affect the Volunteers very seriously. Formerly the Militia had always stood between the Volunteers and embodiment, but now it seemed there was to be nobody to stand between the Volunteers and that operation, as the Militia did in, 1882, and all those who formerly served in the Volunteers would be liable to be called up at any time when danger threatened for six months of continuous military service. He thought it was extremely doubtful whether the Volunteers or those who were suitable for the new Territorial force would accept the very severe extra responsibility. Another thing which seemed to him very difficult was, how the Field Artillery were to be trained during such a very short time to be of any real use in war. There would also be a difficulty about getting officers now in the Militia to join the new Territorial force, as about a third of them did not live in the county in which they now served. He was told that the majority of the Militia officers absolutely declined to serve in this new force of 75,000 men. It seemed to him that

1653
under this scheme they would destroy the Militia and reduce the Volunteers without any certainty of getting men to fill their places. Even supposing that they did get the men and the officers, was it in any way fair or right that 300,000 men, out of many millions, should take upon themselves alone the whole of the self-sacrifice and risk of defending their country in time of national peril? It did not seem to him in the least fair. Many of these men would be artisans, mechanics or clerks, earning perhaps two pounds a week as long as they kept their health. They probably got only about one whole week's holiday during the year, and yet for the sake of serving their country they devoted that holiday to attending their annual training, whilst there was a considerable number of men who had been left a good bit of money by somebody, and who had plenty of time and leisure, but who did not do anything to fit themselves to serve their country in time of need. For himself he could not help thinking that if they could have thrown a net over the 80,000 young men who attended the great football match the other day at the Crystal Palace as spectators only, it would have been a very good thing indeed to have secured them and put them through four months continuous military training and instruction, He could not help thinking that the Secretary of State for War might as well have grasped his nettle and proposed four months continuous military training for every man once in his life between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, and also military drill and shooting in all schools, for all boys over eleven years of age. Surely it was not too much to ask of every young man who had the privilege of being a member of the British Empire that he should undergo this small amount of training. He thought that if the question were fairly placed before the people of this country they would be very glad to agree to it. His own experience was, that although in his constituency, just before Parliament met, they held four meetings in four towns in different parts of the division—one of them in particular whore the political views of the people were opposed to his—they could not get anybody to oppose the principle that it was the duty of every man to learn enough to be able to defend his country and his country's women and
1654
children in time of need. If British men were not able and willing to defend their country, and their country's women and children, who could be expected to do it for them? They might at all events perhaps agree that although we were a most peace loving nation it was impossible for us by peaceable means to make other nations the same. It had been our boast for a great number of years that we were a free country, and what he was trying to impress upon the people about him was that if we wanted to remain a free country we must be prepared to fight for our freedom like all the other great European nations. The idea was quite recognised by all sections of society in other countries, including even the Socialists, that it was necessary for every man to go through a certain amount of training, and our greatest soldier, Lord Roberts, who had spent practically the whole of his life in defending the British Empire in wars that had been forced upon us, although he was now at the age of seventy-four, when he certainly could claim to have earned a well-deserved rest, was occupying the last years of his life in going about and telling the people of this country that it was absolutely necessary for their safety that we should have universal military training; and, he told them that unless we did have it we should certainly drift into hopeless disaster. Lord Roberts said—
"For the sake of all they held dear let our people bring home to then selves, what would be their position if Great Britain lost her power, her wealth and her Colonies."
The warning was given with the plain directness of a great soldier, and was surely a warning that we had no excuse for neglecting. The last time that a great fleet set forth to invade our shores, when it came in sight fires were lit on all the great hills of Britain, and in the country all the men, and he believed all the women, were ready, prepared and armed and willing, nay anxious, to defend their native land. He wished it was so now, and hoped it might be so before very long. We had, however, for so long a time been spared the horrors of having a foreign Power on our shores, that we were in great danger of forgetting the awful possibilities of it. It was very difficult indeed for the people of this nation to recognise that at one time during the Boer War this country was

1655
practically denuded of trained troops, and that both Lord Lansdowne and Sir E. Goldie had told us that this fact produced the most perilous international situation, and was full of peril to the Empire. Colonel Lonsdale Hale had told them that he had felt it his duty to tell both the civil and military authorities that at one time during the Boer War 50,000 picked troops of any of the great continental nations could have walked from one end of the country to the other. Were these the sort of risks we ought ever to run again, especially considering that the Boer War was really a small one compared with those which in all probability we should have to fight in the future? Let hon. Members just consider for a minute what their feelings would be if a foreign enemy got an entrance into the town in which they lived. He did not exaggerate when he said that if an enemy got into London it would mean, as the history of maritime nations of the past showed, and as Lord Salisbury had said, the end of the history of Britain. The Duke of Wellington left us a very strong warning in a letter to Sir John Burgoyne, in which he stated that from North Foreland to close to Portsmouth, infantry could be landed with very great ease, and if they had been landed, there were at least seven harbours where they could land their artillery and cavalry. Napoleon, Wellington and Moltke, all thought the invasion of this country practicable, and Lord Wolseley had given us even a stronger warning, and had told us what the plucky fishwives of the East of London would do with the War Minister and his colleagues if they caught them in Downing Street if Great Britain was ever caught napping and was invaded by an enemy. The leaders of the people of a great country not so far off by sea from here were telling their people that they must gain the supremacy of the sea, and that they must prepare for war with this country. That country had great ports where it could embark a great number of men at the same time. It had got 4,000,000 men who could be mobilised on a telegram from their Emperor. Three was not the least doubt that but for our "wet ditch" it would be perfectly easy for that country to overrun and conquer us whenever they chose. If we were obliged to keep our ships tied to our shores it would be impossible to protect our food supply, and
1656
we should be starved into submission in a very short time. Those who believed in national defence had to contend with people who for generations had been taught to believe that the only thing that really mattered was to learn to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, and who thought war could always be avoided by arbitration and universal disarmament. President Roosevelt had said that that was not possible; that it was not only most necessary to be prepared for war, but that it was disgraceful and cowardly to shirk war when national interests were involved. The hon. Member for Leicester had said that he did not believe in taxing people to preserve their country; and Socialists contended that the minds of the children in the schools must not be poisoned by their being taught to shoot. British Socialists believed that they would be able to prevent a war between Germany and England. The German Socialists on the other hand said quite plainly that Germany must be armed to the teeth and have a strong Navy. No country had been able to preserve its power, position and wealth whose sons had not taken the trouble to learn enough to be able to defend their country. History was full of examples of nations who had neglected this and who had gone down in consequence. The Dutch were a case in point. The Dutch of the Netherlands about the middle of the seventeenth century had a great mercantile marine and a great colonial empire and were in a position very like our own to-day. They depended on the sea for their food. They were the workshop of the world and were the greatest banking centre. They thought peace was their greatest interest, and trusted to alliances and their wealth, which they thought could bin-armies to fight their battles, with the inevitable result that stronger nations conquered them and took their wealth and colonial possessions. Nations had not changed since those days. Nations still acted on the principle of the old lines—
The good old rule, the simple plan,
That they shall take who have the power
And they shall keep who can.
As Moltke said—
"It was only the sword that kept the sword in its scabbard. We gained our Empire and position by the sword, and by the sword we must keep it."

1657
We must take the world as it really was, not as we thought it ought to be. When we became so civilised that a little man could hit a big one over the head and the big man would thank him and not attempt to retaliate, we could begin to talk of disarmament. At the present time, at all events, all history taught us that peace was only an interval between great wars, and the longer we enjoyed peace, the nearer we were to the next great war. We should, therefore, remember the great disasters that had overtaken other great nations, and prepare while there was yet time. Commercially-bred and commercially minded amiable people, who could not bear the idea that they, or any of those dear to them, should have to run the risk of being obliged to fight, tried to make us believe that war was always unnecessary, and could always be avoided, and in that way they prevented preparations for war, and so in reality did a great deal to make war much more likely. That sort of people objected to war because it would interfere with their comfort, and diminish their trade. The real remedy if we wanted to keep peace was simple. The children in our elementary and other schools should be taught British history and patriotism, the size and advantages of the British Empire, and that as their gallant ancestors, both men and women, risked, and often lost their lives, and endured great sacrifices to secure the Empire for; them, so it was their bounden duty to be ready to fight for and preserve it for the future generations of the British race. It was also necessary for our safety that every man, rich and poor alike, should go through four months of continuous military training. That was not conscription or anything like it, and it had this great advantage, that it would improve the morale and physique of the nation and also increase our industrial efficiency. He thought an appeal should especially be made to the women of the British race. It was surely the duty of all men to learn enough to be able to defend their country, and was it not also the duty of women to see that the men did not shirk their duty? If we could get the women of Britain to understand the absolute necessity of universal military training for their own and their country's safety, he felt sure they would have Cabinet Ministers and politicians of all
1658
sorts tumbling over each other in their anxiety to bring in a Bill for that purpose. It was only a short time ago in a letter to the Morning Post that a woman said that women should take up miniature rifle shooting to encourage the men, and in reply to a question as to what would happen if the men did not take it up, she said that women should learn military drill so that in time of national peril they might be able to defend their homes, their children, their country and their men. When the next great war came, as come it certainly would, unless the nation was trained to arms, our women would see the trains or ships fading slowly out of their sight, carrying all they held most dear among the troops to the front, and many of them would know that for months their sons would be mere targets for the enemy, with no knowledge of how to defend themselves in modern war. So it was in the South African War, and so it was bound to be again unless the nation was roused from its fatal apathy, and our men recognised their responsibilies. Surely we should all try to put an end to our present defenceless state. It was well within the power of women alone to bring it about that there should not be a British mother in these islands who would not be proud that her sons were willing and able to defend their country in time of peril, and not a boy or girl who would not point the finger of scorn at any lad who shirked his first duty to his native land.
*MR. CREMERsaid the point to which he wished to address himself was that there was no necessity for this Bill as no great danger confronted us. It was said that the Bill was not likely to lead to conscription, but to his mind it made conscription very easy. The one great danger to the peace of the world was the Press. If the Press of this country could for a few months be muzzled and prevented from making irritating abominable statements from day to day there would be no danger of any attempt being made to invade the country. He was not sure that the time was not approaching when the same law would have to be applied to the writers of inflammatory articles in the Press that was applied to people who incited others

