Sitting of 9 July 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
United Methodist Church Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill.— Read the third time, and passed.
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Considered; to be read the third time upon Thursday.
Tynemouth Corporation Water Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords].— reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Standing Orders.—Resolution reported from the Select Committee:—"That, in the case of the Broad stairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [Lords] the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
Resolution agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—Great Northern and City Railway Bill, with an Amendment; Great Central Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to:—Southend Water Bill [Lords]; Burnham (Somerset) Pier Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the union of the

1411
parishes in the City of London into one parish, and to make better provision for the local government of the said city; and for other purposes." [City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [Lords.]
City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Oxford, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools in Wales including Monmouthshire, with Schedules, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3852 to 3855 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIES.
  Copy presented of Papers relating to the Brussels Sugar Convention [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS AND SITTINGS).
  Address for " Returns from every County Court in England and Wales of the total number of Plaints, etc., entered in each County Court from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December 1906, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, those above £50 and not exceeding £100, and those by agreement over £100."
  "And, of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden
  1412
  before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 255, of Session 1906)." —(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

  UNITED KINGDOM (TRADE, COMMERCE, AND CONDITION OF PEOPLE).
  Return ordered, "for the United Kingdom for each of the years 1831, 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, and 1906, showing the, following particulars so far as available:—(1) population (millions); (2) death rate per thousand; (3) birth rate per thousand;(4) paupers, total average number, indoor and outdoor; (5) number of paupers per 10,000 of the population; (6) total cost of poor relief; (7) net passenger movement outwards to places out of Europe; (8) average Gazette price per quarter of wheat, barley, and oats; (9) average price of beef at the Metropolitan Cattle Market; (10) total value of the imports of grain, corn, and flour; (11) total value of the imports of meat, alive and dead; (12) total value of the imports of food and drink (exclusive of tobacco); (13) total value of the imports of food and drink (exclusive of tobacco) from British Colonies and Possessions; (14) total value of the imports of food and drink (exclusive of tobacco) per head of population; (15) total quantity of home-grown and imported wheat and wheat-flour retained for home consumption; (16) consumption of wheat and wheat-flour; per head of population; (17) value of fish of British taking landed on the coats of the United Kingdom; (18) net imports of merchandise (deducting re-exports), total value and value per head of population;(19) exports of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom, total value and value per head of the population;(20)imports of bullion and specie;(21)exports of bullion and specie;(22)income-tax, yield of each penny; (23) amount standing to credit of depositors in Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks; (24) total registered tonnage of British shipping; (25) tonnage of British shipping entered and cleared in the Foreign trade at ports in the United Kingdom; (26) tonnage of Foreign shipping entered and cleared in the Foreign trade at ports in the United Kingdom; and (27) total clearings at the London Bankers' Clearing House."—(Mr. Essex.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Carriage of English Mails from Egypt by French Boats.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether letters, newspapers, books, and parcels despatched from Egypt to an address in the United Kingdom are carried by the French mail boats running between Marseilles and Egyptian ports; and, if not, will he say why this is not done.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton). Mails containing correspondence for the United Kingdom are despatched from Egypt by the French mail packets for Marseilles, but those vessels do not convey parcel mails for this country. The Egyptian Post Office makes its own arrangements for the conveyance of its mails, and doubtless considers the parcel post traffic to be sufficiently provided for by sending mails twice a week by way of Brindisi and once a week by the direct sea route to the Thames.

  Extension of Hours of Post Office Savings Banks for tie Benefit of Provident Societies.
  Mr. HORNIMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the desire of many provident societies and clubs to be allowed to deposit funds received by them on the same night as collected, up to ton o'clock, at district offices where other postal business is transacted up to that hour; and whether he can arrange for this to be done at specified offices, so removing temptation and advancing the cause of thrift.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) If the arrangement suggested by the hon. Member were made it could not be confined to friendly societies; nor if deposits were received could payment of withdrawals be refused. I fear that it would not be possible to extend what would practically be Savings Bank business after 8 p.m. Offices in which business is carried on after 8 p.m. are kept open chiefly for those who desire to post letters for the latest collections; and, as a rule, only the simple business of selling stamps and postal orders is
  1414
  transacted. The officer in charge, therefore, may be only a junior clerk; and such an officer would not necessarily have sufficient experience to be employed on. Savings Bank work. Further, the proposal would involve the accumulation of large sums of money at the post office which could not be remitted the same night. Thus a grave additional responsibility for its custody would be thrown on the postmaster. This would be especially the case if the deposits are made on Saturday nights. I would point out that formerly the closing hour for Savings Bank business was 6 p.m., and in some cases 4 p.m., so that the present closing is in itself an extension of time. It should also be remembered that the ordinary hours of closing in banking businesses is 4 p.m. I especially regret to be unable to meet the wishes of the hon. Member, and I am anxious that all reasonable facilities shall be given to friendly societies.

  Working of the Chancery Registrar's Office —Report of Committee-
  MR. STEWART-SMITH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the working of the Chancery Registrar's Office has reported; and whether it is proposed to publish the Report.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) The inquiry is entirely departmental, and it is not intended to publish any Report.

  Working of the Irish Land Act-Appointments of Staff.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that only land sales effected to the end of the year 1904 have been completed and paid for, and that the Estates Commissioners are two and a half years in arrears of work in their Department; is he aware that, some months ago, the Estates Commissioners, to fill an appointment in their offices that they considered necessary for the administration of the Land Act, selected a candidate possessing special qualifications, and submitted his name to the Treasury, who refused their sanction, stating that the same should be made through the Civil Service Commissioners; is it necessary, when the

  1415
  Estates Commissioners can obtain the services of an efficient person for work of a special character, that such person can only be appointed through the Civil Service Commissioners, and has this been the rule since the Act came into operation; are there any instances where persons were appointed directly to special clerical appointments by the Estates Commissioners without going through the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners; and, if the name of the candidate in question is again submitted by the Estates Commissioners, will the Treasury re-consider their decision as to his appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The statement in the first part of the Question is somewhat inaccurate. The Estates Commissioners are at present making advances in respect of applications received in April, 1905. A comparatively small number of cases in which the applications were lodged prior to that date are still outstanding, and the delay in these cases is due simply to undischarged questions of title and such

  Statement showing the total Imports of Unrefined and Refined Sugar into the United Kingdom in each of the years 1893–1906, inclusive, and the Average Declared Value (exclusive of Duty) of such Imports.

  Years.

  Total imports of sugar.

  Average declared value of imported sugar.

  Unrefined.

  Refined.

  Unrefined.

  Refined.

  Cwts.

  Cwts.

  Shillings per cwt.

  Shillings per cwt.

  1893

  16,032,113

  11,550,540

  14˙30

  18˙36

  1894

  14,306,004

  13,944,792

  11˙67

  15˙52

  1895

  17,009,997

  14,145,143

  9˙73

  13˙30

  1896

  15,743,676

  14,776,929

  10˙59

  13˙58

  1897

  13,553,527

  15,830,759

  9˙18

  12˙29

  1898

  14,692,906

  16,520,254

  9˙60

  12˙31

  1899

  13,121,709

  17,809,121

  10˙47

  12˙57

  1900

  13,234,932

  19,248,187

  10˙45

  12˙82

  1901

  13,387,143

  21,256,846

  9˙53

  12˙18

  1902

  13,221,492

  18,365,417

  7˙62

  10˙56

  1903

  12,648,679

  18,588,720

  8˙69

  10˙72

  1904

  14,683,940

  17,605,503

  10˙17

  12˙26

  1905

  14,656,648

  14,695,801

  11˙66

  14˙85

  1906

  15,257,886

  18,096,163

  8˙96

  11˙56

  matters. The Commissioners inform me that there is no foundation whatever for the statement made in the second part of the Question. Appointments in the Estates Commissioners' office are made under Section 23 (9) of the Act of 1903, and it has been decided that for clerical work the staff shall be supplied by the Civil Service Commissioners. The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of any such candidate as is referred to in the Question. They have not submitted to the Treasury the name of any candidate whose appointment has been refused.

  Sugar Prices.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER (Graves-end):To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average price of raw and refined sugar, respectively, imported into England from 1893 to 1902, and what was the price of raw and refined sugar respectively, in this country in 1906; and what was the importation of sugar into this country in 11)02 and. 1906, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.)—

  Visit of the Crofters Commission to Orkney.
  Mr. COCHRANE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland how often the Crofters' Commission Lave visited Orkney in the past six years; and whether any applications for the reduction of rents and for compensation for improvements still remain unsettled.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Commissioners as a body have not been in Orkney since July, 1901, but in November, 1904, they made a remit to a valuer to inspect certain subjects then awaiting disposal and report on the same. The total number of fair-rent applications at present awaiting disposal is twenty-six, including two under appeal; and the number of compensation cases is seven, including three under appeal to the three Commissioners under the Delegation of Towers Act, 1888.

  Transfer to Crown of East India Company —Promotion of Company s Military Officers.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, on the transfer of the East India Company to the Crown, the military officers in the Company's service were, by Sections 56 and 58 of 21 and 22 Vic, c. 106, guaranteed promotion as if they had continued in the service of the company; whether promotion under the company was not by seniority; whether promotion in accordance with the practice obtaining under the company was continued from 1858 to 1893; whether such promotion has now ceased, and why; and whether the case of those officers on the unemployed supernumerary list who have not received promotion such as they would have received under the company will be reconsidered during the current year
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative; to the second, that promotion in the East India Company's army was by seniority, but subject to regulation by the Sovereign in respect to promotion above the rank of colonel. With regard to the further Questions I must refer my hon. friend to my Answer to his Question of November 26th, 1906.†
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1215.
  1418
  I regret that I do not see my way to reopen the question of the promotion of officers on the unemployed supernumerary list.

  Postal Arrangements at Monknewtown, County Meath.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will improve the postal arrangements for Monknewtown, Slane, county Meath, so that the inhabitants may receive their letters before three o'clock in the afternoon.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry on the subject, and will communicate my decision to the hon. Member in due course.

  Accounts of the Chancery Suitors' Fund.
  Mr. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the Comptroller and Auditor General keeps, at the head office of the Exchequer and Audit Department, duplicate records of payments on accounts other than the Chancery Suitors' Fund Account, he will now furnish a full statement, showing the various accounts on which such duplicate records are kept.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am at a loss to understand this further Question in view of the explicit Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 13th ultimo, namely, that duplicate records are not kept except in the case of the accounts of the Chancery Suitors' Fund. The purport of the hon. Member's Questions relating to the methods of audit adopted by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is not clear, but if he is of opinion that the absence of a permanent local staff to conduct the audit of Irish accounts in Ireland results induplication of work I am informed that the impression is entirely erroneous.

  Inspector of Waterguard, Customs Service.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the new schema for the amalgamation of the Customs and Coastguards was framed with a view to the appointment of Commander Parry, brother to the deputy chairman of the Customs Board, to the post of chief inspector of waterguard; will he explain

  1419
  why this gentleman did not get the position; and why the new scheme was not abandoned when it was found impracticable to give him the appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) There is no post of chief inspector of waterguard in the Customs service, but there is an inspector of the London waterguard, and this is, doubtless, the post to which the hon. Member refers. It has been filled by the appointment of a commander in the Royal Navy, specially selected about a year ago by the Admiralty at the request of the Board of Customs and with the approval of the Treasury; and as I have already stated in the House, during the debate on the Customs Estimates on May 16th, this appointment has nothing whatever to do with any proposal for amalgamating the Coastguard with the Customs. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion respecting Captain Parry contained in this Question; and I cannot but regret that in these circumstances it should have been made.

  Salaries and Duties of Assistant Clerks in the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether abstractors, assistant clerks, in the Exchequer and Audit Department are now employed on work lately performed by Second Division clerks; and whether the actual salaries now being received by these abstractors are much less than the actual salaries at present given to nominated messengers who serve in this Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) At the recent reorganisation of the Exchequer and Audit Department a limited number of assistant clerks (abstractors) were introduced in lieu of Second Division clerks to perform, under careful supervision, the routine work connected with the keeping of duplicate records of the Chancery Suitors Fund (England). The salaries of the assistant clerks so employed are on the scale in force for their grade throughout the Civil Service.

  Secretary to the Board of Customs — Retention beyond Sixty-five Years of Age.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is contemplated by the Board of Customs to retain the
  1420
  services of the secretary to the Board beyond the age of sixty-five; and, if so, whether, seeing that there are competent and qualified men of long service in the Customs capable of performing the duties of this post, he will override the recommendation of the Customs permanent officials and compel this gentleman to retire when he reaches the usual maximum age limit.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. I explained the reason for this officer's retention in answer to a Question by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool on the 13th ultimo.†

  Irish Land Purchase Act, 1891.
  Mr. HAMMOND: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury when regulations will be made to render Section 2 of The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, effective.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I may observe that the section in question has, of course, no application to advances under The Irish Land Act. 1903, but only to advances under the earlier Land Acts made in the form of Guaranteed Land Stock. So far as regards the payment of one-quarter of the annuity in stock, I find, after communication with the Departments administering the Acts, that it would be impracticable to allow payment to be made in this way. It appears that the tenant-purchaser who benefited by paying the one-quarter in stock would obtain that benefit at the expense of other tenant-purchasers who paid in cash. The amount of stock obtainable is too small to enable all tenant-purchasers to pay the one-quarter in stock, and it would not be fair to allow the advantage to a few. So far as regards the redemption of the annuity or a part thereof, while it is not possible to make any rule that would be operative for the purpose of enabling the transfer of stock to be made through the Post Office Savings Bank, the National Debt Commissioners are prepared to accept, and have in fact accepted, Guaranteed Land
  † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 1596.

  1421
  Stock when tendered to them. No new rule is required for this purpose, and in the circumstances the Treasury does not propose to issue any rule under the section referred to.

  Poor Belief Expenditure.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a Return (1906, No. 315) to an order of this House for a statement of the amount expended by boards of guardians for poor relief, 1906; whether he is aware that this Return, while giving the total amount spent by all the boards combined, without omission, only gives for each board the cost of poor relief, omitting salaries, rations and superannuation allowances of officers and servants, loan charges, expenditure on furniture, buildings and repairs, rents, rates, taxes, insurance, and certain establishment charges; and, seeing that the omitted items form more than half the cost of poor relief, whether, in the next published half-yearly Return, the Local Government Board will give the true cost of poor relief in each union.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that the particulars given by the Return are those referred to by my hon. friend. For many years these Returns only contained statements as to the amounts expended in respect of in-maintenance and outdoor relief. Latterly the total expenditure of boards of guardians connected with the relief of the poor has beer included; but it does not seem necessary to give this information half-yearly as respects each Poor Law union. It is given annually in the Local Taxation Returns.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called at page 456 of Appendix III. of the 35th Annual Report of the Local Government Board to the table given by Mr. Hervey as part of his Report; whether the title, in-relief, of one of the columns means in-maintenance or in-relief, including salaries and other charges; whether, at page 507 of the same Report, Mr. P. Bagenal is using the expression indoor relief as including salaries and
  1422
  other charges, or whether he means in-maintenance only; and, if so, whether he could give instructions to Local Government Board officials not to use the words in-relief in documents intended for publication when they only mean the cost of in-maintenance.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The expressions in the Reports of these inspectors in relation to indoor relief are intended to refer to in-maintenance, and the figures given do not include salaries, etc., either as regards indoor or outdoor relief. I will draw the attention of the inspectors in question to the point suggested.

  Belfast Wax Candles—Alleged Infringement of Trade Mark.
  Mr. J. DEVLIN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the placing on the market of imitations of Belfast-made wax candles by English firms for the purpose of deceiving customers, and to the injury to Irish trade resulting there from; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The hon. Member recently called the attention of the Board of Trade to a case of this kind, but I understand the Belfast manufacturer whose trade mark was infringed has received an assurance from the English firm that the practice complained of will be discontinued. The case is one in which the aggrieved manufacturer has an adequate legal remedy under the Merchandise Marks Act, .and no action on the part of the Board of. Trade would seem to be necessary. If there are any other cases which the hon. Member has in mind, the Board of Trade will be happy to consider them if he will be good enough to supply particulars.

  Miners Eight Hours Bill.
  Mr. GLOVER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can name the date when he will introduce the Miners Eight Hours Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I hope, as I said in reply to a similar Question yesterday, to introduce this

  1423
  Bill in the course of next week, but I am not yet in a position to make a definite statement.

  Treatment of Consumptive Patients at the Forster Green Hospital Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Belfast Corporation sanctioning an arrangement for ten years with the committee of management of the Forster Green Hospital for Consumption, under which arrangement the hospital authorities are to reserve twenty-five beds for patients nominated by the Corporation and approved as suitable by the medical superintendent of the hospital, the Corporation to pay the sum of 35s. per week per bed and two members of the Corporation to be on the board of governors of the hospital; whether he is aware that the Forster Green Hospital is situated in a hollow and was built and equipped over thirty years ago, before the value of an elevated situation and open-air treatment for consumption became recognised by the best authorities on the disease, and at the present time is quite unsuitable for the treatment of tuberculous patients; whether he is aware that the sum agreed upon is 10s. per bed per week in excess of that which was the basis of negotiations between the parties in 1903, and that the opinion of an expert taken by the Corporation on the Forster Green Hospital and site was suppressed by the Corporation Public Health Committee, despite the appeals of several councillors for its publication; and whether, seeing that it is estimated that the cost of establishing a municipal consumptive hospital for Belfast on a suitable site, and equipped in a thoroughly up-to-date manner for twenty-five patients, would be £12,500, which would be cheaper than the present arrangement, and that the present arrangement is part of a scheme to help the Forster Green Hospital until the sum of £40,000, on the subscription of which a large bequest is contingent, is forthcoming, and that the death rate from consumption in Belfast is exceptionally high, and seeing that the present arrangement is opposed to the public interest, he will refuse to sanction it, and order an inquiry into the whole question.
  1424
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have received art application from the Belfast Corporation for sanction to an arrangement with the committee of the Forster Green Hospital on the terms indicated in the first part of the Question. A protest has been made-to the Board on substantially the same grounds of objection as are recited in the Question, and the matter is at present under the Board's consideration.

  Safety of Longmoor Range, Hampshire.
  Mr. HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a man named Robert Luff, while working upon private lands on 5th July behind the range at Longmoor, Hampshire, was shot in the head; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances and see that precautions are taken to safeguard the public from similar accidents in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No report of this matter has been received in the War Office, but inquiries are being made from the General Officer Commanding concerned.

  Housing of the Working Classes.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in consideration of the fact that the Select Committee appointed last year to consider the question of housing reported in December last, and also that a Bill was promised in the King's Speech on the opening of Parliament this year he can give some assurance that a measure for the better housing of the working classes will be included in the programme for next session.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of this question, and my right hon. friend may be assured that it is their intention to introduce legislation dealing with the better housing of the working classes at the earliest practicable moment. I may add that no effort on their part will be wanting to frame a measure which shall be adequate to the necessities of the case.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Royal Navy—Report on Engineers and Marines.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state if it is the intention of the Admiralty to publish in full both the majority and the minority Reports of the Committee on the engineering branch of the Royal Navy and the officers of the Royal Marines, and also the observations of the President of the Committee and the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty on the minority Report, as well as the evidence taken before the Committee.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): This Report is still under consideration. As the Committee was appointed for the confidential guidance of the Board in contingencies which have not yet arisen, it is not proposed to publish the Report.

  Manning of the Navy.
  Mr. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state how the number of men now in the British Navy compares with the number in 1904–5.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The number of officers, seamen and boys, coastguard, and Royal Marines now borne is approximately 127,030. The average number borne during the year 1904–5 was 130,490.

  Nucleus Crews.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are now twelve battleships and eight cruisers laid up with skeleton crews; and, if so, how long it would take to make these vessels serviceable after the outbreak of war.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There are at present eleven battleships and ten cruisers with reduced nucleus crews ready for sea at five days notice. They are in a better state of preparedness for war than were the twenty-one battleships and twenty-five cruisers of the Fleet Reserve in August, 1904, before the nucleus crew system was introduced.
  MR. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what number of men form the nucleus crew in this case?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot say without notice, but I should think seventy or eighty.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER (Graves-end): Are these ships and cruisers in need of repairs?
  Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should think so.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: When are we going to war?

  Strength of Sea Going Squadrons.
  Mr. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the seagoing squadrons of the British Navy now contain seven battleships and six cruisers less than in 1906; and, if so, on what does the First Lord of the Admiralty base his assertion that the British Navy is now as strong as or stronger than ever.
  Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The reply is in the negative. The sea-going squadrons, including the Nore Division of the Home Fleet, contain one battleship less and two armoured cruisers more than in 1906.

  The Channel Fleet.
  Mr. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the sea-going squadron of the Channel Fleet now contains three battleships, two armoured cruisers , two protected cruisers, three scouts, and thirty-six destroyers less than last year.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer is in the affirmative except that the "Tyne" is a depot ship and not a protected cruiser. Corresponding numbers of vessels of the types named with full crews have been transferred to the Home Fleet.
  *MR. HUNTasked if a fleet without torpedo boats was not like an army without an advance guard.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Naval Armaments
  Mr. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty,

  1427
  with reference to the naval programmes of 1907–8, whether he is aware that the Return of Fleets just issued credits Germany with a programme of three armoured vessels carrying thirty-eight to forty-four heavy guns, as compared with our programme of three armoured vessels carrying thirty heavy guns; whether he is aware that in addition the German programmes for two years have exceeded those introduced by the present Government in respect of cruisers and destroyers by three protected cruisers and seventeen destroyers; and whether, with the settlement of the question of the arrest of armaments on the conclusion of the Hague Conference, these facts will be taken into immediate consideration.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The figures quoted by the hon. Member are well known to the Admiralty, and will be considered at the proper time.

  Naval Construction.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the new Return of Fleets credits the two German battleships of the 1906–7 programme with fourteen to sixteen 11-inch guns each, making a total increase of twelve to sixteen heavy guns beyond the figures given to the House in last year's Return issued in May, 1906; and whether, in view of this increase, representing the heavy-gun armament of three to four German battleships of the 1905–6 type, he can state if provision was made to meet it in the programme of this year.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty are satisfied that the provision made for new construction is sufficient.
  MR. FLYNN: Cannot the Admiralty so arrange their programme in the future as to ensure that the British Navy will be strong enough to meet the combined navies of all the civilised Powers—European, American, and Asiatic?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Chatham Dockyard Approaches.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the dredging to be carried out at Sheer-ness is to be continued in the Medway
  1428
  until ships of the draught of the "Dreadnought " can be docked at Chatham and similar ships can be built in that dockyard.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There is no intention at present of dredging anything except the Sheerness Bar.
  MR. JENKINSasked whether it was not the fact that at present ships of the draught of the "Dreadnought" could be safely navigated up the Medway and docked at Chatham.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not say the hon. Gentleman is wrong, but he should give notice of the Question.

  Home Fleet—Devonport Division.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admirality whether, having regard to the fact that the battleships "Cæsar," "Mars," and "Hannibal," constituting the Devon-port Division of the Home Fleet, have been temporarily attached to the Channel and Atlantic Fleets pending repairs to the "Exmouth," "Commonwealth," and "Dominion," these ships have in turn been replaced; and, if so, whether the ships replacing them have had their crews increased to the minimum of three-fifths of their full complement.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Ships in the Home Fleet at Portsmouth and Devonport are not replaced while they are themselves replacing ships in the Nore Division or in other Fleets.

  Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
  MR. COWAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in carrying out necessary discharges at the Woolwich Arsenal, account can be taken of the length of service of those employed; and whether, in this connection, ex-soldiers and ex-sailors will be allowed to reckon their time of service in the Arsenal from the date of their enlistment as soldiers or sailors.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): Account is always taken of length of service as the main factor in determining discharges, but there are so many other circumstances which in justice to the

  1429
  men, and in the interests of the Arsenal, must also be considered, that I cannot undertake that previous service in the Army or Navy shall be recognised as a chief or determining factor when the relative claims of different workmen are being decided upon. I may add that men with previous Army or Navy service are, wherever possible, given a preference when entering the Ordnance Factories.

  The Imprisoned Indian Agitators.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the friends of the persons recently arrested and deported without trial in India are allowed to communicate with them or their relatives to see them at any time.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh are allowed to correspond with their friends, but their correspondence is examined to prevent messages being sent that might give rise to disturbances. So far one letter only has been stopped. My information is that no one has expressed a desire to see the prisoners; but there would, I presume, be no objection to their doing so under such supervision as would ensure that undesirable communications could not pass.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if the same facilities would be granted to these prisoners as were given to Irish political prisoners in Kilmainham.
  MR. MORLEYreplied that it was a long time ago, but, so far as he could remember, there were no political prisoners in Kilmainham during the time he was responsible for the Government of Ireland.
  *MR. MACKARNESS: Will Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh be allowed to communicate with their legal advisers?
  MR. MORLEY: I presume so.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to have these prisoners detained in some place not so great a distance away from their friends?
  MR. MORLEY: I am afraid the effect of so doing would be to impair the effect of the precautionary measures.

  Indian Gold Standard Reserve
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the present position of the Gold Standard Reserve; and whether he intends to continue indefinitely the practice of adding to it the whole of the profit on coinage.
  Mr. MORLEY: Up to 31st March, 1907, £12,518,513 derived from the profit on coinage and from interest had been invested in British Government securities on behalf of the Gold Standard Reserve and £4,000,000 was held in rupees in India. The profit to be realised on coinage in 1907–8 will, it is anticipated, be considerable, though the exact sum cannot of course be stated at present. In view of the amount of the reserve and of the large stock of gold (about £10,500,000) held by the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council in the paper currency department and elsewhere, I have decided that the present practice of adding to the reserve the whole of the profit on coinage and of the interest on securities already purchased may be modified. From the present year and until the reserve reaches £20,000,000 one half of the profit on coinage together with the interest on securities will be added to the reserve, and the other half of the profit will be use to supplement the funds available for capital expenditure on Indian railways. This decision, which is based on a recommendation made by the Departmental Committee on Indian Railways, has enabled me to sanction an addition of £1,000,000 to the programme of capital expenditure for the present year. The additional expenditure will be devoted to improving the equipment of open lines.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: What amount will be available for increased railway expenditure?
  MR. MORLEY: I cannot say off-hand.

  Unrest in India.
  *MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to make any

  1431
  statement as to the effect produced by the measures taken to allay the unrest in the Punjab; and how long or to what extent it is necessary to continue them.
  MR. MORLEY: The proceedings under the regulation of 1818 are generally recognised as having had a most salutary effect in the Punjab. The prohibition of seditious meetings under the Ordinance of 11th May has prevented the spread of disorder in the Punjab and has allayed excitement there. But it would be premature to say that the state of feeling gives no ground for anxiety. I can only say that we have no intention of continuing measures referred to a day longer than the circumstances require, but so long as in our judgment circumstances require it they will be maintained. I may remind my hon. and learned friend that the Ordinance has legal effect only for six months from 11th May. If the Government of India wish to continue it, they will have to legislate in the ordinary way.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the prisoners had availed themselves of the right under the Ordinance of making known to the Government any defence or statement they wished to make.
  MR. MORLEY: No, Sir, they have not.
  *MR. MACKARNESS: Are they aware they have the right?
  MR. MORLEY: I presume so; one of the prisoners is himself a very competent lawyer.

  Calcutta Police and the Press.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of Bengal are paying out of public funds, the entire costs of the plaintiff in the suit of Hem Chunder Lahiri v. the Editor and publisher of the Indian Daily News, recently under trial upon the civil original side of the High Court of Calcutta, and that official correspondence to that effect has been published in Calcutta by the Government of Bengal; whether he is aware that the suit in question is one of several which
  1432
  are being brought by an inspector of the Calcutta police force against a number of Calcutta newspapers, both Indian and Anglo-Indian, for damages in respect of an alleged libel published by them in July, 1905, in connection with the abortive police prosecution of one Ganga Ahir for murder; whether the conduct of this inspector and of other members of the Calcutta police force in reference to this prosecution was at the time condemned in strong terms by the present Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal; and, if so, what is the reason for the action now being taken by the Government of Bengal, and why are public moneys being expended on behalf of one of the parties to a private action at law?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (SIR EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I have seen a report in the newspapers that the Government of Bengal are bearing part of the costs of the plaintiff, who is an inspector of police. I have no official information as to the details of the case to which my hon. friend refers. The action of the Bengal Government is apparently in entire accordance with the rules laid down by the Government of India for the conduct of Government servants, which provide that when a Government servant, with the previous sanction of Government, has recourse to the Courts for the vindication of his public acts or character against defamation, the Government shall decide whether it will bear his costs itself, or reimburse him if the decision is in his favour.

  Colonies and the Sugar Bounties.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the Colonies in the British Empire give a bounty upon any kind or quality of sugar; and, if so, what is the amount of the bounty so given, and by which of the Colonies.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL,: No bounties are given in any of the Crown Colonies. With regard to the Colonies possessing responsible government, the bounties which, as estimated by the Permanent Sugar Commission, are given in

  1433
  those Colonies, with the calculations upon which those estimates are based, will be found stated in the Papers (C. 2094) relating to the Sugar Convention, which were laid before Parliament in June, 1904.

  Orange River Farm Revaluation.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the revaluation of the farms held by settlers in the Orange River Colony will take place before the new Government assumes administration.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No general revaluation is contemplated, but legislation in the Colony is proposed which will render easier the position of any settlers who find temporary difficulty in making their payments to the Government.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Have the Government received any complaints with regard to the valuation, and, if so, do they intend to take any action?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Any such complaints would, of course, go to the local Government. I am not aware of any number having been received. I understand the valuation has been found to be acceptable on the whole.

  Lagos Mahogany Timber Concession.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the fact' that Mr. Brown, a European at Ijebu Ode, Lagos, South Nigeria, has Obtained a concession to some 600 square miles of territory from Awujale, the King of Ijebu Ode, for the purpose of cutting mahogany logs; that Awujale and the chiefs repudiate the claim on the ground that the document signed by them merely conceded the right to prospect for timber, with the option after six months of entering into an agreement for cutting rights; that the only money which has passed between the parties is she sum of £20, which was considered to be a return for the hospitality extended to Mr. Brown by Awujale and the chiefs; and whether, seeing that as a result of this alleged concession the natives, who previously had received licences to cut logs, were deprived of this privilege and of their livelihood, while the timber which had already been cut was confis-
  1434
  cated, and that at the same time several of the natives were imprisoned for disputing the right of Mr. Brown over this area of timber land, he will cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of this case, and order the immediate release of the natives and the restoration of their property.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has no detailed information on this subject, but a full report has been called for by telegraph.
  MR. ALDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation on the subject?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I shall be willing to hear anything my hon. friend has to say.

  Chinese Conservancy Works.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government undertook to meet the expenses of the conservancy works on the River Huangpu and the bar at Woosung by an annual grant of 460,000 taels, for the provision of which the entire opium revenues of Tsuchuan and Suchow were earmarked; what provision, if any, has been made, since the issue of the edict prohibiting the opium traffic, for the continuance of the grant; and whether the completion of the work is regarded by His Majesty's Government as assured.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The reply to the first part is in the affirmative. The Chinese Government have not, since the promulgation of the opium decree, proposed to furnish any additional security for the purpose named, but it must be borne in mind that ten years have been allowed for the extinction of the traffic, and that meanwhile the revenue is being collected. Moreover, in the agreement between China and the Powers on the subject it is stipulated that if the security mentioned by the hon. Member becomes insufficient she must provide the balance from other sources. The latest Report (that for the September Quarter of 1906) that has been received shows that a satisfactory beginning has been made with the work, and I have so far no reason to doubt that it will be completed in due time.

  Egyptian Government Officials Salaries.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that many native functionaries and employees of the Egyptian Government are paid small salaries, he will instruct the British agent at Cairo to advise that, if those salaries cannot be raised, the Government should withdraw the decree of the Council of Ministers of 19th March, 1906, prohibiting such functionaries or employees from working for private individuals in their own time without the written consent of the Minister to whom they are attached.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: This is a matter of administrative detail in which His Majesty's Government will not interfere with the Egyptian Government. The Egyptian Government cannot be expected to give up the discretion which it now exercises as to increase of expenditure. I assume that there was good reason for the rule referred to in the last part of the Question; it appears to be elastic, and I am not aware that in practice hardship results from it.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not rather hard that these people are to eke out a wretched pittance while the nation is giving Lord Cromer a big subsidy?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Macedonian Judicial Reforms.
  MR, G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received the Austro-Russian proposals for judicial reform in Macedonia, announced last autumn as being in preparation; and, if not, whether he will himself make proposals to the Powers with reference to the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Austro-Hungarian and Russian Governments have promised to submit their proposals for judicial reforms shortly, and I have no reason to suppose that there will be any undue delay in their doing so.
  Mr. LYNCH: How long do the Government propose to wait for the proposals?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: We have been told by the Austro-Russian Governments that the scheme will be laid in the course of the present summer.

  Great Britain and Portugal—Treaties j on Native Protection.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there are any treaties existing between this country and Portugal with reference to the protection of the natives.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: There are no treaties in existence between Great Britain and Portugal of the kind referred to.

  Labour on the Islands of St. Thomé and Principe.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inquire how many persons are annually sent from the mainland to the Island of St. Thomé to labour on the plantations; and whether any ever return.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The latest statistics show that dining the first ten months of 1905, 3,373 labourers entered the islands of San Thomé and Principe, but we have no information as to the numbers entering in the last two months of that year or as to the distribution between the two islands. Under the old regulations no arrangements were made for the repatriation of the labourers, but under the regulations of 1903, which are now in force, this state of things has been changed. The first contracts entered into under these regulations will not expire until next year.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Have any ever returned?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does the same condition apply to the Island of Principe?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will inquire.

  Slavery in Portuguese African Territory.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign

  1437
  Affairs if, in 1875, the British Government paid £40,000 to Portugal to abolish slavery in her African dominions?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: There is no record of such a payment as that indicated having ever been made.

  Kaid Sir Harry Maclean.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what terms are demanded by Raisuli for the release of Kaid Sir H. Maclean?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No terms have as yet been formulated by Raisuli to the Moorish Government, and Sir H. Maclean, in the letters received from him, does not appear to have any knowledge of the demands which Raisuli intends to put forward.

  The Denishawi Prisoners.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Denishawi prisoners have been released, and how many are still in prison and the terms of their sentences; and whether he is aware that there is a widespread feeling in Egypt for a general amnesty to all these prisoners.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The names of the prisoners and the terms of their sentences are given on page 17 of "Egypt No. 3, 1906." The sentences of imprisonment originally passed on two of the prisoners have now expired. I understand that a petition to the Khedive praying for the release of the prisoners is being circulated for signature in Egypt by the Nationalist paper El Lewa. I have no other information on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the time has come when the sentences may be revised?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I can add nothing to my Answer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: On the proposition to make a Grant to Lord Cromer I will raise the question of the continued imprisonment of these people.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked if petitions had not been sent in recently praying for the release of the prisoners.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I assume that is the petition referred to in my Answer.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How many of these prisoners are there?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to the document laid before Parliament.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is the way to keep it out of the Press.

  Post Office Savings Bank Depositors.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a considerable proportion of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank belongs to persons in the well-to-do classes, attracted by a higher rate of interest, including compound interest, than can be obtained outside the Savings Banks for deposits repayable on demand, and this although the deposits in the Savings Banks are guaranteed by the State; and, seeing that the terms on which the business of the Post Office Savings Bank is conducted have resulted in a depreciation in the value of the securities held against the deposits and an annual loss in the income account, such loss amounting for the year 1906 to £119,870, which loss falls on the general taxpayers, does he purpose to take measures to correct this abuse of the Post Office Savings Bank.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,: Inquiries which have been made from time to time do not bear out the conclusion that any large proportion of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks belong to classes other than those for whose benefit the Banks were intended. Whatever may have been the case in past years, the present difference between the Savings Banks rate of interest and the rates obtainable elsewhere is not likely to operate unduly to divert moneys to those Banks. I do not think that the terms offered to Savings Banks depositors can be held accountable for the depreciation in the value of Government securities. As regards the deficiency of income

  1439
  —although it was increased by special causes last year—I am not without hope that it may be very materially reduced in the near future, owing to the more remunerative investments now available for the Fund. And in any case it has to be remembered that from 1861 to 1895 the Post Office Savings Banks business was conducted without any loss of income being incurred, that in the later years of that period the surplus income was paid to the Exchequer, and that on balance the Exchequer has gained more than it has lost in connection with the Post Office Savings Batiks.

  Depreciation of Post Office Savings Bank Securities.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in the years 1894 to 1899, both inclusive, the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt purchased on account of the Post Office Savings Bank £44,996,000 Consols at an average price of £107 14s. 6d. per cent.; that on the 31st December, 1906, the Commissioners held, on account of the Post Office Savings Bank, £59,977,000 Consols at a cost price on balance of £103 0s. 3d. per cent.; that the market price of Consols being at that date about 86 per cent., there was then a depreciation in the value of the Consols so held of £10,000,000; whether his attention has been directed to the definition of a deficiency, in the cognate case of the trustee savings banks, contained in 26 and 27 Vic., c. 25, ss. 6 and 7, and 43 and 44 Vic., c. 36, s. 1; whether there was, in the funds held on account of the Post Office Savings Bank, on the 31st December, 1906, a deficiency within the meaning of 24 and 25 Vic, c. 14, s. 6; and does he purpose to take measures to issue the amount of the deficiency in the manner directed by the Act.
  MR. ASQUITH: I understand that the figures quoted by my hon. friend are correct. I must point out, however, that the Consols and other securities held for the Savings Banks Fund are held practically as permanent investments, so that valuations on the basis of the current market price of similar securities are misleading. It was on this ground that the Select Committee of 1902 recommended, and the Savings Banks Act, 1904, directed, the discontinuance of the,
  1440
  practice of making and publishing such valuations. Section 6 of the Post Office Savings Banks Act, 1861, to which my hon. friend refers, provides that, if at any time the Post Office Savings Banks Fund is insufficient to meet the lawful claims of all depositors, an issue may be made from the Consolidated Fund of the amount of such deficiency. This is a very important provision, because it ensures to every depositor the satisfaction of his claim by the Consolidated Fund if the Special Fund in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners should at any time prove insufficient. But it is only in the event of the Savings Banks Fund being unable to meet actual claims that the necessity for a Consolidated Fund issue can occur, and I need hardly say that such a contingency has never in fact arisen.