1659
to break the peace and commit murder. In March 1905 the late Prime Minister in answer to a question by Colonel Welby, as to whether there was any danger of this country being invaded, said, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, that they were clearly of opinion that invasion of these islands in such force as to inflict a fatal blow or to threaten our independence was impossible. He added that the considerations which it seemed to the Committee of Defence ought to govern the number of troops to be maintained, depended on the claims which Colonial and still more Indian needs might make on our military system. The words of the late Prime Minister on the question of invasion were very emphatic. They had also the declaration upon the subject of the right hon. Gentleman who was Minister of Education last year, when he was severely heckled in regard to the introduction and teaching of rifle shooting in elementary schools. On 29th March of last year he himself asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered this instruction necessary for national defence, and whether there was any new danger confronting the country which rendered necessary increased preparation for war. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he did not regard rifle shooting in elementary schools as necessary to physical training, and he did not consider it necessary for the purposes of national defence; he was not aware of any danger threatening the country. That was another emphatic declaration added to that of the late Prime Minister, who, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, had access to all expert information, and knew well what he was talking about. There was no danger of invasion, and there was no necessity for this Bill. He was trying to take a common sense view of the question, and he was not to be frightened by any spectre of invasion. Five years ago this country was practically denuded of troops during the South African War, and then, if at any time, was the opportunity for an invasion of these shores; yet there was no manifestation of any desire either on the Continent or anywhere throughout the world to take advantage of our defenceless condition. It should also be borne in mind that we were at that time the best hated country in the world. He had
1660
at that time received letters from friends in many parts of Europe which showed the state of feeling on the Continent against us; and the last time the late Lord Pauncefote was on a visit to this country, and after he had travelled on the Continent, he almost shed tears in describing to him (Mr. Cremer) the state of opinion against us which he found everywhere on the Continent, and the hatred that prevailed against this country in consequence of the action we were taking in South Africa. At that time our only ally was the Sultan; the French Press was almost unanimously against us, he only knew of one exception, and in that instance the proprietor had to come over to this country to raise funds to continue the one journal which supported the British Government in its action in South Africa. That was the state of feeling abroad, and that was our defenceless condition at home, yet there was no attempt at an invasion of these shores, and such an opportunity was never likely to occur again. Since then Russia had fallen to the position of a third-rate Power, her fleet had been destroyed, and her internal, dissensions rendered it practically impossible that she could take any active steps to attempt an invasion of this country. Yet not many years ago the Russian bogey was trotted out to frighten us into complying with demands for a stronger Navy and a stronger Army. Was there any danger to be apprehended from France? The changed relations between this country and France was the most remarkable, he believed, to be found anywhere in history. Thirty-five years ago, when they began their agitation for international arbitration, they were laughed to scorn, yet they could proudly say now that these two countries. England and France, who for generations had been engaged in fighting each other, had concluded a treaty of arbitration. That treaty was followed by a Convention, partly appointed by our Government and partly by the French Government, with a view to healing the old sores which had been running between the two countries for generations. The Convention met, and succeeded in achieving that object, because there was a desire to do so. An agreement was drafted and submitted to that House about three years ago.

1661
The Jingoes in the House, when the agreement was presented for ratification, shrugged their shoulders and said: "Yes; those Frenchmen have got the best of us, and for the future we shall have to play second fiddle," but they did not divide the House. In the French Parliament, the Chauvinists also shrugged their shoulders and said: "Yes; John Bull has got the best of us and we shall have to play second fiddle," but they did not divide the Chamber or Senate. And since the date of that Convention there had not been a cloud on the horizon between this country and France. The French bogey had been laid like the Russian bogey. Never was there a time when our foreign relations were so friendly as they were to-day. And yet this was the time when an attempt was made to Germanise our Army. For these reasons he had decided to give the Bill his determined opposition. The pioneers of arbitration treaties had always contended that if any two nations would take the initiative in concluding such treaties their example would be followed by other nations and that contention had been fully justified. There were already eleven treaties of arbitration to which this country was committed, and which had been concluded since the first treaty was made between France and England. No less than twenty such treaties had also been concluded by civilised Powers, and this country had been parties to eleven of them. That was a great point gained, and he commended it to those who believed that man was a righting animal, and that the old state of things would go on until the end of time. He had visited other countries and he knew something of their opinion upon the subject of invasion, and he did not believe that any country entertained the slightest intention of invading us. Was there any danger of the employment of the Italian Fleet to invade our shores? We were now on excellent terms of friendship with the Government of Italy, who was one of our most faithful allies. Was there an hon. Member in the House of Commons who did not believe that if there was any danger of this country being annihilated one of the first Powers to come to our fescue would be Italy? Italy was
1662
grateful to this country for what we, did for her during her hour of trial and for helping to build her up into a great nation. Spain was also one of our allies. Austria had quite enough to do to hold together the various races which composed that heterogeneous Empire. Therefore there was no danger to be apprehended from Italy, Spain, or Austria. As regarded the Scandinavian States the best possible feeling existed towards this country. The United: States were also upon the best possible terms with us, and if anyone was to get up at a meeting in the United States and talk about a war with England or an invasion of this country by the United States he would be laughed to scorn. Therefore there was not the slightest danger to be apprehended from any of the Powers to which he had referred. It was quite true that there was one solitary Power concerning which some misgivings were entertained, but that Power said exactly of this country what we said of them. They had a Press of the same type and character as we had, and if the German Press and some of the English Press were muzzled for a few months the feeling of anger would die out, and very little would be heard of the danger of England attacking Germany or of the Germans attacking us. Did any man in his senses believe that there was any real danger to be entertained because of the feeling of enmity which had been stirred up and fanned by the Press of the two countries? He happened to know something about the opinion of the people of Germany, and from his own experience he was satisfied that no people entertained more friendly feelings and sentiments towards English men than the Germans. If an attack was made upon this country by the Emperor of Germany, or even if he dreamt of such a thing, so friendly were the German people towards us that he believed they would repudiate any such design or intention. That was at any rate his own experience amongst the people of Germany. He would like the promoters of this Bill to tell him what was the danger they apprehended, and where it was likely to come from? Where was the enemy that had manifested the slightest desire to attack this country or invade our shores? He hoped in the

1663
reply which the Minister for War would presently deliver he would be good enough to tell them whether he was of the same opinion as the late Prime Minister and one of his own colleagues whose opinion he had already quoted, or whether he could prove that there was any real danger which necessitated the establishment of an Army on the lines laid down in this measure. It had been said that man was a fighting animal. He did not know whether that was the opinion of the Minister for War, but it was a favourite dogma with some people who opposed them when they tried to get arbitration substituted for war. It was possible that there was a good deal of the animal in their nature when they first came into the world, but those who claimed that man was a fighting animal should do their best from birth upwards to subdue the animal, and develop the moral and intellectual sides of their characters. He believed that this Bill would not do that, but develop and increase the fighting instinct, and that was sufficient reason for him to oppose its passage into law. Then there was the proposal for assisting and fostering cadet corps. He thought that the danger of that proposal was fairly well pointed out by the hon. Member for Leicester. If however, the Bill reached the Committee Stage he would move to omit those dangerous clauses. He was exceedingly sorry that the Secretary of State for War had thought necessary in this Bill to give aid and encouragement to institutions which up to the present had been purely voluntary in their; character. Some of them for years had protested against the growth of militarism in our elementary schools. In the first place they protested against the introduction of the drill sergeant because they did not believe that it ought to be the object of education to encourage fighting. He well remembered the specious statement made at the time when the drill sergeant was introduced into schools and how military drill was defended on the ground that it set the children up and made them more obedient; but he believed that it was calculated to make children not obedient and independent, but subservient, and what they wished
1664
to see developed was manliness and independence, not subserviency. If they desired to see the result of militarism let them go to Germany. He was afraid that the frequent visits of the War Minister to Germany and the military system which prevailed there had influenced him in drafting this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was a gentleman of very great ability, with the best possible intentions, but he was afraid he had gone astray and had allowed himself to be influenced by military rather than higher and nobler motives. There had been a great deal of contention in that House during the last two or three years upon the question of education and the teaching of religion in our elementary schools. Side by side with that there were a number of hon. Members who believed that the drill sergeant ought to have a place in their elementary schools. They believed that the drill sergeant should follow in the footsteps of the schoolmaster. If that was done the schoolmaster would, in giving religious instruction in the morning, teach the children to love their enemies, and in the afternoon they would be taken in hand by the drill sergeant, who would teach them how to shoot them. The paradox of teaching children in the morning to love their enemies and in the afternoon to shoot them was one of those things which he could not understand or reconcile.
MR. HUNTsaid they would only shoot when attacked.
*MR. CREMERsaid he apprehended a great deal of danger from the development of this righting instinct. He would read to the House an instance of what he meant. In one of the Wiltshire villages, at an annual dinner, in responding to the toast of "The Volunteers," the speaker—a Volunteer—said, "Perpetual target practice was so dull that they sometimes felt they would like for a change to put a bullet through a human being." The danger was that this instinct begun in the schools would be continued and developed in the cadet corps and rifle corps. Up to the present time cadet corps had been purely voluntary, but if these two

1665
clauses were retained in the Bill they would receive official sanction. He sincerely hoped that when they came to the discussion of the clauses the Minister for War would consent to their omission. He opposed the Bill because he believed it was an attempt to Germanise the British Army. It would be a sad day for the liberties of this country if militarism in anything like the form in which it was to be found in Germany were introduced. He also opposed the Bill because he believed it to be absolutely unnecessary, there being no danger to be confronted. He further opposed it because he believed it was calculated to develop the fighting instinct among the people of this country. It was an attempt to militarise our institutions, a thing against which he and some of his friends had been protesting for a good many years. He believed it was the duty of the State to cultivate, not the destructive, but the constructive, side of our natures. For these reasons he was exceedingly sorry to find himself in the painful position of having to decide between loyalty to Party and duty to conscience, but on this occasion he could not strain his conscience to the breaking point, and consequently he would be impelled to enter the division lobby in opposition to the Bill.
MR. D. DAVIESsaid he had seen with regret an attempt to knock the bottom out of the Bill and at the same time the determination to reject any solution on a compulsory basis. What then was wanted? They would be extremely glad to know what remedy it was proposed to apply to the present position of the Forces of the country. It appeared to him that the present Bill brought a new principle into operation and made a new departure which no other War Minister had ever attempted in the course of our history. It brought the Volunteer Forces into direct contact with the people as a whole. It must necessarily force the onus of responsibility on the local authorities themselves. One hon. Member had told him that the Volunteers were either overloaded with praise they did not deserve or looked down upon and every obstacle
1666
placed in their way. That to a great extent was very true. The other day he was at a Volunteer dinner where one of the persons present alluded to the Volunteers in the most eulogistic terms, yet the following week he prevented several of his employees from joining a Volunteer corps. There were a good many people in the country who adopted a similar attitude. Once they impressed on the local authorities their responsibility the attitude towards the Volunteers would be very different. The position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London seemed to be somewhat incomprehensible. So far as he himself was concerned he spoke from several years experience as a Volunteer. He believed that in adopting the county as a unit they would call forth patriotism and esprit de corps and bring in usefully a certain amount of friendly rivalry among the counties themselves. He thought this scheme would introduce a great deal of the public spirit to which the Foreign Secretary had alluded in his speech when referring to the organisation and general tone of the Volunteers. With regard to cadet corps and rifle clubs, a good many Members on that side of the House had taken serious objection to the proposal to give them support. Again he would like to refer to what fell from the hon. Member for the Woodstock division when he told the House that it was very difficult to get men who came up from a public school or a university to join the Volunteers, because they had done a certain amount of drill in their schools. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had said that this system in the public schools introduced militarism into the country. Both those statements could not be correct. He had served in a cadet corps in a school where service was compulsory. He believed in the system of military exercises in the schools throughout the country. Men spent a great deal of their time at games and there was great indirect benefit from that in the way of moral training. The system of military training in the schools had already been tried with great success in our Colonies and in Japan. He believed that a great deal of the success of Japan in the recent war was due to the military training given in the elementary and secondary

1667
schools which had been introduced in that country. He strongly hoped that the Minister for War would not strike out that portion of the Bill but rather strengthen it and make it more efficient.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he ventured to offer a few words as an old Volunteer and one who had served in more portions than one of the Empire. The hon. Member for Shoreditch had given expression to laudable aspirations for universal peace. They did not share his confidence and belief that the time of peace was at hand. The hon. Member was on dangerous ground when he quoted scripture in support of his contention, because passages could be quoted on the other side. Shakespeare said—
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
He was not entirely in accord with some of his fellow Members on that side of the House. He strongly welcomed what he believed to be the great effort of his right hon. friend to bring the military service of the country into something like harmony. In the last Parliament a number of them did their best to get successive Secretaries for War to raise the position and status of the Volunteers, but they were not very successful. They had asked for the raising of the status of the Volunteers; the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to raise it. They had asked for the better equipment of the Regular Army; the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to give it. He did not know whether his attempt to give the Artillery equipment to the Volunteer service had been sufficiently successful. They had asked that the financial responsibility should be taken away from commanding officers of the Auxiliary Army; that would be secured. They had asked for training with the Regular Army in the manœuvres; that had been granted by the late Secretary of State for War, and was to be continued. They had asked for greater facilities for rifle practice; they were to be granted. They had asked that the Auxiliary Forces should be put under a separate department at the War Office, which should have closer knowledge of their needs; but that separate department was not to be granted. They be-
1668
lieved that with the development of the Volunteer service reductions in the Regular Army might be safely made. [OPPOSITION cries of dissent.] He knew that some of his hon. friends did not agree with him on that point; but he hoped they would allow him to state his case. He would never give his support to any scheme which suggested a reduction of the Regular Army if it did not also increase the efficiency of the Voluntary Army; but that would involve what the right hon. Gentleman had not given, increased expenditure on the Volunteer Forces. The reductions in the Regular Army would have given the right hon. Gentleman an extra £1,600,000 for the Volunteer Army, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had erred in not increasing the grants to the Volunteer Army. The right hon. Gentleman wanted an efficient but cheap Army, and a great many of his friends wanted a cheap and a small Army. The two things were incompatible unless the Volunteer Army was developed as it had not yet been developed in this country. The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was uniformity. The Militia, as he understood it, were to be incorporated into the Territorial Army, they were to pass through exactly the same training and receive the same pay as the Volunteers, Some hon. Members believed that the Militia were going to receive some training of their own. That, he thought, was a fundamental error. The right hon. Gentleman believed that with our peculiar conditions of society he could suddenly change those natural gradations which had drawn from different classes in this country men to join the Militia, the Volunteers, the Yeomanry, and the Regular Army. He was very much afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had been moved by two considerations; first, the consideration of what conscription had done in other countries; and, secondly, the belief that this was a democratic England, and that a democratic England should have a democratic Army. The right hon. Gentleman proposed two lines. The first one to go into barracks and be trained to serve abroad; and the second line was to serve for a certain period every year for a soldier's pay. But he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would be so effective or economical as in the United States

1669
There and in our Colonies they had no great public schools as in England. So far as education was concerned all classes met on the same grounds. The sons of the rich man and of the poor man went to the same school and it was possible to get a democratic clement in the education of the youth for the defence of their country. Whatever the future might bring forth, and whatever the apirations of the lion. Member for Leicester and his friends might be, there was a long road to travel before the different classes in England could be brought into one line in relation to the Army. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme wholly depended for its success upon the Special Contingent. He could not send into the field in time of war the number of men he had promised for an expeditionary force unless he had the Special Contingent. But the Special Contingent competed with the Volunteers and the Militia. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman could get the same kind of men to go into the Volunteers and into the Militia. There was something in the tradition and the history of the Militia and its drilling in battalions which drew into it, not only the corner hoys, and men out of work, but a considerable section of the community who liked the old constitutional force, and who were prepared, if necessary, to go from the Militia to the Regulars. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he thought that he could get men for the Special Contingent who could only drill in squads, which had no regimental prestige, and had nothing of the attractiveness which surrounded battalion co-operation? He believed that the right hon. Gentleman would find that instead of getting his full complement for the Special Contingent, he would only get those who were out of work and were driven to the last extremity. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman was running a great risk. He believed the Secretary of State would have been more successful if he had applied the county association scheme to the Militia, and thus revived the old county feeling which had subsisted for more than a century. Later on he might have applied the county association scheme to the Volunteers. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had said
1670
that compulsory service such as existed in Switzerland would be anti-pathetic, to the will of the people of this country; but when the Ballot Act for the Militia was in force it was not necessary to supply it, for it was found that for every Volunteer asked for to serve abroad three were ready to offer themselves. He Sympathised in the strongest fashion with the attempt which the right hon. Gentleman had made to give us a nation in arms, and if he failed no one would regret it more than he.
MR. HALDANE: I am grateful to the hon. Member who has just sat down for the tone of his speech. With all his criticism I am not in agreement, but his desire has been most genuinely and most obviously to bring to bear the best light, he could on the extremely difficult problem with which we have to deal, and to help and not to hinder those who are responsible for its elaboration. I think I may go further, and say his speech has been perhaps typical in an extreme degree of the good temper and tone with which this debate has been conducted. Certainly no Minister has ever had the same cause to thank the House of Commons for the gracious reception of proposals about which, even when his opponents have not agreed, they have spoken with obvious earnestness and sincerity. There is one feature which has characterised the whole debate in a striking fashion. We have had many opinions put forward. One might almost say quot homines, tot sententice. Hardly any Member who has spoken has been in entire agreement with another. Many on this side of the House, while in agreement with the general principle, have demurred to particular details, and not the same details. On the other side there have been many who disagreed with the structure of the plan, but who agreed with many of the details, though not always the same details. What is the result of that? The result is that, notwithstanding what is called the reasoned Amendment which has been put down to the Second Reading, we have had no plan and no proposition from the other side to take the place of the one before the House. This plan holds the field. I say that with the more emphasis because in the Amendment, which is the official Amendment from the