  Income Tax on Earned Incomes.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the cost of the Budget concession to earned incomes under £2,000 per annum is estimated to be £1,250,000.; whether this sum represents the difference between an income-tax at the rate of Is. and an income-tax at the rate of 9d. on £100,000,000 of incomes; whether the earned portions of incomes between £160 and £2.000 are estimated to amount to £200,000,000 per annum; how much of this £200,000,000 is already subject to abatement as forming part of individual incomes of less than £700 each, and is therefore excluded from the new relief; and why no provision is made in his estimate of the cost of the proposed change for the difference between a Is. and a 9d. tax on so much of the remainder of this £200,000,000 as is in excess of the £100,000,000 referred to above.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Premising that all estimates of this kind are, from the nature of the case, very largely conjectural, and that in consequence no attempt can be made to give more than very round figures, it may be said: That the earned portion of the aggregate income of persons with total incomes of from £160 to £2,000 per annum may be put at somewhat more than £200,000,000: that, of this amount, rather less than £100,000,000 is already exempt from income-tax by reason of the system of abatements, and

  1441
  is, therefore, in no way affected by the new measure of relief to "earned" incomes; that, in consequence, the amount of incomes affected by the new measure of relief will be in the neighbourhood of £120,000,000, which, at 3d. in the £, will mean a loss of revenue of £1,500,000; and that the figure of £1,500,000 is the estimated loss on the new relief in a full year—the estimate of £1,"250,000 being the loss that will fall within the financial year 1907–8.

  Sugar Duties.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, so long as the Customs duty on sugar imported into this country is maintained, there will be in effect a protective duty to a similar amount on any sugar which may be manufactured from beet in this country.
  Mr. ASQUITH: So long as the law remains unaltered there would be no duty on any sugar which might be manufactured from beet in this country. But, if any such manufacture should in fact take place, it would become necessary, in view of our obligations under the Brussels Convention as well as for the protection of the revenue, to impose an excise duty upon sugar manufactured in the United Kingdom.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: And is not that 5s. over and above the import duty?
  MR. ASQUITHasked for notice of the Question.

  Depreciated Securities and the Income-Tax.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the considerable sums being applied by banks this half-year out of their profits to replace the sums lost through the depreciation of their holdings of Government securities will be allowed to be deducted before the profits assessable to income-tax are arrived at.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer is in the negative.

  Unclaimed Dividends in Bankruptcy.
  MR. PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of money now in
  1442
  hand representing unclaimed creditors' dividends in bankruptcy; and what are the purposes to which these unclaimed dividends are applied.
  The SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,: The unclaimed dividends in bankruptcy amount to £752,000 of which £519,000 has been applied to the reduction of the National Debt by the cancellation of stock under the Act 32 and 33 Victoria, cap. 91, and the balance £233,000 has been handed over to the Treasury under the provisions of Section 76 of the Act 46 and 47 Victoria, cap. 52, and is invested as part of the Bankruptcy Funds Account. The dividends on the investments are carried to the Bankruptcy Fees Account, thus operating in aid of the expenses of administration which are otherwise chargeable against the fees on bankruptcy proceedings.

  Railway Accidents to Children.
  Mr. FERENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the number of serious accidents to children arising from their falling from railway trains, if he will cause railway companies to adopt measures to fasten more securely carriage doors.
  MR. KEARLEY: The returns received with regard to the recent accidents referred to appear to show that none of them were attributable to defective fastenings of the doors. The Board of Trade have from time to time recommended the abolition of inside handles, except in the case of suburban trains, but the matter is not one in which they have compulsory powers.

  Sugar Prices.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average price of raw and refined sugar, respectively, imported into England from 1893 to 1902, and what was the price of raw and refined sugar, respectively, in this country in 1906; and what was the importation of sugar into this country in 1902 and 1906, respectively.
  MR. KEARLEY: A statement will be printed in the Votes showing the total imports of unrefined and refined sugar into the United Kingdom in each of the

  1443
  years 1893–1906 inclusive and the average declared value (exclusive of duty) of such imports.†

  Beet and Cane Sugar Imports.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total importation of raw sugar in 1900 was represented by beetroot sugar and what percentage by cane sugar; and what proportion of the total importation was represented by beet sugar and cane sugar, respectively, in 1906.
  MR. KEARLEY: Imports of unrefined beetroot sugar amounted to 77˙4 per cent. of the total imports of unrefined sugar in 1900 and to 72˙0 per cent. in 1906. The great bulk of the remainder consisted of cane sugar.

  Imports of Russian Sugar.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the world's total production of sugar; how much Russian sugar was imported into this country in 1902, and what is the importation at the present time; and what was the amount of sugar imported from the Argentine in 1902, and how much is imported from the Argentine at the present time.
  MR. KEARLEY: The total world's production in the season 1906–7 was estimated at about fourteen million tons. The official statistics do not enable any precise statement to be made as to the amount of the imports into this country of Russian sugar in 1902, much of which came through Germany. The imports from the Argentine in that year amounted to 4,045 tons of unrefined sugar and 350 tons of refined sugar. The importation of sugar from both Russia and the Argentine has been prohibited since 1st September, 1903.

  Post Office Officials and the Workmen's Compensation Act
  MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the whole of the postal staff will come under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or whether he proposes to issue a scheme under Clause 2 of the Act.
  † See page 1415–6
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,: It is not proposed to issue a scheme.

  Australian Mail Service.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has any information as to the arrangements made by the Commonwealth Government in reference to the Australian mail service; and what arrangements His Majesty's Government are making for the renewal of the British Australian mail service when the contract now existing expires.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the public Press as to the arrangements which will be made by the Commonwealth Government for the conveyance of mails to and from Australia. For particulars of the service to be provided by the Imperial Government after the expiration of the current contract with the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company I beg leave to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to two Questions asked in this House on the 27th of May last.‡
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: When the arrangements are made will they be communicated to the House?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have no-control over them, but if I receive any communication it shall be made to hon. Members.

  Tallington School—Appointment of Managers.
  MR. DUNN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called the deadlock in the management of the council school at Tallington; whether he is aware that the clerk, at the parish meeting in 1903 at which two managers were appointed, having omitted to state in the minutes the length of time for which they were appointed, now holds that such managers were appointed for life or until they may choose to resign, and that these managers having refused to resign the parish is disfranchised; and will he say what
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 1325.

  1445
  steps, if any, he intends to take in this matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,: The Board of Education have no power to give a binding decision on points of law arising under the Education Acts except in those cases where the Acts expressly give them power so to do. It appears to the Board, however, as at present advised, that where an authority, in appointing a manager of a provided school, does not impose any condition as to the term of office of the manager so appointed, that manager holds office during the pleasure of the appointing authority. It does not appear to the Board that there are any steps which it is either necessary for them or open to them to take in the present circumstances.

  The Public Trustee.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the salary of the Public Trustee has yet been fixed; if so, at what sum; and under what Vote the House will have an opportunity of discussing it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,: The Public Trustee will be appointed for five years and will receive a salary of£2,000 a year without title to pension The form in which Parliament will be asked to vote money for this and the other expenses of carrying the Public Trustee Act, 1906, into effect has not yet been decided. The Act does not come into operation until 1st January, 1908.

  Glasgow Gaols
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether telephones are now installed in Duke Street and Barlinnie Prisons, Glasgow; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay.
  THIS SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,: The work is in hand and will be completed in a few days—there has been some delay caused by difficulty in arranging way leaves for the wires.

  Indian Budget.
  Mr. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when the debate on the Indian Budget will be resumed.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to a similar Question on the 7th June. † I have nothing to add to that.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: Will the. Government take no further steps in the matter of getting the Budget passed?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is little more than a formality.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Peter Francis Curran, esquire, for the County of Durham (Jarrow Division).
NEW BILLS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (CONTRACTS) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Contracts for the Sale and Purchase of Intoxicating Liquors and to provide for the abolition of tied houses," presented by Mr. Richardson; supported by Mr. Thomas Frederick Richards, Mr. Dunn, Mr. Bell, Mr. Walters, Mr. John Ward, and Mr. Wedgwood Benn; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 23rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 271.]
  UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM BILL.
  "To make further provision with respect to the University of Durham," presented by Mr. Hills; supported by Sir William Anson, Sir David Brynmor Jones, and Mr. Hudson; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 272.]

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN.
  *MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDmoved for leave to introduce a Bill to provide work through public authorities for unemployed persons. It was appropriate, he said, to introduce the Bill that day, for the subject had played a considerable part in the election consummated by the ceremony which had just taken place and the taking of his seat by his hon. friend the Member for the Jarrow Division. That the promise made by the Government to deal with the
  † See (4) Debates, clxxvi., 171.

  1447
  problem of the unemployed had not been redeemed last year was not altogether to be regretted, for until now the full harvest of experience of the Act passed by the late Government had not been reaped. But next year the Act would come to an automatic end, and it was time that any proposed change should be considered. He understood that there were three main reasons why the Government had not introduced a Bill amending the Unemployed Workmen's Act. The first was that the Government proposed to deal with the unemployed in indirect ways, in their land legislation for instance, but while the Government were dealing with the problem in certain indirect ways, they were directly increasing the number of unemployed in other ways, as, for instance, by the Workmen's Compensation Act of last year, which undoubtedly increased potential unemployment. At any rate, they must assume that the unemployed problem was a permanent characteristic of society. The second reason was that a great deal of exaggeration had been made as to the alleged failure of the existing law; and the third was that it was always difficult to frame an Unemployed Bill. The Act passed by the late Government was largely experimental, and, guided by experience, the Bill he now asked leave to introduce began with the registration of the unemployed. County, borough, and urban district councils would be registration authorities, and it would be the duty of these local unemployed authorities to prepare schemes for providing work, such schemes to be subject to the criticism and approval of the Local Government Board. One of the great difficulties in connection with the present Act was not merely that of finding money; that was great, but equally great was the provision of work. Some of those who had had practical experience were inclined to say it was easier to find money than to find employment. One of the reasons was that there was no national initiative. The Local Government Board kept the position of a superior critic; local authorities produced schemes which the Board sometimes criticised adversely and sometimes blessed; but there was no national initiative for producing schemes, no constructive responsibility. The Bill proposed to create a central unemployed committee after the model of the central advisory committee of the Education Act,
  1448
  and to make this committee effective it was proposed to adopt from the Land Bill the clauses creating special commissioners. These commissioners would take the initiative, co-ordinate the work of local authorities, and advise the Local Government Board. Another difficulty had been the constitution of unemployed committees, and it was proposed that local authorities should create committees modelled on those of the old Technical Education Board of the London County Councils. The majority of members would be members of the local unemployed authority, and on the committee would be persons of practical experience and representatives of trade unions and trade councils. One point of interest had relation to the undeserving unemployed, and the Bill provided that the habitual shirker should be compelled to perform reasonable work under the unemployed authority. He hoped it would not again be said that the Labour Party had any sympathy with the loafer and shirker of work who tried to batten and fatten on public funds. As to the finance of the Bill it was proposed that when there was not exceptional distress the expenses might fall on local rates, but in exceptional circumstances money would have to be voted by Parliament. In addition to local schemes for employment, it was proposed that afforestation, national roads, and the reclamation of foreshores and waste lands should be undertaken by the central body, who would have compulsory powers for the acquisition of land. Minor details would be appreciated when Members saw them in the printed Bill.
  Motion made and Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide work through public authorities for unemployed persons," put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Steadman, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Brace, Mr. Nicholls, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Snowden, Mr. Thorne, and Mr. John Ward.

  UNEMPLOYED WORKMEN BILL.
  "To provide work through public authorities for unemployed persons," presented accordingly, and read the first

  1449
  time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 273.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20:—
  MR. HAROLD COXmoved to amend the words in the clause excepting from its application persons whose remuneration does not exceed the sum for the time being fixed as the limit for the total exemption from income-tax. The Amendment was that the sum of£100 should be substituted. The clause provided that every employer when required to do so by notice from an assessor, should give a return of the incomes of all persons employed by him excepting persons whose income did not exceed the sum for the time being fixed as the limit for total exemption. The object of his Amendment was to call attention to the desirability of extending income-tax downwards. He would like to express his gratification at having hoard a Cabinet Minister giving his opinion in favour of graduated income-tax, It was his idea that every man should pay some tax, if he had an income of any sort, towards the expenses of the State. The second point which he wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman's attention was that the clause as it .stood would enable a great many people who had other property and ought to pay income-tax to evade taxation. He could see no possible objection to his Amendment, and if it were accepted the Government would have the advantage of additional information as to the wages of the more highly paid members of the working classes.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 15, to leave out from the word 'sum,' to the end of sub-section, and insert the words, "of one hundred pounds."—(Mr. Harold Cox.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,1450
  said he quite understood the hon. Member's view with regard to the larger question. He was not quite sure, how- ever, that he understood the second point. The hon. Member would observe, if he looked at the second paragraph of the section that—
  "This provision applies to all person employed by an employer, except persons who are not employed in any other employment and whose remuneration in the employment, for the year does not exceed the sum for the time being fixed as the limit for total exemption from income-tax."
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid that, without asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the incidence of taxation, his Amendment was merely to enable him to get additional information with regard to the wages of the better paid working classes.
  MR. ASQUITHfailed to see why the hon. Member fixed the sum at£100.
  MR. HAROLD COXsaid he did so merely to be on the safe side.
  MR. ASQUITHpromised to consider the matter.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21: —
  *MR. CHIOZZA MONEY:moved an Amendment, the effect of which was to require a declaration of aggregate income from all sources from every person on whom notice was served. He said that the Amendment dealt only with the machinery of the income-tax, but was of the greatest possible importance in connection with any just arrangement of taxation. As the clause stood it was necessary for any trader or any person making any profits, gains, or income in respect of which he was chargeable under Schedule D or Schedule E in the Income Tax Act, 1853, to make a return in the form required by the notice whether he was or was not chargeable with duty. That covered very many cases. In addition the State obtained personal declarations of yearly income-tax from a considerable number of income-tax payers desiring to claim abatement. He supposed the number of declarations might

  1451
  in this way amount to 700,000. As he had already pointed out in a former debate, this number represented a considerable proportion of the income-tax payers. He would also draw attention to the fact that, under the provisions of the present Finance Bill, there was a system of differentiation introduced which was only brought into operation in respect of all such persons as cared to make a declaration that their total income did not exceed£2,000 a year. If they showed Somerset House that their income was under that sum, then they would have the benefit of the lower rate of 9d. instead of 1s. in the£That would have the effect of raising the number of ratepayers making individual declaration from 700,000 to perhaps 900,000. As a result nine out of every eleven income-tax payers or thereabouts would in future be compelled to declare their entire incomes. The effect of his Amendment was to claim an individual declaration from every taxpayer, and he failed to see what could possibly be said against such a plan. On the other hand, however, there was a great deal to be said for it. It was high time we informed ourselves more closely as to the distribution of the wealth of the country from a social point of view and from the point of view of the statesman who desired to acquaint himself with the social meaning and effect of our manifold activities. Such information was well worth having for its own sake. Whenever they attempted to arrive at a just system of taxation they were repeatedly baulked because they could not estimate the distribution of income with absolute accuracy. Whenever an appeal was made for a graduated income-tax they were told that their estimates were illusory, and that there was not sufficient foundation for the statement that the rich were very rich and the poor were very poor. It was high time that they began to address themselves to obtaining more accurate information as to this really very important matter. There was also the injustice of the thing. They went to employers and compelled them to return what, in the great majority of cases, was the aggregate incomes of their employees, whilst at the same time they did not require the employers themselves to return their incomes. Under the new provisions of the Bill, which made a searching investigation even into work-
  1452
  men's incomes, undoubtedly an even greater sense of injustice would be caused than at present existed. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for using greater care, on the other hand he gave him his support, but he thought it was time that they made the methods of income-tax calculation more stringent for the rich as well as for the poor. When they had done that they would no longer have to adopt the rough-and-ready methods which necessarily governed our system. At present the Chancellor of the Exchequer could only come to the House and remind the Committee that every 1d. of the income-tax yielded roughly about£2,000,000. That was not enough. They wanted to know the operation of that penny in regard to all taxpayers. He would be most happy to accept any Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think necessary in connection with the wording of the clause; but, so far as the principle of it was concerned, he urged it upon his attention, and trusted that in the interests of a just and scientific system of taxation he would see his way to accept it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 9, line 24, to leave out Subsection(1), and insert: (1) Every person upon whom notice is served in manner prescribed by Section 48 of the Income-tax Act. 1842 (which section relates to the delivery of notices by assessors), requiring him to make a return of his income chargeable to duty under any and every schedule of the income-tax, shall make a return in the form required by the notice, which shall show the amount of his aggregate income from ail sources, whether he is or is not chargeable with duty, and upon what part or parts of such aggregate income, if any, income-tax has already been paid under the income-tax Acts by deduction at the source, and in default shall be liable to a penalty under Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1842. Provided that a penalty inflicted in the case of a person proceeded against for not complying with this provision, who proves that he was not chargeable to income-tax, shall not exceed£5 for any one offence." —(Mr. Chiozza Money.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,said he understood that his hon. friend desired, instead of the present system of returns of income when abatements were demanded,

  1453
  that every individual should be required to return the whole of his aggregate income. He thought his Motion was a little premature. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had this year seen his way to propose something in the nature of a graduated income-tax or a super-tax, then the proposal of the hon. Member would have been necessary, because it would then clearly be essential that every taxpayer should return the whole of his income; but until they had the opportunity of considering the question of a super-tax he did not see that any advantage would be gained by the proposal. It would lead to a good deal of irritation and would be of no administrative advantage to the Department, who, under the Bill as it stood, would obtain all the returns they required for the purpose of assessing and imposing the income-tax. There was no necessity for the proposal either on pecuniary or administrative grounds, and he was afraid the Government could not accept it. His hon. friend had based his proposal chiefly on the ground, that it would give interesting and useful statistics to future Chancellors of the Exchequer and to students of finance like himself. He agreed that it would do so, and he agreed also that they were at present groping in the dark in regard to many of these matters. They had not the statistics and the information with regard to the fortunes of taxpayers, which were no doubt very useful, but he did not think they would derive sufficient benefit to warrant their imposing the proposed additional burden on the taxpayers. The Bill was intended in some cases to simplify the returns and to obtain more adequate returns, but his hon. friend had not been able to show there would be any pecuniary or administrative benefit for his proposal, and he was afraid they must oppose it and ask him to postpone it until some more opportune season of dealing with the question.
  MR. S. T. EVANSsaid he was sorry on various grounds to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not follow that it was at all necessary to show that there would be any advantage to the Exchequer from having returns made, but as a matter of fact, there would be considerable
  1454
  benefit, because not only was it clear that it was morally right to compel everybody to make returns when they already compelled nine out of ten, but, if they did so, they would be able to put their hands on a great deal of income which escaped taxation at the present time. The Income-Tax Committee reported that, in their opinion, personal declaration of total net income should be compulsory, and that it would be of great value, not merely for statistical purposes, but also in preventing evasion and avoidance of full assessment—
  "Compulsory personal declaration from each individual of his total net income in respect of which taxation is payable is expedient, and will do much to prevent avoidance of payment of income-tax."
  He knew the words "in respect of which taxation is payable" limited the matter to some extent, but he was on the point whether any profit would result to the State from calling from the returns, and he thought it was perfectly clear, if they did make it compulsory upon everybody to make the returns, they would be able to seize a great deal of assessable income which now escaped altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had said the returns would cause a great deal of irritation; but why, when they were already irritating 700,000 taxpayers, should they decline to irritate the 200,000 taxpayers at the top of the list? It might be some irritation to trades people to have to make returns of their incomes, but the people whose incomes were not returned at all were those who had their own accountants and to whom it would be no trouble whatever. He absolutely failed to understand why they should not compel those people to make returns when they were already irritating 700,000 taxpayers. There was no doubt that the motive which actuated the 700,000 taxpayers to make the returns was that of securing abatements, but the object of the Exchequer was to ascertain the proper amount of income-tax that people ought to pay, and, if that could be done by the application of the screw in the one case, surely there was no reason why the screw should not be applied in the other. He submitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might even now adopt the recommendations of the Committee so far as they went and accept the proposal of his hon.

  1455
  friend, which went further than the Committee, in order to put himself on sound ground. If the Chancellor next year was going to apply his energies—as no doubt he would—in further improving the law in regard to the income-tax, he ought to seize the opportunity now, and next year he would not be groping about in the dark. If these compulsory returns were made, he would know what amount of money was available, and probably he would find that the amount was so large that he would be prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Committee with regard to a super-tax. This was an essential part of the perfecting of the machinery of the income-tax laws. The Chancellor had gone a long way in that direction, but he was a little diffident when he drew the line at this point, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would even now adopt the proposal of his hon. friend.
  *MR. ASQUITHsaid he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. friend who had proposed the Amendment that he did not at all accept or assent to many of the arguments which came from them with regard to its being inquisitorial and offensive to require compulsory returns of this kind. It was very possible they might come to it before they were very much older. He would be glad, however, if on the present occasion his lion, friend did not press his Amendment. It was not quite correct to say that it carried out the recommendations of the Income-tax Committee. The hon. Member for Paddington knew that.
  *MR. CHIOZZA-MONEY: I did not say so,
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it went a great deal further. The real utility of it would be that it was a necessary preliminary to a graduation of the income-tax in the upper scale—that was to say, to the imposition of a super-tax. He was sure that it was with that object that his hon. friend proposed the Amendment as part of the general scheme which he had seriously adumbrated in regard to future requirements. It was a coherent part of that scheme, but, as he explained in intro-
  1456
  ducing his Budget, without any prejudice whatever to future action as to the super-tax, he did not find himself in a position to give any definite decision as to the graduation of the income-tax. Therefore as he thought the steps they were taking at present by the earlier clauses would bring in a great deal of income which otherwise would not have been brought in, he hoped his hon. friends would be content with raising the question. He assured them that he would give most careful attention to this subject next year.
  *MR. EVERETTwished to support the Amendment. Many hon. Members felt that the Budget did not give sufficient relief to the poor, and unduly favoured the rich. By accepting the Amendment the Chancellor would get information from the rich which might prove a very valuable asset to the Treasury in future years in dealing with them. When such a large number of people were being required to make returns of their full incomes there seemed very little reason for refraining from asking the same from the very few at the top. At least it would not hurt those individuals. Most of them were probably in the habit for their own gratification of jotting down once a year the figures us to their income and perhaps capital too. Knowledge as to the incomes of all would be very valuable knowledge for the Treasury to possess. This Budget continued to take hard cash from the pockets of the poor. He hoped his right hon. friend would not flinch at asking for returns of the amounts of their incomes from the rich.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINinquired whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give them any estimate of the amount of additional revenue which he expected to derive under this clause.
  MR. ASQUITHreplied that he was afraid it was impossible, because these were people many of whom ex hypothesi had not made a return before. He hoped it would be large but he could not say the amount.
  Amendment negatived.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 21 stand part of the Bill."
  SIR F. BANBURYexplained that having been engaged in the Scottish Grand Committee, he had been unable to be present in the House, and found his Amendments had been passed over. [Cries of "Order."] He knew he was out of order, but this was a very serious matter for Members of both sides of the House, and therefore he called the attention of the House to it.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he was very sorry, but it was not his fault.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22: —
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 15, to leave out the words, by surveyors."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he proposed to move now an Amendment which would give satisfaction to his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland, as it carried out the intention of an Amendment which the hon. Member had on the Paper to the effect that this clause should not be retrospective. He himself thought it was desirable that they should not go back on the past, and he proposed to add at the end of the clause the words which appeared on the Paper in his name. This was a considerable concession, but on the whole he thought it desirable to make it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page[10, line 25, at the end, to add the words '(3) Nothing in this section shrill affect proceedings for the recovery of fines or penalties incurred before the commencement of this Act, or extend the time during which any assessment may be made or amended, or a charge may be made on any person in respect of income-tax charged under any Act passed before the commencement of this Act."—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. MORTON:thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the concession. No doubt the words of the
  1458
  right hon. Gentleman were better than his own Amendment. He hoped the proposal would carry out the wishes of those who were interested in the matter in the City, and at whose request he had brought the matter before the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 23: —
  MR. COURTHOPEmoved the omission of Subsection 1 which repealed Section 133 of the Income-tax Act of 1842 and Section 6 of the Revenue Act, 1865, which provide for the reduction of assessments or the repayment of duty in certain cases where the profits of the year of assessment fall short of the sum on which the assessment has been made. He complained that while the clause contained provisions with respect to computing profits upon an average of three years, the right hon. Gentleman was abolishing the provisions under which a man who made a bad year could get allowance for it in regard to income-tax. He wished to put this case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the present Government remained in power for three years and then went out of office, how would the right hon. Gentle man like it if the authorities of the day said to him: "For three years you have been receiving an income of£5,000 a year in your official capacity; now you are out of office and have nothing, that does not matter—you must still pay an income-tax on your average income of the last three years?" Would the right hon. Gentleman like that?
  Mr. ASQUITH: Suppose I made a little more?
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid that would go into the average of the three years following and increase the right hon. Gentleman's average. He wished to deal with the case of the man who made an assessible income for three years and then made no more. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put himself in his position and realise what his feelings might be. Surely the man had a right to re-open the question. He

  1459
  thought it would be as well to get rid of the subsection and leave the law as it now stood. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that under the present system a man might re-open the figures in regard to a bad year, yet he got the benefit of a good year. Still the Exchequer got the benefit of that in the working out of the average, and between the income-tax payer and the revenue authorities there was no injustice whatever in the present system. Although in individual cases one man might gain and another lose a little, on the whole the system worked well, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could bring forward any argument in favour of the repeal of these sections. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 10, line 26, to leave out Subsection (1)." —(Mr: Courthope.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Committee must remember that the system of averages, which was not in question now, was introduced for the benefit of a certain number of persons who paid income-tax under Schedule D, and did not apply to other individuals. That, concession, as he took it, was granted to traders because they could not tell exactly year by year what their income would be. and it was intended to work in such a way that at the end of a man's business career, so to speak, he would have paid exactly what he would have paid had he been able to ascertain his exact income year by year. So that it was really as broad as it was long. It was now the system, and what they required was justice for the State. At the present time the income-tax payer took the average of the three years previous to that on which he was assessed and paid on that. But if in the course of the current year, the one on which he was assessed, he had made a less profit than upon the previous year, he was entitled to re-open his assessment and to substitute the profit of the current year for that of the first year of the average and pay on the average of the three years,
  1460
  including the bad current year. The result was that there was a reduction in the average, and to that extent he paid less income-tax. It was a difficult matter to explain, and if permitted he would illustrate it by a concrete case. Let the Committee assume the case of a trader who, in the three years upon which the average had been taken, had made£20.000 in the first year, £10,000 in the second, and£30,000 in the third. £60,000 in the three years-giving an average of£20,000 a year, on which he was assessed for the year of assessment. But if in that year he only made a profit of£10,000, he was allowed to re-open his assessment and substitute for the£20,000 in the first year the£10,000 of the current year, which reduced the total figures for the three-years to £50,000, or an average of£16,600 a year. He would pay on the£16,600) and thus derive a material benefit.. The individual in that case not only got the benefit of paying on the lower year of profit on the average, but that bad year came in four times, whereas the£30,000 year only came in twice instead of three times. He contended that in justice to the State each year's profit should come in for three years, so that a man should pay on his actual profits for the three years, because the Committee must remember that the Crown had now power to re-open the assessment and take a year of a greater profit in order to obtain a larger tax. He therefore did not think the hon. Gentleman was quite right in assuming that the State had the same benefit as the individual. The Act was not only unjust as between the State and the individual, but it was also unfair as between individual and individual, because the amount of relief obtained depended almost entirely on the difference of the profits in what was called the current year and the profits of the first year of the averages, and exclusively upon the profits of the current year falling below the profits of the first year, which were to be taken out. He would illustrate that by taking the case of three firms, each of whom made for three years£10,000 a year. The first firm made £15,000 the first year, £5,000the second, and£10.000 the third. In the current year the profits of that firm

  1461
  fell to£5,000. They appealed to the assessor and took their first year as£5,000, instead of£15,000, and reduced their average from£10,000 to£6,660, thus obtaining relief of income-tax on£3,330. The second firm made in the first year £5,000, in the second£15,000, and in the third£10,000. They also made a profit of only£5,000 in the current year, and inasmuch as that profit did not fall below the profit of the first year, they got no benefit. The third firm made£6,000 in the first year, £12,000 in the second, and£12,000 in the third. In the current year they made a profit of£5,000, which they substituted for the£6,000 in the first" year, but the total amount for the three years was£29,000, or an average of£9,666, and therefore they received relief only in respect of£333. He hoped he had made it clear. If they took three firms in the same period of four years making identically the same profits, and if they took advantage of the protection which the Act of Parliament afforded, one firm got a reduction of the income-tax on£333, and the other got a reduction on£3,333. It appeared to him that there was something radically wrong in the section, and that if they were to do justice it was time that they made some alteration in it. He had endeavoured to show that as between the Crown and particular individuals it was unfair to the Crown. As between the individuals themselves it was grossly unequal and unfair, and the deductions that might be obtained under Section 133 were purely a matter of luck. It might be that a very small reduction of profit might lead to a large deduction under the section. In regard to cases of hardship, he had endeavoured to point out that they had already been dealt with, and, from what he knew, he could safely say that the Board of Inland Revenue who had to deal with this matter and the Inland Revenue Commissioners were never severe in hard cases. Their inclination was always to treat such eases with the greatest consideration. They had the power to do so under this section, and if that section were swept away the power would still continue with them. He hoped, therefore, that this recommendation of Lord Ritchie and his Committee
  1462
  would be acceptable to the House of Commons.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had followed the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, who, he agreed, had proved that which he had set out to prove, namely, that Section 133, which it was proposed to repeal, worked unfairly to the State in certain cases, and unfairly as between individual firms if they compared their cases one with another. So far he was wholly with the right hon. Gentleman. But there was a case which the Postmaster-General had not touched, and one in which it seemed to him that hardship would arise. They were simply abolishing Section 133 without taking any other steps. The Chancellor of the Exchequer left the average system where it was, and therefore he was not concerned to argue the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to have his revenue as steady as possible, and there was some advantage from the Treasury point of view in the system of averages. But that must be governed by the consideration which the Postmaster-General had put forth, that their object was to take in the long run from the individual what he ought to pay, neither less nor more, and the Treasury objection to the present system was that it took from the individual, in a great number of cases, in the long run, less than he ought to pay, because a good year did not come into the average as often as it ought, whereas a bad year was sure to remain in the average the full length of time. Let them take the case of a business just starting, and which had not a three-years average; as he understood the Postmaster-General, that individual or business would pay on whatever it made; it would not pay more, but it certainly would not pay on less than it had made. In the case of a company or business being wound up, and where the profits had been decreasing for the last few years of the company's life, or the trader's life, he or they would be paying more than they ought to pay unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do something to meet the case He confessed that he did not think it

  1463
  was covered; he thought it was a case of hardship with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be ready to deal, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to consider it on Report.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the particular point which the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had just mentioned was dealt with by Paragraph 109 of the Departmental Committee's Report, which came between the two paragraphs contained in this clause. In that paragraph it stated—as the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General had said just now, and with a similar vagueness if he would forgive him for saying so—that the provisions of Section 134 of the Act of 1842, which gave a discretion to the Commissioners, and of Section 23 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1890, would be a sufficient protection against hardship to any individual. That was very vague. It appeared to rest entirely with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and that did not appear to be a very satisfactory way to meet the matter. He thought they ought to have some sort of reply from the right hon. Gentleman. One question which he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer was what he expected to gain in the way of money by giving up this Section 133, so far as it still remained. The sum lost to revenue by the remaining fragment of the section had been increasing enormously in the last few years. In the interesting Memorandum of the Solicitor to the Inland Revenue, which would be found in the appendix to the Report of the Departmental Committee in 1905, and published last year, it was shown that the amount which would be gained had increased from£152.000 in 1901–2, to£363,000 in 1903–4. That was a very large amount of money, and it was increasing very rapidly, and he would like to know how much the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to gain; and with regard to the discretion left to the Commissioners under Section 134 of the Act of 1842, and Section 23 of the Act of 1890, affecting actual loss, and also declining business, he wanted to
  1464
  know how far that discretion was exercised and on what lines.
  SIR F. BANBURY,in regard to the question of averages, said the real reason why there was a very strong feeling among traders in this matter was that they were not allowed, if they were making a less sum than in the previous year, to deduct the difference, with the result that they paid a larger sum in a bad year. Under the system of averages matters really righted themselves, and the trader had to say eventually, unless he had a decaying business. He was not dealing with a decaying business or one that was going to be wound up, however; and in the case of a genuine business, which was subject to the fluctuations of trade, he thought those who knew anything about trade would acknowledge that those fluctuations were very much greater than many persons thought. A firm, though prosperous, often made very much less in one year than in another; and the result was that in the event of a bad year the firm in question would have to pay out of their pockets a very much larger sum in that year when they could least afford it. He did not believe there would be any great gain to the Exchequer by the substitution of this system. His point had not been met by the Postmaster-General. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that it was hard upon the Treasury that they could not raise the amount of the profit in an given year if the amount increased the average. Although the argument he used was very clear, it was directed against the system of averages, under which very extraordinary results must occur. It was said that one trader would be benefited more than another, but the question was should a trader be deprived of this advantage in a bad year when it was most inconvenient that he should be obliged to pay on profits which he had not earned; He hoped the Government would be prepared to abandon this clause. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to do a popular thing without hurting himself or the Treasury in any appreciable manner, he would accept this Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the attack which had been made was really one upon the

  1465
  average system. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he believed that he would gain by the abolition of the system. One point against its abolition was that undoubtedly it tended to equalise the estimates made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Otherwise he might find in a year of bad trade the amount going down by leaps and bounds, whilst in a year of good trade it might go up in the same way, and that state of things was very undesirable from a revenue point of view. Under the circumstances he thought it was better to retain the system as a safeguard against fluctuation. If they accepted that view, surely the good year and the bad year ought to be dealt with on the same footing. The trader who had a bad year could take advantage of it later, whereas the revenue authorities could not take advantage of a good year. It was a case of "heads I win, tails you lose." As had pointed been out by the Postmaster-General, this clause was one of the recommendations of the Ritchie Committee, and he had simply adopted it. The ground upon which the Ritchie Committee made the recommendation was that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. In the case which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London had suggested the loss would be taken into account in dealing with the three years average. He had been told that the Inland Revenue always allowed this loss to be subtracted from the plus quantities for the purpose of working out the average. That was the practice which was carried on. When that difficulty was got out of the way surely the proposal of the Ritchie Committee was a perfectly fair one. One case which had been mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire he thought deserved consideration—he alluded to the ease of businesses which were steadily on the down grade. Undoubtedly that was a case of hardship, and some provision ought to be made for it. He would undertake between then and the Report stage to see if he could introduce some words which by extending the powers given to the Inland Revenue might deal with that case. As for the system being a gain to the Exchequer he did not think it would be so small as
  1466
  had been made out by the hon. Baronet opposite, nor did he think they would realise such a large sum as had been mentioned by another hon. Member. He thought, however, that it would be something substantial, and with the qualification he proposed to make he did not think it would involve any hardship.
  SIR F. BANBURYthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way the had met them and the explanation he had given about the actual loss through bad trade being allowed.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSalso thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the statement he had made. The hon. Baronet had correctly stated the reasons why they desired to repeal this clause. Recently traders had been availing themselves of their right of appeal, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had discovered that he had had large repayments to make. That, how-ever, was no reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should receive money on profits which had not been earned, which was precisely what happened in the ease of dwindling businesses. If the right hon. Gentleman brought forward an Amendment in that direction it would go a great way towards satisfying their requirements. Just by way of illustration he would assume a case in which the assessment for 1903 1904, and 1905, was£13,000, £4,000, and£7,000. That gave an average of£8,000. But supposing that in 1906 the profits had dwindled to£1,000, his claim would be as follows: The first year would be cut off, and the assessment would be charged on the average of£4,000, £7,000, and£1,000. He would, therefore, have to pay on£4,000, although he had only made£1,000.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: On the other hand he paid on£8,000 when he was making £13,000.
  MR, SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid the right hon. Gentleman was assuming that his profits were continuous. He himself was assuming that the profits were going down. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the present system was receiving tax revenue from that man on money which had not been earned.

  1467
  When the taxpayer had paid the money he could not possibly get it back. There was certainly a c se for consideration. The pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go a long way to meet what he and his friends desired, though personally he would have preferred that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendment.
  *MR. MORTONsaid he was aware that there was very great complication in connection with the system of averaging incomes for the purposes of the income-tax. There was a feeling among traders that the new system would be harder on them than the old. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised further to consider the matter and bring up a proposal on the Report stage. If the right hon. Gentleman in reconsidering the matter could see his way to drop Subsection (1) altogether, it would be much better all round. So far as he had been able to calculate he did not think that in the long run the revenue would lose much by the emission of the subsection.
  MR. FELLsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated in answer to a Question that the losses which the revenue sustained in the last three years by repayments had been£300,000, £400,000, and£500,000. The sum last mentioned was for the year 1906. The right hon. Gentleman further stated that it was a growing amount, partly 'owing to its being more generally known to secretaries and others that repayments could be got, and partly owing to a considerable decrease in certain departments of industry after a very active time.
  MR. COURTHOPEthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the important promise he had given, and asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR F. BANBURYmoved an Amendment to provide that if a person chargeable with income-tax proved "within twelve months" of the end of the year that his profits or gains fell short of the amount computed in accordance with the Income Tax Acts, he should be
  1468
  entitled to repayment of the amount overpaid. He said the object of the Amendment was to allow a trader reasonable time to ascertain whether or not he had made a profit. It often happened that a trader did not really know "at the end of the year" whether he had made a profit or a loss, and it might be three or four months after the "year of assessment" before he really did know. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  " 'In page 10, line 36, to leave out the word 'at,' and insert the words 'within twelve months of.' "—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'at' stand part of the clause."
  MR. ASQUITHthought the adoption of the Amendment would be a hardship on the taxpayer. The words in the section at present were "at the end of the year." Those words had been construed by the Courts, and he would tell the Committee the construction which had been put upon them. "Dowell's Income Tax Laws" contained the following note: —
  "The words 'at the end of the year, do not mean at any time after the end of the year, or, on the other hand, a certain period which the Court is to determine, within which every case must be brought. The section must receive a reasonable interpretation ,with regard to the exigencies of business. The; words mean the shortest time in which it could be done, if every exertion is made that ought to be made. It depends on the particular circumstances in every case."
  Therefore, a trader at present was given a reasonable time. The Amendment would introduce a less effective provision than existed at present.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25:—
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR:moved to insert words at the end of the clause to provide that the

  1469
  words "actual cost" should include, in the case of second-hand machinery or plant, the cost to a purchaser. He thought the words of the sub-section were a little ambiguous; at any rate certain members of the trading community, particularly the shipping community, had had a little uneasiness about the meaning. If the words of the Amendment "to the person by whom the concern is carried on," were not inserted, it might be held that the purchaser of a second-hand boat or steamer, or second hand machinery of any kind, was debarred from claiming deductions in respect of wear and tear and depreciation, because these deductions were allowed to a previous owner. He was sure that was not the intention of the subsection. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 29, after the word 'deductions,' to insert the words ' to the person by whom the concern is carried on.' "—(Mr. Austin Taylor.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he doubted whether the Amendment was necessary. There was no intention to charge a second or third buyer the original prime cost. The cost was the cost to the owner, and not the cost to the person from whom he bought. If the acceptance of the Amendment would allay apprehension in the trading community he had no objection to put it in.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 11, line 30, after the word 'cost' to insert the words 'to that person.' "—(Mr. Austin Taylor.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that as a final Amendment he would move "to add after the word 'plant,' the words, 'included in that capital cost any expenditure on machinery or plant by way of renewal, improvement, or reinstatement.'" He knew from actual experience that the Income-Tax Com-
  1470
  missioners would allow any reasonable addition for renewal, improvement, or reinstatement upon an old vessel or upon any other old machinery or plant. He spoke of what he was familiar with, and certainly in regard to steamers and ships large improvements and reinstatements were admitted as reasonable additions to capital cost. There was a question whether the capital cost might not include reinstatements and improvements, and it was only with the object of making the subsection quite clear that he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed: —
  "In page 11, line 30, after the word ' plant,' to insert the words 'included in that capital cost any expenditure in machinery or plant by way of renewal, improvement, or reinstatement.' "— (Mr. Austin Taylor.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27: —
  SIR F. BAN BURY:moved to leave out the words "during the current financial year." The object of his Amendment was to ensure that the sum of£29,500,000, instead of£28,000,000, should be directed to the reduction of the National Debt As the clause stood the addition of£1,500,000 to the Sinking Fund would only last for this year, and he desired to make it permanent. The finances of the country being in the state they were, he believed they ought to make a great effort to reduce the Debt and to increase the Sinking Fund. They did not know what would happen next year or the year after, and there was always the temptation to any Chancellor of the Exchequer to leave the Sinking Fund in order to supply to some Party or section something on which they had set their hearts. He felt certain that it was in the true interests of the country that his Amendment should be accepted, though he knew perfectly well it would not be.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 12, line 18, to leave out the words during the current financial year." —(.Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he and the hon. Baronet thoroughly discussed the question when he raised it on a former occasion. He saw no reason to change the opinion he then expressed. Although he agreed it was eminently desirable that this extra sum of£1,500,000 should this year be applied to the reduction of the National Debt, he thought it was also desirable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House of Commons should have their hands free to deal with the matter as circumstances required in the future.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that much criticism had been levelled against his Party, and there was no subject on which hon. Gentlemen opposite had spoken more strongly than on the necessity for an increased provision for the reduction of the National Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself on many occasions had declared in very forcible language that it was the first-duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take steps to restore the credit of the country and to make provision for paying off the heavy Debt which had been incurred. What had the right hon. Gentleman done, following upon those brave words? He proposed, as a temporary measure, to devote£500,000 to paying off Debt last year, and again as a temporary meaure to devote £1,500,000 this year. All his brave words and all the flood of talk poured forth by the present majority when they were in opposition had resolved itself into£2,000,000 additional Debt being paid off in two years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might retort that he was doing something more, because it had already been urged that the Government were ceasing to borrow for naval and military works, and that in that way they were fulfilling their pledges, although they were not making any substantial and permanent increase to the permanent Debt charge. Those Naval and Military Works Loans, however, were in any case coming to an end. As regarded the Naval Works Loans the late Government publicly announced in the House that they did not intend
  1472
  to introduce any new works into those loans, and in particular they stated that they would provide for the Rosyth Harbour and Docks Works out of Votes. Those loans were coming to an end, and it was possible to bring them to an end because of the work done under them. They were never intended to be a permanent part of our financial system. He was not going into the question as to whether the Government of which he was a member used those powers of borrowing too largely or not. It was arguable, and they had often argued it. In any case they recognised that the necessity which had forced them to have recourse to them had been met by the proposals Parliament had sanctioned, and the loans were therefore coming to an end. It was only in regard to naval and military works that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making any alteration in the matter. He was already proposing to raise £6,000,000 by annuities of exactly the same kind and in the same way for telegraph purposes. He did not think therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer could claim with any show of reason or fairness that that was what he and his friends had in their minds when they denounced them for making insufficient provision for the National Debt. He did not think he could claim that what he had done fulfilled the expectations which his and their utterances gave, and he was not surprised that his hon. friend desired to make the charge permanent in order that there should be a nearer approximation between the present charges and the old promises of right lion, and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Amendment negatived.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsaid he had put down an Amendment to delete Clause 27, and he would state his reasons, although he should not press his Amendment. He had a subsequent new clause down for the reduction of the sugar duty from 1st October next. That would cost exactly £1,500,0(10, the increased sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to devote to the reduction of the National Debt, and he thought it was his duty to help the right hon. Gentleman out of the difficulty in which his new clause

  1473
  would involve him. He agreed as to the importance of Debt reduction. They were all in favour of it, but after all, they should not lose their heads over it. The Debt reduction must bear some relation to the amount of the Debt, and to the national income and the burden of taxation. If hon. Members disputed those propositions, on what principle did they fix the amount of Debt reduction? Why should they fix the additional sum at£1,500,000 rather than£15,000,000, £50,000,000 or even£100,000,000? There must be some reason in the amount of Debt reduction, and the question was what was a reasonable amount? Last year, no less than£10,177,000 was applied to reduction of Debt. That was the largest, sum ever applied in one year to the reduction of debt. This year we were applying £13,500,000 without the extra£1,500,000 involved in the clause. In previous years when we were doing well, we paid off£6,000,000 or£7,000,000 a year, so that this year we were paying off double what we paid a few years ago. without this extra £1,500,000. In order to see whether that was enough let them compare the present figure with the figure on which Sir Stafford Northcote fixed the Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund then was barely½ per cent. of the total amount of the Debt, and at that time there was no sugar tax, and the income-tax stood at 2d. in the£. In the golden era of prosperity before the war the Sinking Fund was 1.3 per cent. of the Debt, and at that time there was no sugar duty, the tea duty was only 4d., and the income-tax was 8d. In the present year the reductions we should make, without the extra£1,500,000, would be at the rate of 1.7 of our total indebtedness. Therefore, not only was the actual reduction the largest on record, but the rate per cent. was much higher than it had ever been before. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had therefore done extremely well in regard to the reduction of debt. The only other argument for increasing the Sinking Fund was the low price of Consols. That was undoubtedly a strong argument, but he asked hon. Gentlemen not to exaggerate the importance of the opportunity and not to lose their heads over it. What did the low price of Consols mean? It meant that they were a 3 per cent. invest
  1474
  ment, and what he asked was, whether they were entitled to take the money of the poorest people in the country in order to invest it at 3 per cent. for the benefit of posterity. He contended that if they imposed a tax like the sugar tax to raise this money it was not justifiable finance. Let them pay off debt rapidly, but let them not do it at an abnormal rate at the expense of the food of the children of the poor. He put this suggestion before the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show him where he could get the money to halve the sugar tax. If, however, his right hon. friend did not accept the suggestion he should not press it to a division.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid this question deat with an essential part of the Budget, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked how much new Debt was going to be created during the year by the issue of Irish land stock, local loans stock, and for military and naval works, together with the new liability to be created by the guaranteed loan for the Transvaal. The country were asked to add a new liability to those which it had at present, and to guarantee an amount of£5,000,000 to the Transvaal. They knew what the old liability was, but when they had added that£5,000,000 and others he would like to know what would be the net reduction of the liabilities of the State during the financial year.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman linked together things that were entirely distinct. It had never been the practice to include in the National Debt any sums for which this country was not primarily liable, such as Irish land and local loans stock. For these the British Government had only a secondary liability, incurred in the case of default, and no default was likely. With regard to the primary obligations of this country, he must refer the right hon. Gentleman to his Budget speech. It was impossible at this period of the year to estimate what amount of Irish land and local loans stock would have to be issued before the end of the financial year.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he quite agreed that they must draw a distinction between the National Debt properly so called, and the secondary national obligations, but surely everyone would agree with his right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that if they were to discuss the national liability, they ought to deal not only with those liabilities for which they were responsible primarily, but with those for which they were liable in the second case. If they were only to discuss the National Debt proper, they had only to deal with the burdens which they threw upon the market which had a national obligation behind them. This was a very serious question in the present state of the money market. In dealing with the question however, they must, have some regard to the amounts generally coming upon the tax-payer and which pro tanto were like the National Debt and for which the nation was responsible. They might come upon the tax-payer, and they could not ignore any responsibilities which had been or were going to be in the near future undertaken by the Government. This was not the proper occasion to debate the question, and he was not quite sure that he was in order in discussing it, but it was a subject which should be present in their minds in dealing with this matter, and he had no doubt there would be in the near future some opportunity of reviewing the new obligations which the Government were going to undertake.
  MR. ASQUITHpointed out that such a discussion was not relevant to the Question before the House, as this clause dealt only with the National Debt. The total sum available for the reduction of; debt this year would not be less than£15,383,000. Deducting the new loans for telephones, telegraphs, and other purposes, the estimated sum payable in the current year for the extinction of liability would be£13,400,000—a larger sum than had ever before been set aside for the purpose.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman in the figures he had quoted dealt with the gross liabilities of the State, and the other matters to which he referred were clearly part of the gross liabilities of
  1476
  the State, although he quite agreed that as part of the National Debt and qua National Debt they need not refer to them. That brought him to his second observation, the avowed intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the credit of the country, but they might be decreasing the Debt of the country in regard to Government Stocks, while they were increasing it in regard to other stocks on the market. Therefore, unless they knew the total they might not be able to tell whether they had increased the credit of the country or not.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  *MR. HAROLD COXmoved the following new clause—
  "As from the first day of October, 1907, the duties imposed by Section 2 of The Finance Act, 1901, and by the First Schedule to that Act, shall each be reduced by one-half."
  He said the effect of the clause would be to halve the sugar duty from 1st October, and would cost this year£1,500,000. In his recent speech he had suggested that this money should be provided out of the addition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to the Sinking Fund. He did not however press that suggestion because he felt fully assured that they would have enough money to meet the loss. The surplus would probably be far more than sufficient to meet that sum. This proposal therefore was in no way a wrecking one, and in no way destroyed the Budget, because there was money enough to meet the demand. What were the various excuses which were put-forward for the continuance of this tax? The first excuse was that we had not yet paid off the war debt. What did that mean? The war debt, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was calculated at present at£130,000,000, and the war taxation still remaining was£20,000,000 sterling. It was absurd to suppose that that rate was to be maintained until the whole of the war debt had been paid off. The interest on this war debt of £130,000,000 at 2¾ per cent. was about£3,500,000 a year. If they added a sinking fund of the same amount they would still get only£7,000,000 a year. Half the present .war taxes would suffice to pay off the

  1477
  whole of our war debt in eleven or twelve years. He would like to ask who were the men who now suggested that they should keep on the sugar tax to pay off war debt. They were the very men who voted against this tax when it was wanted for the daily expenditure of an actual war. He would not mention their names; they sat on the Treasury Bench. Surely, if it was unjustifiable to put on this tax when money was wanted for a war every day it was still more unjustifiable to keep it on now. He dismissed that excuse therefore as not being substantiated, and he came to the. next one— that halving the duty would not benefit the consumer. The excuse was that if you they halved a halfpenny the benefit to the consumer would be of very little use to him. He could, however, assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there were many parts of the country where the farthing was still very much used. There were, moreover, a large number of poor people who buy two pounds of sugar at least at a time, and he knew of village shops where an order for six pounds of sugar a week was a constant one from numerous poor customers. Moreover, the very poor who bought single pounds, if they did not gain in the reduction of the price would gain in quality. If a farthing were taken off the duty the effect would be to postpone the action of the retailer in raising the price one halfpenny or hasten the period when he had to lower it. The sugar trade was worked in much the same way as that of bread. The price of bread was not generally altered by less than a halfpenny at a time, but directly the price of flour was lowered it hastened the fall in the price of bread. The reduction of a farthing would mean the waving of l½d. a week to the labourer who bought six pounds of sugar, and in large and poor families even more was consumed. The third excuse was that the money was wanted for old-age pensions. In this regard the two speeches of the Chancellor of the Ex-chequer did not tally. In his Budget speech the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I must not permanently impair my sources of revenue in view of the future."
  That seemed to imply that the right hon. Gentleman desired to keep the sugar
  1478
  tax for old age pensions. On another occasion he gave another interpretation of his words, but it was certain that in the minds of a great many people that was the purpose for which this tax was required. He had not the slightest desire to conceal the fact that he personally was opposed to any system for providing pensions at the expense of the tax-payer. He regarded it as a subsidy in aid of wages, and therefore injurious to the interests of the wage-earners of the community. But assuming they wanted old-age pensions and a subsidy to provide them he still held that the Government was not justified in using the sugar duty for that purpose. Many Members might have promised old-age pensions but the Government did not. They wisely abstained from committing themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "I never gave, nor, so far as I know, did any of my colleagues on this Bench give, any pledge at the general election on the subject of what is called old-age pension?."
  But the Government did allow the whole Liberal Party to commit itself to the abolition of the sugar tax. They voted against this tax in the previous Parliament, and their Party was justified in believing that this was one of the first taxes they would abolish. Were they to repudiate that emphatic pledge in order to take up a scheme which before the elections never took concrete shape? If that was to be so. what was the good of any pledges? The difference was fundamental. One thing was definitely and distinctly promised and the other vaguely foreshadowed. They must first carry out the definite and distinct pledge before they took up the vague scheme. If not. what was the value of any pledge? If hon. Members might so lightly repudiate what they so earnestly promised, what became of the doctrine that this House represented the will of the people? From the point of view of political fidelity alone they were bound to make old-age pensions contingent on the abolition of the sugar tax. But that was not the only consideration. The sugar tax was the most vicious of all our taxes. In the first place, it was a tax on the food of the people, and, secondly, it was a tax on the raw material of many British industries.

  1479
  It was also the most useful substitute for alcohol, as temperance Members would discover if they went to India, where everybody was a teetotaller and everybody was a large consumer of sugar. Few realised how many were the industries that depended on sugar as raw material. There was a further objection to this tax, and that was the complication that it involved. This was the consideration which made Mr. Cobden, Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel anxious to purge the tariff so as to get rid of the multiplicity of taxes which then existed. If hon. Members would refer to the Customs report they would find that all kinds of different articles, from blacking to crystallized ginger, were affected by this tax. He remembered when this tax was first imposed he had in another capacity to consult with different people as to its effect on different trades, and he found in some cases owing to its complications that for weeks and months trades were brought to a standstill because traders did not know what proportion of sugar the articles they sold contained. The tax contained all the disadvantages that a tax could contain, not the least of which was an element of protection. It was impossible to avoid either injustice to some manufacturers or special favour—protection—to others. Either was as bad as the other. Yet this was the tax they were asked to maintain in order to give old-age pensions on what was called free trade lines. A section of the Liberal Party was alarmed lest tariff reformers should outbid them by offering the bribe of old-age pensions in return for tariff reform. He would prefer the Liberal Party not to take part in the dishonest game of bribing the electors with the tax-payers money. But if they did want to play the game they should at least play it intelligently. The main argument of the Liberal Party against protection had always been that they would not tax the food of the people or the raw materials of our industries. But the sugar duty did both. How would they persuade the electors that the sugar tax was supreme virtue and the corn tax intolerable vice? The argument was too subtle. The average man could not see why it was wrong to give a favour to a particular producer at the cost of all the consumers; he
  1480
  could not see that if it was done for one producer it ought to be done for all; and if it was done for all the final result would be that they would be exactly in the same position as before, except that an army of officials would have to be kept to collect the money. They would also have taught the people to trust to what they could squeeze out of Parliament rather than to their own exertions. Even hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were fairly intelligent in most ways, could not understand this important distinction between protective and non-protective taxes, or at least said they did not. Perhaps it would be more polite to say that they had not given sufficient attention to the subject. He was quite sure that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, .if he were to devote to the study of this subject the same amount of ingenuity that he now devoted to other purposes, would very speedily master it; and, in his dreams, he sometimes saw the hon. Baronet, in a regenerate state, patiently coaching the President of the Board of Trade in the elements of political economy. He had said that the subject was difficult. It was difficult to prove to the mass of the electors the rather subtle point involved in the distinction between protective and non-protective taxes. That being so, it seemed to him of the utmost importance, if they wished to preserve free trade, that they should also preserve those clear and distinct arguments that the mass of the people could understand. The people knew what was meant by a tax on food and raw material. Let them preserve those arguments if they wished to preserve free trade, and it was because he wished to preserve free trade that he appealed to the Committee to support the clause.
  New clause—
  "As from the first day of October," 1907, the duties imposed by Section 2 of the Finance Act, 1901, and by the first Schedule to that Act, shall each be reduced one-half." —(Mr. Harold Cox.)
  Brought up, and read a first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that when he had looked at the Notice Paper and saw the various Amendments put down, he had expected that the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, whom he saw in his place, would have had the courage to move on behalf of the Party opposite the clause which had stood on the Paper in his name for he did not know how many days. But the hon. and learned Member, who was not generally afflicted with such shrinking modesty, preferred on the present occasion to retire into obscurity in order to leave to his hon. friend on that side the duty of proposing a clause couched in a very much milder form. They would hear, of course, as the debate developed, what were the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The sugar tax had been referred to by his hon. friend as a war tax. He thought it was not so introduced; it was introduced by Sir M. Hicks Beach in 1901, not as a war tax, but as part of a general scheme for broadening the basis of taxation. Were the Party opposite now prepared to vote for its repeal? Perhaps they would hear in the course of the debate whether they were or not—whether they were going to send the sugar tax to join the coal tax and the corn tax, in which case the whole of this great experiment of broadening the basis of taxation would have disappeared into the limbo of obscurity. It might be said that this was an Amendment only to reduce, not to repeal. What of that? They knew perfectly well the grounds on which reduction of the sugar duty had been and probably would again be advocated by some of the right hon. Gentlemen who sat opposite. If they were going to reduce the sugar duty, how were they going to make good the gap but by imposing other duties, again broadening the basis, and roping in a few more of the necessaries of life—meat, corn, butter, and the rest of it? He was sure his hon. friend the Member for Preston did not share those views; and they would await with curiosity the explanations of his supporters on the other side. His hon. friend had said something about pledges. As far as he was concerned, or so far as the Government were concerned, their hands were as completely untied by pledges in regard to the sugar
  1482
  tax as they were in regard to old-age pensions. He would recall to the Committee the circumstances of the last general election. The Government were put in office before the election took place, and he, being Chancellor of the Exchequer, had very naturally to speak perhaps more than many of his colleagues on what the financial policy of the new Government was. What was the attitude he took up throughout the election? He would read a quotation from the first speech he made, he believed it was to his constituents—
  "I tell you perfectly frankly that it is absolutely impossible to hope for any remission of taxation until you have reduced the level of expenditure at present prevailing in this country, and until you have made, as it is my intention and hope that I shall make, a better and more adequate provision for the redemption of the National Debt."
  That was the pledge he had given to his constituents; and he challenged any one in any quarter of the House to find in any speech of his, or, he believed, of any of his colleagues, made at the general election, a promise to deal either with this or any other duty in the way of remission. He never gave any such promise, and never would, and certainly as far as he was concerned they were perfectly free from any pledge. It was said that a number of his hon. friends made pledges in favour of repealing the sugar tax. He dared say they did. He did not suppose there was a man on that side who did not agree with him that the sugar duty was an oppressive and vexatious duty. He assented to almost all the arguments that had been used by his hon. friend. It was a tax on food, and not only on food, but upon one of the first necessaries of life; it was a tax on raw material from which some, not of our most important, but very important industries suffered. He must say he was a little surprised when his hon. friend, of all people in the House, —an able exponent of the most unadulterated and sublimated form of the doctrine of free trade—said that it was not easy to distinguish, so as to convince the electorate of this country, between a tax on sugar which was not protective and a tax on corn which was. He would undertake to say that his hon. friend had performed that task with the greatest possible success from a hundred platforms

  1483
  and was prepared to do it again. He himself had certainly done it—at least he thought he had—not once, but a score of times; and to his mind there was the broadest and strongest distinction in the world, even as among taxes on food, between those which were protective and those which were not. If that were the time and the place he could elaborate that argument with many illustrations; but that was not the time and the place, and he did not want to enter upon what was merely a parenthetical difference of opinion. He entirely agreed with the main current of his hon. friend's argument, that the sugar tax was a bad tax, a tax which ought to be got rid of, and got rid of at the earliest possible moment. He had said so before, he said so now, and he should say so again, and he hoped some day the time would come when he would do more than satisfy the hon. Gentleman in that direction. But what was the clause which his hon. friend proposed? He agreed with what he was proposing, but now that they had gone through the whole of the Budget, now that the Committee had agreed, clause by clause, to every one of the financial conditions of the year—all of which hung together as interdependent parts of a collective whole— now that they had made very considerable reductions for this year in the income-tax, now that they had devoted an additional sum of no less than£1,500,000 for the reduction of the National Debt, now that they had disposed of the whole current revenue of the year, his hon. friend came forward and asked them to incur an additional expenditure of£1,500,000, and proprosed no provision of any sort for making-good the gap. Where was the difference to come from? It would have to be made good, for there would be an actual deficit on the year if they assented to the proposal. They had appropriated the revenue of the year with the general consent of the Committee. When considering general policy he had pointed out that he should much prefer to deal with the sugar tax as a whole than to tinker with it. It was perfectly true, as his hon. friend had said, that sooner or later, and in one way or other, small reductions in duty of this kind, which had no apparent appreciable effect on the price, did get down to the consumer. Yet this process was very slow in its
  1484
  operation, the reduction was very apt to be intercepted and deflected in its course, and the ultimate benefit to the consumer was only reaped after a considerable period of time. He remembered using that as an argument in the Budget speech for not dealing with the sugar duty except as a whole. He agreed that a very small reduction of the sugar duty would benefit some of the powerful interests which had been raising considerable agitation. The agitation had proceeded rather more from that source,, he thought, than from the actual consumers, because it would cheapen the raw material used by those who happened to be producers of what did not fall within the category of necessaries, but what he would call the simpler luxuries of life, which people could do without, or for which they could find substitutes— things for which the raising of the price-would be very apt to curtail the demand. The producers of mineral waters, confectionery, and other things of that kind, would benefit substantially even by a very small reduction in this duty, because it affected their raw material. With regard to the consumer, he did not believe the comparatively minute reduction his hon. friend proposed would, during the current financial year, have any really appreciable effect. His hon. friend had quoted a passage from a speech of his which he said gave rise to the inference—he could not think why—that he looked upon the sugar duty as part of the permanent fiscal machinery of the country. He had said that of the income-tax, but had never said that he looked on the sugar duty in that way. On the contrary, he had made use of expressions which showed that he regarded it rather in the light of a necessary but at the same time a transient evil, one which he could not at the moment do without, because it brought him in£6,000,000 of revenue, but one which he would be only too glad to get rid of when he saw his way to make good the gap. The financial situation of the present year was such that he could not do it, and no financier in his position could. He defied anybody, with the resources, actual and prospective, at his disposal for making the Budget of this year, to have produced a scheme by which the sugar tax could have been effectually dealt with. On the other

  1485
  hand, he had, as he hoped, by putting the income-tax upon a broader and more just basis, and by largely adding to our expenditure on the reduction of debt, paved the way—and he had never represented this Budget to be more than a pioneer Budget—in the years which followed, both for reductions in indirect taxation and for the develpment of a policy of fruitful social reform. They could not do everything at once, and he could only repeat that if this clause were added to the Bill and this reduction, or any other substantial reduction, were incorporated it would dislocate the whole Budget and undermine its very foundation without conferring any appreciable benefit upon the great mass of the consumers. He must therefore adhere to the Bill as it stood. But he did so with the full conviction that the tax was vicious in principle, that it was burdensome in its incidence, unequal in its operation as between different classes and interests, and as such that it ought not to form a permanent part of the fiscal machinery of the country, but as soon as the general financial situation allowed of it, ought to to be reduced, and if possible altogether abolished.
  *MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he had listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech with astonishment, for he had intimated that there were confronting him fatal financial difficulties having regard to the stage the Bill had reached. He could readily believe that. The right hon. Gentleman had said that no responsible financier confronted with the problem which was before him would contemplate the reduction suggested by the Amendment. He would like, however, to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that their difficulties were by no means novel; whatever difficulties confronted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day, so far as either the abolition or substantial reduction of the sugar duty was concerned, equally confronted his predecessor during the last four years. Indeed, he might say that the difficulties in the way of making a change of the kind now proposed were even greater then than they were at the present time. He was asked at the general
  1486
  election, as he believed many hon. Members were asked, whether he was prepared to vote for the abolition of the sugar duty. He was new to the House of Commons and not familiar with the modern criteria for ascertaining the will of the people, which was to be so decisive in these days. He was simple enough to think that it was the proper thing to give an honest answer to the question, and by doing so he placed himself under disadvantages which his opponent did not experience. Having given the best consideration he could to the question he decided that it was not right, and one was not entitled to make electioneering capital by giving explicit assurances, binding upon men of honour, that one would vote for the abolition of the tax. He placed himself in communication with the body who invited him to make a pledge upon the point and he discovered that his answer given in the face of a large working-class constituency was that, although he thought it was desirable that the tax should be reduced if the general financial conditions of the country justified such reduction, he was not so satisfied that they did justify it. That was the answer he gave. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston were carried it would dislocate the whole Budget. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that although he had told them with so great satisfaction that his hands were perfectly clean and that he had given no pledge upon the matter at the time of the general election but had rather indicated that the country could not expect any reduction in the sugar tax, yet the right hon. Gentleman himself voted in that House on the same, stage of the Finance Bill, in 1905, for this very reduction on the sugar tax. Therefore, how futile it was to say that he had never given any pledge on the subject at the general election when he had encouraged his ignorant followers who were making these pledges to recommend themselves to their constituencies by assurances he knew to be false. What were the arguments used by hon. Members opposite on the occasion of the Finance Bill of 1905, and which had been used repeatedly in the course of similar

  1487
  discussions? He did not profess to make himself responsible for the calculations, but they had never been contradicted. Hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, including the Prime Minister, had voted for the abolition of this duty and they had told the House that if the incidence of the sugar duty were reduced a peasant who earned 18s. a week paid, in reference to the sugar duty alone, and reducing the payment to terms of income-tax, 2.63d. in the . A working man with an income of 30s. a week paid 2.166d. and a man with£1,500 a year would pay .2d. The man with£3,500 a year would pay 157d. and with£20,000 a year .328. He had not checked these figures for himself, but they were put before the House in each successive year, and were received with acclamation by hon. Members opposite, and were largely instrumental in eliciting from them the pledges they had made. The House had heard a great deal about pledges given by irresponsible Members of the Government, but he would like to read the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in 1904, who said—
  "Were it not for coming into conflict with the Chair it would be perfectly possible to suggest alternative proposals of taxation even if they were only licence duties. But it was not for the Opposition to suggest alternatives. As it was once said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, it was not for the physician to prescribe until he had been called in, and the Opposition were not bound to disclose their remedies until they were in a position to diagnose the complaint. But each tax had to be considered on its own merits. The only way in which Governments could be found to face the alternatives of reducing expenditure was by the House of Commons declaring that an undue burden was being placed upon the people, and demanding that the expenditure should be cut down. All the House of Commons could do was to say, We will not impose additional burdens upon the people, the necessities of the Empire do not justify them; therefore you must find some other remedy by getting the heads of spending departments to cut down their estimates.'"
  The author of these arguments had absented himself with no small discretion from the debate to-day. It was indeed fortunate that although the Government were apparently oblivious of their former views they had on the benches opposite 150 men who could be absolutely relied upon. The pledge given
  1488
  by hon. Members opposite on this point was clear and explicit, for they unconditionally pledged themselves to the following question— The tax on sugar was originally imposed as a war tax when the idea of the Brussels Convention had not been seriously considered; it has since been retained to meet the general expenditure of the country. Are you prepared to vote for the abolition of the duty, and so afford some relief to the public and to the sugar-using industry?" There was no possible misunderstanding about that pledge. There was nothing to indicate three or four years delay and there was nothing to indicate that the claims of social reform might pos pone remission. The question was: "Are you prepared to vote for the abolition of the duty?" In these days of shifting political ideals, and of wide spread opportunism it was refreshing to reflect that they had in the House that day 150 plain, honest men whose word was their bond; men who met the vigilant solicitations of the Patronage Secretary and his subordinates with the simple but sufficient answer: "We have promised, and men of honour keep their promises." Relying upon the pledges they had given he looked forward to tin; enjoyment of meeting these Ironsides in the lobby, and he contemplated with the greatest possible indifference the consequences which the carrying of the Amendment would have either upon the Government or the Finance Bill.
  *MR. COWANsaid that as one of the noble army of pledge-givers he intended to support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Preston. He opposed the sugar duty because it was a war tax, a food tax, and a tax upon industry. He was one of those who had given a pledge to his constituents in the terms which had been read by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool. He gave that pledge believing that he was acting in the spirit of that intention of the present Government. On this point he had apparently misunderstood the views of his leaders, but there were 150 other hon. Members who had done the same thing. On every Liberal platform one of the chief complaints against the

  1489
  late Government was that after blundering into an unnecessary and costly war, when hostilities ceased they still retained the war taxes, including the sugar duty. They stated that on every platform, and they understood, and they gave the country to understand, that the Government intended speedily to repeal all the war taxation put on by the late Government. As free traders they all declared for a free breakfast table. How could they have a free breakfast table if they retained the sugar tax? He and his friends objected to the tax because sugar was the raw material of many trades. There had been thousands of workmen thrown out of employment on account of the imposition of the tax. Harrowing pictures had been drawn of the destitution which the wives and families of these men had suffered on account of the retention of the tax. It had destroyed the margin of profit out of which the wage fund came. Promises might be very inconvenient when those who made them were called upon to keep them. He supposed they were chiefly inconvenient because they had an awkward habit of coming home to roost. What did the country expect the Government to do when in power? They were expected to effect economies in the great spending departments, and to broaden the basis of taxation. They were to broaden the basis of taxation by making land pay its proper share of the burdens of the State. But the Government also led their supporters and the country generally to believe that they were going to get rid of all the special war taxation. They made the first step last year with the abolition of the export duty on coal, the only successful fiscal experiment made by the late Government. He wished it had been retained. If it had been retained and the income-tax changes deferred, the people might have been relieved of half of the burden of the sugar tax. He ventured to say that the reduction of the duty by one half would have had an early effect on the price of sugar. He did not think the sugar tax could, justifiably be retained, to pay for old-age pensions. While he was strongly convinced that old-age pensions should be provided by the State, he held that they should come from the general revenue; no special tax should be ear-
  1490
  marked for the purpose. The fund from which the pensions were to be paid should not be contributed to in a disproportionate degree by the poorer classes. No class should contribute to it in any special form. He understood that hon. Members on the other side were going to vote for the abolition of a tax they themselves imposed, as they would vote for anything that would embarrass the Government. He therefore hoped his hon. friend the Member for Preston would not press his Motion provided the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give sufficient ground for the belief that next year he would reduce this tax. Members could then go back to their constituencies as men who had not disregarded their pledges. If the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give more assurance than he had given, and if his hon. friend carried his Motion to a division, he should vote for it.
  MR. GWYNNsaid the Party to which he belonged regarded the sugar tax simply as one imposed for the purposes of a war which was unnecessary and costly. In Ireland they detested and deplored the war on moral grounds just as much as the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India detested it. The people of Ireland were forced to pay this tax against their will. He understood that the sugar tax at present yielded something over£6,000,000 a year. That meant that the people of Ireland were paying from year to year more than the whole of the loyalists in the Colonies contributed to the war. They talked of the loyalty of the Colonies, but if in supporting the war they had been imposing on themselves a burden like that which had been imposed on this country their loyalty might not have been quite so great. That was one reason why he and his friends would vote for the reduction of this tax. If the Motion for its complete extinction had not been withdrawn, they would have voted for it. Looking at this as a pioneer Budget, he asked which way it was heading, and he found it was preserving the taxes on tea and sugar, which pressed on the poorest classes in the community. He commended to Labour Members' attention the financial relations between England and Ireland, and said they would find

  1491
  that it was through the medium of such taxes as this that the great robbery wan carried on year by year, and Ireland had to pay two or three millions more than she ought to pay towards the Imperial burden. The poorest men in Ireland paid as much under this sugar tax as the richest, and incidentally it pressed hard upon new Irish industries. Regarding it as flagrantly unjust, he should vote for the reduction of the tax.
  *MR. SNOWDENsaid he would support the Amendment. He did not intend to follow the example of the hon. Member opposite by making a speech in support of the Amendment, and then asking the mover not to press it. He confessed that he did not feel altogether comfortable in being associated in this matter with hon. Members above the gangway. A few days ago the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool was good enough to express his opinion on the ideas held by Members among whom he (Mr. Snowden) sat, opinions which he described as abominable, detestable, and atrocious. He could never hope to emulate the hon. Member in the picturesque and lurid language he had used, or in his courteous attitude towards opponents, and he would therefore content himself by saying that the hon. Gentleman expressed somewhat their sentiments in regard to the opinions generally held by him and those with whom he associated. It was noteworthy that in the course of his speech he did not give one reason why the Amendment should be supported, and he ignored the fact that he himself was one of the 150 who were pledged on the subject. He thought the whole tone of the speech justified the hon. Member for Guildford in saying that the only motive the hon. Gentleman had in supporting the Amendment was to endeavour to embarrass the Government. He could only suggest that the bringing forward of such an Amendment as this was presumption on the part of hon. Members who themselves were responsible for the tax, which they would never have boon called upon to repeal had it not been for the arrogant Imperialism of the last Government. He supported the Amendment as a tariff reformer, a tariff reformer who wanted a change in the fiscal system of the country, not in the direction of
  1492
  broadening but rather in the direction of narrowing it. He wanted a tariff reform which would not increase the burden of the poor, a tariff' reform which would not make the rich richer at the expense of the poor He wanted to see a tariff reform which would lighten what he held to be the present oppressive burden of taxation which fell upon the poorest of the population. He had two reasons why he supported that Amendment. The first was that the tax was unjustifiable, and the second that an excessive amount of taxation was paid by the working classes of the country, altogether out of proportion to that paid by the richer classes. It had been stated in the course of the debate that there ought to be some equality between the amounts raised by direct and indirect taxation. They seemed not to recognise the great difference in the capacity between those who paid indirect taxation and those on whom the direct taxes were levied. Perhaps he might be allowed to labour that point for a few minutes, but before he did so he would like to remark that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had denied that either he or any of his colleagues at the last election gave any pledge for the repeal of the sugar tax. He had in his possession a leaflet issued by the Liberal Publication Department, and very widely circulated in the constituencies represented by hon. Members opposite, and that leaflet, which he supposed was issued under the supervision and direction of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, was headed "How the working man is taxed," and according to the statement made in that the working man with his family paid a tax equal to 1s. 7d. in the£, which was altogether out of proportion to the burden which fell on the richer classes. They knew there were more than two million families in the country whoso total family income was loss than£1 per week. What would be the amount of taxation paid by these two million families reduced to terms of income-tax? If it were 1s. 7d., taking the figures of the publication to which he had referred, upon an income of 30s. it was something like 2s. a, week of income-tax paid by these two million families with an income not exceeding£1 a week. He thought nobody would seriously dispute the statement, that the well-to-do did not pay in indirect taxation on food more

  1493
  than the poorer part of the population. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this Budget was relieving well to-do people with incomes of£40 a week. What did a family with an income of£40 a week pay in indirect taxation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was reducing the taxation on£40 a week incomes to 9d. in the pound, and therefore the total amount of taxation reduced to terms of income-tax paid by families under this Bill earning £40 a week was 9¾d. in the pound, whereas under the same Bill a family of four, five or six persons with only£1 a week was paying a tax of 2s. in the pound. That, he submitted, was a sufficient justification for accepting his Amendment, and thereby doing something to lessen this oppressive and unjust burden on the poorest part of the population. Then he had another reason why he urged that it was a matter of urgent necessity. He had spoken of the incapacity of the working classes to pay, and he wanted now to show that that capacity was growing less. Their capacity to pay the sugar lax was not so great as it was at the time the tax was imposed. From 1900 to 1905, in each of these years, according to the official statistics of the Board of Trade, the wages of the working people were going down, and not only was the actual income of the working people less, but the purchasing power of their wages was less too. He had in his possession figures in regard to the cost of a number of necessaries relating to his own constituency in 1899, such as tea, lard, sugar, and one or two other articles, and he found that, comparing prices—the prices of 1899 with the prices of to-day—there had boon an increase in the cost of these necessary articles of 30 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated last week, when a Motion was made by an hon. Member in favour of reducing the£2,000 exemption limit to£1,000, that the claim of the income-tax payer was urgent, and that the present scale could not be defended. Surely lie could not defend the continuance, even for another twelve months, of a tax equal to 2s. in the pound upon people with incomes so small that if every penny of it was spent to the best advantage it was quite impossible for them to provide themselves with the necessaries of life. Could he defend the continuance for one twelve months of the taxation of these people at 2s. in the pound and the
  1494
  taxation of people with£40 a week at 9¾d. in the pound? There had been a reduction in the tea duty, but was there a Member of that House who really believed that the advantage of that reduction on tea had gone to the benefit of the consumer? Some hon. Members thought so, it seemed, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently had his doubts about the matter, because over and over again he had stated in that House that he was inclined to think that if they had not received the advantage in a reduction of the price they had got it in hotter quality. Might he put another question to hon. Members? Was there a Member in that House who had detected an improvement in the quality of his tea during the last six months? Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer go about the country addressing mothers' meetings and trying to convince them that they had reaped the advantage of this reduction of 1d. a pound on tea. Let them take the coal tax, that had not benefited the consumer. The result had boon to increase the price of coal to the consumer. He had received a circular that morning which stated that the price of coal was 8s. per ton more than it was twelve months ago. As soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year had made the announcement of his intention to abolish the coal tax, he (Mr. Snowden) mot a coal dealer in the north of England in a largo way of business, and he said the price of coal had already increased 2s. The abolition of the coal tax increased the foreign demand, and taking advantage of the increased foreign demand coal in this country increased in price. Therefore he submitted that, taking what had boon done in tea and coal, they might justly say that so far there had been nothing done since this Government came into office to relieve by a single penny the taxation of the poorest part of the population. He had another reason why he should support this new clause of the hon. Member for Preston. The Chancellor of the Exchequer protested against the construction which had been placed on his Budget speech in regard to what he said about social reform and a "nest egg," but from a leaflet just issued by the Liberal Association for use in by-elections he load that no change was made in indirect taxation, because Mr. Asquith declined to deprive himself of sources of