1671
Opposition benches, if there is a plan foreshadowed—and I think there is one—it is not a plan which either accords with the opinions which have been expressed in the course of this debate or is in accordance with the traditions of the Party opposite. What is the substance of the Amendment? It is this. Organise not in two lines but in three; leave the Volunteers and the Militia and the Yeomanry on the present principle, improve them simply, and take that existing fashion of organisation as sufficient. But is that plan consistent with what was put before the House—and put before the House on behalf of the then Government—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon? Why, Sir, the plan which was the plan of the Opposition when they sat upon this side of the House was a plan more sweeping in this direction than anything I put forward. It proposed, as regards the Regulars, to reduce not eight battalions, as I have done, in addition to the two of Guards, but fourteen battalions of the Line, including those very battalions with which it has been my duty to deal. It proposed to take the Militia and cut down many of their cadres—to convert them into something quite different from what they are now; it proposed to revolutionise the system of the Regular Army. It was a proposition which, I think, under different circumstances, and given men and money, neither of which, I think, were present in sufficient quantities to give the plan a practical possibility of success, would have had much to be said for it; but it was wholly inconsistent not only with the official Amendment that we have here, but with what was foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin. In that state of things is the Opposition justified in pressing an Amendment to a proposal such as this? You may say, and you have said, that you put your ringer upon various defects, as you consider them, of a serious character in the scheme; and both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin and the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition gave us most fairly and fully reasoned accounts of the defects which they considered to be inherent in the plan. But, after all, there is something more
1672
that you have got to consider before you can justly, I think, press an Amendment such as this to a scheme which, say what you will about it, has, as you all agree, a good many things which give it an advantage over the present state of affairs—I am putting it at its lowest—and which has the Army Council and the Defence Committee at its back. After all, the plan which has been put forward rests upon the best thought and the best consideration that we can give it; and is the situation with which you have got to deal one which leaves you at liberty to go on without some attempt at drastic-reform? I ask whether the situation, either as regards the Regular Army or as regards the Auxiliary Forces, is one which renders a continuance of the present state of things tolerable? The right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought not; they have produced in the last ten years two plans for changing that state of things; we have produced a third, and I think we have all been right. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was absolutely justified in his criticism upon the existing state of things. When, on the introduction of this Bill, and in still more detail upon the Estimates, I put forward the reasons why we felt we were compelled to deal with the condition of the Regular Forces, I pointed out—and the facts which I gave were not controverted, and they could not be controverted—that our first line is full of gaps, that it is deficient in supports, and above all in provision to make up for the wastage of war. Full of gaps how? I merely mention the artillery in passing; it is not the most serious of all the cases. I have always thought that when you were passing from one kind of artillery to another—to a very quick-firing gun—it would be not unnatural that you should find yourself short in ammunition guns. And I only dwelt, earlier in these discussions, upon the gap in the artillery for this reason, that I have been myself attacked about artillery, and I pointed out that the reason why I was moving in the matter about artillery was because I had a very serious situation confronting me. It was this—that no more than forty-two batteries could be mobilised because of the amount of ammunition which these guns used. Well, Sir, I

1673
hope still to get sufficient men to mobilise the full complement of batteries—seventy-two, I think the number is—which we could find for the force, calculating its complete organisation. I hope that we shall be able to get a large number of men at any rate for the divisional ammunition guns. When that is done, and as that is done, I hope to replace the Regulars by Militia-trained men for that purpose. But not one man has been taken off the fighting men of the batteries of the Regular artillery up to this time. If we succeed we shall be able to do it, and we shall be able to keep the batteries manned with people who are trained up to that high point which, I agree, is absolutely necessary if your artillery is to be on a high level. I think the House listened with pleasure to the graphic description of my hon. friend the Member for Salford, to the most interesting and vivid account that he gave with all the fire, of one who had been trained up himself with the French artillery, of the battle of Saint Privat. I think we all feel the necessity of that high training if you are to have an ideal state of things in your artillery, and Heaven forbid that I or any other Ministers should cut down that as regards the fighting Army. But it is not that with which I am trying to deal. Our artillery stands as an illustration of the old fashion in which we try to do what no other nation does—toput every form of service, artillery and everything else, upon the highest professional footing. You will never get a sufficiency of men, because you have not a sufficiency of money to do it, if you take everybody for every service at that high level, irrespective of the extent and of what the service is. If you can fill your divisional ammunition columns with men of a lower degree of training, and if you can do something more with your brigade ammunition columns, then you will be able not only to fill up the gap that exists at the present time, but you will hive your artillery not only as efficient, but more efficient than it is at the present time, certainly for not more money than you at present spend. That is in course of consideration, in course of being worked out. It is very difficult. There are many problems in connection with it, and I do not intend, speaking as
1674
a responsible Minister, to take action until they are carefully worked out. That is why I have not yet effected the reduction of a single man in the fighting element in the batteries of artillery. The garrison artillery is another question. What I am talking about is the horse and field artillery. When I come to other parts of the Line the defects are more serious. The Army Service Corps, transport, supply, all the various items which are essential to the Army are wanting, and, above all, that element which is necessary to make up the wastage of war by sending drafts. We have not got that. Our first line is in a seriously dèfective condition, and my proposition to the House of Commons is that the first duty of a War Minister is to see to the first line and to get it into a perfect condition. When you come to the working out of that, how do you stand? The Leader the Opposition expressed a real regret that we had not been able to keep the Militia in their present form. I do not admit that we are destroying the Militia. We are destroying an antiquated organisation, but the Militia itself, the really historical Militia, not only are we not destroying them, but we are proposing to return to their original form. Until Mr. Pitt began to drain the Militia for the purposes of the Line, the Militia were a county force, recruited in the counties and of a local character. They ceased to be that. Why? Because they had become a mere adjunct of the Line, and because they were more and more ruthlessly used by the Line. What has been the result? The Militia have been going down and down the hill. They are between 30,000 and 40,000 short of their establishment, they are nearly 1,000 short of officers, and their condition is getting worse than before. Their organisation is antiquated and not up to the level of the time, and nothing but a revolution in their condition can put them back into a position which would justify the expenditure of such a large sum as is expended upon them every year. What we propose with the Militia is this. Put shortly, we say that the Militia contains two elements—the professional element, which has grown up more and more until they have become associated with the Line, and made them what they have been since 1882, completely under

1675
the War Office, and what we may call their original, historical, county element which belongs to them, which distinguishes the cadres, and which is there notwithstanding the extent to which they have been used for drafts. At the present time the Line is dependent on the Militia. It takes 12,000 men every year as recruits from the Militia force. It has to rely upon them for drafts—it has got absolutely nothing else to rely on to make up the wastage of war. Why is it necessary, for the purpose of assisting the Line, to deal with the Militia as we propose? There are two reasons. For the first, the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been a little responsible. In 1902 the right hon. Gentleman abolished the Militia Reserve, in which a large number of men took an engagement by which they were ready to go abroad as drafts of the Line, and most valuable they were in the South African war. But soon after the war, the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman was connected, abolished the Militia Reserve. They had the new short service arrangement, and they thought the three years system would give them not only a large Reserve but plenty of drafts. The drafts part of the scheme failed altogether, and the result was that the Regular Line was left in a condition far worse than it was before, because it had no longer the Militia to look to. It has been suggested that the present situation is the outcome of some temporary quarrel between the Militia and the War Office—that if we had been more tactful and conciliatory on both sides we might have not an arrangement by which the Militia would have been kept intact. That is not so. The situation is the outcome of prolonged discussions between the Militia commanding officers and ourselves. I have in this box a document signed by commanding officers that expresses their considered view after careful reflection. They say, "We are unwilling to furnish drafts for the Line, and we decline to do so." Some of them were willing to furnish drafts in companies; but of all the commanding officers of Militia, only four would consent to that course. The vast majority said that neither in individuals nor in companies would they furnish drafts to the Line, because they would ruin their corps
1676
if they did. I do not blame them for that course. Their cadres were getting smaller and smaller, and the situation was worse than it looked because of the habit of the Militia of taking recruits under eighteen years of age, and because, by reason of their bad organisation, the same man was often serving in several cadres. Their real strength was much below their nominal strength. The Militia were right in saying, "We won't give you drafts," and we were right in saying, "We must have drafts," The Militia is not a toy kept up for nothing. We spend £2,000,000 a year on it, and we must get the best value we can for our money. The best value was to make the Line as perfect as possible; and to do that, to take the professional substance of the Militia—the men who are not recruited locally—and assign them a definite duty. In military matters, as in others, there is no greater abuse than giving a man two functions. You cannot make him a Militiaman and a draft at the same time. If you do, you damage the cadre, and you will not have efficient machinery for supplying drafts. Therefore, we hit upon the plan, which has very strong grounds to commend it, of the third battalion, which is to be a training school for drafts and to take the professional substance of the Militia, and to furnish those corps in the form of drafts for the Line, willing to go abroad. The Militia cadre will go back to the county, and it will there take the recruit of a local character. But I do not wish that it should go forth that that course precludes the Militia in the counties from taking the new kind of recruit—that it shuts them out from a higher form of training than the mere eight or fifteen days of the ordinary recruit. It is a question of experiment and money. If experience shows that you can get men who are willing to take one month's recruit training, it will be a question for Parliament to decide whether it is worthwhile to spend the money in giving local recruits, if they come up, the sort of training which will bring them up to a higher level than that attainable by the recruits in the ordinary Territorial Army. But that should not be an exclusively Militia privilege; it should be extended to the entire Territorial Army. You may find that this Army is your strength