  1495
  taxation which he intended to use for social reforms; and it was only fair that a part of the cost of old-age pensions should be raised from taxes paid for the most part by the working classes. But if old age pensions were going to be found out of taxes levied upon the working people of England, then they were going to be of no benefit. He wanted this sugar tax abolished this year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to look elsewhere to find the money for his old-age pensions. Something had been said by one or two speakers who preceded him about the will of the people. Could there be any doubt about what the will of the people was, or the will of the overwhelming majority of the people was on this question? Those who paid only indirect taxation were nine-tenths of the population, and naturally they would be unanimous in supporting a proposal of this sort. They wore there to carry out the desires of their constituents, and they were told that there were 150 Members who were pledged to the policy of the abolition of the sugar duty. Those hon. Members had had no share in framing this Budget, and they had not been asked whether they would like the sugar tax abolished or not. This Budget did not carry out the will of the people. It was simply the will of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no doubt having used sufficient "peaceful persuasion" during the last few days the right hon. Gentleman might succeed in imposing his autocratic will upon his followers; but his hon. friend the Member for Jarrow would be able to tell him that this Budget had more to do with the ignominious defeat of the Government candidate than anything else. His hon. friend the Member for Preston had spoken about the difficulty of getting people to understand economic questions, but here was one economic question they could understand. They could understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown his consideration for those whom in their poverty they regarded as being in affluence, and although the Government would succeed no doubt in defeating this Amendment the matter would not end there, and the will of the people in this matter would ultimately prevail.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY:supported the Amendment be-
  1496
  cause he believed this tax was an interference with British industry. That alone was to him a cogent reason for getting rid of it. He admitted he had not comedown to the House prepared with weighty figures to show the bad effect of the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made it quite unnecessary for anyone to do anything of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman had described this as a bad tax, as a tax which ought to be got rid of at the earliest moment, and had said that he hoped to be able on some future day to got rid of it. While listening to the passionate appeal of the hon. Member for Preston he was reminded of the lady in the garden tearing a flower to pieces slowly leaf by leaf, and saying, "This year, next year, some time, never." If this tax was to go on, in time they wore going to get these old-age pensions which the right hon. Gentleman had so rashly promised. For his own part he was impressed neither by the fastidiousness of the hon. Member for Blackburn nor by any consideration whether it was possible by carrying this Amendment either to provide old-age pensions or other wise to reconsider the Budget. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman on the main merits of the case had to allow judgment to go by default. He could only coerce the great bulk of his followers. He said. "By carrying this Amendment you will embarrass the Government in a way in which no other Motion will." They (the Opposition) had nothing to do with chat consideration. They would follow the shining example of the right hon. Gentleman when in Opposition. To his mind this was a tax upon food and ought to be removed; it was a tax on industry. It did not allow a free field to British working men in the only market which they possessed. It was a tax which was more worthy to be got rid of than the tax upon tea or the tax upon coal, which the right hon. Gentleman, some of them thought, got rid of with unnecessary levity.
  *MR. S. T. EVANSsaid he had waited more or less patiently to hear what the Front Opposition Bench had to say on this matter, and at last he had heard it. He had, however, referred to the Division List of 1901 to see how the right hon. Gentleman voted on the subject when the tax was first imposed. On that occasion a Motion was made by his hon. friend the Member for Northampton

  1497
  that the sugar duty should be treated as a yearly tax, so that each year they could deal with it directly instead of by way of Amendment or new clause. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken against the duty as a tax upon the food of the people, and upon industry, helped to defeat the Motion of his hon. friend. They heard a good deal about pledges, but he would ask what about settled convictions, and what about the convictions of the right hon. Gentleman in 1901? The truth was that this present fight was an unreal one. The hon. Member for Blackburn was as usual ungrateful for the gifts offered by the Government. He (Mr. Evans) did not not say that this Government was the best possible Government. He thought it might be better, but whenever gifts did come from them he should accept them and not look upon the donors as Greeks. The hon. Member said the abolition of the coal tax did not benefit the working class, but who was it who agitated for the repeal of that tax if not the working classes in South Wales and elsewhere? Let the hon. Member go down to South Wales and tell the miners and working people there that what they asked for did not benefit them. The hon. Member also said that the reduction of a penny per pound off the tea duty did not benefit the people, but how, if that was so, did he think that the removal of a duty of a fourth of a penny off sugar for six months only would benefit them? What was the meaning of this union of some of the Labour Members with the Tories above the gangway? The motive was, not to take anything off the sugar duty, but a desire to defeat the Government. He would ask hon. Members opposite whether they were prepared to vote for a small portion of the duty being taken off, a portion which only equalled a farthing in the pound, for only six months, for the purpose of turning out the Liberal Government who had promised to give the hon. Members measures which they all desired. Supposing the Government were defeated and the Party opposite came into power, did the Labour Members really expect that they would take off the sugar tax? If this Government were turned out this tax would not be abolished, for Sir Michael Hicks Beach who imposed it distinctly said it was not a war tax, but a tax which ought to take
  1498
  its place and be continued as part of the general system of taxation of the country. He, himself, was quite easy in his mind, because he did not give a pledge with regard to that vote; but, at the same time, if the Government met this Amendment to-day by saying that the sugar tax ought to be a permanent tax—if they repeated the words of Sir M. Hicks Beach in imposing it—then he would vote against them. He believed with the hon. Member for Blackburn that indirect taxation was higher than it ought to be, and he would much prefer putting 2d. on the income-tax this year and abolishing the sugar tax altogether. But the Committee must look at the general fiscal basis upon which the Government were preparing to Budget not only for this year but for years to come. They had already embarked on a readjustment of the income-tax, which was as important to the working classes indirectly as the reduction of indirect taxation was directly. Though it was not his duty to salvo the consciences of others he did not believe that the pledge which had been quoted was intended to mean that those who gave the pledge must vote against the sugar duty whatever the circumstances, or the time, or the result might be. This was an attempt, engineered by hon. Members above and below the gangway, merely to make difficulties among the supporters of the Government, and accordingly he would oppose it.
  *MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he would like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. He had invariably on every public platform advocated the reduction of this tax. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said the tax was not introduced as part of a war tax, but he thought everybody understood it was. He well remembered the Under-Secretary of the Colonies going down to the country and addressing a meeting of working men, asking them for pure patriotism to give their support to this tax because it was a temporary tax, and they could think when they put a lump of sugar in their tea they were firing a shot at Kruger. The working man was still firing that shot at Kruger, and apparently he would still go on firing it for some years to come. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, he thought, admitted that the tax

  1499
  was too high at the present time, and he had had two opportunities of removing the injustice to many of the industries of this country which it inflicted. If instead of removing the coal tax—the benefit of which had gone into the hands of the colliery proprietors and not the working men—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had removed this tax, the working classes would have benefited. He admitted that at the present moment sugar was fairly cheap, but what had they to say to the future? The Government had announced their intention of following the fatuous policy of retiring from the Brussels Convention, which in his opinion would cause a great feeling of uncertainty, because before we joined that Convention the price of sugar was subject to the most severe fluctuations. A year hence we might find ourselves under the control of foreign sugar bounties. He could not help thinking that hon. Members on the other side must welcome this new clause, because it gave them an opportunity of carrying out the pledges they gave at the last general election. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister had his sincere sympathy for the somewhat awkward position in which they wore placed at the present moment. They were men of the highest political morality, and he failed to understand how they could possibly go to their supporters and ask them to break the definite solemn pledge they had given to the electors of the country. There were many hon. Members who had gained their seats by the pledges given with regard to this sugar tax. A man who broke that pledge was not worthy of a seat in that House. If hon. Member's who gave this definite pledge were not going to fulfil it, the question would be asked," When is a pledge not a pledge? and the answer would be, "When it is given by a Liberal Member of Parliament."
  MR. MASTERMANsaid it was interesting to listen to a lecture on broken election pledges. He was not one of the 150 Members who had given the pledge about which they had heard so much. He was astonished that there should have been 150 Members on any side to give such a pledge, and he must confess that he did not feel any great sorrow for them. Perhaps they would learn to
  1500
  throw such pledges into the fire the next time they met their constituents—which he believed was an invariable practice of every safe politician. Under existing circumstances he would be compelled to vote with his hon. friend the Member for Preston in this matter. They had heard the hon. Member for Glamorgan trying to explain how absurd pledges were under certain conditions; they had heard him attacking hon. Gentlemen opposite in quite an unjustifiable manner, not for the first time, when they happened to express an opinion which many on that side of the House shared, in favour of such a readjustment of taxation as would press less hardly upon the poorest class of the community. Regarding the Budget as a whole, he could not see how it was possible that Members who had voted for every clause of the Finance Bill could now calmly vote with the hon. Member for Preston for the repeal of the sugar tax. It was not business. But his own past was entirely clear on that matter, because from the beginning he had realised that if they were going to vote for the remission of taxation in certain directions, they would have to vote against the remission of taxation in other directions, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at least recognise that he was consistent when he said that he had not voted for reducing the tea tax, and that he had voted against the relief given to earned incomes of under£2,000 a year. They wore all glad that the right hon. Gentleman had taken more money from the rich; he wished the Chancellor had taken a considerably larger amount in death duties, but perhaps the amount of£700,000 which had been estimated would increase to£1,200,000 or£ 1,400, 000 before the year was over. That was a sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could use for any purpose.
  MR. ASQUITH: Not before the year is over.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid that at least there would be a substantial sum before the year was over, and most of them had a strong hope that the rate of mortality might continue and that there would be a very substantial increase on the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman

  1501
  had got an extra sum, and honestly agreed with a large number of Members that the taxpayers who most needed relief were those with incomes between£160 and£2,000 a year, and he relieved them of a quarter of their income-tax. He know that this class of voters in the country largely controlled newspapers, and that the class who earned incomes below£2,000 included all the journalists in this country, and the opinion had got abroad, emphasised by statements about the bitter cry of the middle classes, that these wore people groaning under the income-tax, and that they ought to be relieved. He protested against that view. He held first that that class should not be relieved, and, secondly, that the relief which was to be given to them ought to go to the partial repeal of the sugar duty. If he had given a pledge it would not affect him at all; he should vote exactly in that way, and he should not make a pathetic appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get him out of a difficult position, for which, after all, the right hon. Gentleman was not responsible. It was no good their neglecting the fact that this particular duty pressed with inconsistent hardship upon two classes of the community—the very poor as he saw thorn in his own constituency, and those who had been thrown out of work in consequence of the ruin brought on their industry by two forces, one the Sugar Convention and the other the sugar tax. He was in rather a different position from most Members of that House, because he happened to be fighting a by-election when this question was before the country. The evidence brought before him, especially from East London, was that a number of people had been thrown out of employment owing to the losses which had fallen on some industries in which sugar was a raw material. He did not wish to indulge in pathos, but he did not think the House realised the struggle there was for existence in some of the very poorest quarters of this city—how the poor had to pile up halfpennies and pennies to provide a summer holiday for their children, and the pressure upon them was not to be compared with the pressure on men with£500 or£1,500 a year. He thought he was justified in voting that they should not give the remission of 3d. in the£ to the income-tax: payers,
  1502
  and that the amount should go to the relief of the sugar tax, which was at present left in its full burden. He must honestly confess, however, that he could not follow the position of hon. Members who, either from fear of their constituents or from a wish to vote against any kind of taxation, had up till now accepted every kind of clause in the Budget Bill, and wore now, in an entirely irresponsible manner, going to record their vote in favour of this particular Amendment.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he was extremely sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had kept on the sugar tax in opposition to which he had spoken again and again in the country. Were it not for the fact that he knew the Chancellor's heart was with him, he would now vote against its continuance; but oven though he disapproved of the tax he was going to vote for his Government. [OPPOSITION and ironical laughter.] Yes, as hon. Members opposite had done in the last Parliament, and it did not he in their mouths to reproach hon. Members on his side for doing the same thing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone as far as he could in the direction of committing himself to the abolition of the sugar tax in his next Budget. If it were merely a question of the merits of the tax he would give a hundred votes against it if he had them. It was the worst possible tax. Whatever might be said about the coal tax, as to which he considered there was same doubt, there could be no doubt whatever that this tax was a burden upon the consumer. All taxes upon articles necessarily imported from abroad wore paid by the consumer in the country to which they came. Of all the really objectionable taxes imposed by a Conservative Government this was the very worst, and yet it was the one still untouched. It was not protective like the corn tax, but it was at a much more burdensome rate. The corn tax and the coal tax had been repealed, and the tea duty had been twice reduced, but the sugar tax still remained, though this was the second Budget of a free trade Government. The non-remission of the sugar tax was in painful contrast to the remission on earned incomes under£2,000 a year. This tax was one on earned incomes under £40 and£50 a

  1503
  year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he did not think that he could halve the tax, because sugar was not sold by farthings, but he had himself found that it was so sold. He gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit, however, for the desire to make only one disturbance in the trades in which sugar was used, and that the best disturbance was that of knocking the tax off altogether. This was the worst possible tax because it must necessarily fall most heavily upon the very poor in proportion to their income. Sugar was a food. He believed that there was more sugar eaten by the children of the poor than the children of the rich. Poor children ate sugar and jam where rich children ate moat. Sugar was, moreover, not only a raw material of many industries, but it was a most essential raw material of an industry that they wanted to cultivate in this country, viz., the fruit industry. They ought to do all that they could to promote the culture of fruit and the manufacture of jam and such articles. The sugar tax was the poor man's income-tax, and in his conscience he could not in any way defend it. It was only on the principle that he would trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out his promise at a suitable time—that was a time when he was able to afford it, which he hoped would be next year. Did any one doubt that if the tax had yielded£60,000 instead of £6,000,000 it would have been repealed? The real reason why the tax was retained was because it produced£6,000,000. But the bigger the tax the greater the wrong, if it was wrong to tax poor people£600,000, it was ten times as wrong to tax thorn £6,000,000. The extent of the evil was no excuse for the evil itself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would, be was sure, have been the first to resent the new imposition of the tax. It came within the category of the many things that existed because they were there already. It might be urged as a reason for the continuance of the tax that sugar was cheap in spite of it, but as free traders they objected to going into the question of the price of commodities to be engineered by a Government. It was a bad reason. It was not the business of the Government to make cheap things dear. It was the business of a Liberal Government, at any rate, to make things as
  1504
  cheap as they could. A tax upon an article of large consumption added very considerably to the amount of capital necessary to carry on the trades concerned. This was a tax of 40 per cent. on the market value of raw sugar, and it had been as high as 50 per cent. In those days, when capital was dear because it was wanted in industry, and had been dissipated so much in South Africa, it was not a worthless argument to bring in favour of the abolition of the tax that all the industries using this commodity had had to employ extra capital to the extent of 30 or 40 per cent. without any addition to there. volume of trade. We did not want our system of taxation to cause more capital to be employed in trade without any accompanying advantage. The effect of this shortness of capital was that Consols wore low in price. This surely was an argument which should appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such taxes as these actually helped to increase the nation's expenses by raising the rate of interest at, which the State and municipalities could borrow. In opposing the Amendment he was voting not against the reduction of the sugar tax, but for the continuance in office of a Government from whom they had already had great reforms and from whom they were going to have great reforms in the future. If they kept the present Government in power they would have further reductions of expenditure, less indirect taxation, and he hoped more and more direct taxation. Paradoxical though it might seem, he was voting against a reduction of this tax to keep the Government in power in order that the policy of the reduction of taxation might go on, that the poor man's loaf might be kept from taxation, and that they might have temperance, educational and land reform, and all those other reforms which hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like and were doing their best to obstruct. [OPPOSITION ironical cries of "Next year."] He was voting for the continuance of a bad tax for one more year in order that they might keep in office the best Government they had ever had.
  MR. SCOTTsaid it was quite true that 150 hon. Members had pledged themselves to the repeal of the sugar tax, and there could not be a greater object lesson as to the policy of

  1505
  the present Opposition in regard to this tax than the fact that 150 such pledges had been given. Those pledges had been given because an industry had been interfered with. A tax which formerly did not exist had been placed upon a raw material used in the confectionery and allied trades. What would be the position of such organisations when they had scientific tariff reform, under which industries came to Parliament to secure subsidies and help for their industries? They would find that almost every Conservative Member of the House would be returned pledged to support and help some particular industry by taxation. Organisations of that kind, which existed for one specific object, did not add to the advantage of politics or the judgment of hon. Members. He was going to support this Amendment, because he believed that the sugar duty could be reduced by a farthing, and that consumers would instantly feel the benefit of the reduction. Speaking with full knowledge of the distribution of this article, he had no doubt that on the very day the duty was reduced by one-half the purchaser in every shop in the country would reap the benefit. When the right hon. Gentleman took a penny off tea twelve months ago, he warned him that the consumer would not get the benefit, and the consumer never had received any benefit from it. He did not think they ought, at the present time, to have entire relief from taxation in regard to sugar. He was one of those who, whilst recognising that sugar was one of the most important foods of the working classes, believed that the working classes were as largely responsible as anybody for the existence of the sugar tax. ft was not advisable that the working classes should get the idea that wars could be lightly entered upon, and that when they were over they would not be expected to put their hands in their pockets to contribute towards the cost. His reason for demanding that this tax should be taken off was not because it hit the working classes, but because it was a tax upon industry. Sugar was the raw material of some of the most progressive industries in this country. Previous to the Brussels Sugar Convention there was no industry in this country that was showing greater advancement, for we were sending to foreign countries increasing quantities of goods
  1506
  of which sugar formed the principal raw material. Those Members of the House who had had the advantage of extensive foreign travel would have noticed in every foreign country English confections and manufactures in which sugar formed the principal part, and those engaged in that industry wore now being seriously affected by this tax. The fruit growing industry had also suffered. It should not be overlooked that in the manufacture of jam sugar formed between 65 and 70 per cent. of that article. Another reason why he objected to the sugar tax was that the country did not got the full benefit of it. The tax was is. 2d. per cwt., but the consumer had to pay 4s. 8d. per cwt., and that showed a considerable leakage. These who dealt largely in articles in which sugar played such a prominent part found that the whole of their business bad been disorganised by this tax. Formerly he used to be able to buy tinned fruits from the other side of America, but the difficulties which were now associated with that trade were very great because they had to arrange a particular thickness for the syrup in the tins. Officials had to be appointed to superintend this business, and the trade was being so much hampered that those engaged in it would not waste their time over it, and wore leaving it to other people with more patience. He would have liked to fix the date at 1st .March, but he recognised that they could not alter the arrangements which had been made in connection with the Budget this year. He was anxious that the expenditure on the social reforms of the future to which they wore pledged should not come out of the taxation of the food of the poor. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that next year when the Government brought forward their social reform programme He was not going to rely on this tax He might be induced to alter the vote which otherwise he would give, but if the right hon. Gentleman did not give that promise, he would be true to the pledges he had given, and to his own personal conviction, and record a vote which he could defend in this House and in the country.
  MR. HUNTsaid an hon. Member opposite had stated that the sugar tax was one of the worst possible, but he added that he was going

  1507
  to vote for it. The great bulk of the Member s of the Liberal Party were going to vote for it, and he congratugated them on their courage in view of the fact that sugar was a food and a necessity of the poor. It contained far more nourishment than ordinary white bread. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] That was so, and it was perfectly well known. Sugar was the raw material of many powerful industries in this country. It seemed to him very extraordinary that this extra democratic and much-belauded Government should insist on taxing sugar 30 per cent. more especially as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that an import tax came straight out of the pocket of the poor. On the other hand, there were many millions worth of manufactured goods, as well as expensive food products used exclusively by the rich, allowed to come into the country without paying a halfpenny of duty. That was what hon. Gentlemen opposite called legislating for the benefit of the poor. He believed that hon. Gentlemen who specially represented labour agreed with hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches in this matter. That was a thing which had always puzzled him very much indeed, and he thought that in future it was likely to puzzle the working classes of this country. The imposition of the sugar tax could not give the working people one hour's work or a shilling in wages. That tax was part of the true Cobdenite finance Import duties were imposed on articles largely consumed by the poor, and they produced a revenue of from twenty to thirty millions, while millions of pounds worth of the luxuries of the rich were imported without any tax at all. There were about 200 Members of the Liberal Party in the House who gave the people of the country to understand that they would vote against any tax on sugar. He remembered forty years ago He saw placards in Lancashire bearing the words "Vote for the Liberal Party and a free breakfast table." They had not got that yet, and it did not appear that they were likely to get nearer it for many years under the present system of taxation. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would now be able to go back to their friends, the many starving millions, during the autumn months and tell them that provisions were dearer now in spite of the promises made at. the general election that they would be
  1508
  cheaper. They would be able to tell their constituents also that Liberal promises were like pie crust—made to be broken.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he would not attempt to follow the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division.
  MR. HUNT: Nobody over can.
  *MR. CHARLES ROBERTSadmitted that he was utterly unable to deal with the devious ways of tariff reformers on this question. He was not one of those whose names appeared on the list of l50 Members pledged against the tax. He did not think he could have supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer if they had been asked to vote for the sugar tax as a permanent part of the finance of the country, but the right hon. Gentleman had not asked them to do so. He fully agreed with all that had been said as lo the badness of the tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been careful to invite them to vote for it only as a temporary tax. He joined in the, appeal to the Chancellor to got rid of it in a later year. There were two circumstances which reconciled him to the temporary inconvenience of the tax. In the first place the action of the Government in reference to the Sugar Convention had, to some extent, lightened the burden of the sugar-using trades. It was obvious that the sugar-using trades would find the area of supply enlarged by the action of the Government in declining to penalise bounty-fed sugar. That would tend to reduce the price of sugar. The second reason which reconciled him to the temporary continuance of the tax was that it had effects which were not at first sight seen. The Committee had been invited to consider the question of sugar from the point of view of temperance reform. The brewing industry was one of the largest users of sugar, the quantity last year amounting to 2,746,615 cwts. The only point against the abolition of the tax was the effect that under present circumstances it might have on brewing, and He would ask the Committee to follow out what would really happen if the sugar tax were abolished. They would make a present of£600,000 a year to the ob/ trade. He did not grudge them

  1509
  the money; He did not grudge anybody the profits if they could reconcile it with their consciences to take the profits of that trade, but under the present working of the law these profits would be at once registered in an increase of licence values. They could capitalise that extra profit of £600,000 a year at ten years purchase, which was the practice of the Inland Revenue Department now. Thus the abolition of the sugar tax mount the raising of licence values in this country by£6,000,000. That meant that they restricted still further the amount of the reduction of licences, which was already partial, limited, and tentative. That was an indirect and unexpected result of the abolition of the tax. lie trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear in mind that any reduction of any impost on the brewing trade was at once registered in increased licence values and pro tanto restricted the power of the licensing authorities to got rid of superfluous or undesirable licences. Thus at the same time that they abolished the sugar tax they must raise the licensing duties, and therefore his point was that He could reconcile himself to the temporary continuance of a bad tax on condition that when, as He hoped, in subsequent years the Chancellor of the Exchequer swept this bad tax away, he would supply its place He believed this point was a very real one, and He commended it to the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the abolition of the sugar tax should be accompanied by the raising of the licence duties lie should vote only for the temporary continuance of the tax, but these were reconciling considerations in which he comforted himself under the present circumstances.
  MR. RICHARDSONsaid he had noticed while sitting there that every speaker had commenced by making a confession. Therefore, to be consistent, he would state openly that in spite of the fact that He had given a promise to vote for the reduction of the sugar tax he intended that night voting for the Government. If he could have found no reasons for taking that course before coming to the House that day He would have found sufficient ground for it in the combination of the two leaders by whom this Amendment was being engineered. To follow the
  1510
  lead of the hon. Member for Preston in conjunction with the hon. Member for Liverpool was bound to incur disaster. The real reasons why he took that apparently paradoxical course were these. In the first place, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston was an unreal Amendment; there was no reality at the back of it. He could have imagined what were the reasons that would have induced the hon. Member for Liverpool moving the Amendment, but as a matter neither of principle nor of policy could He understand the course taken by the hon. Member for Preston. If it were wrong, as a political principle, to tax sugar to the extent of 4s. 2d. per cwt. surely in principle it was wrong to tax it to the extent of 2s. Id. He was not then going to combat any of the statements made by any of the hon. Members who wore going to vote in favour of the Amendment, because he was a firm believer in every one of them. He believed that the sugar tax had been and was now an iniquitous and wicked tax, not merely one that bore very heavily upon the industries connected with the sugar trade, but also struck a blow at labour, besides placing burdens grievous to be borne upon the very poor. One of the advantages that would probably be secured by this debate was that it would teach the Opposition a lesson or two in the principles of free trade. He argued this point to show that He was a firm believer in free trade. Lot them take, for instance, this very article as the raw material of the confectionery trade. Previous to the imposition of the sugar tax, 100 bags of sugar roughly speaking cost£100. After the tax was placed upon the article 100 bags of sugar cost£140. The price of the manufactured article, a necessity, immediately went up about one third, from 30 to 40 per cent. and this had the effect of restricting and limiting the output. Hence the manufacturers' profits were forthwith reduced. But how did this affect labour? Employment, they must remember, always wont with the turnover of goods and not the turnover of cash. 100 bags of sugar now cost£140 instead of£100, but although there was nearly half as much again cash capital required, there was only the same number of men employed in the manufacture of 100 bags. How did that affect labour? It affected

  1511
  it in this fashion. There were three factors in the production of this manufactured article of confectionery: the manufacturer, the capital and the labour. As soon as the manufacturer found he was paying nearly half as much again for his sugar he naturally went to his landlord to get a reduction of his rent to meet expenses. His landlord would say he had plenty of competitors and he could not reduce the rent, and his banker would not reduce the interest charged. The only other factor he could apply to for reduction of expense was labour. If the number of workmen were reduced or the hours they worked were reduced it must seriously affect wages, and in families with small and limited wages the reduction of income was a great consideration. He would vote for the remission of the tax but not at the dictation of men who openly preached in favour of food taxes. He was convinced that the sugar tax was not a permanent tax but a temporary expedient. The direct result of carrying the Amendment would be the dislocation of the Budget as a whole and probably the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was because he believed it the new principles embodied in the Budget, and also because the Chancellor was honest and sincere in his statement, that he would not be a party to the destruction of the Budget, nor would he help to drive out of office a man who was entitled by his achievements to stand in the forefront of Chancellors. There were some who scarcely believed in the right hon. Gentleman's honesty or ability to carry out what he had promised, but he would refer them to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in introducing the Budget where he made a distinct promise in reference to old-age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman said in that speech—
  "But this I do .say, and I wish to shy it with all the emphasis of which I am capable, speaking for the whole of my colleagues who sit upon this Bench, that in the sphere of finance we regard this as the most serious and most urgent of all the demands for social reform, and that it is our hope—I will go further, and say it is our intention—before the close of this Parliament, yes, before the close of the next Session of this Parliament—if we are allowed to have our way—to lay firm the foundations of this reform."
  He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the Government at the back of him. Prime Minister and Mem-
  1512
  bers were alike sincere in their promise. They had the ability to carry out that great reform. He, personally, was one of those who had perfect faith in the Government. He knew there were those who had not faith in the Government intentions, and he deeply deprecated the remarks which had been made with reference to the Labour Party on that side of the House, and their attitude towards the Government. Whatever some of the other Members of the Labour Party might think of the Ministry and of the Prime Minister, one who stood at the head of that Party—one whose absence and its cause they all deplored (he referred to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil) —had written of the Prime Minister in the Labour Leader of January 4th—
  "I have a profound distrust of Party-newspaper eulogies of Ministers or 'coming men,' but in common fairness I must say 'C.B.' has earned, and fully deserves, all the praise heaped upon him. He seems to be mellowing with age and really desirous of effecting some useful social legislation. Of one thing I have convinced myself of, namely, that where the Liberal performance falls short of the promises, the blame will not rest with 'C.B.' "
  With those sentiments he cordially agreed, and it was because that night they had a choice of one of two good courses, that he intended to vote for the Government. The working classes hi; represented and to whom he belonged placed so high a value on old-age pensions that in spite of the pledges given he was quite sure they were prepared to forego the abolition of this tax for another year in order that: the worn-out veterans of the working classes might have that long-denied reform. As the son of a village worker he could tell the House that all his uncles and aunts—eight in number—all respectable working people, who lived to between the ages of sixty-five and seventy, with the exception of one, had to receive parish relief before they died. When he saw such a thing as that, did the Committee suppose he was going to sell the birthright which belonged to him for that miserable mess of potage?
  MR. HEMMERDEsaid He was one of those whose names appeared on a list of signatories of a certain pledge, He was under the impression He never gave it, but if he did not it was not because he was not prepared to give it. But in any case he did not

  1513
  understand how it was argued that the men who signed that particular pledge were bound to vote against the Government on the Amendment under discussion. That pledge was given to men outside the constituencies and in general terms, and was not directed to any particular time at which they should vote for the abolition of the sugar duty. No one would have signed such a pledge if what had been suggested now as the interpretation of that pledge had been suggested then. The pledge he had given in respect to the sugar duty, if he had given a pledge at all, was understood on both sides as an expression of sympathy with those who desired the abolition of the tax. It was not a binding pledge to vote against the tax at the first available opportunity. He did not feel called upon to vote against the Government. The debate had been useful in that it had called forth a clear expression of opinion on the balance between direct and in- direct taxation. In his opinion, that balance had never been kept in the past, and he could not see how it could be argued that it had. It was obvious that for years the poorer classes had been overtaxed, that the indirect taxation hit them more hardly than any other class, and the balance to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred had not existed. Personally, he was in favour of: the abolition of both sugar and tea duties, and he would be greatly disappointed if the Government went out of office with out abolishing them. He was more than disappointed, and it was opposed to the general view among the Party, that the sugar duty was to be relied upon as the basis for old-age pensions. He did not know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was relying on that, but if he was he should not regard it as being consistent with one pledge the right hon. Gentleman had given. The question before them was not whether the sugar duty should he repealed; they had to weigh the differences. Too little weight was given to the alternatives. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman did abolish the sugar duty, whence would He obtain the revenue now derived from this source? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had determined to abolish the sugar tax He would have had to resort to some other source of revenue. He had given very sufficient reasons why he should not increase the
  1514
  licence duties. It might be obtained from an increase of the income-tax this year. He had graduated it downwards but not upwards, and in his Budget speech had expressed some doubt as to whether it could be graduated upwards in at all a satisfactory sense. He (Mr. Hemmerde) was quite prepared to wait until the right hon. Gentleman had completed his investigations on that subject before calling upon him to graduate the income-tax upwards. There was another source of revenue, namely the land. A year ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the question of the taxation of land values was occupying his most earnest attention, and the question was, could the right hon. Gentleman have imposed this year, to take the place of the sugar tax, a tax on land values? If that had been possible he would have voted for it at once, and a revenue from that source would have enabled them to dispense with the sugar duty. But the valuation system of this country was absolutely chaotic, and nothing had been done by the Government since it had come into power to lay a basis for land valuation. There had been a great deal too much delay in bringing in the Land Valuation Bill, but he believed that had it been brought in at the earliest possible moment it would still have been impossible to put a tax on land values which would have resulted in a revenue this year. So that resource was closed to the right hon. Gentleman. He might have increased the death duties more than lie had done, and it was a matter for regret that he had not. But if the right hon. Gentleman was contemplating raising more money by means of either death duties or land monopolies, it would be undesirable to increase the death duties now if they were to come off a year or two hence. He thought these points were all relevant to the discussion to-night. The question was what they were to do with the sugar duty. He was not prepared to vote for it year after year. He regarded it as an odious tax; that the man who had only£1 a week paid a larger tax on that in-come than any other person in the country. Added to the fact that it was a food tax was the fact that it was also a tax on raw Material, and one which lent itself to unfair argument in the mouths of the tariff reform Party. It was a bad tax, but he did not sea that the right hon.

  1515
  Gentleman had had a fair chance to deal with it, having regard to the fact that he had had to frame a second Budget within twelve months of coming into office in succession to the most extravagant Government of modern times. It was, therefore, unreasonable to ask him to repeal this duty at the earliest possible moment, but it was reasonable to tell him that they could not go on voting for it year after year, and that it would be a gross violation of all their pledges to base old-age pensions on a food tax of any kind. Had there been in his opinion a real opportunity of abolishing this tax altogether he would have voted for the Amendment, but as, in his opinion, there had not been any such opportunity he thought they must possess their souls in patience for a little while. It was not imposed by the Party opposite as a war tax, but for broadening the basis of taxation, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite always broadened the basis of taxation by placing it on the shoulders of the poor. He had no doubt that his having spoken for and voted in favour of the Government would be used against him in his constituency, but He gave his vote with confidence because they owed it to the electors to do everything they possibly could to establish the finances of the country on a firm basis. It was easy to say that this tax should come off first—but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was engaged in overhauling the question of income-tax, dealing with the question of land values and land duties, and the whole question of the finance of the country, it was not the moment to take it off. And they would not be doing their duty to their constituents if at this moment they did anything to show the people of the country that their confidence in the Government was at all shaken.
  MR. R. DUNCAN:thought the Amendment should have the support of the Committee for the reason that the sugar tax was admittedly a tax upon food. The question was whether a food which was so generally used was unduly taxed or not. He thought that it would be admitted by all who considered the question that it was much too highly taxed, with the result that an impossible price was put upon it. The effect of raising the price was to diminish consumption. It also
  1516
  stimulated certain industries which, although they flourished, did not flourish in a manner altogether healthy, because they had had au undue advantage which other industries had not. He did not regard the sugar tax as an iniquitous tax, but he certainly thought that at its present height it was exorbitant and should be reduced, and wise finance would reduce it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked the proposer of the Amendment what He proposed in exchange for this tax, and that being so, it would not be out of order to say that as an alternative there could not possibly be any harm in remitting the duty entirely on sugar produced by our Colonies whilst keeping a duty upon that which came from foreign countries, thus give a little advantage to those who lived under our flag. If the Colonies were attacked by the arms of one power we should be prepared and proud to defend them, and he saw no reason for not defending them from the fiscal operations of those countries. He would support the hon. Member for Preston.
  *MR. MADDISONsaid that in this debate some Members had been haunted by pledges. As far as he was himself concerned he had denounced the sugar tax before he was asked for any pledge. They believed as free traders that our system could never be in any way what they wanted while the necessaries of the people were subject either to revenue or to protective duties. But really the youngest politician in the House must be aware that any pledge which was given- was bound to be subject to rational conditions. There was no man in the House who had said that he would vote for the repeal of the sugar tax in the first or the second session; he had declared against the principle of the tax, and would give effect to that declaration on the first opportunity. But he had also learned in his little way as a politician that He was more or loss in the hands of a Government, and so was everybody else.
  *MR THORNE: No.
  MR. MADDISON: Well, everybody but anarchists. He could imagine his hon. friend even becoming that as a luxury, but the ordinary being was more

  1517
  or loss in the hands of a Government. Those of his hon. friends opposite who wore Socialists would have some kind of government. He rather thought that his hon. friend had got beyond government.
  MR. THORNE: I may some day.
  *MR. MADDISON: He had always thought that the path to anarchy was through Socialism. Some hon. Members appeared to treat the House as though it were a debating society. ["Hear, hear"] He was very glad that his hon. friend agreed with him. He submitted that in this discussion they were not debating the merits or demerits of the sugar tax so much as the Budget as a whole. At a very curly stage of the Budget was the time to make a determined stand, and not upon the present occasion; and the Amendment, whether it was successful or net, would do nothing to repeal the sugar tax. Did anybody in that House really believe that, if the supporters of this Amendment were succesful—there was no danger of it—it would promote the repeal of the sugar duty? ["Yes."] He thought that hon. Members were not really serious when they said that it would. Therefore, He was going to vote, without any apologies and without any qualms of conscience, but in a businesslike way, in support of the Budget, though it was by no moans perfection. There never would be a Budget that was perfection, because there would never be a Government that was perfection. But, taking the Budget as a whole, it was in his opinion distinctly a good one and was in the interests of the workpeople of the country. They had to think not merely about the sugar duty; they had to think about the reduction of the Debt, and although he knew very little about high finance, he knew sufficient of it to be aware that the reduction of the Debt was not merely valuable for capitalists, but that it ought to and must have a beneficial effect on industry and therefore upon the working classes as a whole. This Budget contained a magnificent reduction of the Debt, and in that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown a good deal of boldness. He wished the same courage had been put into increasing the death duties and in other direc-
  1518
  tions. Involved in their vote that night was the£2,250,000 sot aside in the Budget for old-age pensions; and he ventured to think that this provision was a landmark in the history of the question, because it was the first time that in any Budget provision had been made by which a nucleus of old-age pensions was formed. Therefore, the vote which they wore to give that night was a substantial and not a flimsy one; it was not merely a Party vote. So far as he was concerned he would yield to none in his dislike of the sugar tax, which at once penalised the consumer and the producer, a tax which made food dearer and which increased the price of raw material. There was literally nothing to be said for it. For himself He would not place old-age pensions on food taxes. He would not help old age at the expense of the young; but although these were his strong views, he would venture to say that if they were to put it before working men and ask them whether they would have old-age pensions or the sugar tax, he was quite certain that they would choose old-age pensions and prefer to keep the sugar tax on. For his part he would refuse to base old-age pensions on any such unjust and oven cruel basis as a tax on such a useful food as sugar. He had the greatest respect for his hon. friend the Member for Preston, who had always the courage of his opinions, and whoso views he often shared, although he thought he often showed a strange lack of proportion. The Amendment was put forward as an alternative by one who was opposed to old-age pensions; its mover asked them in the name of the policy of anti-old-age pensions to vote for the Amendment; and his chief supporters on the other side of the House wore protectionists, tariff reformers and preferentialists, or whatever they liked to call themselves; so that the Amendment rested on hostility to old-age pensions and free trade. The Budget began a big reform so far as the National Debt was concerned, and by voting for the Budget he was quite sure that they would be doing that which was in the best interests of social reform.
  MR. DALZIELthought that most hon. Members would agree that the debate had been most useful) and was one which they