1677
and your backbone in the future; that, owing to changes in policy and circumstances, your expeditionary force need not be so large; and nothing is more likely to give you security in that conviction than to make the Territorial Force as real as possible. Therefore Parliament may wish to extend the training of the Militia battalions which will be territorial battalions at that time, with such troops as can be got for that purpose in the country; but experience alone can determine the question, and it is looking too far ahead for me to pronounce on it or make any proposition at the present moment. I only wish to point out that there is opened out opportunity for far higher training than would appear under the modest conditions of the Bill. I wish to say another thing. There is a class connected with the Militia with whom I have a great amount of sympathy, and that is, not the county officers, but the almost professional Militia officers who devote a great deal of time to giving training to Militia recruits and battalions. One would wish to make provision for them. If a Militia battalion with that class of officers says ''We do not wish to go into the county, but would like to continue on a more professional footing," it is open to them to enlist individually, not as a cadre, into the third battalions of their territorial regiments. In that way we shall get our drafts; because they will undertake to go abroad, and their officers will go into the Reserve of Officers and get as good employment as at present. In that fashion, combined with the assistance that they would have from the Regular officers, working with them at the depots, there would be a sphere for the Militia officer and for the Militiaman much more real than any open to them at present. It has been said that, after all, the Militia battalions, weakened though they were, did go abroad and occupy foreign stations. I have pointed out that these third battalions on mobilisation might take a large number of the surplus recruits from the Reservists, and from the number of those people who always come in on the wave of enthusiasm at the outbreak of a great war. They will then throw off composite battalions,
1678
and we have provided for that possibility by having a number of Regular officers, Regular captains, who will be assigned to each of these battalions, and will be taken, of course, from the Reserve of Officers, who will come in if wanted. In that way we have substituted material from which no doubt we will get a certain number of composite battalions, I cannot say how many, to go abroad for the particular purposes for which the Militia were maintained. You do not want a great many of these battalions. We have got two Regular battalions on the lines of communication, but in addition we have provided twelve extra Militia battalions for this very purpose. In Ireland there are no Volunteers; and we think, therefore, we have a right to make special provision in the case of the Irish Militia. Each of the territorial battalions in Ireland will have its third battalion behind it, but the Irish Militia, which remains a Militia, we hope to consolidate into twelve good battalions to enlist under Part III., so as to be available for service abroad. They will be Regular battalions and not merely training schools for drafts. They will be Regular battalions; I do not care to call them Militia, because they come under the new provisions; they will be available to send abroad with their officers and will be able to undertake the duties which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin referred to. I now come to the Yeomanry. I have, of course, the greatest sympathy for the case which has been made out for the Yeomanry. Why have we been compelled to insist upon the necessity for a change in the force? It has not been done lightly. It has been done after the closest consultation with the General Staff. It has been done because we are convinced that, if there is to be a real military organisation in this country, in must be on two lines, and that the second line must be as nearly as possible of the pattern of the first line. Without that, we are certain that you cannot get either the just proportion of combined arms, or that sort of training, or that sort of spirit which is essential if our Auxiliary Forces are to be a reality. I have been a great deal among them; and I find that what they most desire is to be made

1679
efficient and to be taken seriously. Volunteers in every part of the country have said to me—
"Do not be afraid to put duties on us if you will only make us efficient."
I am convinced that the way to make them efficient is to give them an organisation as nearly alike as possible to the organisation of the first Line, and to ascribe to them definite functions. The expeditionary force, with the Fleet which forms the complementary part of that force, are our first Line. The second or Territorial Line is this Territorial or Home Defence Force. I rejoice to think that, as will be seen in the newspapers to-morrow, the Colonial Premiers at the Conference have unanimously decided that this is the best pattern of organisation, and that just as we propose to organise the Territorial Force here for home defence, they propose to keep that pattern in view in the organisation of their home forces, so that we may have not merely 300,000 here, but a chain of Territorial Forces throughout the Empire which may give us some real security. I do not think that makes in the direction of militarism. I cannot agree with my hon. friend the Member for Haggerston whose sincerity I recognise, and whose services in the cause to which he has given his life we all appreciate. I feel that, in enabling the people to defend themselves, we are getting rid of that unrest and want of tranquillity which affords the greatest impulse towards compulsory service. I say that in our plan you have a bulwark against compulsory service. If you retain the present confused state of things it is impossible to predict what vicissitudes of political feeling or confusion in military affairs may bring about in the way of an impulse towards compulsory Service. Therefore, we take our stand upon this Bill as a bulwark against compulsion; and we rejoice to find the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is in accord with our view that the nation is not likely to turn to that remedy. I say, if we are to have any Army at all, let us have an Army fashioned in the interest of peace and tranquillity. But to return to the Yeomany. We have felt compelled to ask the Yeomanry to fit itself into this second Line organisation. That, of course, involves certain changes. It is im-
1680
possible to justify the payment of the cavalry at one rate and the artillery and infantry at Army rates and, at the same time, retain to the Yeomanry their present rate of remuneration. But, while recognising that that cannot be done and about that we cannot give way, I quite feel the difficulty of the Yeomanry commanders in their desire to help us in any way they can in the unrest that the imposition of new conditions gives rise to. In the first place, then, every Yeomanry corps may go on enlisting men until this Bill becomes operative in that particular district, which probably will not be for twelve months, and the men enlisted may continue to serve for three years on the present terms; that will give them a transition period of three years. I have considered very much what has been pressed upon me from both sides of the House about the pay of the Territorial Force. I am very reluctant to start upon an extravagant footing, for I hold strongly to the doctrine that frugality is the foundation of efficiency in military matters, and that is the experience of the most efficient Continental forces, and it should be the beginning of wisdom with us. I do not want to cut down expenses too much, but I do not want to be extravagant. But we do feel it necessary to dissent wholly, the Government wholly dissent, from the suggestion put forward by the right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in a speech which was characterised by a high capacity for making unpleasant suggestions as to the expense of the Territorial Force. He quoted the military correspondent of The Times, a great authority upon Army matters, and he spoke of the wisdom of the proposition that the force would require £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 to support it. Well, but what the military correspondent of The Times was speaking of was a suggestion of mine that he had before him in a speech I made in October. I have looked up the speech. He was speaking of a description given by myself of what might happen in a time of national peril when we might be driven to the length, in the emergency to which I referred, of keeping 700,000, 800,000, or 900,000 men in the field. The right hon. Gentleman said, truly enough, that to keep that force in the field would cost a

1681
great deal of money, and I daresay he was right in his suggestion that it would cost £7,000,000 or £8,000,000; I do not know. But I was speaking of an extremely exceptional and unlikely case, out of which we could not hope to get cheaply. But I propose a war strength of 300,000, and I doubt if, in time of peace, we should get to that; and estimates we put forward are not estimates that allow large cost for equipment, because this force will not grow up all at once, and men have walking dresses of some sort which we do not need to change all at once. We have not gone into that for it will be a gradual process of conversion, and we are dealing with people already equipped. The estimates we put forward were not "faked" estimates, but arrived at after careful calculations by the Financial Secretary and a competent staff of civilian assistants of the cost of keeping this Territorial Force in being. I believe they are calculated on a liberal scale, including salaries and a large allowance for horses. We have been pressed upon the question of allowance for rations and pay. What we propose is to give Army pay, and it has been said that the Army ration is worth about 6d., with a grocery allowance of 3d. That is said not to be enough to enable the Auxiliary Force representative to maintain himself in comfort. I am not sure about that, but, at any rate, we find that the Regular troops, when they come into camp, do have a little more from canteen funds and other sources. That justifies me in saying that in the ease of the territorial men, without any violation of principle, we can make a certain camp allowance in place of the 3d.; and I trust the House will not think me departing from my generally frugal provision if I suggest that we should spend another £150,000 on the Estimate for the Territorial Force. We may have to go even £150,000 beyond that; but of this I am certain, the amount will not be large and will not do any particular damage to our automatic economies.
MR. WALTER LONG: asked that the House should know precisely what were the terms before the Bill passed into Committee.
MR. HALDANE: I will undertake to manage that, either by distributing a
1682
supplementary document or in some other way, although I shudder at the prospect of distributing another document. But what we propose instead of the separate grocery allowance is to give a shilling camp allowance per man per day whilst in camp. That applies to the whole Territorial Force volunteering. The intantry as well as the cavalry and artillery, and especially the Volunteers, will not only be better off, but the officers will be substantially better oft than at present. That I am quite sure can be done without extravagance. Rome was not built in a day. Neither will this Territorial Army be built in a day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London put to me in a fashion which I admired for its conciseness, a question about the Army Reserve. I have got here the latest figures about the Army Reserve. At present it is at a total of 115,422. Our normal Reserve is 115,171. Why is it that sometimes the Reserve, according to the normal, and according to the actual strength, varies so? The reason is that the actual strength depends on varying and fluctuating considerations. They happen just now to coincide; but it is only the totals which coincide. For instance, I will take sections A. and B., including all arms. The normal strength is 89,986; the present strength is 98,585, so the actual strength is in excess there of my normal estimate. But what makes a difference is that section B. will, according to the normal, be 25,000, while at present it is only 16,800. The infantry of the line are 62,000 in sections A. and B., as compared with my normal 45,000. The other arms are just the other way. The right hon. Gentleman will see at once how difficult it is to challenge actuarial calculations. They may be wrong, but they represent the very best you can give, and the outcome of the whole matter is that the normal and actual at this moment apparently coincide, with the flunctuations of the character I have referred to. I come now to other points which have been rasied. There was, for instance, the question of Volunteer artillery. On that question I quite agree that you cannot hope to produce in the shape of Volunteer artillery anything like the effectiveness you get with the Regular artillery; but. I do

1683
think that it is infinitely better to have trained Volunteer artillery—artillery trained as well as you can train them—than not to have them at all. After all, putting it at its worst, assuming that these guns would not be useful, at the comparatively short ranges at which they would be most required in home operations—so the General Staff assure me—you have a large number of quick-firers in this country after the expeditionary force is taken out, you have the reserve guns and the training batteries. They will be there. You have got a lot of extra guns to which these skilled artisans, the people who make up the artillery, men who understand the technical work better than the trained artillery—these men will very soon knock into shape and be of real assistance, even if you only want them as drafts. I believe they will become competent artillerymen as part of the home defence force much quicker than you think, even though they may not come up to your ideal of perfection. If you want to know what training their men are willing to take up, ask some commanding officers, and they will say that they believe in Volunteer artillery, and that they have been able to bring their corps up to a considerable state of perfection. I think it is not only as part of the second line, but also for the sake of getting this trained element in the country, that it is worth while spending money and trouble in trying to bring up a force of Volunteer artillery such as the Volunteers have been asking for for some time past, and such as will form a real element in the second line. There was a brilliant speech by my hon. friend the Member for Leicester disagreeing with the plan of the Government and condemning it. He said many things deserving of attention, but I was unable to agree with the line he took on the various points he dealt with. He said the Volunteers are being put under half military conditions. The hon. Member I do not think realises that the provisions of this Bill reproduce with slight modifications the provisions of the model rules under which most of the Volunteer corps are. The condition of the Volunteers will certainly be no worse than under the corps rules at the present time. The period of enlistment, the terms of service, and so on represent very much what is the Volun-
1684
teer practice at the present time. Then as regards martial law. It seems to be assumed that we are doing something new. But that is not the case. Moreover, it is not proposed to put the Volunteer under martial law in peace, but to bring him more, if he does offend, under the cognizance of the civil tribunal. In that respect, when we come to the Committee, I hope to be able to satisfy them that, so far from going back in this matter, we are going forward. Then there is the question of officers. It is suggested that we are shutting ourselves off from people who might rise from the ranks. We are not. There is a tremendous shortage of officers at the present time; we cannot get them from the ranks or anywhere else. We have been compelled to resort to other avenues for obtaining them. We are looking to the public schools and Universities. We have cadet corps and Volunteer corps in the Universities. That is what we have at the present time. There is plenty of military spirit there, and the more you try to put it down the more it will grow up. We shall do much better to let it take a useful shape. We look, then, upon this as a source from which we may fill up a gap which exists at the present time, but we shall be only too glad to see men rise from the ranks. At present the officer is very badly paid, though we are trying this year to make matters a little better in the case of battalion commanders; but do what you will, officers have to keep up a certain state—their own men would not tolerate them if they did not—and that means expenditure of money. Consequently it is difficult for a man to rise from the ranks to the position of officer. At the same time, we should like to create positions which would not involve that expenditure, so far as we can avoid it. We believe in taking every fit man you can find. Men have risen from the ranks to eminence before now, and it is through no desire to stop that process, but because we are face to face with an absolute shortage of officers, that we have taken the course we have. As I have said before, what we look to for making this second line is the fact that each man who enters it will engage in a great emergency, and it is only for a great emergency that this force is designed

1685
to undergo a further training, following on the previous training, to supervene on the outbreak of war. If that is done then we are advised and we believe that you will turn out men who month by month will be better and who will not only be able to defend the shores of their country, but—those of them who are willing—to go abroad to assist the Regular Army. That is to a great extent what we rely upon, and it is on that system, so designed and worked out, that we rest our hope of getting something like order in place of the chaos which exists at present. It is only so, that you will be able ultimately to get down the cost of the Army to a satisfactory figure. It is the wastage arising from want of organisation that is responsible for the heavy expenditure on the Army of which the people complain. In some respects there are things on which we can congratulate ourselves, and we must be thankful for such mercies as we have. I had before me to-day a calculation of the cost this year of the German Regular Army calculated upon our own basis, and it is over £46,000,000. We are fortunate in living in times when we are endeavouring to administer the Army as frugally as possible, and I hope effectually. This Bill comes up for consideration in its next stage in Committee, and the view of the Government is that it would probably be for the convenience of the House that this Bill should be treated as one of the kind that should be taken down stairs. That can only be if there is an understanding about time. We do not want to have to go on, if we can avoid it, in an autumn session. Therefore we feel it would be for the con-
venience of the House to have a time limit. I hope we shall be able to come to an agreement about that. We shall have the greatest desire to consult the convenience of hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House, and to secure a sufficient and satisfactory discussion upon the large points of principle involved. Therefore, I propose, after the Second Reading, to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. In conclusion, let me say that I am quite aware that no Army scheme can hope to be ideal, or one against which it may not be possible to level criticisms that may be well founded. The whole subject is so intricate, the confusion is so vast, the subject-matter so extensive, that it is impossible to be sure you have reached the best solution. The plan which we propose is, on the whole, a modest plan. It is not ambitious, but it is a plan which we hope is a practical plan. We have done our best to hit upon an organisation which creates the least possible disturbance consistent with maintaining our first object—namely, to put our first Regular Line in a satisfactory state, and to introduce organisation in the Auxiliary Forces. It is in that spirit that we commend the Bill to the House, reciprocating the good-will shown by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and the general determination to try to make the best of this plan, whatever be its merits.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 388; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 139.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford

Billson, Alfred

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barnard, E. B.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Barnes, G. N.

Black, Arthur W.

Agnew, George William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Boland, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Beale, W. P.

Bowerman, C. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Beauchamp, E.

Brace, William

Armitage, R.

Beck, A. Cecil

Bramsdon, T. A.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Bell, Richard

Brigg, John

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brodie, H. C.

Astbury, John Meir

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Brooke, Stopford

Atherley-Jones, L.

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

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bennett, E. N.

Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Bryce, J. Annan

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bertram, Julius

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Barker, John

Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Furness, Sir Christohper

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles

Ginnell, L.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Byles, William Pollard

Gladstone, Rt.HnHerbertJohn

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Cairns, Thomas

Glover, Thomas

Lehmann, R. C.

Cameron, Robert

Gooch, George Peabody

Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Grant, Corrie

Levy, Maurice

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lewis, John Herbert

Causton, Rt.HnRichardKnight

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lough, Thomas

Chance, Frederick William

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lundon, W.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Gulland, John W.

Lupton, Arnold

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Lyell, Charles Henry

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

Lynch, H. B.

Cleland, J. W.

Halpin, J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Clough, William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Maclean, Donald

Collins,SirWm.J.(S. Pancras, W.

Harmsworth, R. L(Caithn'ss-sh

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cooper, G. J.

Hart-Davies, T.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Crae, George

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

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

M'Kean, John

Cory, Clifford John

Harwood, George

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Cowan, W. H.

Haworth, Arthur A.

M'Micking, Major G.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hayden, John Patrick

Maddison, Frederick

Crean, Eugene

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mallet, Charles E.

Crombie, John William

Hazleton, Richard

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Crooks, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Markham, Arthur Basil

Crosfield, A. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Crossley, William J.

Hemmede, Edward George

Marnham, F. J.

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Massie, J.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Henry, Charles S.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Delany, William

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S.)

Meagher, Michael

Devlin, Joseph

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Higham, John Sharp

Micklem, Nathaniel

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Molteno, Percy Alport

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

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Mond, A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hodge, John

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Dillon, John

Hogan, Michael

Mooney, J. J.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Donelan, Captain A.

Holt, Richard Durning

Morrell, Philip

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Hooper, A. G.

Morse, L. L.

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Murnaghan, George

Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Murphy, John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hudson, Walter

Murray, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Myer, Horatio

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Hyde, Clarendon

Napier, T. B.

Elibank, Master of

Illingworth, Percy H.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Erskine, David C.

Jackson, R. S.

Nicholls, George

Essex, R. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r

Esslemont, George Birnie

Jenkins, J.

Nolan, Joseph

Evans, Samuel T.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Norman, Sir Henry

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Everett, R. Lacey

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Farrell, James Patrick

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Nuttall, Harry

Fenwick, Charles

Jowett, F. W.

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Ferens, T. R.

Joyce, Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Kettle, Thomas Michael

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Findlay, Alexander

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Grady, J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Kellv, James (Roscommon, N

Flynn, James Christopher

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

O'Malley, William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Mara, James

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Shee, James John

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Fullerton, Hugh

Lamont, Norman

Partington, Oswald

1688

1689

Paulton, James Mellor

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Tomkinson, James

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Verney, F. W.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Vivian, Henry

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sears, J. E.

Walsh, Stephen

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Seaverns, J. H.

Walters, John Tudor

Pollard, Dr.

Seely, Major J. B.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shackleton, David James

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

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

Waring, Walter

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Warner, Thomas Courtnay T.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Sherwell, Arthur James

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Radford, G. H.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Simon, John Allsebrook

Waterlow, D. S.

Rahpael, Herbert H.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Watt, Henry A.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Weir, James Galloway

Reddy, M.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Whitbread, Howard

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Snowden, P.

White, George (Norfolk)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rees J. D.