  1519
  hoped would not be unfruitful in its results. It was a most interesting feature of the debate that, although it had lasted a considerable time, not one of the speakers from beginning to end had defended this sugar tax. He thought that marked a most important step in the controversy, and that even if there was nothing else, and there was no division, those who were in favour of the abolition of the sugar tax might well be satisfied. Whatever the result of the division might be there could be no doubt that the fate of this tax was sealed. The House was unanimously in favour of its abolition. There had not been a single word, even from the Opposition side of the House now, in favour of the tax. When on previous occasions they moved this Amendment, and when he had moved it himself, hon. Members opposite had voted them down. To-night he presumed they were prepared to vote for its abolition. He welcomed their conversion, he was glad to have their support, and He hoped for their assistance and the assistance of hon. Members on his side of the House at the proper time. There could be no hon. Member who represented an industrial constituency who was not anxious to see the repeal of this tax; that He thought went without saying. He was not included in the notable 150. He believed the pledge which those hon. Members had given was in reply to a request from a particular centre that they should state-their policy in reference to this particular matter. He thought that when many of their friends became older Members of Parliament they would not be so eager to pledge themselves to an outside agency. For himself he was not ready to reply to any secretary of a particular association which had an object to promote. Hon. Members opposite had spoken about pledges, but what about their pledges in the last Parliament? What about the pledge they gave in regard to old-age pensions, which helped them to get into power? The least that was said about pledges on the other side of the House the better. Hon. Members who had given pledges must explain their own position. He had not given any pledge on this subject, but he was quite as anxious as any other hon. Member to see the abolition of the sugar tax. They had been asked to look at this question from the point of view of the Budget as
  1520
  a whole. Personally he shared most sincerely the expressions of regret that, although up to the present they had had two Liberal Budgets, there had not been that recognition of the pressing demands I of the poorest of the people which they all desired to see. He hoped that when the opportunity presented itself the poorest of the people, who ought to be the first consideration of any Government, would be remembered in the next Budget. What they had to consider was the quickest way in which they could obtain the abolition of this tax. Could they attain this object more quickly by following the leadership of the hon. Member for Ludlow, or the hon. and learned Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool? Had thy any guarantee from the Opposition that their policy in regard to this tax had been altered? Hon. Members opposite remained perfectly silent in regard to that question, almost as silent as they were about free trade in the last Parliament. If the Government were defeated upon this Amendment would they be any nearer I the abolition of this tax? They had to face immediate contingencies, and the defeat of the present Government would moan that the Leader of the Opposition would be called upon to form a Government, and, judging from past experience, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would stick to office as long as he possibly could. Consequently, they had to fall back upon the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would at the earliest possible moment do what he could in the direction of reducing this tax The speeches which had been made in this debate, and the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, plainly indicated that it would be a very short time indeed before this tax was abolished.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTwas unable to congratulate Radical Members upon their courage. One hundred and fifty Members opposite gave a definite pledge to vote against the sugar tax on the first opportunity. ["No."] That evening would show how they redeemed their election pledges. When was a pledge not a pledge? When it was given by a Radical Member of Parliament to his constituents. He would remind those Members who now said they would wait until next year of the Spanish

  1521
  proverb, "The street of to-morrow loads to the city of nowhere." He had never before listened to a debate so hollow, the only exception being the earnest speeches of hon. Members below the gangway, and the equally earnest speeches made from the Opposition side of the House. He wished it to be brought homo clearly to the people of this country that there were 150 Members of the House who had given a solemn pledge on this question which they were going to break that night.
  MR. C. DUNCANsaid they were going to have a very peculiar division, and the House might well be called the home of inconsistency. He had himself made a pledge, and meant to stick to it, for he believed that sincerity was a quality that would go a long way in this country. Those who wore members of the Labour Party could claim that they were sincere, for, although they were going to vote against the Government, they would remain practically the only free-traders in the House. It was most inconsistent of the Government to take off some of the income tax from people who had from£20 to£40 per week, while retaining £6,000,000 of sugar tax, which fell on the poorest classes. He disagreed with that reduction of income-tax. He had to pay income-tax, and was delighted to pay it; he did not grumble at a Is., and would not mind paying a 2s. tax if sonic of the outstanding social questions could be settled. He was one of those who desired to see some betterment of the condition of the people of the country, and he was prepared to pay his share towards bringing that about. If the sugar tax wore kept on it would be an empty affair to set aside£2,250,000 for old-ago pensions. It could not be very encouraging to those who at the last election voted for free trade to find that a free trade Government was still keeping taxes upon the breakfast table. This was a very inconsistent attitude, and the sooner they got this tax taken off sugar the better it would be for the future prospects of the Government.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONsaid He desired to associate himself with the view taken by the hon. Member for East Denbighshire
  1522
  on this subject. They were all agreed that the sugar tax should be abolished, but it was impossible to try to get rid of it in the manner suggested by this Amendment. The effect of reducing the sugar duty would simply be to put further difficulties in the way of obtaining old-age pensions. It had been said by the hon. Member for Blackpool that the abolition of the coal tax had entirely failed to benefit the mass of the working classes. He and others rather regarded that tax as a restraint upon trade, and voted for its abolition in order to free trade The benefit that had followed was enormous, and the whole of the mining population of the North who had demanded the repeal of the tax had found it had operated in the interests of trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did well in taking off the coal tax. The fast that the sugar tax was a tax in restraint of trade was the main point of the argument for taking off the sugar tax, and he rather suspected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had to go over his two Budgets again, would take off the sugar tax first, inasmuch as it was a restraint on certain manufacturing trades, while the tax on tea was not. The experiment of reducing the tax on tea having been made with the best intentions, and with the hope of benefiting the poor consumer, the position at the present juncture made it clearly impossible to take off the sugar duty without absolutely stopping the beginning made in the way of providing old-ago pensions. He deprecated the remark of the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs, that pledges were given in the heat of the moment. He hoped that no Member of the House would offer such a plea as that for not giving his vote in accordance with his pledge. He refused to give pledges to any cause He did not believe in, but He trusted that He should not be so confused in his politics as not to know whether he believed in a principle or not. He had during his life as a journalist and politician pointed out breaches of pledges by the Party opposite, but he would not taunt any man with a breach of pledge except it was one lasting the whole Parliament for which he might be elected. He had given a pledge to vote for the abolition of the sugar duty. But in giving that pledge He reserved to himself the right of deciding the time

  1523
  when he should give effect to it. He was not bound to redeem the pledge the first time the question of the sugar duty was raised. If the Government showed no disposition in the course of a whole Parliament to repeal the tax, then he should feel compelled to vote against them. But to vote against them that night would mean not the removal of the sugar tax, but the postponement of old-age pensions. He meant to vote in such a way as would tend to secure the repeal of the tax, but to vote for the Amendment would really be an evasion of the pledge he had given. To vote for the mere gratification of hon. Members opposite, whose sensitiveness on matters of pledges was simply notorious, was a thing which he would not attempt to do.
  *MR. CHIOZZA-MONEYsaid he was one of those who had given a pledge in favour of the repeal of the sugar duty, and he stood there to say that he was quite prepared to give that pledge again that night and to give effect to it by his vote. He thought the members of the Party with which he was associated would have searchings of heart before they could vote for the continuance of a tax which they had denounced for a good many years. It was not merely that an enormous majority had been returned to that House in direct opposition to the taxation of food and raw materials, but the same Party had also for years advocated what had been called the "free breakfast table." Why had they boon opposed to taxes on tea and sugar? It was because the taxes on these articles were poor men's taxes. They pressed conspicuously on the poorest of the poor, Indeed, if one desired to fashion an instrument of taxation which would press heavily on the poor man, he could imagine no article better for that purpose than sugar. It was unnecessary for him to denounce the sugar tax at this stage. It had been roundly denounced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, not only while he was out of office, but in the course of the debate. He would point out that while the sugar tax had been denounced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it had been maintained, while the income-tax, which the Chancellor did not denounce, had been reduced. That was the gravamen of the charge which he had to make. The Committee had been implored not
  1524
  to regard the sugar tax as an isolated thing, but to regard the Budget as a whole. It was because he regarded the Budget as a whole that he was opposed to this tax. In the Budget regard had been had to the well-to-do classes. The sugar-tax meant 16s. or 17s. a year to every family—an amount that was keenly felt by the working class in towns, and by agricultural labourers in the country. On the other hand, the differentiation of the income-tax meant to a man who had£200 a year a gain of only 19s. Even the lower middle classes would gain more by the repeal of the sugar duty than by his right hon. friend's scheme of differentiation of income-tax. The abolition of the sugar tax would mean a gain to seven-eighths of the entire population of the country, whereas the proposals in the present Budget conferred benefit on a very small number indeed. The trade agitation against the tax was reasonable; it was not a demand for a favour, but a demand for the removal of a disability that should never have been imposed on manufacturers. Capital to the amount of£40,000,000 was invested in trades for which sugar was a raw material, and 250,000 people were employed. The effect of the tax was shown by the fact that a firm who made a profit of£13,000 in 1900, in 1904–5 incurred a heavy loss, while another firm, with a capital of over£1,000,000, made a profit of£58,000 in 1000, and in 1905 only£1,000. It was an unjust tax, representing from 30 to 10 per cent. on the cost of material. Any trade which had that special disability imposed upon it would be justified in appealing to hon. Members not to continue the tax. They were told that they ought to remember the claims of social reform, and especially old-age pensions in connection with this matter. Old-age pensions were important, but he would appeal to the Committee to remember that, after all, the greater lumber of people born in this country lever lived to be old at all. Of the 1,250,000 people born during one year in the United Kingdom not 250,000 would live to be sixty-five or seventy pears of age. The reason for that would be found in returns relating to the conditions of life in the towns, and especially n the slums. It was due to under feeding, and many other evils which he could mention. There were hundreds

  1525
  and thousands of people who would be injured by the imposition of taxes on food. Important as old-age pensions might be, it was still more important to remember the young, and to leave untaxed one of the chief foods of the young. The Committee had been told that the passing of the Amendment would cause the dislocation of the Budget. He ventured to point out that it would do nothing of the kind. The passing of the Amendment would involve a loss to the revenue of only£1,500,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already £600,000 in hand in the first quarter of the present financial year. There was no question what ever but that the whole of this£1,500,000 would be realised in connection with the present financial year. Even a larger sum would be realised, and that meant that so far as that Amendment was concerned hon. Members need not fear that by passing it the Budget would be dislocated. Apart from that he ventured once wore to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make a definite promise for the future. Those of them who felt bound to keep their pledges and to vote for this new clause would be the first to rejoice if the right hon. Gentleman would make them a promise to do something to reduce this tax next year. They had not had that promise, and it was simply because of the indefinite character of the language used that He had ventured to inflict these words on the Committee even at the eleventh hour.
  MR. W. E. HARVEYsaid he should not take up the time of the House except to make a few remarks with regard to the question that had been raised with reference to the coal tax. If anybody was entitled to speak in that House on the coal tax it was the men who represented mining divisions and the interests of mining life; and he ventured to say that there was never a greater unanimity in any one trade of this country than there was in regard to the repeal of the coal tax.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: This is not a question of the coal tax, but of the reduction of the sugar tax.
  AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order; I submit that you allowed the hon. Member for Blackburn to speak about the coal tax.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to make a speech only or principally about the coal tax. The hon. Member for Blackburn dealt with it incidentally in a general argument about the sugar tax.
  MR. HARVEY:said, with regard to the sugar tax, that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did not put it on, and they on that side of the House were not responsible for the war, nor for the sugar tax, which had been imposed by the other side, and if there was one thing that pleased him in the Budget, it was that as an Englishman the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised the duty of paying back, which some of them believed after all was a good old English custom. It was very easy to contract debts; it was very easy to put the responsibility of paying them back upon other people's shoulders; it was very easy to ask posterity to pay for what they ought to pay themselves, but He was one of those who believed that the working men were willing to pay off their debts, and when they were told that the relief that was given to taxation in another direction had done no good, and—he would not like to misrepresent the hon. Member for Blackburn—that the coal tax had done nobody any good at all
  MR. SNOW DEN: I said the repeal of the coal tax did not affect anybody in his capacity as a taxpayer.
  MR. HARVEY,continuing, said there had never boon a tax repealed that had benefited the miners of this county more than the repeal of the coal tax. He would go further, and say that of the 46,000 miners in his county, two- thirds of them wore stopped a. day and a half a week owing to the coal tax, but when it was repealed they worked full time, and their wages had been considerably increased. He wanted to say- that the hon. Member for Blackburn, if he understood him aright, infer red that 8s. had been put on the price of coal. If he did say so, he (Mr. Harvey) was there to say that the average selling price of coal in the United Kingdom
  *THE CHAIRMANagain called the hon. Member to order.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that at the last election he gave no pledge to his constituents as he was unopposed, but he would like to say that when he was first returned to that House, long before any fiscal proposals had been put forward by the hon. Member for West Birmingham, he gave a definite pledge that he would never at any time while a Member of that House vote for any taxes on the necessaries of life, and he had accordingly during the seven years he had been a Member on every possible occasion voted against all taxation of the necessaries of life, including sugar and tea. That night he was accordingly going to vote for the Amendment. Hon. Members on that side of the House had been excusing themselves for the course that they were going to take. 80 far from being one of the 50 Members, he had never joined any association of the sort in question in his life, but pledges no doubt had been given by hon. Members on that side of the House; they were given during the general election on every Liberal platform, and the cry was "No taxation on the necessaries of life." [OPPOSITION cheers.] He was very glad to hear those cheers from free-trade Members of the Opposition, because unfortunately hon. Members on the other side of the House who were going into the Lobby with him that evening, did not go on any conviction of the rights or wrongs of the case, but simply to put the Government in a difficulty. So far as certain Members sitting below the gangway were concerned, their view also appeared to be to hamper the Government of the day on every possible occasion. It had been said that in voting against the Government that evening they were playing into the hands of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. But he would ask what would happen if the Government were defeated? The Prime Minister would, as Prime Ministers had done before, come down to the House and move a vote of confidence in the Government, and he would be the first to support it. If the Government did not then put a duty on sugar the Chancellor of the Exchequer could then turn his attention to other sources of revenue. For instance, to take the trade in which he himself was engaged, the coal industry, mining royalties might be
  1528
  taxed But having pledged himself to vote for the abolition of the sugar tax He felt bound to record his vote for the Amendment. Such a vote could have only a good effect, as when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House next year to make his statement he would know that there was on that side the strongest possible fooling that the tax must go.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid he recognised that the House was now ready to vote, and he would not detain thorn long, but however largo or however small the majority of the Government might be he thought the debate had been a very important one. He recognised that in the lectures they had received as to political morality it had been, however, a very hollow debate, and he would like to state his position. He would not have risen to state his views but for the fact that one of the Members of the Labour Party had challenged them to produce a single item of the Budget which had benefited a single consumer. The hon. Gentleman had said that the removal of the coal tax did not benefit the consumer or the taxpayer; but the removal of that impost had had the effect of increasing the wages of many people engaged in work in his own constituency. He thought the time had arrived when the country should consider the question of old-age pensions. He was in favour of old-age pensions and also of the removal of every unnecessary tax on articles of food and the necessities of life, and it was for that reason He intended to vote for the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had been one of the greatest pleasures of his life to create at his own works a pension fund which enabled many men to conclude their lives in contentment and in peace. While he was in favour of the abolition of the duty on sugar, and in favour of old-age pensions, they could not expect any responsible Chancellor of the Exchequer to get up in his place and promise old-age pensions at once. Such a declaration at the present juncture would reduce the national security and lower still more the price of Consols. They were told that Consols wore now equal to a 3 per cent. investment, but it was more than that, and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer either to-day or later on to make a

  1529
  promise that he would remove the sugar tax and bring in a system of old-age pensions would affect the credit of the country. Therefore, He said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted wisely in continuing this tax, and whether or not his name appeared on the paper of those who had pledged themselves to vote for its abolition was not a serious matter, because He was looking at the Bridget as a whole. The national finances ought to be put in proper order, and it was a serious matter to those engaged in the trade and commerce of the country that that should not he done. It would be a serious matter, however, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to make such a rash promise as to remove the tax, and at the same time promise old-age pensions. He therefore intended to vote with the majority that evening. Whether that majority was large or small one thing was clear, namely, that there were always those who wore ready to leave the responsibility to the Government, and if they wished to arrive at a right conclusion they need only investigate the condition of the trade of the country which was caused entirely by the demoralisation which had taken
  place in late years. He should support the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. HARWOODsaid that all those who wanted to get rid of this tax ought to vote for the only Chancellor of the Exchequer who had promised to get rid of it. [OPPOSITION cries of "But he has not promised."] The right hon. Gentleman had gone as far as he could. It would be unparliamentary and against House of Commons etiquette for a Chancellor to make a definite promise so long before his Budget to remove any tax. They had heard a good deal about the morality of pledges. What was the meaning of a pledge? It did not mean that they wore to give a vote in a particular way. The electors of this country were sensible people, and those who hated the sugar tax wanted them to take the course which was likely to get rid of it soonest. That course was to support the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 175; Noes , 312. (Division List No. 272.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N.E.)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn.Sir Alex.F.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Alison, Sir William Reynell

  Clough, William

  Gill, A.H.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Clynes, J. R

  Glover, Thomas

  Ashley, W. W.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Gordon, J

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon.Sir H

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

  Gretton, John

  Balcarres, Lord

  Collings,Rt. Hn.J. (Birmingh'm

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Balfour,RtHn.A.J.(City Lond.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Halpin, J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Baring, Capt. Hn. C.(Winchester

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cretin, Eugene

  Hazleton Richard

  Boland, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Hemsley, Viscount

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cut-ran, Peter Francis

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hill, Sir Clement(Shrewsbury)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Hills, J. W.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness

  Hogan, Michael

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Jenkins, J.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Field, William

  Jowett, F. W.

  Cave, George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Forster, Henry William

  Keswick, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Seddon, J.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Nield, Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Snowden, P

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  O'Grady, J.

  Starkey, John R.

  Long, Col. (Charles W.(Evesham

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

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

  O'Malley, William

  Summer bell, T.

  Londsale, John Brownlee

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Lundon, W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thorne, William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Thornton. Percy M.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Percy, Earl

  Turnour, Viscount

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Walsh, Stephen

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wardle, George J.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverhapmt'n

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Masterman, C. F, G.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson. Sir G. Scott Bradf'rd

  Wortley, Rt Hon. C B. Stuart

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Roche, Joint (Galway, East)

  Wyndham, Rt Hon. George

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Young, Samuel

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Younger, George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rutherford, W.W. (Liverpool)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr.

  Moore, William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Harold Cox and Mr. Cowan

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol. S.)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Armitage, R.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dewar, Sir .J. A. (Invesness-sh.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Burnyeat, W. J. D).

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Asbury, John Meir

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dunne, Major(E. Martin(Walsall)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cams, Thomas

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cameron, Robert

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Barker, John

  Campbell, Bannerman, Sir H.

  Elibank, Master of

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Erskine, David C.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Essex, R. W.

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Beale, W. P.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Evans, Samuel T

  Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R,

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R,

  Cleland, J. W.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W,)

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Ferens, T. R.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Bertram, Julius

  Corbett, CH (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Findlay, Alexander

  Bethell, SirJ. H. (Essex, Romf'rd

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Criga, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cremer, Sir William Randal

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Branch, James

  Crombie, John William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Brigg, John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Bright, J. A.

  Crossley, William J.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Gooch, George Peabody

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Grant, Corrie

  Brunner, RtHnSirJ. T(Cheshire)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Greenwood, Hamar York)

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maddison, Frederick

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Grove, Archibald

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Gulland, John W.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Gurdon, RtHn. Sir W. Brampton

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Massie, J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Menzies, Walter

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mond, A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hedges, A, Puget

  Morse, L. L.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Murray, James

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Tillett, Louis John

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tomkinson, James

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Partington, Oswald

  Toulmin, George

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Ure, Alexander

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Peacre, William (Limehouse)

  Verney, F. W.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

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

  Vivian, Henry

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Perks, Robert William

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

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

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Philipps, Owen C, (Pembroke)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Radford, O. H.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Whitbread, Howard

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rees, J.D.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Richardson, A.

  While, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White-head, Rowland

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ridsdale, K A.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Lambert, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Lamont, Norman

  Roberts, John H, (Denbighs.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Williams, Llewellyn (Carmarth'n

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lechmann, R. C.

  Robinson, S.

  Williamson, A.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. Hull, W.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lough, Thomas

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Russell, T. W.

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

  Lynch, H. B.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wood, T. M' Kinnon

  Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Maclean, Donald

  Schwann, SirC. E. (Manchester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOE—

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sears, J. E.

  MR. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  M'Crae, George

  Seaverns, J. H.

  M Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Seely, Major J. B.

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

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  *MR HICKS BEACHmoved the following new clause—
  ''In addition to the deductions of one-eighth and one-sixth allowed under Section 35 of the Finance Act of 1894, there shall also, for the purposes of collection, be allowed the cost of insurance and a deduction for expenses of management not exceeding five per centum of the gross annual value."
  He said that the result which had just been announced seemed to have come as a surprise to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, therefore, they might be inclined to accept his very modest Amendment. For a long time past there had been a great deal more income-tax paid under Schedule A than those who were liable were really bound to pay. He was sure that no landlords objected to pay their fair share of the general taxation of the country, but they had come to realise that in the last few years they had been paying, not only their fair share, but a very considerable sum in excess of the amount that they ought fairly to pay under Schedule A. Under that schedule the taxpayer was charged on the gross annual value of his property, save for infinitesimal deductions which were authorsied by the Income-tax Acts, namely, the land tax and embankment and drainage rates. The embankment rates were practically of an infinitesimal character, and did not come into the account of most estates. Thon there was the allowance of one-sixth on buildings and one-eighth on land under the Finance Act of 1894. Anyone who had studied the management and upkeep of estates must recognise that those deductions by no means covered the of cost upkeep and allowed nothing at all towards the expense of management. In the case of two estates he had calculated the amount of the income-tax they had paid for the last nine years. The average rate of the income-tax had been 11·11d. in the £, and on one of these estates the average rate in the pound paid on the net rental without deducting anything for the cost of management amounted to 12·38d. On the other estate for the same period the rate was 13·55d. In other words that meant that
  1536
  the owners of those two estates in the first case had paid during those nine years an excess of 1·27d. in the pound in excess of the not rental, and in the second case an excess of 2·44d. There was another case of a similar estate upon which during the last five years the average rate of the income tax was 12·3d., and the amount paid in the pound on the net rental by the owner

DEATH OF SIR A. BILLSON.
At this point—
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose and said: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I have a painful duty to perform. A Member of this House has been taken ill in the immediate precincts of this Chamber, and has, I regret to say, succumbed to the attack of illness with which he was seized. In these circumstances, I think it is right that I should move that you, Sir, do report progress. I remember a case many years ago when a similar course was followed when a Member of the House died in the library; and I think in this case as in that, when a colleague is removed from among us in this striking and startling manner, it is right and proper that ,we should adjourn. I will not say anything on this occasion as to the loss we have sustained. He was a strenuous Member of this House, a keen politician, and as a man universally respected. The best course we can follow now is to report progress.
Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

ADJOURNMENT.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.].—Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Worthing Gas Bill.—Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
London United Tramways Bill.—Reported, without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].—Reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
Penrith Urban District Council Bill; King's Norton and Northfield Urban District Council Bill.—Reported, with Amendments.
City of London (Union of Parishes) Bill [H.L.].—Read 3,a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Leeds Corporation Bill.—Read 3a; with Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Surrey, etc.) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Fitzgerald's Divorce Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Heywood and Middleton Water Board Bill [H.L.].—Returned from the Commons agreed t o, with Amendments.
Brighouse Corporation Bill.—Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Killery's Divorce Bill [H.L.].—Message from the Commons for copy of the
1294
Minutes of Evidence taken before this House, together with the proceedings, and the documents deposited in the case; ordered to be communicated, with a request that they may be returned.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2.) Bill [H.L.]—(Fleetwood Victoria Pier Order); Barry Railway Bill; Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6.) Bill—(Dunstable Order).—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Viscount Falkland be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Southampton; read, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7.) Bill (No. 99); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (No. 100).—Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the examiners.
Portobello and Musselburgh Tramways (Levenhall Extension) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.].—Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
Ladybank Sewerage, Drainage, and Water Provisional Order Bill; Clyde Navigation Order Confirmation Bill.— Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Code of regulations for public elementary schools in Wales including Monmouthshire, with Schedules, 1907.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3852. Russia (Foreign trade of Russia, and trade of St. Petersburg).
  No. 3853. China (Wuchow).
  No. 3854. Japan (Tairen (Dalny)).
  No. 3855. Uruguay (Trade and Finances).

  COLONIES.
  Papers relating to the Brussels Sugar Convention.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the registration of firms and persons carrying on business under trade names. Was presented by the Lord Brassey; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 98.)
SALMON AND FRESH WATER FISHERIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee, with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received to-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 101.)

THE YEOMANRY.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private notice. During the course of the discussion which took place yesterday he made to your Lordships two or three most important statements with regard to the duties of the County Associations and also with regard to the conditions of service of the Militia and the Yeomanry. I wish to ask him whether he could make it convenient to lay upon the Table a Memorandum summarising the information which he thus gave. Such a Memorandum would, I cannot help thinking, be extremely convenient to those who now have to rely upon the somewhat condensed reports which appear in the public Press.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I shall be very glad to endeavour to comply with the noble Marquess's request and lay the Memorandum asked for on the Table. My noble [friend has also given me private
1296
notice of another Question—namely, whether it is possible to meet the views urged by various Members of the House in regard to treating the Yeomanry in a more favourable way. Since I have received that appeal, and having regard to the very authoritative and influential representations made by Earl Roberts, Viscount Midleton, Lord Harris, and Lord Methuen, we have considered whether it would be possible to respond to it. I hope the statement which I am about to make will be received as a practical proof that the Government are anxious to treat the Yeomanry with every possible consideration; and I hope also that it will not be made the ground of urging further demands. In the case of the Yeomanry it has been decided to increase the emoluments of non-commissioned officers and men who will draw the new rate of pay. In addition to Army pay of 1s. 2d., camp allowance of 1s., and ration allowance of 6d., already announced, every non-commissioned officer or man present at training who is certified to be efficient in equitation will receive an equitation bounty of £1 as an addition to the new rate of pay. I might add that the Government propose to invite the Yeomanry Commanding Officers' Committee, General Mackinnon, Director of Auxiliary Forces, and General Haig, Director of Military Training on the General Staff, to meet under the presidency of my noble friend Lord Scarbrough to consider and report upon the future arrangements for the training and management of the Yeomanry. I hope this statement will be received in the spirit in which it is made.

ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL. [SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to hear that it is not necessary for me to occupy many moments of your time in asking for the Second Reading of this Bill. The Bill is an old friend of your Lordships, having passed this House with practical unanimity two years ago. Its object is to enable local authorities to exercise a certain reasonable amount

1297
of control over the display of advertisement boards within their districts. Past experience has shown that, when there is no power of regulation, appeals to common sense and to good feeling are rather apt to fall upon deaf ears, because the competition in this matter is sometimes very keen, and everyone who wishes to advertise at all is anxious to get the most prominent place and to display his advertisement in the most prominent way. There, have been some very flagrant cases, and although the wiser men in trade deplore this class of competition those who are less scrupulous out-bid them in the nature of the advertisements which are displayed. There have been, as I have said, some very flagrant cases, notably at Edinburgh and at Dover, and in both those cases and in others somewhat stringent provisions have had to be inserted in local Acts of Parliament. It is common ground between the promoters of this Bill and the Government Department concerned that the chance insertion of clauses in various local Acts is not a satisfactory way of dealing with this important matter, and the object of the Bill is to lay down certain general regulations. When the local authority have made their by-laws they will require confirmation by the central authority after due inquiry. This year the Bill has passed the other House of Parliament, and I am hopeful that the Government Departments concerned entirely approve of it. There will be one or two points which may require attention in Committee—in fact, I shall have myself to suggest to your Lordships one or two Amendments; but obviously it would be better to postpone the explanation of those points until we reach the Committee Stage, if your Lordships are good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am sure the object of this Bill will commend itself to every Member of your Lordships' House, and I am instructed by His Majesty's Government to say that they will be very glad to do all they can to assist its passage into law.
1298
On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order.)
[THE EARL OF ONSLOW IN THE CHAIR.]
Clause 2 (resumed):
Lord METHUEN,on behalf of the Earl of Meath, moved to omit the following words from the sub-section relating to the establishing or assisting of cadet battalions and corps, and also rifle clubs:
"Provided that no financial assistance shall be given by an association in respect of any person in a battalion or corps in a school in receipt of a Parliamentary grant until such person has attained the age of sixteen."
He wished at the outset to make his position quite clear. He did not speak in any way as a General Officer holding a high command, but rather as a member of the Lads Drill Association and as commandant of that very valuable organisation, the Church Lads Brigade. He received with great satisfaction the announcement of the clause in the original Bill, but the alteration of the clause in the other House had totally upset the good that they had expected from it. Speaking on March 23rd the Secretary of State for War gave expression to these admirable sentiments—
"They wanted the youth of the nation to undergo training, so that they would keep the reservoir always filled—namely, the national Army of 300,000. They wanted to work the cadet corps into a much more important position than they had been up to the present, and by so doing they would allay fear and give people a sense of security such as they had not hither to had."
Mr. Haldane continued—
"Could anyone look upon a first rate cadet corps without feeling that every one in it was better and stronger morally and mentally? It helped him in life and in employment. It helped him to be a better citizen, not only for military but for civilian duties. From every point of view the cadet corps were things to be encouraged in the interests of the nation."
The reason for the volte face on the part of the Government he hardly liked to touch upon, because he wished as far as possible to avoid politics; but he supposed there

1299
had been a certain amount of pressure on the part of those people who seemed to recognise militarism in every proposal of this kind. He had been told that people did not like their boys to be brought up to kill their foes, nor did they wish to have an Army that was always seeking to fight everyone else. They had an Army to defend their country, and they taught these boys in the schools training not that they should learn to kill, but that they should learn how to defend. He remembered his French fencing-master saying, when he asked him whether good fencers were always fighting duels, "Not at all. The man who is a good fencer is the man whom everyone avoids." So was it with the lads at school who were trained. He desired to emphasise the importance of getting hold of the boys at twelve years, for it was much easier to get them to take an interest in drill and to instil in them patriotism at that age than it was at sixteen years; and for the life of him he could not see why they could not compel boys to improve their physique, their patriotism, and their sense of discipline just as much as they compelled them to learn arithmetic and so many other school subjects. He had instructions from the War Office in 1901 to help in the training of the boys in secondary schools, and four years later it was his duty to inspect about 180 secondary schools in his command. He believed that these secondary schools would help them to officer their Auxiliary Forces far more than would the large public schools, and that they would be an example to the elementary schools. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. The War Office only granted help to uniformed cadet corps; ununiformed cadet corps, who most required help, got nothing. The Grocers Company's school, which was now a London County Council school, had been spoken of by Major General Tulloch as a school which, either in handling arms or in moving on parade, were equal to a thoroughly well-trained Line battalion, and they had won the Frankfort shield twice. Yet those boys were not entitled to help because they were an ununiformed corps; whereas those schools the parents of whose scholars were rich enough to put their sons in uniform were able to draw the grant. He had always held that what-
1300
ever the big public schools or secondary schools did would be an example to the elementary schools; and he would read short extracts from three letters of headmasters in Derby. Mr. John T. Slater, of the Derby St. James's Higher Grade School, wrote—
"The advantages seem to me as great mentally as physically. Straight shooting is impossible without concentration of thought and an effort of will power, there must be proper correlation of hand, eye and mind."
Mr. William Lazenby,of the St. Andrew's Day School, wrote—
"To my mind it is one of the best things, if not the best, we have ever done for our boys. Would that it had been done years ago."
Mr. H. W. Yates,of the Traffic Street Council School, wrote—
"The primary object I had in view in taking up this subject was to secure an additional form of organised recreation for the boys, and I find that besides achieving that object, the lads are receiving an excellent training in control of the nerve, hand, and eye."
Dr. Warre had told him that the movement must come from within and not from without. That had proved perfectly true, and he could not exaggerate the help he had received form both masters and boys. He did not suppose that at any time there was more talk about the Colonies than at present, and he would like to refer their Lordships to what was being done in the way of giving military drill as part of the education of boys in the schools of Canada, Natal, and Australia. In Natal—
"Under the Militia Act of 1903, boys under twelve years of age must receive the elements of military drill. At twelve they were allowed to carry arms. No compulsion, however, had ever been needed. The youth of Natal were all eager to qualify as marksmen."
In Australia—
"They had attached and were attaching to their schools a cadet system by means of which the rudimentary drill given everywhere was supplemented by sufficient training to make those boys who were trained, better set up, more obedient, more prompt, more alert. That was an excellent discipline, and even in this comparatively small population they had 30,000 cadets to-day, and would probably have 40,000 next year, and 50,000 the year after."
In Canada—
"Thirty-three years ago they introduced military drill as a regular part of the work of all the

1301
boys in their schools. They believed in a nation prepared for arms, in a brotherhood in arms from the national standpoint, and they believed also that the most comprehensive and the most economical plan by which they could train the men of a nation to be prepared to do their duty for their country was to do it when they were school boys. Their boys took military drill when they reached the age of eleven just as regularly as they took arithmetic or grammar or any other subject, and they took it joyously."
When Prince Arthur of Connaught visited Canada last year he inspected fifty-four companies of well-drilled boys in a city of leas than 300,000 inhabitants. The quotations he had read to their Lordships were from responsible Ministers of the three Colonies concerned. He had himself suffered through the youth of our country not being trained. He had men out in South Africa the only part of whose body which was in the right place when they were on horseback was their heart. They were indifferent horsemen, and as riflemen they were as great a danger to friend as to foe. He was not one of those who had ever preached militarism. He had never gone even so far as the National Defence League. He had devoted himself entirely to the training of the youth of the country, and he most earnestly appealed to their Lordships not to take any steps which would place obstacles in the way of the rising generation fitting themselves for the defence of their country when the time of danger arrived.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 9, to leave out from the word 'clubs' to the end of paragraph (f)"— (Lord Methuen.)
*EARL ROBERTSexpressed his gratitude to Lord Methuen for having brought forward this subject, and endorsed what his noble friend had said as to the response which masters and boys had made when appealed to. He regretted that any change in this particular matter had been made in the original draft of the Bill. It must, he thought, have been a great blow to the Secretary of State to have to alter his mind on that point, and it would be a very great loss to any Army maintained on a voluntary basis. What Lord Methuen had said as to the necessity of boys being drilled from twelve or thirteen years of age was absolutely true. It was a great blot on our educational
1302
system that boys were turned adrift and left to their own devices at the early age of thirteen or fourteen, just at the very time when they ought to be looked after and be under control. The boys in the Duke of York's School, the Royal Hibernian Military School, and the Gordon Boys' Home were kept until they were fifteen or sixteen, and those few extra years proved of ' the greatest benefit to them. It seemed to him that, in turning boys adrift at the age of thirteen or fourteen, Parliament was responsible for all the loafers and unemployed in our streets. These men had not been given the helping hand they ought to have been given, and it was because they were left to their own resources as boys and were consequently unable to look after themselves when they became men that our streets were full of unemployed. The percentage of our losses in the last campaign was infinitely greater than the losses during the campaign in Manchuria. The climate there was much more inclement than in South Africa, but our percentage of losses was double that of the Japanese or the Russians. That was a clear proof that our men did not grow up healthy and strong as they ought to, and the reason was that as boys they were not properly looked after. The present was a grand opportunity for doing something for cadet corps and for boys leaving school, and he hoped their Lordships would not let it go by. Other nations did not call the training of boys militarism. We were in such a position that our people had never had the danger of invasion brought home to them, and did not think it necessary to take the most ordinary precautions. They did not' really know what war was, having had all their battles fought for them on foreign soil. But they might depend upon it that the time would come when the danger would be brought to their own homes. He would strongly urge their Lordships, while there was yet time, not to lose this opportunity, for the sake of a few thousand pounds, of helping the poorest boys, who so much required looking after, because people talked about militarism. Those who spoke of compulsory military training and conscription being identical did not know what they were talking about. He would read an extract from a pamphlet

1303
entitled "Social Democracy and the Armed Nation "—
"It may be asked in what this system of universal compulsory military training differs from conscription. It differs in the most essential features. Under conscription, generally speaking, the service is not universal; it does not fall on all classes alike. A certain number of conscripts are drawn each year, and any well-to-do youth who may happen to be drawn can escape service by paying for a substitute. Moreover, the officers are almost entirely drawn from the ' superior' classes. With the armed nation no one, unless he were physically incapacitated, would be exempt from the compulsory training, and a man would not be an officer simply because he had wealthy or influential friends, but because he had qualified himself by special studies and training for his duties. Above all, there is this vital difference, that with the armed nation there would be compulsory military training, but no military service except in time of war, when all would be liable to be called on in proportion to their age, training, etc."
That was the difference between training and conscription, and he read the paragraph to their Lordships because he had heard it said by noble Lords that compulsory training meant conscription. It was absolutely different. He would only express his earnest hope that some consideration would be given to Lord Methuen's Amendment. It was, in his opinion, a most important one, and would provide the only means by which they could hope to diminish the number of the unemployed in our streets.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid it was quite impossible for His Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment. They did not oppose it because they were afraid of militarism, but because they considered that as the money to be spent under this clause was to come out of Army funds, and they had not got unlimited funds at their disposal, this was not a matter of primary importance. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal had spoken of the ages of thirteen to fifteen being dangerous periods of temptation to the youth of the country.
*EARL ROBERTS: I said from fourteen to sixteen.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid they were not dealing in this Bill with social questions. It was a Bill the primary object of which was to raise an Army, and the Government thought
1304
that expenditure under it should be restricted to matters which were of primary military importance. It was the opinion of many military men, in spite of what had been said that evening by two distinguished military Lords, that the Army Council would hardly be justified in expending Army funds on the training of boys under sixteen, and he felt that there was a great deal of force in the view that such money would be far better spent on more directly military purposes. He would like, in this connection, to refer to Sir Edward Ward's Committee, which inquired into the provision of officers and went very thoroughly into the military value of the training given in school cadet corps. That Committee recommended that if a boy had received a thorough training in his school corps he should be exempted from four of the twelve months training which he subsequently had to undergo before qualifying for the reserve of officers. He quoted that as showing that the Committee were not biased in the opposite direction, but were quite ready to appreciate the value of cadet corps. Yet this Committee went on to say that it was of no use to commence training boys at school under the age of fifteen. Moreover, if ever there was an Amendment which amounted to a breach of privilege, this Amendment certainly did.
THE EARL OF CAMPER DOWN: No, no.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that the Resolution of the Commons of July, 1676, which had been accepted over since, declared—
"That all aids and supplies and aids to His Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all Bills for the granting of any such aid and supplies ought to begin with the Commons, and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bill the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords.
The proposal to strike out this proviso seemed clearly a contravention of that Resolution.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid it would change and alter the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions and limitations of the Parliamentary grant under Clause 3.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: It does not follow that it is a Parliamentary grant.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that, in his opinion, the proposal to strike out this proviso seemed clearly a contravention of the Commons Resolution. It was perfectly within their Lordships power to divide, and he had no doubt if they did that the Amendment would be carried; but he could hardly conceive that the House of Commons could be expected to accept an Amendment of this kind, and he ventured to express the hope that their Lordships would be content with the discussion that had taken place.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he did not rise to address their Lordships on the merits of the Amendment, but solely with reference to the point of order which had been raised by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary. He submitted that the noble Earl had read the effect of the proviso incorrectly. It did not say that assistance was to be given, but that the assistance was not to be given—a very important difference. If the proviso were struck out the association had annually to submit a budget to the Army Council for its approval, but it did not follow that the Army Council would necessarily agree to it. The second objection to the argument of the noble Lord was that it did not follow that this money which would be given would come out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the country. If there was any excess over the amount of money allowed by the Army Council, the money was to be found out of the pockets of private members of the association. There was thus no interference on the part of the House with a Parliamentary grant.
*THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEsaid he had listened with extreme interest and the keenest sympathy to the speeches
1306
of the noble and gallant Lord who had moved the Amendment and the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the cross benches. He had anticipated, in his own mind, what would be the arguments adduced by the noble Earl the Undersecretary in opposition to the Amendment, but he had not expected the argument of privilege. That argument had been fairly answered by the last speaker. When, however, the Undersecretary said that this provision was not of primary importance to the measure, he reminded him of the extreme weight attached by Mr. Haldane to the encouraging of that patriotic spirit which would lead large numbers of young men to join the Territorial Army, for without the influence of that spirit this great measure was doomed to failure. The subject was, therefore, of very great importance, for, in the opinion of the Secretary for War, it was essential to the safety of the country, the maintenance of peace, and the avoidance of anything in the nature of compulsory service. At the same time, their Lordships saw an extraordinary anomaly such as he believed could hardly exist in the government of any country, but this. While the Secretary for War was appealing to this patriotic spirit to establish defensive forces, a Minister in the same Cabinet at the head of the Education Department was apologising for having ventured to encourage drill and shooting in certain elementary schools, and practically promising that they would not be insisted upon. Mr. Birrell said that, not because it was bad for the boys, or that it would interfere with their education, but because he had made up his mind that as long as he was at the head of the Education Department, he would never allow the Education Department to become an auxiliary of the Army. In his judgment, that was an extraordinary instance of a House divided against itself on a point vital to the safety of the country, and he was afraid the same condition of things prevailed at the present time.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I am very 10th indeed to take any part in the debate on this Bill. The measure embodies a great plan