Spicer, Sir Albert

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Stanger, H. Y.

Whitehead, Rowland

Renton, Major Leslie

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wiles, Thomas

Richardson, A.

Steadman, W.C.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Rickett, J. Compton

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Summerbell, T.

Winfrey, R.

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wodehouse, Lord

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Roe, Sir Thomas

Tennant Sir Edward (Salisbury

Young, Samuel

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Rowlands, J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Runciman, Walter

Thomasson, Franklin

Pease.

Russell, T. W.

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

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Courthope, G. Loyd

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

Keswick, William

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Cross, Alexander

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Ashley, W. W.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Balcarres, Lord

Doughty, Sir George

Lockwood, Rt, Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Du Cros, Harvey

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchest'r

Duncan, Robert (Lanark,Gov'n

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Fell, Arthur

Magnus, Sir Philip

Bowles, G. Stewart

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fletcher, J. S.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Forster, Henry William

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Bull, Sir William James

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Haddock, George R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hamilton, Marquess of

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Cave, George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Helmsley, Viscount

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'm's

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Percy, Earl

Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Houston, Hobert Paterson

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hunt, Rowland

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

1690

1691

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Starkey, John R.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

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

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Younger, George

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Thornton, Percy M.

TELLERS FOB THE NOES—Sir

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Viscount Valentia.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Main Question proposed.
And, it being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business:—
Whereupon Mr. SECRETARY HALDANE
The House divided; Ayes, 343; Noes, 31. (Division List, No. 140.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Bryce, J. Annan

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall

Acland, Francis Dyke

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Agnew, George William

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles

Elibank, Master of

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Byles, William Pollard

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cairns, Thomas

Erskine, David C.

Armitage, R.

Cameron, Robert

Essex, R. W.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Evans, Samuel T.

Astbury, John Meir

Causton, Rt. Hn RichardKnight

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Atherley-Jones, L.

Chance, Frederick William

Everett, R. Lacey

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Bolfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Farrell, James Patrick

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Fenwick, Charles

Barker, John

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Ferens, T. R.

Barlow, John Emmot(Somerset

Cleland, J. W.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Findlay, Alexander

Barnard, E. B.

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Beauchamp, E.

Cory, Clifford John

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Beck, A. Cecil

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Bell, Richard

Cowan, W. H.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Bellaire, Carlyon

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Crean, Eugene

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John.

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

Crombie, John William

Gooch, George Peabody

Bennett, E. N.

Crooks, William

Grant, Corrie

Berridge, T. H. D.

Crosfield, A. H.

Greenwwood, G. (Peterborough

Bertram, Julius

Cross, Alexander

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Bethell, Sir S. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

Crossley, William J.

Grey, Rt, Hon. Sir Edward

Billson, Alfred

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Gulland, John W.

Black, ArthurW.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Boland, John

Delany, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Halpin, J.

Brace, William

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Brigg, John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Brodie, H. C.

Dillon, John

Hart-Davies. T.

Brooke, Stopford

Dobson, Thomas W.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

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

Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Harwood, George

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meagher, Michael

Russell, T. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Hayden, John Patrick

Micklem, Nathaniel

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hazleton, Richard

Mond, A.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Hedges, A, Paget

Money, L. G. Chiozza.

Sears, J. E.

Helme, Norval Watson

Mooney, J. J.

Scaverns, J. H.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Seely, Major J. B.

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

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Henry, Charles S.

Morrell, Phillip

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

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Morse, L. L.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Higham, John Sharp

Murnaghan, George

Simon, John Allsebrook

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murphy, John

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Murray, James

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hogan, Michael

Myer, Horatio

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Napier, T. B.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Holland, Sir William Henry

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Holt, Richard Durning

Nicholls, George

Stanger, H. Y.

Hooper, A. G.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

Hope, W. Ba teman (Somerset, N.

Nolan, Joseph

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh).)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Norman, Sir Henry

Steadman, W. C.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Strachey, Sir Edward

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Stuart, James (Sutherland)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

O'Malley, William

Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Jones William (Carnarvonshire)

O'Shee, James John

Thomasson, Franklin

Joyce, Michael

Partington, Oswald

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Paulton, James Mellor

Tomkinson, James

Kincain-Smith, Captain

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Verney, F. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Vivian, Henry

Lambert, George

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lamont, Norman

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Walters, John Tudor

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Layland-Barrett, Francis

Pollard, Dr.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Leese,Sir Joseph F(Accrington)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Lehmann, R. C.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh. Central

Waring, Walter

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Levy, Maurice

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Radford, G. H.

Waterlow, D. S.

Lough, Thomas

Rainy, A. Rolland

Watt, Henry A.

Lundon, W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Weir, James Galloway

Lupton, Arnold

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Whitbread, Howard

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Reddy, M.

White, J. D (Dumbartonshire)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Whitehead, Rowland

Maclean, Donald

Rees, J. D.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rendall, Athelstan

Wiles, Thomas

Mac Veigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Renton, Major Leslie

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

M'Crae, George

Richardson, A.

Wills, Arthur Walters

M'Kean, John

Rickett, J. Compton

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robertson, Rt. Hn, E. (Dundee)

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

Maddison, Fredrick

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Winfrey, R.

Mallet, Charles E.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wodehouse, Lord

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robinson, S.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Markham, Arthur Basil

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Young, Samuel

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Marnham, F. J.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Rose, Charles Day

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Massie, J.

Rowlands, J.

Pease.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Runciman, Walter

1694

1695

NOES.

Alden, Percy

Glover, Thomas

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Hodge, John

Shackleton, David James

Barnes, G. N.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Snowden, P.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hudson, Walter

Summerbell, T.

Bowerman, C. W.

Jenkins, J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Clough, William

Jowett, F. W.

Walsh, Stephen

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Cooper, G. J.

Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

Cremer, William Randal

O'Grady, J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Parker, James (Halifax)

Arthur Henderson and Mr.

Fullerton, Hugh

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

George Roberts.

Gill, A. H.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and-agreed to.

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly.
Bill read, a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Secretary Haldane.)
Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Standing Orders Committee. Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Electric Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petition for additional provisions in the Coventry Corporation Water Bill [H.L.] and the Midland Railway Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committees on the Bills to insert the additional provisions.
Read, and agreed to.
Baines' Name Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with an Amendment.
Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [H.L.]; Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [H.L.]; Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Llandrindod Wells Gas Bill; Bude Gas Bill; Falmouth Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill. Read 2a and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Gas Companies (Removal of Sulphur Restrictions) Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 25th of February and 18th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
Royal Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, &c.) Bill [H.L.] A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the councils of the administrative county of Surrey and the county boroughs of Birkenhead and Southport to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts—Was presented by the Lord President (E. Crewe); road 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 35.)

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3765. Saxony (Leipzig).
  No. 3766. Wurtemburg (trade and agriculture).
  No. 3767. Turkey (Adrianople).
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Treasury minute, dated 16th April, 1907, sanctioning the sale of a plot of land at Kingstown known as Battery Plot, together with a further plot adjoining the municipal baths, to the Kingstown Urban District Council: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  THAMES CONSERVANCY.
  General Report of the Proceedings of the Conservators of the River Thames during the year ended 31st December, 1906, with Statement of the Accounts of the Conservators of the River Thames for that year: Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, this is a Bill to which I apprehend there will be no opposition, because it is in accordance with a series of its predecessors the object of which has been to revise and, if possible, simplify the statute law. If this Bill passes, I hope it will lead to the edition being carried down to the end of the last