1307
which, I think, on the face of it, recommends itself largely to my mind at any rate, and to the mind of many civilians who are unacquainted with the technical details of Army affairs, but if the Amendment now before the Committee is pressed to a division, I shall certainly feel it my duty to vote for it. My conscience is clear in that respect, because I am not opposing the Government; I am endeavouring to restore the Government to its first intentions. I am voting for the Government against the Government itself, and therefore my hands are clean.
I confess that I listened with great curiosity to the arguments by which the Under-Secretary was disposed to set on one side the more convincing arguments of his chief. The noble Earl's arguments resolved themselves into two —first, that the Amendment was a breach of privilege; and, secondly, that the funds to be applied were military funds which ought not to be applied to a purpose which was not military. Now, I venture to think that there is no base for either of those contentions, I think that the privilege of the other House of Parliament in respect of finance should be jealously observed in this House. I remember the time when the Education Bill of the late Government was before us, and when, not a coach and six, or a coach and twelve, but three coaches and twelve were driven through that privilege. Your Lordships will remember the Amendment of the Bishop of Manchester about the maintenance of schools, and I confess that when I think of that transaction I am rather disposed to blush for the proceedings of this House.
But, on the other hand, we ought not to strain this question of privilege so as to fetter our discussions and to rule almost every topic of interest out of range. It is a case of the utmost pedantry to urge this question of privilege now, for, in the first place, you are not enlarging any expenditure, but simply cancelling from the clause a possible limitation on expenditure. The Bill, as it will go down to the Commons it this Amendment be carried—and I confess that looking at the somewhat sparsely tenanted benches opposite, I cannot
1308
doubt that it will be carried—will contain, so far as this clause is concerned, no financial injunction or restriction whatever. It is impossible, therefore, to believe that there is any question of privilege in this Amendment; while as to military funds, I think that my noble friend Lord Camperdown has shown, in his short but unanswerable speech, that the funds to be given by the Army Council will be largely diluted in the expectation of the Government by voluntary contributions. I left the House last night when it was engaged in an earnest desire to find out what the duties of the president of the local association would be, and I confess that I left the House because I saw very clearly what the duties of the president would be. One of his main duties will be to act as a competent subscriber to the funds of the association. I think it is perfectly clear from the announcements of the Government that the funds of the associations provided by the Government will be wholly inadequate for the purpose the Government have in view, and that, therefore, voluntary subscriptions must largely enter into the finance of the associations. That has a further bearing. My right hon. friend Mr. Haldane was extremely anxious, and rightly anxious, to enlist in support of his scheme the public spirit and patriotism of the country. To do that you must allow the public spirit and patriotism of the country to find the vent which it wants itself. You must not shut it up in the narrow groove laid down for it by the Act of Parliament or by the Military Council. You must give it free vent. You must do everything you can to stimulate that enthusiasm and patriotism. I am quite sure that anything in this Bill which cools or damps that enthusiasm and patriotism is a fatal blow struck at the county scheme.
Now, you say that these purposes are not military purposes. Since when have they ceased to be military purposes? How long will it take a boy at fifteen to reach the age of eighteen? I do not know whether the memory of the Government is so short that it has forgotten altogether what happened in the South African War. After the first line was exhausted you had to call

1309
on the nation for Volunteers. You got Volunteers. Lord Methuen has described in his singularly stirring speech how many of those Volunteers were absolutely untrained; that they could not ride and they could not shoot, but their hearts were in the right place. If you train boys in schools, three years hence you will have a reserve force capable in the case of war of coming to the assistance of the country, not as untrained, but as trained Volunteers. Is that so miserable a consideration that His Majesty's Government are compelled to overlook it in a great Territorial scheme?
I think it extremely possible that if your Lordships pass this Amendment the House of Commons will reinsert the original words; and in that case I should respectfully urge your Lordships not to insist on your Amendment. But in any case I hope you will divide, because you will then be enabled to present to the country a weight of opinion which I do not think even the House of Commons can equal, when we remember the Generals and the men of high military capacity who have addressed us tonight. You will present a weight of opinion to the country on behalf of this proposal which no Government in the long run can afford to disregard.
*THE EARL OF DUNDONALD:reminded their Lordships that in Natal, which had been referred, to in addition to compulsory cadet training for three years, there was compulsory adult training for fifteen days in each year of Militia service—more training than was contemplated in the Territorial Army scheme. He maintained that, unless men who entered the Territorial Army received more training than was compulsory in this Bill, that Army would only be a mockery. The training of the soldier might be divided into two portions. The first portion, the purely mechanical, could well be learnt in boyhood before commencing the serious business of life, which might be said to begin at the age of sixteen. If the proviso at present in the clause remained part of the Bill the youth of the country-would be prohibited from getting in their school-boy days that knowledge which was absolutely essential, not only to an efficient Territorial Army,
1310
but to that great reservoir from which they hoped to draw.
LORD NEWTON,referring to the aversion of the noble and gallant Lord to treating this matter in a political spirit, said that the history of the change in the Bill was political and political only. It was an open secret that the change was made in consequence of the vehement opposition of those Gentlemen who were credited as representing what were called the labouring classes. If military opinions were going to be quoted, he thought the House generally would agree that the opinions of the noble and gallant Lord who moved the Amendment and of the noble and gallant Earl Lord Roberts, outweighed the collective opinions of those who sat upon the Committee to which the noble Earl the Under-Secretary had alluded with so much respect. He really thought it advisable to draw the attention of the House to the extraordinary attitude adopted with regard to this particular question by the Labour leaders. Apparently in the view of those representatives the British male child when he was born was to be fed, clothed, and educated at the expense of the State; as he grew older he was to be amused and entertained by the State, employment at a subsequent stage was to be found for him, and in his later years he was to be pensioned. But if, in return for all this, any kind of suggestion was made that he should give any personal or other service to the State, it was resented as little better than a gross insult. Not only were these views ostentatiously avowed, but, as they had learnt within the last few days from admissions made by noble Lords on the Government side of the House, the Labour leaders who represented the voice of the trade unions intended to do their utmost to prevent any man who had been foolish enough to enlist in the Army from obtaining employment when he left the Army. If those were the opinions entertained by the country it would be a bad look out for the country as a nation. But for his part he declined to believe that that was the case. He did not believe that in this particular instance these men represented the working classes or any class in the country.

1311
It was matter for infinite regret that the Government, with its overwhelming majority, should have made this contemptible and ignoble surrender to the Labour leaders. The Bill was in a critical condition; a severe blow administered to it might endanger its existence altogether. If the scheme was going to fail, as of course it was, he advised their Lordships to let its failure rest on those who were responsible for bringing it in.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHwished to deal with one point mentioned by the Under-Secretary. The noble Earl had stated that drill was of no use under the age of fifteen. In common with our older admirals he began rifle or rather musket drill at the age of thirteen. Before he was fourteen he had bruised his shoulder a good deal in firing Old Brown Bess at a target. That inconvenience was now got over by the use of miniature rifles. If any of their Lordships doubted the advantage of early drill he hoped they would consult the Admirals who were his contemporaries. Had he or any midshipmen of that time left the Navy at the age of sixteen they would have been efficient members of any Volunteer corps, and would have been able to use a rifle without imperilling the lives of their comrades, if sudden emergency had arisen. From twelve to sixteen boys could be more easily spared than at a later period when they had begun a profession or trade. If they took no steps to teach the rising generation how to protect the liberty that they had inherited, they might be rearing the future serfs of some other nation.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not rise to prolong this debate. Everything that I desire to say upon this Amendment has been said by noble Lords who have spoken in support of it. But I do not like to give a silent vote, and I rise for the purpose of saying that when we go to a Division I shall certainly give my vote in favour of my noble friend Lord Methuen's Amendment. I am not in the least intimidated by the argument founded upon privilege to which we have listened. I have been a long time a member of this House, and I know that whenever one's opponent is at
1312
a loss for an argument this argument of privilege is trotted out. According to the extreme supporters of the privilege view, this House is precluded from dealing with any subject which directly or indirectly involves the expenditure of half-a-crown. If that view is to prevail, the usefulness of this House will be limited to an even greater extent than is recommended by the supporters of some of the proposals which are now before the public.
This Amendment cannot be represented as an Amendment antagonistic to the Bill. The words which we propose to leave out were not in the original Bill, and we have our own idea of the circumstances under which they found a place in it. What the Amendment of my noble friend does is to remove a restriction—as it seems to me an improper restriction—which it has been sought to put upon the usefulness of these County Associations—a restriction which will have the effect of preventing them from doing work of a kind which they are eminently qualified to do. You tell them in this Bill that it is to be part of their duty to assist cadet corps and rifle clubs. I ask upon what reasons of common-sense can you tell them that if those rifle clubs are joined by lads below the age of sixteen the association is to be absolutely forbidden from recognising or countenancing them?
The noble Earl in charge of the Bill told us that this was not a proper way of spending Army funds, but, as my noble friend Lord Camperdown has pointed out, we know quite well that these associations will dispose of funds the whole of which will not be drawn from Army sources; and if this clause were to pass as it now stands, the associations would be in this ridiculous position, that they might have considerable funds subscribed from private sources, and would find themselves precluded from spending one sixpence in assisting these cadet corps or rifle clubs. I am not prepared to take upon myself the responsibility of thus limiting the action of the County Associations, and I shall therefore certainly vote for the Amendment.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, like the noble Marquess who has just sat down I do not desire to spend

1313
any time in discussing the question of privilege. At the same time, as it has been stated with such certainty that this is not a breach of privilege, I think it is important to point out that, in view of the wording of the Commons' Resolution relating to the purposes and conditions of any money grant, this Amendment, if it is carried, may very likely be taken in another place to constitute a breach of privilege. But the question of privilege has nothing whatever to do with His Majesty's Government, and there is nothing to prevent noble Lords from carrying Amendment after Amendment which constitutes a breach of privilege. It is not the affair of the Government. It is a question for Mr. Speaker and the officials of the House of Commons. If this Amendment goes to the other House, no doubt it will receive proper attention from Mr. Speaker and the officials of that House.
Now, I desire to say a very few words on the merits of the case. My noble friend behind me was quite right in saying that it is not on the ground of a dread of militarism that we are unable to assent to this Amendment. There are people who conceive that to teach boys of tender age drill and the use of the rifle is necessarily to develope in them a taste for slaughter. I respect people who hold that view honestly, but I confess it does not seem to me a very sensible view, and I do not believe it is widely held. We all remember that the South African War produced in this country some very real and fine manifestations of patriotism. It also produced a certain number—not many—of silly and rather ignoble exhibitions of what was held to pass as patriotism. But those exhibitions were not the work of people who had undergone any military training. The people who made fools of themselves were, I believe, people of strictly pacific habits, who had never seen a shot fired in anger, and probably never intended to if they could help it. Therefore from that point of view I have no dread of what is called military training.
But we have to consider what is behind this proposition in the mind of a great many people, as indeed was frankly admitted by the noble and gallant
1314
Field Marshal on the cross benches. A large number of people regard this proposition with distaste because they believe that it is a step towards what some call conscription, but what, in deference to the noble and gallant Earl, I will speak of as universal military training. I am bound to say that in spite of the noble and gallant Earl's very lucid description of the difference between the two the extent of that difference is not very clear to my mind. It still seems to me that if you have universal military training in this country you will have something very much like the conscript army as understood on the Continent of Europe.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no !
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I take it that your Army for Home Defence will consist of the young men who are at the time undergoing military training. It has never occurred to me that you would have an immense force of young men undergoing training and a large Home Defence Army as well. Therefore, it appears to me that the distinction is not a very wide one. But I will let that pass. In the minds of many people there is the fear that this proposition is intended to facilitate the advance to a system of universal military training. If you train these boys on a large scale, with public money, the next step surely will be to say: "What a waste not to turn these boys into real soldiers." It seems to me that argument is a very natural one, and I believe it is that fear which is really at the back of the minds of those who object to this particular proposal. I am not ashamed to say that, like other members of the Government, I do not think it is wise in a matter of this kind to go against a great current of public opinion, and I do not see how it can be denied, after what has occurred in another place, that such, a body of opinion exists.
The noble Lord opposite, Lord Newton, has put aside entirely the opinion of those who are known as the Labour Members of Parliament. We are not able to take that position, for the very excellent reason that they do speak, as we believe, for, I do not say the whole, but a very great majority, of those who would be affected

1315
by this provision, and for the working classes at large. We in this House are in no way affected by this proposition, and it does seem to me somewhat absurd altogether to ignore the representatives of the particular class whose children will be affected by the passing of this Amendment. I do not think the noble Marquess who has just sat down appreciated that this limitation applies only to schools in receipt of the Government grant. He spoke of all boys under sixteen not being assisted. This is only the case where the school is in receipt of the Government grant; and it is because we believe that those specially affected have a strong prejudice against this proposal that we do not think it right to press it against them. In regard to public schools, the case is an entirely different one. The reason for encouraging drill and rifle shooting and training generally in public schools is that it is hoped they will form a very valuable reservoir for officers of the Army. The two cases are not analogous, and consequently I am sorry to say, in spite of all the arguments addressed to the House I admit by those who are most competent to speak on military matters, we are not able to retreat from the position we have taken up on this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN)said he entirely agreed with his noble friend Lord Crewe that the partisans of militarism during the South African War were not the brave men who fought and who suffered heavily, but a number of persons, largely in the Press, who had not the slightest intention of running any risk themselves. The proposal before their Lordships affected children who were mostly the children of working-class parents, and those parents were the persons who made objection to this proposal. He thought it was a very serious matter for either House of Parliament to try and thrust upon children
a particular kind of training, however desirable they might think it, when the fathers of those children did not themselves desire it. With regard to the question of privilege, he could not help thinking that it would be a misfortune if the rule and custom that had been observed by both Houses should be infringed. It seemed to him there was no doubt that this Amendment, if it was assented to, would be an interference with the Commons' Resolution. He could not doubt that it would be resisted and objected to in the other House, and he could not assent to the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, that an Amendment which was quite certain to be rejected, and which was also contrary to privilege, ought, as a matter of policy, to be carried.
*THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid he had frequently endeavoured to preserve the Commons' privilege from invasion, sometimes a little more earnestly than some of his friends desired. He entirely differed from his distinguished friend. When they dealt with some particular part of a statute and severed it from the rest of the provisions, so that, the effect of an alteration was only incidental, it had been held over and over again in both Houses that no breach of privilege was involved. That was the case here. The noble and learned Lord seemed to have forgotten that this Amendment would restore the Bill to the position in which it was when the Government introduced it. If the Amendment was open to these objections, why did not the Government find it out before the Bill was introduced?
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause,"
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 31; Not-contents, 130.

CONTENTS.

Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selby, V.

Denman, L. [Teller] Dunning. L. (L. Rollo)

Crewe, E. (L. President.) Beauchamp, E.

Hereford, L. Bp.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Carrington, E.

Allendale, L.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Armitstead, L.

Glantawe, L

Craven, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard)

Portsmouth, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

[Teller.]

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Lucas, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Haversham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stanmore, L.

Headley, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Weardale, L.

Joicey, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Welby, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Romney, E.

Clinton, L.

Northumberland, D.

Scarbrough, E.

Clonbrok, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Stanhope, E.

Colchester, L.

Rutland, D.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Cottesloe, L.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Waldegrave, E.

Desborough, L.

Bath, M.

Westmeath, E.

Digby, L.

Camden, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Hertford, M.

Wicklow, E

Ellenborough, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Faber, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cross, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Zetland, M.

Esher, V.

Forester, L.

Falkland, V.

Grey de Ruthyn, L.

Abingdon, E.

Falmouth, V.

Hastings, L.

Ancaster, E.

Goschen, V.

Hindlip, L.

Brownlow, E.

Hampden, V.

Kensington, L.

Camperdown, E.

Hardinge, V.

Killanin, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hill, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Carnwath, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-

Knaresborough, L.

Cathcart, E. ;

more.)

Lawrence, L.

Cawdor, E.

Knutsford, V.

Lovat, L.

Clarendon, E.

Milner, V.

Ludlow, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Portman, V.

Manners, L.

Dartrey, E.

Methuen, L. [Teller.]

Derby, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Moncrieff, L.

Devon, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Dundonald, E.

Aberdare, L.

Muskerry, L.

Durham, E.

Abinger, L.

Newton, L.

Egerton, E.

Addington, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough. )

Eldon, E.

Ampthill, L.

Raglan, L.

Essex, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Atkinson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Haddington, E.

Avebury, L.

Robertson, L.

Halsbury. E.

Balfour, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Harewood, E.

Barnard, L.

St. Levan, L.

Ilchester, E.

Basing, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Lindsey, E.

Belper, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Blythswood, L.

Sandys, L

Manvers, E.

Bolton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Borthwick, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Morley. E.

Brassey, L.

(E. Galloway.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Northbrook, E.

Burton, L.

Tennyson, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Tyrone, L. (M. Water ford.)

Plymouth, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Vivian, L.

Roberts, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

On Question, new clause, as amended, agreed to.

LORD LOVATmoved to delete from the duties of the County Association the provision of horses for the peace requirements of the Territorial Force. He submitted that the provision of horses was the duty of Yeomanry officers, as it obviously came under training.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, lines 14 and 15, to leave out paragraph (g)."—(Lord Lovat.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Government could not accept the Amendment. They thought that the provision
1318
of horses for the Territorial Force was essentially a question for the Associations, which would possess extensive local knowledge and were on that account better able to deal with it.
LORD LOVATintimated that he did not intend to press the Amendment, but he could not help pointing to the absurd position which would be created in the event of the County Associations producing horses which the Yeomanry colonels were unable to use.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU of BEAULIEUmoved to omit Subsection (h), conferring on the County Associations powers in regard to "the safe custody of arms and equipment." He expressed the view that the custody of arms and equipment should be entrusted to the commanding officer, and not to the County Associations, because he was responsible for keeping them clean, etc.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 16, to leave out Paragraph (h)."—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that if the County Associations had to provide arms and equipment out of the funds allocated to them by the Army Council, and generally to maintain the county force, they were surely the natural and proper repository of the arms. He could not accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ERROLLasked who would be responsible for the arms supposing the general inspecting found fault with them. Would the colonel commanding the regiment or the County Association be responsible?
LORD LOVATsaid that under the arrangement proposed by the Government it would be necessary to have two caretakers, one man responsible for the care of the arms and for seeing that they were kept in an efficient state, and the other responsible to the local Association for their custody.
Lord LUCASsaid the fact that the County Associations would be responsible for the arms and equipment would not prevent them placing the arms in charge of the commanding officer of the regiment if found necessary. The commanding officer would then be responsible for them, and there would be no need to provide two caretakers.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was a little astonished to hear that the County Associations were to provide the arms; but surely it could not be the intention of the Government to give them the right of determining what arms His Majesty's troops were to bear.
1320
Was it to be possible for conflicting orders to be given by the County Association and the commanding officer as to the state and custody of the arms, and, in such a contingency, was the commanding officer to be subordinate to the County Association?
LORD LUCASsaid it was hardly conceivable that the County Association would give orders as to the custody of the arms which were at variance with the requirements of the officers in command.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid the commanding officers were at present responsible to the War Office for the state of the arms. It was now proposed to make the associations responsible, but it was said that if the associations had any common sense they would hand over the custody of the arms to the commanding officers. Now, in the event of a commanding officer letting the arms get rusty and in a bad condition, what would happen? There would, no doubt, be some form of inspection by the War Office. What would the War Office do in that event? Would the association, as declared in the Bill be responsible, or could they say they had handed over the responsibility to the commanding officer and that the War Office must deal with him? The safe custody of arms was a very important matter, particularly at times of public disturbance, and it had always been understood that arms which were given to local forces had to be lodged in buildings approved of by an inspecting officer representing the War Office. Was the safe custody of the arms to be left in future entirely to the association, or were they to be subject to any control in the matter by the War Office? He hoped the Committee would have some further information on those points.
*LORD BELPERsaid that so far as he could see, the governing words were those at the beginning of sub-section (2) of Clause 2, which ran—
"The powers and duties so transferred or assigned may include any powers conferred on or vested in His Majesty, and any powers or duties conferred or imposed on the Army Council or a Secretary of State."
Therefore, what were to be transferred to the County Associations were powers

1321
now vested in the Secretary of State or the Army Council. Whether that was a convenient procedure or not seemed to him rather a nice point. But, so far as he could understand, the confusion between the County Associations and the officers commanding the regiments in the county need not necessarily be more than the confusion between the Army Council or the Secretary of State and those same officers. It did not seem to him that the powers of officers commanding regiments were taken away, but that the powers of the Army Council and the Secretary of State were transferred.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDheld that this made the matter more difficult, because the powers of the Secretary of State were paramount. Therefore, if those powers were transferred, the Associations, which would be composed largely of civilians, would be paramount in these important matters.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETONsuggested the insertion of the words, "The provision of buildings for," before the words "the safe custody of arms and equipment." He believed that would satisfy those who objected to the sub-section as it stood, and would really carry out the intention of the Government.
LORD MONTAGU Of BEAULIEUinquired whether the commanding officer or the County Association would be responsible in the event of the armoury being broken into by a mob and the arms stolen.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH:thought the County Association would be responsible. With regard to the suggestion made by Lord Midleton, he suggested that in order that they might make this point quite clear he should be allowed to bring up words on Report.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDinquired what the noble Earl would bring up on Report. The Committee were not quite clear on that point. The noble Earl had just stated that the County Association would be responsible for the safe custody of the arms. That was what noble Lords objected to. It had been admitted that the Association
1322
could not practically be responsible, and that it must hand over the care of the arms to the commanding officer. He would object very much to anything being put in on Report to provide that the Association should be responsible for the care of the arms. But if the noble Earl intended moving to insert on Report some words such as were suggested by Lord Midleton, and if he would add "subject to the approval of some military authority," it would meet his point.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid this was rather a technical question, and he wished to provide that there should be proper security in the matter. Therefore, with the permission of their Lordships, he would consider the matter between then and the Report stage, with a view to inserting words which would make the meaning plain and clear.
LORD MONTAGU Of BEAULIEU:was quite willing to withdraw the Amendment, if the noble Earl would undertake to make it clear as to which part was to be the duty of the County Association, and which part that of the commanding officer.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHpromised to make that clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LOVATmoved an Amendment to provide that the requirements on mobilisation of the units of the Territorial Force (the duty of supplying which might be transferred under the clause to the County Associations) so far as they are directed by the Army Council to be met locally, should be defined by the Army Council before the passing of the Bill. He said that he brought up the point in no hostile spirit to the scheme, but because, although the Bill dealt with a great many points which Yeomanry and Volunteer officers had pressed for, yet there were no adequate arrangements for mobilisation. That was not the first time he had addressed their Lordships on this subject, and he would therefore make his remarks on the present occasion as brief as possible. They had made practically little or no progress since the South

1323
African War in the way of preparing for mobilisation for home defence. No one could say that either the Yeomanry or the Volunteer Force was in any way capable of taking the field. It was true that arrangements for coast defence had been pushed forward, but really sufficient and adequate arrangements for mobile corps inland had not been thoroughly thought out in detail. He would, therefore, suggest that the Army Council should be asked to define with the utmost possible rapidity what the requirements were to be that the County Associations were to meet. Every year they had been told, when they pressed this question, from whichever side of the House the Government of the day happened to be drawn, that the Army Council had wonderful things in store for them if they would only wait a little. They had waited a long time now; and, although the subject had been brought up by numberless noble Lords, including Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, yet they had never been given a scheme which would in any way fulfil the requirements. He thought that as the majority of the Army Council had now been at the War Office for something like four years, the requirements that they wished to be met by the County Associations should have been thoroughly deliberated upon; and that the time had come when those requirements ought to be announced. He hoped the noble Earl would not retire behind the usual official answer to such questions that it was inadvisable that the facts should be made public. The whole of Europe was thoroughly aware that we had no Home organisation; and he thought that an announcement of any plan towards that end would be so much clear gain; and that the publication of any orders which the Government might issue to the County Associations need not be delayed on that account. He would not go into the questions of the staff, the transport, and all the various matters with regard to horses and equipment, but would only deal with one or two general principles which he thought must in any event hold good, and which, he felt certain, the House would accept. It was essential to have these preparations thought out in time of peace; because the less trained men
1324
they had for the Army, the more trained must be the staff in order to make good the defences of the country; and further, the less trained were the troops, the better must be the arrangements as to feeding, tents, and so on; because the less trained the troops were, the less strain and difficulty were they able to withstand. Therefore he thought His Majesty's Government should be pressed if possible to let them know when, those requirements would be made known to the County Associations. There was a point which arose now which had not arisen in former Acts with regard to mobilisation, and that was the question of billeting. By this Bill, power was taken to call out a very large number of men—in fact, the whole of the Territorial Force; but, as far as he knew, if they were called out, there was nowhere to put them. In Scotland, certainly, there was nothing like tent accommodation for the whole forces of Scotland; and he believed the same could be said with regard to every single command throughout the country. Where were they to put the men? They could not be away for more than a few days, and the only billeting places at present were the public-houses, and the public-house was the one place where the men should never be allowed to go if it could possibly be helped. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to tell them what arrangements had been made with regard to that point; because, on the calling out of the Territorial Army, if it should become necessary, the only thing His Majesty's Government would be able to do would be to dismiss it again, because they would have nowhere to put it. The remainder of the mobilisation arrangements at the present moment were in practically the same unthought-out state. With regard to the staff, the staff was practically, as they knew, non-existent. They were going to have, by the Bill, four staff officers provided for the whole of Scotland—that was all they had been told at present—two divisions with two staff officers each. The County Associations would have enough work to do in finding the minor officers on the staff. The question of horse registration had been often discussed in that House, and need not then be gone into further; but

1325
he hoped His Majesty's Government would see fit to make public what they required from the County Associations.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 20, after the word 'locally,' to insert the words 'which requirements shall be defined by the Army Council before the passing of this Act.' "—(Lord Lovat.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid it was quite impossible to put a statutory provision of the kind proposed into an Act of Parliament. The matters referred to were all of very great importance, and he could assure his noble friend they were being most carefully considered by the general staff. They were, obviously, as it seemed to him, matters for Regulations under the Act, but he could not put them in as a statutory provision before the passing of the Act.
*Earl FORTESCUEasked whether, upon the Report stage, his noble friend would consider whether this clause might not be amended in the direction of utilising the County Associations for certain requirements of the Regular Forces as well as the Territorial Force-There was nothing said in Subsection (k) about the registration of vehicles as well as of horses. Vehicles would be wanted as much as horses in the event of mobilisation, and he imagined that if the Expeditionary Force was ever sent away to the number of 160,000 men they would want very likely to take more vehicles than the Army Service wagons in store at Woolwich, and there were other things besides which might be available from local sources. It had been proposed, he believed, by the correspondent of The Times that the different divisions of Regulars in the country should each have allotted to them one or more counties from which to draw horses and vehicles in case of mobilisation; and he would ask his noble friend to give consideration to that matter before the Report stage, and, if necessary, to propose an Amendment of this sub-clause accordingly.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought all their Lordships, including His Majesty's Government, would sympathise with the object which his noble friend had
1326
in view. It was obvious that to raise a large Territorial Force, and to leave in abeyance any longer the provision for mobilisation of that Force, would be injurious to the last degree. At the same time he fully recognised the plea of the noble Earl that it was impossible for the Government to lay down those requirements before the passing of the Act. He would ask the Government whether it was not possible to amend Lord Lovat's Amendment, and to allow these words to be inserted, "According to the scheme which shall be made by the Army Council upon the passing of this Act." He thought those words would entirely carry out the wish of the Government, and would also give effect to the desire of his noble friend Lord Lovat.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he should not like to go quite as far as the suggestion of his noble friend; he would prefer to say, "as soon as possible," instead of "upon the passing of this Act." The former words would not tie the Government down to any particular date. They wanted, of course, to do it as quickly as they could, but did not wish to be bound to do it "upon the passing of this Act."
*VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid that it seemed to him that the words "upon the passing of this Act "would practically mean "as soon as possible."
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he would consider the form of words with a view to seeing whether it was not possible for the Government to meet his noble friend in some way.
EARL OF ONSLOW: Does the noble Lord press his Amendment?
LORD LOVAT: No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*EARL FORTESCUE,:in moving an Amendment to provide for the establishment of corps of civilian guides, said that it was well known that even in the case of an Army operating in a friendly country it was often desirable to make use, for some purposes, of local guides. The object of the Amendment he proposed was to allow the County Associations to

1327
take steps to organise and register such persons beforehand. He was aware that that had been done in one or two districts in this country with comparatively little trouble or expense. The officer commanding the Royal Artillery in the North-East District had organised a corps there, and having heard from him what he had done, he himself (Earl Fortescue) had succeeded in a small way in organising a similar corps in the district from which the North Devon Yeomanry were recruited. At that time he commanded that regiment, the recruiting ground of which extended from the borders of Somerset to the borders of Cornwall, and in a short time, and by the expenditure of only a few pounds in circulars and postage-stamps, he had been able to get the names of over 150 people who declared their readiness to come forward in case of necessity to help the troops by means of their local knowledge. They were not frontiersmen or backwoodsmen, or anything of that sort; they were simply natives of the locality, such as past and present masters of hounds, and hunt servants, road surveyors, county councillors, farmers, and people of all classes, some of whom knew a great deal of country, while others knew only the gates, gaps, wood-paths, and so on in their own parishes. But if the regiment he had referred to had been mobilised, and had had to take up the duty assigned to it of , patrolling the coast, he was certain that they would have derived very great assistance from the local knowledge of these people, who would have been able to show the men a great many paths of which they were previously ignorant: and there was no doubt they would have been enabled, in that way, to effect great economies of horse-flesh in carrying on their work. Among those whose names were given to him were men who could have taken a letter or guided a party for miles across the country, through woods and by by-paths, without ever going for a mile on a frequented road. He begged to move.
Amendment moved—
" In page 4, line 26, after the word ' soldiers ' to insert ' (m) Establishing corps of civilian guides.' "—(Earl Fortescue.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Amendment of his noble friend dealt with Earl Fortescue.
1328
a matter which appeared to him to belong exclusively to the general staff, who did not consider that it would be necessary to have these words inserted. The general staff would undertake the full responsibility for making provision for the performance of the duties which any corps such as his noble friend suggested could be supposed to undertake in time of war. His Majesty's Government quite realised the importance and value of corps of that i kind, and under the circumstances he would ask his noble friend not to press his Amendment, because it was a matter which the general staff wished to take entirely upon themselves.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREasked whether they were to understand that this was a suggestion the importance of which the general staff had fully realised. He had a very lively recollection, when he was at the War Office, of there being a very large pile of papers on this subject, and he did not remember any suggestion in those papers unfriendly to the proposal of the noble Earl. He sincerely hoped that this matter—which, he ventured to say, would, if carried out, provide a most valuable auxiliary machinery to the general staff—would not be lost sight of, because he was certain that the Government, if they could see their way to taking any such step, would have the unanimous support of the whole country.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that his noble friend, Lord Donoughmore, accurately interpreted his intention— that the general staff had fully realised the great importance of the proposal. He was very glad the discussion had taken place, because it had given him an opportunity of stating to the House that the general staff recognised its full and complete responsibility in the matter, and he had been asked by them to state that it was a matter which they would prefer to take upon themselves.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I rather hope that my noble friend (Earl Fortescue) will accept the noble Earl's suggestion and withdraw his Amendment. I would remind him that this list does not profess to be an exhaustive enumeration of the duties of the County Associations, and the mere fact that the

1329
corps of guides are not mentioned by name will not in itself preclude the County Associations from dealing with that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:—
*LORD SALTOUN,in moving the omission of the words "in the opinion of the Army Council" from Sub-clause (1), which provided for the payment by the Army Council to a County Association the sums required to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge of the powers and duties of the Association, said that he had put this Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of drawing more particular attention to the answers which the Under-Secretary for War had given to certain questions which were asked before their Lordships went into Committee yesterday. It seemed to him that those questions, which had been put by his noble friend, Lord Hardinge, were very important, and that they had been most inadequately answered. He would not go into the details of the questions, but the whole of them were answered to the effect that the grant of £75 per company of infantry was intended to cover the administrative expenses of the Association, and that it was hoped that the cost of the working of the County Associations would be kept as low as possible. The Under-Secretary for War had further said that the County Associations would no doubt require office accommodation, and the Bill provided for the appointment of a secretary, who presumably would be a salaried official, and who would require large offices and additional assistants for bookkeeping and so on. So far as he could understand, the whole of those funds were bound to come out of the £75 per company spoken of by the Undersecretary, for he could not see what other source those funds were to come from, so far as had at present been pointed out by the Government. In fact they had pointed out no way, and the result was that while there was not the smallest doubt that these County Associa-
1330
tions might be enormously expensive especially at their starting, the sum proposed was utterly and entirely inadequate for the purpose. The Under-Secretary for War had also, he believed, said that if there was an outstanding debt incurred by the Association it would have to come out of the pockets of the members of the Association. Under those circumstances it would be, he considered, almost impossible to get any person of standing in a county to act on an association.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHapologised for interrupting the noble Lord, but he might perhaps be allowed to suggest that the noble Lord should allow the House in the first place to dispose of his Amendment, and that when their Lordships came to deal with the question whether Clause 3 should stand part of the Bill, then would be the time to raise the other question upon the general question of finance. He would be quite happy to deal with the matter then, but he thought it would be rather awkward to take it in conjunction with the Amendment now before the House.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDpointed out that if that course were pursued it would be impossible to amend the clause. What they wanted to do was, in the first place, to get answers from the Government in order to see whether it was necessary to move Amendments to the clause.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that he had no objection, if the House so desired, to having a general discussion of the financial clauses on the present Amendment. It did not really matter at all to the Government, and it was for the House to decide what they would like done. His only object in raising the point had been to prevent the discussion of the same subject twice over.
LORD SALTOUNsaid he had put the Amendment on the Paper because he did not see any other part of the Bill in which the question could be possibly raised. He was quite aware that the title of the clause was "Expenses of the Association," and that that might be called the money clause of the Bill. Still, as that was the only clause on which the subject, as far as he could see, could be

1331
in any way discussed, it had struck him that that was the right moment to bring forward his Amendment. Of course he was in the hands of the House.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that we do not at all complain of the course the noble Lord has taken. On the contrary, it seems to me a very good way of raising a discussion on the financial question in the Bill. All that my noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth wished to guard against was having a discussion on the financial question now and having it again later on.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREthought it was absolutely unnecessary to guard against what he considered exceedingly unlikely to happen. Because, as this was the only Amendment to the clause, it could hardly be supposed that there would be two discussions upon the same question within a few minutes of each other.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not at all sure that there is not great danger of that.
*LORD SALTOUNsaid that he would not detain their Lordships long; but he had thought it his duty to bring up the subject. He would be glad to hear what the Under-Secretary for War had to tell them upon a subject which was felt to be most important by a great number of people. It was quite certain that if a man gave his services to the public he ought to be guarded against having to put his hand into his pocket in order to relieve the association or the War Office. He thought there should be some statement from the Under-Secretary for War as to what he really meant by the Answers which he had given on the previous evening, which, on the face of them, it was absolutely impossible for him (Lord Saltoun) to understand, and which the Leader of the Opposition himself seemed unable to make head or tail of. He had been asked by Lord Blythswood to say that on the Report stage he proposed to move an Amendment—
"That no pecuniary liability should attach to any member of an association carrying out the duties imposed by this Act."
1332
Lord Blythswood had been obliged to leave the House, and had asked him just to mention his (Lord Blythswood's) intention. He did not know if it was in order to put it down, and he would content himself with simply stating that Lord Blythswood proposed to take that course. In conclusion he would like to hear from the Under-Secretary for War that the members of these associations would be cleared from all expenses incidental to the associations.
Amendment moved—
"In page 4, line 29, to leave out in the opinion of the Army Council." — (Lord Saltoun.)
*LORD HAVERSHAMwished to mention a concrete instance which, he thought, would shew the noble Lord that he was under considerable misapprehension with regard to the money that would be paid to these local associations. In the preceding clause the county associations had to provide and maintain rifle ranges and so on. It was not supposed that out of the £75 per company they could do anything of that sort; and if his noble friend would consult the Army Estimates he would see that there was a sum of £467,000 voted by Parliament for the establishment and maintenance of rifle ranges amongst other things. The words in the clause now under discussion were—
"The Army Council shall pay to an association, out of money voted by Parliament for Army services, such sums,"
and so on. The money would have been voted by Parliament, and all that he imagined this Bill would do was to authorise the paying over to the new associations of any money which might be locally spent by them. He thought that was quite a different thing from what his noble friend was alluding to with regard to the £75 per company. Of course, that was a sum which they would have to use for the particular purposes stated in their budget. They had to send up every year to the Army Council a budget of all their requirements, and if there was any particular requirement which would cost a good deal of money, he was informed officially that they would have to make a