  1535
  century, which is nearly co-terminus with the end of the reign of Her late Majesty. The work has been conducted with great care and very successfully handled by the noble Earl who preceded me on the Woolsack. I hope this useful work of revision will be continued.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in reference to this Bill, but not in the least to oppose it. The work was inaugurated many years ago, and has been satisfactorily carried out. The Committee selected for this purpose is, of course, composed of eminent men in whom complete reliance is placed, but in the nature of things, as will be seen from a glance at the enormous Schedule of this Bill, a great amount of drudgery is required and a great deal of attentive and minute examination of a vast number of Acts of Parliament. It could not possibly be expected that the eminent personages on the Committee would themselves, in the first instance, wade through all this mass of material, and I therefore assume that others, who will work under their directions, must be entrusted with the initial duty of examining the statutes. I would venture to express a hope that the gentlemen chosen for this work will be men whose avocations and studies have led them to acquire a mastery of the reading of Acts of Parliament, and that nothing will be done lightly or hastily.
  I have no doubt that in the main what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said is entirely correct, that the work has been done with accuracy and care; but in the very nature of things it is inevitable that there must occasionally be mistakes. Therefore it is obviously essential that the most; extreme care should be taken in the selection of those who are given the primary duty of examination. That is a matter to which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will give attention. I would like to know whether in the selection of the gentlemen who are to give assistance to the Committee there is any division of labour, and whether the different classes of work are considered. I am more closely associated with Ireland, and I would suppose that someone
  1536
  acquainted by training and knowledge with Irish laws would be employed in reference to the revision of statutes relating to Ireland. The same remark would apply to Scotland. It would also be desirable to secure that statutes relating to important branches of the law should be read in the first instance by someone with special knowledge. That, I think, is an obvious consideration which would suggest itself to the mind of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  I am aware that the introductory words of the revised edition of the statutes are very wide as to savings and exceptions, and it is not easy to say what is the effect and how far the repeal and revision really operates at present in law. In the full and interesting note which is appended to this Bill it is pointed out that regard is to be had to Acts of Parliament that are superseded and are deemed to be obsolete and so on. But then there is the suggestion that preambles and recitals are to be left out. I am not sure how far that is wise. It may be wise in some cases, but I do not think it is wise in every ease to lay down the rule that you will not in any circumstances print the preambles or recitals. They might be very useful in discussion, it might be desired to refer to them in argument, and they might reasonably be used to elucidate the history of the statutes. It is a matter of great importance that the code of law should be shortened, and I am confident that the noble and learned Lord will apply himself to see that the revised edition proposed in this Bill is brought out in the most satisfactory and useful way.
  There is one other point on which I should like to say a word. Judges, barristers, and others connected with the law find it a matter of great inconvenience in some cases that there is no reference at all in the revised edition to clauses that are omitted, and this necessitates in the case of many important statutes referring to the original Act to see what clauses have been left out. I venture to think it would be a great advantage in many cases if the more important clauses that are omitted could be included, with an intimation in red ink that they had been repealed. These are not matters easy to accomplish, but I think the effort is worth something.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I think I ought to say that for a good many years this work of revision went on under my supervision, and I have no reason to suppose any different method is being pursued now. Certain expert persons, amongst them very distinguished lawyers, were employed to see what the statutes were which it was intended either to consolidate or to put into form; they were persons in the habit of preparing Bills brought into Parliament on behalf of the Government. After they had prepared their suggestions, a Committee was summoned to consider the suggestions, and each amendment to each statute was looked at with great care. No statute was subjected to revision or amendment without being distinctly brought before the whole Committee, which sometimes included learned Judges and sometimes Members of the other House.
  The work of the Committee afterwards came before the House as this Bill does to-night. One result of the work has been that statutes which formerly were in 110 volumes were reduced into ten volumes. Of course I am speaking of the same editions and the same print. The effect of that was valuable in many ways. The work was discontinued because an hon. Member in the House of Commons thought it right to object to this form of producing the revised statutes, and I myself said that if that was the mode in which the matter was to be discussed after it had gone through this process in this House—if, notwithstanding, it was to be discussed as if it were a new Bill—I would no longer be responsible for asking a number of distinguished men to act with me in the matter. From that time, when one of these Bills was rejected in the House of Commons for the reason I have stated, this work has been discontinued. I can only say that I very heartily welcome the renewal of that procedure, and I have no doubt the work will be well and accurately done. The consolidation and correction of the forms of the statute law has been brought down to 1886, and so far as I know not a single mistake has been made. I heartily support the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  RULE COMMITTEE BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING].
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Bill received a Second Reading last year and passed through your Lordships' House. Its object is a very modest one. It is to provide that there should be two solicitors on the Rule Committee instead of one. I might have hoped that so unambitious a project would have succeeded in obtaining legislative sanction, but it was found impracticable in the other House to pass it last session. I cannot help feeling that there is inconvenience to public Departments through perfectly uncontroversial Bills not being able to secure a passage through Parliament without great difficulty. This is a mere departmental administrative difficulty, and, being of a sanguine temperament, I hope that the Bill may now succeed in obtaining the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I desire to support the Second Reading of this Bill. Although, as my noble friend has said, this is a small measure, it is one to which considerable importance is attached by the solicitor branch of the profession. Having worked on the Rule Committee for many years I think it will be a very great advantage if we have a larger number of men on that Committee who are acquainted with the practical working of the administration of justice from the solicitor's point of view. I sincerely trust the Bill will pass. I think there is a slip in Clause I which will require attention. It is provided that the persons in whom the power of making Rules of Court under the Judicature Acts is vested shall include four persons, but only three are described. When the Bill is in Committee I think it will be necessary to put in some definition of the fourth person who is to be added to the Committee.
  On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it will perhaps be expected that I should say one or two words to explain why this Bill, which I described as urgent, has not been brought forward for Third Reading before. The reason is that some controversy has apparently arisen; and I have received communications indicative of hostility, which I cannot say is unusual in the legal profession towards legal reform. My desire is that objections should be considered maturely and upon their merits, and there is nothing I should like less than to hurry through Parliament a Bill to which exception is taken. Therefore I postponed the Third Reading until now.
  It is possible that this Bill will now embark upon a more stormy course than it has hitherto experienced. I can only say the object of the Bill is not to split the Court of Appeal into Courts consisting of two members each. It is a Bill merely to provide for so doing where the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that there is a special cause. It is not a Bill intended to affect the work of the Court of Appeal as a regular rule, but only temporarily to deal with an emergency which everybody admits—namely, the unfortunate block of business in the Court of Appeal, an accumulation that is still slowly increasing rather than diminishing. I am sure that anyone responsible for the management of the judicial business of the country would feel bound to take some step in order to meet this great difficulty. I do not propose to suggest any Amendments at this stage. But I desire to treat this Bill as an uncontroversial measure, and so long as its main effect is not impaired, the Government will be inclined to consider impartially any improvements that may be suggested.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I am entirely in favour of this Bill, treating it as a measure designed to meet an emergency. My judicial experience has convinced me that if two people sit together and form the same judgment,
  1540
  the other side has not so good an opportunity of being heard as would otherwise be the case. I have been struck by the; admirable manner in which the work of the Court of Appeal has been done; and. I wish to bear my testimony to the extreme care with which even trivial cases have been sifted and adjudicated upon by that tribunal.
  It is impossible, owing to the altered condition of things, to make a comparison between the Court of Appeal and the old Court of Exchequer Chamber. I think a certain absence of familiarity with the condition of things that then existed has led to an unfavourable comparison being made between the two Courts. It is not easy to bring to the attention of your Lordships, although some of you are lawyers, the technical difficulties that surrounded the Court of Exchequer Chamber. The Court of Exchequer Chamber only heard what are technically known among lawyers as errors, and I suppose not one case in twenty of those that are subject to appeal could be brought before the Court of Error.
  Certain regulations were made in relation to the higher Courts. By an Act of William III. the Exchequer Chamber and others were regulated, and finally I think, in 11 George IV. and 1 William IV., there was some improvement made, but one difficulty existed. Until 1852, when what is known as the Common Law Procedure Act was passed, there was the whole cumbrous proceedings of writ of error, joinder in error, assignments in error, every one of these steps expensive and delaying; and the Court of Exchequer Chamber itself had no certain time to sit and no certain constitution of its members, and one reason why the Court of Exchequer Chamber was not very slow in disposing of its business was that there was no business to do. The people who complained of judgments could not get there. But in 1852, under the Common Law Procedure Act, there was a little more approximation to judicial determination of every question in dispute brought before the Courts.
  The principle of two Judges disposing, of matters on appeal certainly has been tried under very favourable circumstances. Lord Justice James and Lord Justice Mellish, two of the most eminent

  1541
  lawyers who ever sat on the English Bench, gave entire satisfaction sitting as a Court of two. I do not, however, support this Bill on the ground that I think two Judges should constitute a Court permanently. I have thought it right to say these few words not only because I am a member of the Court of Appeal myself, but because I think undue complaint has been made of the Court of Appeal. The delay arises in a great measure from an increase in litigation, and people do not seem to remember that a great deal of the law has been altered. When I was first called to the Bar the people whow knew most about the question in dispute were excluded from the witness box, and the art of nisi prius at that time was a cunning game of chess. But wiser counsels have since prevailed. The result is that you have doubled and trebled the amount of litigation that was possible under the old system, and this has led to a block of business in the Court of Appeal. That Court has most diligently and ably fulfilled its functions, and is in no way deserving of the criticism which has been passed upon it.
  *LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, I am sure it will be a great satisfaction for the legal profession to hear the statement which the Lord Chancellor has repeated this afternoon, that there is to be no permanent reduction in the number of Judges in the Court of Appeal. That particular matter has been the subject of representations made to me, and I know to other members of the Bench, from persons who are absolutely friendly to His Majesty's Government and have the strongest faith in everything which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may do; but the experience of the last few weeks has shown us that difficulties may arise from Courts of two, and I am sure that the announcement that the Lord Chancellor has made to-day will very much assist in another place the passing of this Bill, which I believe to be absolutely necessary. I am afraid that on the last occasion I availed myself of the opportunity of uttering a cry in the wilderness. But the numerous communications that I have received and the study which I have given to this project confirm me in the opinion that the subject must at no late date be looked at from a larger standpoint. It will
  1542
  really be necessary to consider whether the number of Judges is sufficent to deal with business as it is now conducted. Whether or not the number of cases can be reduced I am not sure, but I am quite sure that the matter cannot be dealt with permanently as in this Bill, and that some further reforms will be absolutely necessary.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with the noble Earl in regard to what he said about the Court of Appeal. We would indeed be ungrateful if we did not recognise the immense self-sacrifice and labour which have been exhibited by that Court, but they really have been of late over weighted, and I am anxious to relieve them. That is the purpose of this Bill. With regard to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has said, his cry was not a cry in the wilderness; on the contrary, since he made his speech, it has been pondered over and thought over by myself. I agree with him that the larger aspects of this question must be considered, and I contemplate considering them without delay, with a view of seeing whether some further amendment of a permanent character may be needed. I do not know whether it is so or not, but I think it might very fairly be carefully considered, in order to see whether some further steps are needed.
  On Question, Bill read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (CHARGES, ETC.) BILL.

    METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
    Commons' Message of the 26th of March last considered (according to order), moved that a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bills as mentioned in the said Message; and that the said Committee be named by the Committee of Selection (The Earl Carrington); agreed to; and ordered accordingly.
    House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.