1333
particular demand for it, and then that demand would be considered. At the same time it was supposed that their ordinary expenses would be covered by the amount granted per company. Whether that was so or not, he did not know; but the County Associations would have to put down every item in their budget, which would be very carefully examined into by the Finance Department of the War Office, and subsequently passed by the local auditors.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that if he understood the Bill rightly there were two sources of income which these associations were to have which might be devoted to the purposes mentioned in the Bill. Rifle ranges were mentioned in the Bill, and he understood from the noble Lord (Lord Haversham) that rifle ranges were not to come out of the £75 per company. If that was so, it was very interesting to know it. But what he would submit was that the Undersecretary of State for War should lay upon the Table of the House, if possible, something like a draft scheme of expenditure, and so let them know what was and what was not to come out of the £75, and who was to be liable for any miscarriage of funds. He apologised to the House for speaking so often, but the questions upon this clause wore really the same questions as those which arose on the former clause; and the inquiries he was now about to make were really a continuation and a part of the inquiries he had made upon the former clause. The first question he wished to ask the noble Lord was that which he had just stated, namely, could he give them some estimate of the receipts and expenditure of an average County Association? What would be i the necessary and unavoidable expenses of that association? He had just jotted down one or two things which had occurred to him. First there would be the rent of the offices, and in some large towns good offices were very often expensive places to rent. Then there would be the salary of the secretary. The secretary was to be a gentleman, as he understood, of high standing; he was to be accountable (whatever that meant) to the Army Council; he was to be
1334
appointed by the Army Council, and he was to be the medium of communication between the Army Council and the association. It struck him very strongly that if that were really the case the secretary would really be the association, because he would evidently have the ear of the Army Council. He would have morally, if not actually, the control of the purse. He could not see that there was very much left for the association to do. The salary of the secretary, he imagined, would be a fairly considerable one. Many officials of county councils received £600 or £800 a year, and sometimes more, and he supposed it would be something of that calibre which the secretary of this association would expect. Then the secretary would want an army of clerks. Had the Government really considered what some of the duties which they imposed upon the association meant? There was one in Subsection (e) for instance—
"Arranging with employers of labour as to holidays for training, and ascertaining the times of training best suited to the circumstances of civil life."
What an amount of correspondence and of interviews that would necessitate! Then Subsection (L) dealt with the care of reservists and discharged soldiers. He had had some experience of that, and of the enormous amount of correspondence and inquiries entailed thereby. Indeed, he thought that if they were to provide properly for discharged soldiers they would have to have some organisation of visitors who would see the men in their homes, as the Charity Organisation did, and test their accounts and so on. All that meant work for the officials. He would not detain the House by going through all the various matters in detail, but he might extend such examples to almost any extent. Taking the various subsections of Clause 2, what did they mean? They meant an amount of clerical work, to mention no other, which was simply stupendous. Then there would be travelling expenses for officials—they would have to do a certain amount of travelling about looking after the discharged soldiers, interviewing employers, and doing other business. He had also put down on his list "Stationery and Postage"; that might sound trivial to some of their Lordships, but he did not

1335
know that it would be such a very small amount when it came to be totalled up, with the books and everything which would be required. Then they would have to provide for the care of the offices; and, altogether, he wished to ask the Government whether they had made any estimate of any sort or kind as to what the expenditure of the association under such heads as those would be. He was quite aware that the Government might answer that they had not decided exactly what work they were going to put upon the associations, that these clauses were merely permissive, and that they could not tell what the cost would be until they had decided how much they intended to avail themselves of the powers which Parliament was to entrust them with. That, of course, was perfectly true, but there must be limits to it. The Government seemed to be in the position of a man who was asking an architect what it would cost to build a hospital; and when the architect asked how large the hospital was to be, he was told: "I don't know how many beds there will be; I cannot tell you yet." The architect says, "What sort of sum have you got to spend on the hospital?" and the reply he receives is, "Oh, a ten-pound note." It was quite clear that that would be inadequate; and that was, it seemed to him, exactly the position of the Government in this matter. He thought the House might possibly be given some indication that such-and-such duties were to be undertaken by the County Associations, that their cost would be so much, that there would be so many duties, and so on. He wanted to ask a j question which seemed to him of vital importance to everyone who was to be on one of these associations: What was to happen if the expenditure of the association exceeded its income? There was nothing more likely, because it was going to undertake an absolutely new work; it had got to feel its way, and a good deal of pressure would be put upon it from various sources for expenditure. What was to happen, supposing there was a miscalculation? And, out of that arose another question that he wished to put to the noble Lord. The noble Lord had spoken yesterday of the corporate liability of the association. What did "corporate liability" mean in that
1336
connection? As far as he understood, all corporations which had corporate liability either had property of their own, which they might sell if they got into debt, or they had powers of raising a rate, or they had both opportunities. But what was the corporate liability of an association which had no property at all? It did not mean the liability of the individuals, because that would not be a corporate liability. Then, what was the liability? Finally, he wished to ask a question which arose out of the debate upon the previous clause. From what sources was the association to expect money, if any, other than that supplied to it from the Department of the Government? He did not wish to raise the old argument about privilege, but the whole contention that that was a breach of privilege depended upon the fact that the money which was being dealt with under that clause was derived from grants by Parliament; and that would lead one to the conclusion that the only matters which the association had to deal with were grants by Parliament. He wanted to put the question in this form. It had been said yesterday that a great deal had been done in the past by generous individuals in respect of Volunteer corps and other branches of the local Forces. Supposing an enthusiastic and patriotic-individual chose to give to an association some money to be spent on, say, drilling boys under the age of sixteen, was he to be capable of doing that, or was he not? That would not be money derived from Parliament. He would have thought there was nothing more likely than that somebody in a county who felt very strongly with the gallant Field Marshal who had spoken so eloquently in favour of training boys, some sympathiser with that view, should give money to an association for that purpose. Would that be lawful or would it not? What were the sources—that really was his question put shortly—what were the sources of income which an association was to look to; what was it probable the money derived from those various sources would amount to: what was the probable expenditure of the association; and, finally, what was the liability of the association, supposing they should outrun their income?
LORD RAGLANsaid that the difficulty he saw with regard to the money was this: First of all, the clause now under consideration was really the entire Bill, and all the rest was practically merely accessory. To those who, like himself, might find themselves in the position of being president of one of these associations, it. was a matter of very great importance; because, first of all, the information they had received on the subject was extraordinarily vague; and, secondly, they did not know to what claims against them it might lead. There were only two points which he should like to put to the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for War with regard to this expenditure. In the first place, there was the question of the £75 per company. That sum was mentioned in an exceedingly airy manner, and they had been told, "Oh! £75 a company!" He wanted to know what that £75 was. Was it a maximum; that was to say, that no company would ever get more than £75? Or was it a minimum; that was to say, that no company would ever get less than £75? Or was it the average sum which would be spread out over all the companies, some getting more, and some getting less, but the £75 being the average of the amounts which the whole of the associations would receive? The expenses of administering the Act would vary most amazingly between county and county, and still more between regiment and regiment. For instance, if they took a compact urban battalion of Volunteers, of which the whole of the men lived within a mile of their headquarters, and compared the expenses of such a battalion with the expenses of a rural battalion, with its companies scattered up and down a county running perhaps to hundreds of square miles, they would find that there would be an enormous additional expense in the latter case by the attempt to organise it up to anything approaching the efficiency of an urban corps. He would also like to know what the word "organisation" meant in the phrase "organisation of the units of the Territorial Force." Did the words "organisation of units" mean merely the formation, or did it mean the general administration of those units: because the word "adminis-
1338
tration" was used after that—"and their administration." Surely the War Office had in their minds some sort of idea of what they thought it would cost to organise and administer an ordinary average battalion consisting of the ordinary number of companies, say, from eight to ten. He thought the House ought to be told whether or not some sort of idea was in the minds of the War Office as to what the actual cost was to be.
VISCOUNT ESHERwished to ask the noble Earl whether His Majesty's Government was in any way bound to the figure of £75 per company, or whether that was anything more than a rough estimate of the probable expenditure of the Territorial Army?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHclaimed the indulgence of the House for going into the rather difficult question of figures, and said that perhaps before replying to the various questions put to him (which he would endeavour to answer so far as he could follow them) it might be to the convenience of the House if he gave their Lordships, rather in layman's language, an account of what the financial position would be under the clause. This clause had been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny and examination in the House of Commons; and it had been drawn up very carefully in negotiation with the Treasury. Under the present régime the commanding officer in a Yeomanry or Volunteer regiment received the whole of the funds which had been earned by his corps, and was solely responsible for administering his corps on those grants, supplemented by any private funds which might be forthcoming. That was a financial responsibility which had pressed very heavily on many commanding officers, and one of the benefits and advantages of the present Bill was that it removed that condition of things as far as possible. In future the War Office would have no financial dealings with the officer commanding a unit; the whole cost of training and instruction corresponding to the present camp and school grants would be met by the general commanding officer from funds allotted to him by the War Office; and the

1339
financial administration of the corps during the rest of the year would devolve upon the associations, and not upon the commanding officers. He did not know whether their Lordships had seen a Parliamentary Paper which had been for some time circulated, Cd. 3296; it was a very technical Paper, and probably even if their Lordships saw it they might require to have had almost the experience of an accountant in order to make it out. But in that Parliamentary Paper the sums allotted to the associations for defraying the cost of the administration of units in each year would be based on, firstly, a grant per unit to meet the expenses which did not vary with the strength—those embraced general administrative expenses and the upkeep of drill halls, but did not include, necessarily, such things as rifle ranges; and, secondly, on grants per man to meet the cost of clothing and travel. The War Office would pay over every year to the associations the grants earned under those two heads, the distribution of those funds among the various units being left entirely to the discretion of the association. The grant for general administrative expenses was based upon the actual average expenditure of past years, a margin having been allowed for the administrative expenses of associations, which it was hoped would be kept at a minimum. The grant for clothing was based upon the actual cost of clothing, and the grants for headquarters, travelling and so forth would be based upon actual requirements. Commanding officers of the Territorial Force would be relieved of the financial responsibility which in the past had so heavily pressed upon them. As ordinary members of a sub-committee of the association, they might be called upon to administer such portions of the grant as the association might find it necessary to delegate to them, but even in such cases the responsibility would rest with the association. As had been explained in another place, the corps would be handed over to the associations as going concerns in a sound financial condition— that was to say, such debts outstanding at the time of transition as were not due to extravagant and unauthorised administration would be met out of public funds. Those were, as far as he was able
1340
to give them to their Lordships, the general outlines of what the effect of the clause and of the Government's proposals would be. The Duke of Northumberland had put to him certain questions which he would endeavour to the best of his ability to answer as specifically as he could, as also the question put by Lord Esher. The noble Duke had asked whether the Government could give him an estimate of the cost of these associations. He was afraid it would really be impossible at present to give any estimate of the receipts and administrative expenses of average County Associations as distinct from the expenditure now dealt with by commanding officers of Volunteer units. They had heard a great deal about the £75 grant. Lord Raglan had remarked that he (the Earl of Portsmouth) had "airily" mentioned it. The £75 grant appeared in the Paper to which he had already referred (Cd. 3296) of Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson. It was therefore not a mere casual sum. The £75 grant for which provision had been made in the Estimates would, they hoped, provide some margin to meet such expenditure; but until the associations themselves were in a position to indicate the requirements of their special localities, he was afraid, after having made very careful inquiries, that any Departmental Estimate would prove very misleading. It was a very important point, and one which would of course be very carefully considered when the scheme of each association came to be developed. Judging from what had been said, there appeared to have been a general idea that this £75 grant per company was a sort of fixed and hard and rigid sum, whereas the administrative grant of £75 per company was only an estimate based upon past experience, and he would like to take that opportunity of stating — as he was glad to do—that it was fully recognised by the Government that that sum might have to be varied in different cases, and that if it was not sufficient in any particular case, the necessary expenses of the association would have to be provided for to a larger extent from public funds. He hoped that that explanation had made the point quite clear. Then there was another point—he did not know

1341
whether it had been in the mind of the noble Duke, but one or two other gentlemen had written to him about it—and that was the question of what he might call the running account. In the event of the expenditure of an association exceeding its income, no cash settlement at the end of the year would be insisted upon by the War Office—they felt that they could not impose strict Treasury conditions in that respect in regard to these associations—but the liability would have to be taken into account by the association in disposing of its income during the following year.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDasked who was to bear the liability. The noble Lord had said that the liability must be taken into account. Was it a personal liability of the members of the association, or was it a corporate liability, and if the latter, what did corporate liability mean?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was rather glad that the noble Duke had asked him that question, because, as he had foreseen that in all human probability he himself might possibly, in the future, be a member of one of these associations, he had been very anxious to know what his own liability was going to be, and he had taken as keen an interest in the matter, and was as desirous of obtaining some satisfactory assurance on that point, as any of his noble friends on the other side of the House. With regard to what was a ''corporate liability," although he was a lawyer, he was afraid he could not describe to the House exactly what that was, but he had made himself perfectly satisfied upon the point—which he was bound to say was good enough for him— as regarded his own position as a member of one of these associations; he had satisfied himself that no individual member of an association would be pecuniarily liable in any respect except in the case of fraud. He wished to apologise to their Lordships for having gone into these details of what he was afraid was an exceedingly difficult question. Before sitting down he would like to deal with the merits of the Amendment nominally before the House.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I would like to say just a word before the
1342
noble Earl proceeds to deal with that question.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDasked whether it would be convenient for him to put a question now or afterwards.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHconfessed that questions were never very convenient in these matters when they were thrown across the Table, but if the noble Duke put a question, he would answer it to the best of his ability.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid it was extremely satisfactory to all of them who might hereafter be presidents of these associations to know that they were not pecuniarily liable, but the question still returned upon him, Who was liable? Where was the deficit, if any, to come from?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsuggested that the noble Duke might put that question with greater effect to the noble Lord upon the Woolsack, who he regretted was not there at the moment.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord has made a determined effort to remove a part of the obscurity which pervades this portion of the Bill, but I am afraid he has not been entirely successful in enlightening us. I should like to ask him, omitting all details, and in quite a general way, whether we rightly understand the procedure which will be followed with regard to the financial arrangements of these County Associations. I gather that every year each of the County Associations will have to prepare a kind of budget of its own. That budget will go up to the War Office, and will there be examined and revised by the Army Council. Upon these figures collectively Parliament will be asked to vote money in the Army Estimates. That money will be allocated by the Army Council county by county. Each association will then have to distribute its own grant, making that grant go as far as it can; and then I understand the noble Earl to tell us, that if, as seems only too likely (because we know that estimates which go up to the War Office are always

1343
cut down), the sum placed by the War Office at the disposal of the association is not sufficient to meet the necessary expenditure connected with the exercise and discharge by the association of its duties and powers, then will come the last act in the drama: the association sends the hat round for the deficit. I take it that is what will happen. The noble Earl vouch-safes further this information, which is interesting—that the association will have the privilege of running into debt at the end of the year, but the deficit will have eventually to be made good out of the grant of the following year. That is what I gathered from the noble Earl.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: May have to be made good.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: May have to be made good, if there is a deficit. That is the source to which the association will have to look, if there is a deficit—to the next year's grant. Is that so?
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am much obliged.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that now that he had, as far as possible, made clear what was rather a difficult matter, he might perhaps be allowed to deal with the terms of the Amendment of Lord Saltoun. Lord Saltoun proposed to leave out the words "in the case of the Army Council." That was an Amendment which he was afraid it would not be possible for them to accept, because the effect of the Amendment would be to destroy the control over Army expenditure which the Army Council must necessarily retain in their hands subject to the general control of the Treasury, as set forth in Subsections (3) and (6) of the clause. The statements submitted by the various associations would, of course, like all other items of expenditure, be reviewed by the Army Council before inclusion in the Army Estimates. He hoped his noble friend would not press the Amendment. It was a very singular thing that a similar Amendment was
1344
moved in the House of Commons under the mistaken idea that it was to have the effect of bringing the control of Parliament more directly to bear upon the money to be given to these associations. He regretted that His Majesty's Government could not accept the Amendment. Was it the intention of the noble Lord to press it?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that the noble Lord (Lord Saltoun) had been obliged to leave the House, I but had asked him to say that he was not desirous of pressing his Amendment. He would like to remind the noble Lord that he had not yet answered the question which he had put to him as to whether a patriotic individual desiring to subscribe money for the drilling of boys below the age of sixteen would be allowed to do it.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps I might answer that question. The restriction, as the noble Lord will see, applies only to schools in receipt of a Parliamentary grant, and I suppose the noble Lord means by his question, could boys belonging to a school in receipt of a grant be drilled if the money for doing so was privately subscribed.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Through an association.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: It could not be done through an association according to the terms of the Bill, unless, of course the Amendment which has just been negatived was allowed to stand. Further than that, it would undoubtedly be a matter for the Beard of Education to decide as to whether they would allow such drilling to take place.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid that before leaving the subject of expenses he thought there was a great deal which still required clearing up, and although he did not desire to detain their Lordships a single moment unnecessarily, he would urge upon the Government whether it was not possible to lay upon the Table of the House some sort of estimate of what this £75 was intended to cover. So far as he knew, a sum of £2:25,000 was taken in all. That represented a sum of £75

1345
per company or thereabouts, as far as he could calculate. When they came to put down the large charges which were involved in sub-section (c) for the provision and maintenance of rifle ranges, buildings, magazines, and so forth, those were very serious charges, and when the noble Earl toll them that the general administration expenses would be taken at the cost at which they had hitherto been, he thought, although it was very fair that should be considered, that they would find that there were very great divergencies in the different corps, and that the cost to the country would be something infinitely greater than the noble Earl had any idea of. There was one other point which had not been taken up, and which he would urge the Government to consider. If they were to pass these words," in the opinion of the Army Council''—which, of course, he quite realised must under the circumstances stand in the Bill—every single item of expenditure which the associations undertook must first be referred to the Army Council before they could undertake it, if they were to get the money refunded. Had their Lordships considered what would be the amount of correspondence between these various small War Offices and the main parent body if every item that had finally to be passed by the Army Council was to be discussed by letter between the secretary and the Army Council? He thought that it would be a good thing if some plan could be devised—and if they could see the Government scheme, he thought that perhaps they might help to devise it— by which a sum which really would cover the expenses in all cases—or should cover the expenses in all cases—should be allotted so that each individual item should not be made a matter of discussion. One point had interested him very much in the noble Earl's remarks. He had made what seemed to him the very singular observation that if the associations outran their income, the Army Council would not insist upon a cash settlement during that year. But the difficulty would be that the associations would have over-spent their money; it would not be a question of a cash settlement upon which the Army Council would insist, but of a cash settlement without which the associations would be
1346
bankrupt. There was no individual, liability; there was no power to borrow; the associations had only two sources of funds—what the Army Council granted to them under this clause, and what they could raise, as his noble friend (the Duke-of Northumberland) had said, by sending the hat round. What he feared was that too much of the time of these associations would be taken up in communicating with the War Office on the one hand as to what they might do, and,. on the other hand, in sending out petitions broadcast to everyone in the county who had got money to spare to relieve-them of some portion of a liability which they would otherwise undertake. They might not be able to do more than urge it upon the Government, but in the interest of the Government and of these schemes which they were going to put out, he thought it would be highly desirable for them to draw up for their Lordships some sort of model scheme for a battalion, or for an association, which would give some idea of whether the sum involved would be adequate to meet the needs of the association, and if not, show how those needs were to be met other than by appeals to the public, which the noble Earl had assured them it was not the desire of the Government should be-made.
*LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid he would leave his noble friends below him to say whether the Government would be prepared to draw up the scheme with the various model regulations and requirements which he understood the noble Viscount to say he thought would be desirable. Although he had served for some years in the Army he did not intervene in the debate on that ground, but because the establishment of these County Associations must naturally bring in an extremely civilian complexion and many civilian considerations into the whole discussion of the Bill. That, he thought everybody would bear witness, had amply appeared in the course of the debate so far as it had gone. He was certain that noble Lords below him who represented His Majesty's Government would be the very last people to complain that noble Lords opposite and noble Lords on their

1347
own side had pressed them hard for a great many details. The Committee stage of a Bill was the right moment at which to bring forward those details in their most pungent form, and as far as possible to insist on answers to any questions which might arise. He agreed that some of the answers which had been given had not, perhaps, illuminated them very much, but he was certain that that was really not any fault of the noble Lord (the Earl of Portsmouth) or of the Government. It was inherent in a scheme of this sort that they must apply to it that motto which always was applied so successfully to English affairs, "solvitur ambulando," and a great many of the questions which had been asked could not be answered in the detailed terms in which those of their Lordships who were likely to have something to do hereafter with these County Associations, or who might possibly have to put their hands into their pockets to make good some of the deficiencies which might arise out of the conduct of affairs by these County Associations, would have liked to have had them answered. They all wanted to have questions answered and details given which he did not think they were likely to get answered or given. But he would recall the House to two main considerations. If he might say so, without imparting any sort of personal colour into the matter, he thought a good deal of what they had been listening to was what he would call "fears of the brave and follies of the wise." He believed himself that the whole reputation of the Army Council was bound up in the efficiency and the success of this scheme. He believed that the whole reputation of the Government was bound up in its economic—using the word in the sense of economy and thrift—administration. Under those circumstances he thought they must walk a little by faith, and believe that on the one hand the Army would not be starved by the Army Council, and, on the other hand, that they would not be put to any very great expense in connection with these County Associations. Perhaps he might put it in this way—that he did not think either that the Army would be starved or that money would be wasted under the proposals of the Government, for the reasons that on the one
1348
side they had the Army Council, whose reputation was bound up in efficiency, and on the other hand they had the success of the Government, which was bound up in producing a scheme which would secure that the Army should be conducted on economic and business principles.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUinquired whether the noble Earl could tell him in the case of cadet corps which were not connected with schools if the provision in Subsection (2) (f) of Clause 2 would apply. He knew that in Harrow, for instance, such corps would not be affected, because they did not receive public grants, but he was thinking of a cadet corps such as he had in his own battalion—a cadet corps not necessarily in a school, but in a town, and consisting of boys of about sixteen. Were such corps affected by this provision, or would they get a grant?
*LORD HARRISdesired to say a few words by way of warning to His Majesty's Government. He did not think what had already been said with regard to the amount of correspondence which would take place between the Army Council and the County Associations had anything like exhausted that interesting subject. There would be an entirely new subject for correspondence, viz., what the colonels spent in clothing and administration. At present it was, he imagined, the one outlay of the War Office in which red tape did not come in. The sum was handed over, whatever it might be, to an officer commanding a unit, and he spent it within the lines which had been laid down in the regulations. Those lines were very liberal, and the commanding officer was allowed to dispose of the money with great freedom. All that was to be done away with. He did not blame the War Office in the least for taking this liability off the shoulders of commanding officers, because he was perfectly aware that commanding officers had constantly grumbled at it. But that was all going to be done away with, and upon every item of expenditure that the officer commanding a unit washed to undertake there would be

1349
correspondence with the County Association. They all knew the trite example of how much was spent—he thought it was something like 7s. 6d.—in correspondence on the sewing of a button on to the tunic of a soldier. It was constantly quoted, he remembered, some years ago. That was an instance of red tape, and it seemed to him extremely probable that the same kind of thing was going to happen here, and that he, for instance, would not be able to get a trooper's overall altered by the local tailor without having a correspondence with the County Association. Upon every item included under the heads which had been mentioned by the noble Earl—expenditure on clothing, expenditure on drill halls, expenditure on rifle ranges, and so on — there would be correspondence of a more or less voluminous character. That had all got to be added to the correspondence which his noble friend on the Front Bench had referred to. He only mentioned this to show the noble Earl that it was an amount of correspondence which the War Office at present had no means of calculating, because at present it was done entirely by commanding officers of units, who very often paid for the correspondence out of their own pockets, and the volume of it was known only to themselves, and not to any War Office officials. All that was outside the means of calculation of the War Office at the present time, and therefore he threw this out as a warning to the noble Earl as a matter which he had to take into consideration, and ventured to think that he might find the expense of the County Associations in clerical matters, both as to personnel and also as to pens, ink and paper, a good deal more than he at present imagined.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:—
LORD LOVATmoved an Amendment to Subsection (e), specifying that in regard to the regulations made by the Army Council under this part of the Act for providing by the constitution of joint committees or otherwise for co-
1350
operative action, such co-operative action should be "in the organisation and administration of divisions, brigades, and other military body." He thought that after the discussion they had had, they would probably all agree that the fewer of these County Associations there were the better, and that if the formation of County Associations could be avoided, it would be avoided in a good many cases. He therefore urged His Majesty's Government to accept his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"On page 5, line 39, after the word 'action' to insert 'in the organisation and administration of divisions, brigades, and other military body.' "—(Lord Lovat.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he should be very glad to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ESHERasked whether Subsection (c) was really required by His Majesty's Government. He had always understood that one of the great scandals, he might almost say, of the administration of the Volunteers hitherto had been the power vested in commanding officers both to borrow money on their own personal liability and also to mortgage the future grants. He thought it would be a matter of regret if these local associations were to start with similar powers, and he would ask the noble Lord whether that sub-section was really necessary.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthought that the subsection had better not be dispensed with, because if there was to be a question of mortgaging future grants, it would have to be considered in connection with the regulations which the Government proposed to make under this paragraph. Under the circumstances he thought it better to leave the subsection in.
Clause 5:—
LORD LOVATmoved an Amendment to ensure that the number of men

1351
provided for by Parliament in the Territorial Forces at the passing of the Act should be not less than the number of men actually in the Auxiliary Forces prior to the passing of the Bill. He said he brought the Amendment forward not with any view of pressing it, but to extract certain information from His Majesty's Government as to what our Home defence would be after the passing of the Bill. At the present moment there were in the Auxiliary Forces—at all events on paper—500,000 men. In other words, that was the establishment. As a matter of fact, all the men available for the defence of the country were some 336,000. Under the new Act there would be as the establishment 300,000, or, to be more correct, perhaps 313,000 men. If they took the proportion of men to establishment in "the existing Auxiliary Forces—that was to say, three-fourths, or 336,000 to 470,000—and three-fourths of the expected establishment, namely, three-fourths of 313,000, they would' find that they would have something between 220,000 and 230,000 responsible for the defence of the country. That defence might be roughly divided under two heads, those men who had to take up the local defences, coast defence, and the defence of those places which must be held and in which men were placed at the beginning of a war and must remain until the war was over. He did not pretend to know, and if he did he certainly should not state, what that number was, but it was generally reckoned by military writers, including German writers, to be something between 115,000 and 200,000. Taking the mean of those two figures it meant that under existing circumstances there were at the present moment something in the neighbourhood of 180,000 men for our defences, while under the new scheme for the mobile force for the defence of this country we should have no more than 50,000 to 70,000 at the outside. He would ask their Lordships whether that was enough to reckon on for Home defence. He was not now going to enter into the possibilities of invasion or what landings could be effected. He knew the noble Lord opposite held some strictly confined views on the subject, but he would like to ask if he were correct in his view that the outside
1352
limit for mobile Home defence was some thing between 50,000 and 70,000, granting that the proportion of establishment to numbers which held good in the past would presumably hold good in the future. He thought they must accept as an absolute certainty that with any army on a voluntary principle they could never get absolutely up to establishment. The noble Earl did not perhaps quite believe that, but he could tell him as one running a couple of Yeomanry regiments that it was perfectly impossible from one day to the next to be absolutely certain of what their strength was. Men came and went. They had the right, of course, of leaving at short notice, and they did not notify the fact until the last moment before the training that they intended to leave, and the commanding officer did not hear probably that they had gone to Canada until they had been there a month. There was never any hope of an army recruited on a voluntary basis being kept up to establishment. They must allow for at least 10 per cent., and moreover, there was the certainty that, in the division of units in a way they thought rather arbitrary, where they got a full unit and more than enough recruits in one place, in another place they did not get half up to strength. That had always been the past experience, and presumably it would remain so. He would not enter into the question of efficiency, although it might be pressed, but that there would be certainly something in the same nature as at present he thought practically admitted of no doubt. He would ask the noble Earl whether, say, 1.50,000 to 200,000 for local or strong place defences taken off the 313,000, which was to be the total number for Home defence, was sufficient for the defences of this country? He was perfectly well aware that he could be met in part by the argument that in one case he was counting the Militia and in the other he was not. But they could not have their cake and eat it. The Government claimed to make a better defence for abroad than before, and therefore, they could not count these men among those for the defence of the Home country. He thought when they came to consider that they had taken off regular battalions in the past, that they had reduced the number

1353
of Artillery, that they were going to knock off twenty-three regiments of Militia, and, so far as he could see, sixty-one battalions of Volunteers, and although concessions had been made to the Yeomanry, they were going to reduce their numbers also, and when in addition they realised the importance of the questions asked on the subject of the Navy. by Lord Cawdor the other day, he thought the question of the defence of this country was one to which insufficient attention had been given. He would like to ask the noble Earl—and he hoped he would at least answer this particular question—whether he considered the small mobile force, distinct from the number required for local defences, for the whole of England, Ireland, and Scotland, was sufficient to meet the requirements which might be put upon it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 27, after the word ' Parliament' to insert the words 'Provided always that the number of men provided for by Parliament, in the Territorial Forces at the passing of the Act shall be not less than the .number of men actually in the Auxiliary Forces prior to the passing of such Act.' "— (Lord Lovat.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he did not want to appear to be discourteous to his noble friend, but it was quite impossible for him casually to discuss across the Table the question of the number of men which, in his opinion, were or were not necessary in regard to the very complex subject of Home defence. That was a question which if it was to be decided could only be decided after consultation with and on the advice of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and he could only on this occasion ask their Lordships to consider the actual effect of the Amendment which the noble Lord had moved. The effect of that Amendment, which he hoped his noble friend would not press upon the House, would be to put a minimum limit to the number of men to be voted by Parliament for the Territorial Forces. The actual numbers of the Regular Forces and Militia were at present annually fixed by Parliament, and the old constitutional reason and practice were to prevent the Crown exceeding that number. In the case of the Yeomanry and Volunteers, whose
1354
services were regarded as purely voluntary, there never had been any limit fixed to their numbers, and the money voted had the practical effect of restricting the number to be raised. The only result of the Amendment would be to prevent any reduction in the numbers of the Territorial Forces below the actual numbers of the Volunteers and Yeomanry. According to the figures which he had the numbers at the present moment stood at 280,000. Even if this Amendment were carried it would not have the effect of binding Parliament, because Parliament could override it next year by the Appropriation Act or any other Act by which the numbers of the Territorial Force were fixed. It was quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, which moreover would not have the effect which it apparently was intended to have.
LORD LOVAT: What will be the number of the mobile force for the defence of the country?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am not in a position to give a categorical answer to that question.
LORD LOVATsaid that that was information which their Lordships ought to press for, because it was one of the most important subjects touched by the Bill. They must presume that His Majesty's Government were going to give the country for home defence a sufficient number of men not only to defend the strong places and the coast, but also to give a residue for mobile columns in the country, and he ventured to state that the outside limit of numbers they could expect was not more than from 50,000 to 70,000.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he would like to draw attention to the position in which they found themselves. The Under-Secretary's attitude evidently was that he was unwilling to put in the Bill a provision which attempted to bind future Parliaments with reference to this matter.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the object of the Amendment, if carried, would be to fix the minimum number of

1355
men. They could not do that by a provision in this Bill. It would practically be overridden to-morrow by the Appropriation Act.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked if the noble Earl would give the information asked for by Lord Lovat.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid it was not in his power.
LORD MONTAGU Of BEAULIEUsaid that perhaps on Third Reading the noble Earl would be able to tell their Lordships what number would be available for the defence of this country.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid it was quite impossible for him to give any undertaking of that kind.
LORD LOVATasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUmoved an Amendment providing that an order might be issued with respect to the government, discipline, pay, "and allowances" of the Territorial Force. He said he did not think the House had had any statement as to pay and allowances to be given to the force, and perhaps the noble Earl could tell them whether they would be the same as they had been accustomed to. He understood that in future there was to be eight days training for the Territorial Army, and he took it the Government wished to give the same pay and allowances as had been given hitherto. He really put down the Amendment to elicit that from the noble Earl, and to ask whether there would be any change in camp allowance, rates in lieu of pay, and other details.
Amendment moved—
"In page 6, line 32, after the word 'pay,' to insert the words 'and allowances.' "—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu).
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Can the noble Earl give any information?
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I can not give you details.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUmoved an Amendment providing that the orders issued might provide, among other things, "for the appointment of a Regular adjutant" and for the constitution of a. permanent staff, "including adjutants and staff-sergeants, who shall be members of His Majesty's Regular Forces." He said that this was rather an important Amendment. The noble Earl, he believed, could reassure those who believed in the future of the Territorial Army on this point, which was that this force should be allowed to have Regular adjutants and staff-sergeants as at present. There was, he thought, an idea at one time that they should be called upon to provide their own adjutants, which in some cases might work well, but he believed Mr. Haldane had stated that the adjutants would be selected as at present, and if the noble Earl could give him an assurance it would meet the object of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 5, after the word 'provide' to insert the words 'for the appointment of a regular adjutant and.' "—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that he could not accept this Amendment or the next.† He would take both. Amendments together, as they applied to the same question, and the same objection applied to both. The Government were not in a position to accept the Amendments because they dealt with matters in regard to which they could not tie their hands by Act of Parliament. To attempt to do so might, and probably
† The Amendment referred to proposed that the orders issued under Clause 6 might provide for the constitution of a permanent staff, "including adjutants of His Majesty's Regular Forces."

1357
would, dislocate all the training arrangements. The Army Council had no present intention to dispense with the Regular adjutants, but they could not tie their hands in the way suggested by the Amendment. Very possibly in the future it might be that the employment of members of the trained staff of the third and fourth battalions and instructors of the Territorial Forces would enable the Army Council to dispense to some extent with the services of the adjutants and staff-sergeants.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETONdid not think the noble Earl had quite appreciated the force of the clause. The clause was only permissive, but it gave a sort of rechauffé of what the intentions of the Government were. The noble Earl would recall that in the other House of Parliament the Secretary of State gave an under taking to provide Regular adjutants to these corps, and, in order merely to carry out the actual proposal in the Paper which had been laid on the Table by the right hon. Gentleman in the other House, it was highly desirable to bring this clause into concurrence with the provision for a permanent staff and also for the appointment of Regular adjutants By this use of the word "may" it was still left in the power of the Government to advise His Majesty whether it should or should not be done, and he thought under the circumstances, seeing that the matter had been made the subject already of a Parliamentary statement which was practically a Parliamentary pledge, the noble Earl would only be showing a want of confidence in what had already been done if he refused to allow it to be placed in the Bill.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: With regard to the second Amendment, is not the force of the permissive word "may" somewhat diminished by the phrase "adjutants and staff-sergeants who shall be members of His Majesty's Regular forces?" It seems to me that if those words are included it may be taken to be very much like a permanent injunction to make them always members of the Regular forces.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it was quite true that the object was to
1358
give the opportunity to the Army Council to appoint these Regular adjutants and for Parliament to indicate to the country that that was what was contemplated. As his noble friend had just pointed out, there was no desire absolutely to bind the Army Council, as the word "may" and not "shall" was used; but he was convinced that if the Government persisted in refusing this Amendment it would be conceived in the country that they had gone back upon the position which they took up recently in the House of Commons. It would be thought that after the country had been informed that the adjutancies were to be properly maintained the Government had, on second thoughts, come to the conclusion that perhaps they ought not to be maintained. Did the Government desire to produce that impression in the country? It would be a most disastrous impression,, because he was perfectly certain, though he was not himself a Volunteer, from his knowledge of the subject that it would be quite impossible to carry on the Volunteer service properly unless it had these adjutants. The noble Earl had said that perhaps in the future it might be found possible to detach an officer from the staff of the Militia to take over the duties of adjutant of the Volunteer force. He could not congratulate the noble Earl upon that suggestion. He thought it would be very inconvenient for the special Reservists, and exceedingly unpopular with the Territorial Force. But he need not argue the point, because it came within the terms of the Amendment that the adjutant would be a Regular officer within the meaning of the Amendment. He had invited the Government not to expose themselves to the undoubted suspicion which would be created by their action if they refused this Amendment. It would be thought throughout the country that the idea of maintaining the Regular adjutants in the Territorial Force had been abandoned. He was afraid they could not be parties to such a change of front, if it was to be made.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he really did not think the noble Marquess had any justification for supposing they would make a change of front, but he

1359
could not accept this Amendment without further consultation. He was advised that it would have a different effect from what the noble Lord supposed. If, however, he found that it could be inserted at a later stage, he would insert it. At the present moment, however, he could not accept it.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid in this case they felt very strongly indeed that the Territorial Army, which they would all try loyally to make a success, would not be a success unless they had Regular adjutants and staff-sergeants. He had had an acting-adjutant for some time who was an exceptionally good Volunteer, and if he was not to have a Regular adjutant for his corps he would rather have a Volunteer whom he could select from among his own staff; but he appealed for a Regular adjutant, because they wanted that professional assistance from the Regular adjutant which he thought they ought to have.
VISCOUNT MIDLETONhoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division. At the War Office, where he had a good deal of experience in this matter, he was advised over and over again by the Commander in Chief that it was absolutely necessary that the Volunteers should have a Regular adjutant. The Government had admitted that plea by giving a Parliamentary pledge, and it would be most unfortunate if the noble Earl should appear in any way to go back upon it.
*EARL ROBERTSsupported what the noble Viscount had said. As Commander-in-Chief he had always insisted that the adjutant of the Volunteers should be a Regular, and as it had been said in the House of Commons that he should be a Regular he could not conceive that there was any objection to inserting the Amendment. He trusted the Amendment would be carried.
*LORD HAVERSHAMsaid he believed that an adjutant was included in the permanent staff, and this clause gave the power to appoint a permanent staff.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What is the objection to the Amendment?
*LORD HAVERSHAMsaid they never put into an administrative Bill like this actual details of what was to be done by the executive officers at the War Office. It was most unusual to tie their hands in the way proposed by the Amendment, and a particular objection was that it would cut out all the Militia officers, for whom they had been endeavouring for years in the House of Commons to obtain these adjutancies. He could instance in the case of the London Rifle Brigade—practically the best man they ever had as adjutant would have been cut out by this Amendment because he had sold his commission in the Army. Their Lordships had the pledge of the Secretary of State for War and the assurance of his noble friend that what Lord Roberts said would be regarded, and that these adjutants and staff-sergeants from the Army would be preserved as far as possible; but he thought it would be very unfair to tie the hands of the Government by special words in the Bill, and it was certainly quite foreign to the practice of Parliament to include such details in a Bill of this kind, which was of an administrative and not of an executive character.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Lord supposes the words are merely surplus age they will do no great harm.
*LORD HAVERSHAM: But they tie the hands of the Government.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the clause should contain an indication that in ordinary cases Regular adjutants will be appointed. Let me I point out that the whole clause is governed by the word "may" therefore, it does not put any compulsion upon the military authorities to make these appointments. It is merely an indication that as a rule it is desirable.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Neither the noble Marquess nor any other noble Lord has touched the point which I ventured to raise, namely, that if you insert the word "may " in the earlier part of the clause it seems very singular drafting to use the word "shall" in the latter part. As "regards the whole question, my noble

1361
friend has said that lie will ask the Secretary of State what his view is as to including some words of this nature at a later stage. I think it is hardly possible to expect my noble friend to go further than this, and under these circumstances I desire to appeal to your Lordships not to divide the House.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he was sure their Lordships were very glad to hear that the Secretary for War would consider these words at a later stage, but he thought they had a right to say that they should have been considered before, and if that had not been done, surely the proper course was to insert the words now and consider them afterwards.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Considered in the light of the noble Earl's objections.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The objections have all been raised by that bench, and surely you have considered them by now.
THE EARL OF ARRANthought that Regular adjutants should be employed, but his view as commanding a battalion, like his noble friend Lord Montagu, was that if they could not have Regular adjutants they would prefer to have them from their own staff.
LORD LUCASsaid he quite saw the point of the noble Viscount and also of the noble Earl, Lord Roberts, who had pointed out the great importance that had hitherto been attached to the appointment of Regular adjutants for Volunteer regiments and the great good that had resulted. At the same time, there had been a great change in the policy to be inaugurated under the new Territorial Army and that was made possible by the new factor of training battalions. It was the intention of the Government, he believed, to try as far as possible a new system of training, which was that, instead of having the instructor attached to the unit, as was the case now, they should try as far as possible to give a very scientific and specialised training to the officers by means of the training machinery which was to be set up, and .then allow them to develop their power of
1362
command by receiving instruction which would enable them to go back to their regiments and command their own men, not under the eye of a permanent man as in the case of the adjutant. He believed that in the view of the General Staff that was most likely to lead to efficiency. It seemed that in trying this new method of training they would render the whole thing nugatory if they insisted, as was done by this Amendment, upon the appointment to the unit of an adjutant who should be a Regular.
THE EARL OF ARRANsaid he had had some small experience both as a junior officer in the Militia and as a commanding officer of Volunteers, and he knew that the deference which was shown to the opinion of a Regular adjutant was due to the fact that he was a Regular soldier and a man who knew. The man, however, who was only what they would call one of themselves would not have that influence, and he did not see how a man of sufficient energy to become a good adjutant would consent to take up a career which offered as little as that of an adjutancy of a Territorial unit. He thought that a Regular adjutant was absolutely essential to the well-being of the Auxiliary Forces.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsuggested that the Government might meet him in this matter. His second Amendment covered the point he wished to raise, and so with the permission of the House he would drop the first. As regarded the second Amendment, if between now and the Report Stage better grammar could be made of the clause by inserting "shall" in a different place he would be prepared to accept it. But they did want to emphasise their desire that the adjutant should be a man who would keep the Auxiliary Force in touch with the latest practice of the Regular Army. That was the object he had in view, and if the Government could give an assurance on that point he would be perfectly willing to leave the matter to the Report Stage. But unless he had the assurance in definite and precise terms he must press the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 6, after the word 'staff' to insert the words 'including adjutants and staff sergeants who shall be members of His Majesty's regular forces.' "—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was afraid the noble Lord must press his Amendment as the Government could give no assurance such as he asked for.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8: —
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU:moved an Amendment to substitute three years for the four years which the clause provided as the maximum term of enlistment under this part of the Bill. He said he had put down the Amendment with the object of asking the noble Earl what his views were on the question of enlistment. At the present moment the Bill read as follows—
"Shall be enlisted to serve for such a period as may be prescribed, not exceeding four years reckoned from the date of his attestation."
The practice in most of the Volunteer regiments now was to enlist for three years. He did not raise any serious objection to four years if it would produce the same number of men, but he was rather afraid that four years was too long a period, and that it would make for the success of the new Territorial Army if three instead of four years was inserted. There were many men among the working classes who shifted from place to place, and it seemed that four years was too long a period to tie themselves up for.
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 37, to leave out the word 'four: and insert the word ' three"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHdid not think there was very much in the proposal of his noble friend. The effect of his Amendment would be to substitute three years for four years as the maximum term for which a man should be enlisted
1364
in the Territorial Force, and he rather gathered that his noble friend supported the Amendment, having reference to the fact that three years was the term for which the Yeomanry and Volunteers were enlisted.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The usual period.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that if it were found by experience that three years was the more convenient period it could be adopted in the Bill as it now stood. Four years was merely a maximum. The military authorities were desirous of having power if they found it desirable to enlist men for four years, and that term was considered by some to be rather more convenient. He hoped under the circumstances the Amendment would not be pressed.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid that after the noble Earl's explanation he was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORDasked whether the terms of enlistment for the Territorial soldier would enable the Territorial Force to be used in aid of the civil power.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Territorial soldier could not be called out in aid of the civil power, but, of course, as an individual he might be called upon in exactly the same way as any ordinary citizen.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORDasked whether the form of foreign service for the Territorial Force would be similar to that for the Militia. Would they be asked, in circumstances where refusal was almost impossible, to volunteer for foreign service?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The members of the Territorial Force may volunteer for foreign service just as the present Militia, and Section 12 of the present Bill is based on the corresponding section of the existing Militia Act.
LORD RAGLAN: Will it be made quite clear to the men, when they enlist, that they will be asked to volunteer in case of emergency for foreign service?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes; it will be made quite clear that they may, if they wish, volunteer for foreign service.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:—
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that the deputy-lieutenant, who appeared nowhere else in the Bill, suddenly presented himself in Subsection (2) of this clause and had the duty placed upon him of attesting a recruit. Might he ask if that was the only duty left to the deputy-lieutenants? If that was all they were to be called upon to perform it seemed hardly worth while keeping them in existence, and the Government might consider the position of the class altogether.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he did not exactly know at the moment what the duties of deputy-lieutenants were, although he was one himself. He only knew that he got a uniform early in life. As regarded the future, it was intended that deputy-lieutenancies should be conferred on those who rendered some service in these associations.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10: —
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked what would happen in the case of a man in the Territorial Army who was insubordinate, say in a drill hall. Would he then come under the military law, arid had the commanding officer or the officer on parade power to punish him?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHasked the noble Lord if he would communicate with him privately on the point, as he did not like to answer off-hand.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked whether the men of the Territorial
1366
Army were to be under military law on every occasion when they were wearing uniform.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he really could not give his noble friend an answer to the question there and then.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUhoped the noble Earl would look up the point and be good enough to inform the House either on the Report stage or Third Reading.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:—
LORD RAGLAN:moved an Amendment providing that the Territorial Force .shall be liable for service in "the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man" as well as in the United Kingdom. He said it seemed to him a very great pity un-necessarily to tie the hands of the War Office and the country in the use they could make of the Territorial Army. After all, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man were comparatively close to these shores, and it would be a great mistake to treat men going to either the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man as going on foreign service. He did not know if the Joint Naval and Military Committee was in existence now, but if it was and the noble Earl presided over it, he would in all probability have heard a good deal about the Channel Islands. He thought perhaps it was not necessary for him to say more than that the defence of the Channel Islands, in the event of certain wars occurring, would have a most delicate and difficult task, and it would be an enormous advantage to the War Office if they had the power of despatching troops from the Territorial Forces to the Channel Islands, without going through the very long paraphernalia of asking the regiment if they would volunteer and so forth. After all, the Channel Islands were not so very far from these shores and were a place to which large numbers of our population were accustomed to go with regard to the Isle of Man,

1367
although not strategically so important a place, still there was a difficulty as to which the noble Earl would perhaps enlighten him, if he did not wish to accept this Amendment. The difficulty was that, although the Bill applied to the Isle of Man, he did not see any power to mobilise any part of the Territorial Force in the Isle of Man. Supposing, therefore, some part of the Territorial Force was raised in the Isle of Man it self, it would be impossible to embody it for service there, although it could be embodied in Great Britain and Ireland. This Amendment would strengthen the hands of the War Office and inflict no harm on the forces.
Amendment proposed —
"In page 11, line 35, after the word 'Kingdom ' to insert the words ' the Channel Isles and the Isle of -Man.' "—(Lord Raglan.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid the Isle of Man was included under Clause 37 in the definition of the United Kingdom; therefore, whatever applied to the United Kingdom applied also to the Isle of Man. As regarded the Channel Islands, those islands already had their own Militia under their own special laws, allocated for the defence of the islands, and they had, therefore, been expressly excluded from the operation of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:—
LORD LOVATmoved to leave out "fifteen" and insert "eighteen" as the maximum number of days of annual training. He said the reason he pressed. this Amendment was because the Yeomanry at the present time went out for sixteen days, and he was certain a very large number of the Yeomanry would not wish to see their training cut down even by a day. At present, especially in those corps in which it was difficult to get the men together for squadron training—the regulation being that certain squadron training had to be done before the regular annual training—it
1368
was customary to bring out the regiments for eighteen days in order to get in the squadron drills. It was a matter of convenience for the officers and men, and made for greater efficiency, and he would ask the Government if they could see their way to allow this Amendment. By Subsection (2) of the clause His Majesty in Council might at any time order the period of annual training to be shorter or longer, and he would press the Amendment because the clause gave the opportunity of making any change. If the Amendment were not carried it would undoubtedly result in the Yeomanry having fifteen days instead of sixteen or eighteen as at the present time, and a considerable loss of efficiency would be occasioned.; While they of the Yeomanry wished to meet the Government's suggestions in every way, there was one point on which every Yeomanry meeting that he had attended had been strong upon, and that was the point of resisting every attack on their efficiency. He felt that to cut down the annual training would be a distinct blow at efficiency.
Amendment moved—
" In page 12, line 37, to leave out the word 'fifteen,' and insert the word 'eighteen.'" — (Lord Loral.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUdesired to raise the question of the future policy with regard to fifteen and eighteen days. The clause provided that the force should be trained for not less than eight or more than fifteen days in a year. Speaking for Volunteer corps he sincerely hoped the Government would be able to give them fifteen days training in the future, with which they would become, he thought, a very efficient and useful force. He thought the noble Earl would agree with him that nearly every inspecting officer in his confidential' reports had recommended for several years past that fifteen days should be the minimum training for the Auxiliary Forces, and he hoped on that point the noble Earl would be able to extract from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a promise to allow, at any rate to the best of the forces, fifteen days training. It was the general wish among all commanding officers he knew that they should have fifteen days' training in future,

1369
and he hoped the money that was necessary might be found.
THE EARL OF LONSDALEhoped the Government would see their way to extend the period of training to eighteen days.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHwas afraid that when the very large incursions into the public exchequer which had been already promised during the progress of the Bill were realised the relations of the War Office with the Treasury would be somewhat strained; but, subject to the Treasury, he was sure they at the War Office would always try to make the best conditions and get as much money as they could. With regard to the particular Amendment moved by Lord Lovat, all he wished to say in regard to the matter was that fifteen days were fixed in the Bill after a good deal of consideration and after consultation with the General Staff, who hoped that, under the new system of training, they would be able to render the troops far more efficient in fifteen days than was possible under the present system. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed.
*LORD HARRISdid not think the noble Earl quite understood the proposition. At present the arrangement was for sixteen days and the men went up for squadron drills on the two days previous. They did not draw full pay for those two days, but only half pay, which was given whether they went to the place of training for these squadron drills or whether they performed them at home. No extra expense was put upon the Government by the arrangement. It was a great convenience to have all the men at one place, because there was a full number for each squadron drill. When the squadron drill was done at home the probability was that they did not put in nearly so many men as at the place of training. It was no expense to the Government, and, after all, it was only permissive, and he could not see that it could do any harm at any rate to consider it carefully.
*THE EARL OF SCARBROUGHsuggested as a possible compromise
1370
that they might insert after "fifteen days," "or, in the case of the mounted branch, eighteen days." This was a point they felt strongly about for three reasons. First, the mounted branch had double as much to learn as the Infantry branch of the Territorial Army, and, therefore, it was necessary that the former should have as much time at the annual training as possible; secondly, it was hoped in future that they might be able to take more part than they had in the past in combined training, and if they had only eight or fourteen days' training it was unlikely that they could take part with any usefulness in combined training. They must have at least a week or eight days preliminary training, and that loft little time afterwards for manæuvres. Then on the point of discipline, it was of immense advantage to have as much training as possible. In his small experience he had discovered that since the length of annual training had been doubled the discipline of the Yeomanry had increased greatly, and that, he thought, was a point of great value.
THE EARL OF LONSDALEsaid the noble Earl had referred to the "now system of training." Would he kindly explain what the new system of training was? He knew nothing about it and had never heard of it.
*LORD HAVERSHAMsaid that Section 3 of this clause met the objections of Lord Harris and Lord Scarbrough.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he ought perhaps to have stated that a committee at the War Office with the General Staff were considering the whole question of training. He thought, how ever, he might accept the compromise suggested by Lord Scarbrough in the case of Yeomanry, making the maximum eighteen days instead of fifteen days.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
"In page 12, line 37, after the word 'days,' to insert the words' or, in the case of the mounted branch, eighteen days.' "—(Lord Scarbrough.)
On the Question that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked who the prescribed general officer referred to in the clause would be. Was he the person whom the noble Earl designated in his statement on going into Committee, when he said the prescribed general officer was the officer who was to be prescribed? That did not take them much further. Would he be the general officer commanding the district?
*LORD HARRISasked for an explanation as to why the general officer was given power to do away with the training altogether or reduce it. Was that a matter of convenience because all the provisions as regarded training required an authority superior to that of the general officer? Now he was to be suddenly given the power of doing away with the training altogether. He was sorry to say his experience of general officers was that they were not always very clear as regarded the duties of the Auxiliary Forces. One, he remembered, ordered him to find mobilisation equipment when he had no power to order anything of the kind, and in the course of voluminous correspondence he proved to the general officer that it was not the case. Another ordered him not to manoeuvre over land or fire blank ammunition without the permission of every landowner in the neighbourhood. That was obviously a ridiculous order, and, if carried out, would have made it impossible for any troops, Regular or Auxiliary, to do any manoeuvres in any part of the country. He took the liberty of asking whether this was an order of the Army Council, but his request was never answered until this year, when an officer came down and asked him what arrangements he had made for a night attack. He explained what he had done, but added that, of course, he could not cross any lands or fire any blank ammunition. The officer asked the reason, and he informed him of the general officer's instructions. He (Lord Harris) afterwards heard that the order had not been sufficiently considered, and that the officer who gave it had left the Army. He wanted to know whether there would be any appeal from the prescribed officer to the Army Council under this Bill,
1372
and, if not, whether there might be no training at all if the prescribed officer so took it into his head.
*LORD LUCASthought with regard to the prescribed general officer dispensing with the drill of any unit, that practically it would only be the general officer commanding-in-chief in the district, who was, of course, responsible to the Army Council for the efficiency of the troops of the Territorial Force under him. Therefore it would only be under very exceptional circumstances that he would dispense with the training of a regiment, and, of course, being accountable to the Army Council for its efficiency, he would have to satisfy them that the reasons for dispensing with the training were adequate or he would be held responsible by the Army Council. The answer to Lord Montagu, who asked why in this clause the commanding officer was allowed to absolve a man from training, whereas later on the term used was "the prescribed officer," was, he thought, found in the fact, that as a rule the prescribed officer would be the commanding officer. It was, however, impossible to tie themselves absolutely to the words "commanding officer," because occasions might arise under certain circumstances where it would be more useful for an officer who was not the commanding officer to make himself responsible. For instance, in the case of an outlying company where the commanding officer had not an intimate knowledge of the facts, it might prove useful to let the company commander deal with any case that arose.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Then I gather the word "prescribed" means prescribed by the Arm.' Council?
*LORD LUCAS: Yes.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:—
Amendment moved—
" In page 13, line 27, to leave out the word ' thirty' and insert the word " forty."— (Viscount Midleton.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I accept this.
Consequental Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUmoved an Amendment providing that the value of public property wrongfully sold or destroyed by a member of the Territorial Force shall be recoverable by the County Association "at the request of the officer commanding the unit to which the person be longs." He said that perhaps the noble Earl could give their Lordships some information as to the machinery by which money might be recovered from a , man who injured his arms, destroyed his clothing, or behaved in such a way as to make himself liable in some amount to the County Association. He had only put his Amendment down with the object of eliciting information, as it was highly undesirable that any doubt should exist regarding these and other matters of machinery. He took it that the meaning of the clause was that on the representation of the commanding officer of the particular unit the County Association would proceed against a man who had j made himself liable in some way or other; ' that they would sue him in a Court and would recover the amount for which he was liable and that the money, if any was recovered, would be paid into the Ex chequer or the County Association.
Amendment moved—
"In page 16, line 19, after the word 'association' to insert the words 'at the request of the officer commanding the unit to which the person belongs.' "—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*The EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he did not think the Amendment was one that his noble friend would wish to press to a division after an explanation had been given of what its effect would be. His noble friend proposed to insert after ''association" the words "at the request
1374
of the officer commanding the unit to which the person belongs." The effect of the Amendment would be that the association would be prevented from suing a man of the Territorial Force who had damaged his arms or accoutrements unless it was requested to do so by the commanding officer. The Government did not think that was a discretion which it was either reasonable or fair to place on the commanding officer. The association was responsible to the Army Council for all property which was bought or secured out of the public funds, and therefore the association was the proper authority to decide when and how steps ought to be taken in the event of wrongful disposal of such property. One of the main objects of the Bill was to relieve the officer commanding from all administrative responsibility of this kind, and he thought his noble friend would probably be satisfied with this explanation.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid that at the present moment in case of default on the part of a man, as, for instance, if he did not make himself efficient, the commanding officer would sue the man in court and recover the amount of the capitation grant. Was he to understand that in future the commanding officer was to have nothing to do with informing the County Association, and that that body was to act entirely on its own initiative? He wanted to know how the machinery would work, as it was important that there should be no doubt with regard to matters of this kind as to the course that would be followed. Supposing a man failed to make himself efficient and did not obtain the grant, would the commanding officer tell the County Association or would he leave the County Association to find out the fact itself? This was a rather important point, because commanding officers might be put in a difficulty. They would want to recover the amount of the capitation grant from a man, and it seemed to him that they would have to do it in future through the County Association.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I think that this does not come under the clause. The question under discussion relates to suing for the recovery of

1375
property and not in respect of inefficiency.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 22:—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU:moved an Amendment providing that an officer or man of the Territorial Force should not be compelled to serve as a peace officer or parish officer, and should be exempt from serving on any jury and from serving in the office of High Sheriff." He did not think that the Government would have any very serious objection to this Amendment, at any rate so far as the War Office was concerned, although certainly the Home Office might object to it. He would point out that it was a great hardship on a commanding officer of a battalion, who was necessarily put to some expense, and had to devote a good deal of time to the duties of his position, to lie called upon to serve, perhaps not in the same comity as his command, in the office of high sheriff. He was prepared in order to meet all contingencies to insert in his Amendment the words, "if he should so desire" so that it would be made quite clear that it was optional in a commanding officer whether he served as high sheriff or not. He made that offer because he believed there were people to be found who were so patriotic that they were willing to fill the position of commanding officer and at the same time to act as high sheriff, although he was bound to say that he pitied them. There were, however, a great number of officers who might be called upon to fill the office of high sheriff and who would desire to be free from those onerous duties. They would like in fact to have the same advantage as they did in the matter of exemption from jury service.
Amendment moved—
"In page 17, line 8, after the word 'jury' to insert the words ' and from serving in the office of high sheriff.' "—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sure everybody must sympathise with the object of the noble Lord. He desires, as I gather, that people who undertake
1376
one form of public service, should be relieved from another. I have no doubt he has also in his mind the possibility that the prospect of escaping the-somewhat onerous duties of high sheriff might be an inducement to gentleman to join the Volunteer Force. I am able to speak on this subject with some experience, because the ultimate selection of the high sheriffs rests partly with the Exchequer and partly with my Department. I do not think it would be quite safe to go outside the present rule in this matter. The present law is that all commissioned officers of the Regular Army on the active list are exempt from serving as high sheriffs, and it seems to be reasonable, now that the Militia practically becomes part of the Regular Army, that Militia officers should have the same privilege. Whether under the law as it stands, the words "officers of the Regular Army on the active list" would include Militia officers, seems to be doubtful, and therefore we should propose to bring up at a later stage of the Bill words that will make it perfectly clear that officers of the Militia are included. Now, as regards the Volunteers, and, of course, the Yeomanry, no specific exemption is granted to the officers. But when they are called out for training as reserves, they are subject to military law, and therefore any officer of the reserve, during his period of training, cannot serve as high sheriff. That is provided for, and therefore all officers of the Territorial Force, during embodiment, muse be discharged from personally performing the duties of high sheriff.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Which clause is that under?
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Subsection (3) of this clause. It is provided there that if a high sheriff is an officer of the Territorial Force, then during embodiment, he shall be discharged from personally performing the office of high sheriff. As noble Lords are aware, those who have to serve in the office of high sheriff very often ask to be excused from doing so, and a great variety of excuses are-urged. I think it stands to reason that in the case of any officer in the position explained by the noble Lord, that is,

1377
being in command of a battalion and having heavy duties to perform, his military duties would be taken as an adequate excuse for his not filling the office of high sheriff. It would, I think, probably be a reason for his being put back on the list and not being called upon to serve as high sheriff until his term of military duty had come to an end. I should much have liked to go the whole way with the noble Lord, but as n matter of fact there are some counties in which it is by no means easy to find gentlemen to take this onerous office, and if the mere fact of having a commission in the Yeomanry or the Volunteers was to be taken as a legal or a regular excuse I am afraid the difficulty might be added to, though, looking at the other side of the question, I can quite believe that it might possibly be of benefit in swelling the ranks of Volunteer officers.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUsaid that after what the noble Earl had said he did not think that he could press his Amendment. He hoped, however, that it might be regarded as an under standing that the noble Earl's Department, in conjunction with the Exchequer, would in future consider favourably the case of men commanding battalions in connection with exemptions from the office of high sheriff.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:—
Amendment moved—
"In page 20, line 4, to leave out the word ' Militia.' '—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
"VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid he did not know whether the noble Earl had noticed that he had amended the Amendment he now proposed. He thought perhaps the noble Earl would now see no objection to it. On the previous night the point turned on the question of the pay, but that was not now included in the Amend-
1378
ment, which merely provided that the-i Order in Council should specify any i changes in the status and conditions of service which it was natural should be stated in Orders in Council.
Amendment moved—
"In page 20, line 10, after the word 'accordingly' to insert the words 'provided that the said Order in Council shall specify any change in the conditions of service of the Yeomanry or Volunteer force, and that any further change shall be similarly notified by Order in 'Council.' "—(Viscount Midleton.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was afraid he would have some difficulty in taking the Amendment in the form in which it was moved. Its effect would be to make it necessary not only to specify in an Order in Council all the changes effected by the transfer of the Yeomanry and the Volunteers to the Territorial Force, but all subsequent changes in the conditions of service of that force. As regarded the first part of the Amendment, it would be extremely difficult to specify in an Order in Council all the changes in the conditions of service of the Yeomanry and the Volunteers. As regarded the second part, in the case of future changes, all the regulations to be effected by ordinary Army Orders under Clause 6 concerning the conditions of service of the force would have to be effected by Order in Council. That would be very cumbrous. Clause 6. Sub-section (7), already provided that all orders and regulations made under it should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that provision would appear to be ample as regarded informing Parliament. The proposal to carry out the ordinary regulations under Orders in Council seemed unworkable, and therefore it was not because he differed from his noble friend on any question of principle, but because it was thought that his proposal would be almost impossible to work in practice, that he was unable to accept the Amendment.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought that there was no objection to the first part of the Amendment, "Provided that the said Order in Council shall specify any change in the conditions of service of the Yeomanry or Volunteer Force." If he stopped there, and the noble Earl

1379
would accept it, he would ask their Lord ships to allow him to withdraw the last part of the Amendment.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I confess I do not understand exactly what it is the noble Viscount wishes to have included in the Order in Council. Does he mean that the actual effect of the changes on each battalion and regiment is to be printed in the Gazette in an Order in Council? If he merely means the general terms of the conditions of service I should conceive that that might be done; but there appears to me to be a possibility of some extremely elaborate details being asked for, applicable to particular units and districts. These would be very cumbrous and very expensive to print in the Gazette.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETONdid not quite understand why the noble Earl objected. Surely this was a reasonable proposal. A very great change was going to be made in the position of the Volunteers and also of the Yeomanry in their transfer to the Territorial Force. All that was asked by the Amendment was that the actual change in the conditions of service should be explained. For instance, men would be attested instead of being enrolled and they would become liable to serve for four years. His desire was merely that the change in the conditions should be specified in such a manner that they could be readily understood.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am informed by experts that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment as it is proposed. It would be quite un-workable.
*VISCOUNT MIDLETON: If the noble Earl thinks my proposal is un workable I will communicate with him before the Report stage.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD:moved an Amendment, the purport of which, he said, was simply that the new county associations should acquire by purchase drill halls and rifle ranges which were now the property of borough or county councils. He hoped that the
1380
Government would see their way to accept it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 20, line 28, after the word' relates' to insert the words 'Provided that any land with the buildings upon it heretofore acquired by the council of any county or borough for military purposes within the meaning of the Military Lands Acts, shall be transferred to the association of the county, and the amount expended by such council in acquiring such land and buildings shall be repaid to such council by the association.—(The Duke of Bedford.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was afraid he could not accept the Amendment. Under the Military Lands Act the councils of counties and boroughs were empowered to acquire land and erect buildings on behalf of Volunteer corps, and to borrow money for the purpose. In pursuance of the powers so conferred a few county and borough councils had provided drill halls—not many—for their local Volunteer corps. The effect of the Amendment of his noble friend would be that all these drill halls and rifle ranges would be compulsorily transferred from the county or borough councils which provided them to the County Associations, and on the other hand, and as a necessary corollary, the associations would be compelled to repay to the councils the whole of the money they had expended on the property. The drill halls and the rifle ranges might have appreciated or they might have depreciated in value. The county or borough council might be unwilling to part with their property. The associations might be unwilling to take that property over. But if this Amendment were inserted in the Bill no party would be given any choice in the matter. The transfer would have to take place. and it did not seem to the Government to be either possible or reasonable to go further than they had done in paragraph (e) of the clause. Their Lordships would see that by that paragraph the transfer of such drill halls and rifle ranges might be effected by Order in Council if both the council and the association assented. That was to say, they would make their own arrangements and their own bargain. He was afraid that, for the reasons he

1381
had stated, the Government could not accept the Amendment, and he hoped that his noble friend would not feel compelled to press it.
*THE EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBEasked the noble Earl, if he was not able to express any special opinion about it now, to consider the position of rifle ranges which were not the property of county or borough councils, but of county volunteer or rifle associations. Considerable sums had been spent on rifle ranges which would be necessary for the use of County Associations here after, and the question was, would they be taken over by the new County Associations or would they remain in possession of the county volunteer or rifle associations? He might ask in fact, would the county volunteer associations continue to exist at all? If they did not, how would the property which they had acquired for the purpose of rifle shooting be dealt with?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I suggest to my noble friend that he should do as he has done on former occasions—that is, write to me on the matter, and I shall be pleased to reply to the best of my ability.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUasked the noble Earl to consider the whole question of the transfer of drill halls 10 County Associations, as it was a very complicated and difficult matter. Some of the drill halls were in the hands of trustees and some were in the hands of commanding officers representing the donors. He understood that the Lord Chancellor was going to look into the whole question of transfer, and perhaps the noble Earl would inform their Lordships on the Report Stage more fully as to the, definition, of this clause.
LORD RAGLANsaid that perhaps the noble Earl would also give them information when the time came as to how a body which had no assets was to take over a liability.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved to insert at the beginning of Part III, the following new clause, "(1) From and after the passing of this Act, the Militia shall become part of the Army Reserve, but shall continue in all respects to be subject to the Militia Act, 1882, except as hereinafter provided. (2) Section 12 of the Militia Act, 1882, shall not apply to any militiaman enlisted or re-engaged after the passing of this Act, and in lieu thereof the following provision shall apply: Any part of the Militia shall be liable to serve-in any part of the United Kingdom, and when embodied to serve elsewhere. (3) Any militiaman serving at the date of the passing of this Act may make a voluntary offer, certified by his commanding officer,, to serve under the same conditions as a militiaman enlisted after the passing of this Act, and thereupon for the remainder of the term of his service the provisions of this section shall apply to him in the same manner as they apply to a militiaman enlisted after the passing of this Act." He said that they now came-back to the question of the Militia, and he had to say quite frankly that he for one was very grateful to the Government for the statement made by the noble Earl, the Under-Secretary for War, at the beginning of the Committee Stage. The only thing he would like to add on that point was that he thought it would be for the convenience of their Lordships, and in order that it should be on record that the Under-secretary had given that assurance, that a memorandum should be presented to Parliament covering the ground which the noble Earl covered in his very lucid statement. If that could be done he was sure it would be a very satisfactory way of placing on record, in a permanent form, the assurance given by the noble Earl. Having made that preface, he would be expected to explain why it was he was not yet satisfied, and was moving this Amendment. His defence for so doing was that he really believed the Amendment carried out the wishes of His Majesty's Government. He had two grounds for that view: First of all, the intrinsic merits of the Amendment, which he should describe to their Lordships later, and secondly, the fact that in all probability this was the original intention of the Secretary of

1383
State. The right hon. Gentleman in another place confessed in the most naive manner that he himself had, at a previous period, a strong temptation in the direction taken by the concession which he then made to the Opposition. He was only asking the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to revert entirely and heartily, if he might say so, to his old love. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt misled for a short time by the novel charms of the special reserve, but as a matter of fact the original darling of his heart was undeniably the sober and demure Militia to which he had now reverted. Under these circumstances he (the Marquess of Salisbury) felt that he was not committing any act hostile to the Government when he suggested to them that they would do well, not only to use the Militia, but to use also the machinery by which the Militia had been governed in the past, subject, of course, to certain definite exceptions, one of which was that they should serve abroad in time of need. He had said that the acceptance of the Amendment was advisable because it carried out the original intention of the Secretary of State, but it was also advisable on its merits. As the Bill stood before their Lordships there were a great many omissions. The Government intended to use the Militia, as a special reserve. They intended to use its traditions; to take over what he might call the goodwill of the business as a going concern. One essential thing in that goodwill was the name of the Militia. Undoubtedly the Government would use the name of the Militia if they could, but how were they going to transfer the name of the Militia from the force as it was now known to the special reserve unless they used the Militia Act. He would run very rapidly through one or two other points. There was the period of service. For the first time, as he believed, in the history of the military forces of the Crown there was no period of service prescribed in the Bill for the men of the special reserve. The men of the Army were very particularly limited. Their engagement was for twelve years. The period of service in the case of men of the Militia was rigidly denned. It was six years. But in the case of the special reserve no limit whatever was put in the Act of Parlia-
1384
ment. It might be six years, or twelve years, or for life so far as the Bill was concerned. Then the special reserve was not territorialised. It was quite true that under the clause the Army Council were given power to form these special reservists into battalions and corps, but when a man was enlisted he could not be. enlisted as a special reservist into any special corps. That was entirely different from the practice in the Army and the existing practice in the Militia. He believed also that it was contrary to the intention of the Government them- selves, because they followed territorial feeling. Their Lordships had often been told that it was intended to maintain in its integrity the territorial character of the Army, and that it was hoped this new reserve would be territorial, just as much as the Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers were territorial. But it was not provided for in the Bill. There was no provision that a man could be enlisted into any particular corps. Then there was no appropriate attestation. The Government recognised that the attestation used [for the soldiers would not do, and they had announced that they were going to have another, but they had not yet told Parliament what its form was to be. In the Militia Act there was a form of attestation prescribed. Then there was not a sufficient provision in the Bill for re-engagement. He was aware that the noble Earl had an Amendment on the Paper to cover that point, but it was not until his attention was drawn to the omission that the Government awoke to the fact that they had left out a provision as to how men were to be re-engaged. There was on the face of the Bill as it stood no provision for the disembodiment of the special reserve. Undoubtedly the Government were going to try to meet that by another Amendment, but he did not think it was a very adequate one. It did not cover all the ground, but it certainly illustrated the point he was speaking upon, namely, that in the form in which the Bill was laid before the House none of these points were dealt with. It was especially striking that the Government had made no provision in their Bill for passing men from the special reserve into the Army itself. That was ones of the essential parts of the plan. Just as the Militia

1385
now furnished 12,000 men a year to the Line so the special reserve must go on furnishing 12,000 or 13,000 men a year to the Line. The Militia Act provided for every one of the things which he had specified to their Lordships. As regards the last point he had mentioned, which was a matter of very great importance, no doubt it could be got round. He did not deny that. What would happen if a man wished to transfer was that he would be first discharged from the special reserve and then re-enlisted in the Line. That was. however, a very awkward and clumsy arrangement. He saw no reason why a man who wished to get out of the special reserve without buying his discharge should not go to the officers and say that he wished to enlist in the Army. "Very well,'' they would say, "then you must first, be discharged from the special reserve." The man would be discharged, and than he might say, "I will not take the oath and be attested for the Army." The result would be that the man would secure his discharge without having to buy it and the country would lose his services. He did not desire, however, to lay too great stress on any of those points which he had no doubt could all be got over by Amendments. It seemed a great pity, however, that where the Government had the choice of two Acts of Parliament, one which provided for all these things— the Militia Act and one which provided for none of them—-the Reserve Forces Act—they should have gone out of their way to choose the least convenient of the two Acts. It was not surprising that the Reserve Forces Act was not adequate. It was not intended at all for the purposes for which the Government were using it. It was passed in order to provide a reserve of men whose training was a matter of the past, whose territorial connection was already clear—men who had served their time in the Line, and were going to be passed into the reserve. None of the provisions which he had described were necessary to them; but when the Government were enlisting a man for the first time then all these things became of importance. It was important that there should be a right form of attestation, it was important that the num. her of years a man was to serve should be specified, and it was important that
1386
the particular battalion to which he was to be attached should be communicated to him when he took the oath. The Government had, as it were, used for the purpose of a prologue a piece of literature which was really designed for an epilogue. Therefore it was found when they applied this Act of Parliament for their purpose that it was not suitable and not apt. He invited the Government in their own interests to go to the logical conclusion of the change which they made when they resumed their attachment to the Militia, an attachment which, as he had said, wandered away; he invited them to go to that logical conclusion by using the Act of Parliament which was suitable for the Militia. He believed if they did that they would find the drafting of their Bill much more complete, and at the same time they would gratify the Militia. Why did he say that? Because if the Government did what he suggested it would be a public advertisement which could be mistaken by no one that the Government did not intend by this change to disturb the Militia, or its constitution, or its tradition, or its function in any way whatsoever, except in the particulars which were essential to their serving abroad in time of trouble. That seemed to him to be a complete case. If the Government were good enough to consider his Amendment he would not of course adhere strictly to the precise words in which it was drafted. He did, however, press on the Government that the case he had made was really very complete.
Amendment moved—
"To insert as a new clause: '(1) From and after the passing of this Act the Militia shall become part of the Army Reserve, but shall continue in all respects to be subject to the Militia Act, 1882, except as hereinafter provided. (2) Section 12 of the Militia Act, 1882, shall not apply to any Militiaman enlisted or re-engaged after the passing of this Act, and in lieu thereof the following provision shall apply: Any part of the Militia shall be liable to serve in any part of the United Kingdom, and when embodied to serve elsewhere. (3) Any Militiaman serving at the date of the passing of this Act may make a voluntary offer, certified by his commanding officer, to serve under the same conditions as a Militia man enlisted after the passing of this Act, and thereupon for the remainder of the term of his service the provisions of the section shall apply to him in the same manner as they

1387
apply to a Militiaman enlisted after the passing of this Act.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHthought that the noble Marquess had somewhat indulged, if he might say so, in the language of imagination in honouring Acts of Parliament with the name of literature. The real difficulty in which they had been placed on that side of the House was that they had, he hoped generally to the advantage of the different forces and of good feeling, met the views and wishes of the Militia. When the Bill was originally drafted, the place of the Militia in the Government's scheme was really a very different one from that which it now occupied. He did not want to quarrel with the noble Marquess over questions of form; but after all, this resolved itself very much into a question of drafting. He hoped very much that there were now no questions of principle in conflict between them; but he wanted to explain why the Government could not accept the proposal of the noble Marquess in the form in which he had brought it forward. At the same time he wished to give this undertaking, that they would, between then and Report, where they had not already got Amendments—he was going to propose one or two if they could be taken in Committee—prepare Amendments which, I moved on Report, would give effect to the arrangement at which they had arrived. The Amendment of the noble Marquess was, however, open to a great many serious drafting objections. It proposed that the Militia should become part of the Regular Forces. That he knew, was not the intention of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was impressed with that difficulty, and therefore I changed the drafting of my Amendment last night. If the noble Earl looks at it he will see that it is the Army Reserve now and not the Regular Forces. The Amendment says that: "from and after the passing of this Act, the Militia shall become part of the Army Reserve."
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH,continuing, said that the alteration having
1388
been made, that particular difficulty had been overcome. Turning to another point, the Militia might still theoretically be raised, not only by enlistment, but also by ballot. The Amendment of the noble Marquess would therefore make balloted men part of the Regular Forces and—under the definition of Regular Forces above quoted—liable to render continual military service in any part of the world. The Militia Act of 1882, which would continue to apply to the Militia, would prevent them being used as drafts for the Regulars, as Clause 4, Sub-section (4), of the Act of 1882 provided that where the corps of a militia man included any battalion or any body of the Regular Forces orders or regulations made under the Act were not to authorise him to be posted without his assent to that battalion or body. The Amendment would prevent a militiaman being employed abroad, except when embodied; and it might be very necessary to have militiamen in Section A of the reserve, which was liable to be called out for service without any Proclamation. But apart from these objections, which the noble Marquess might consider were drafting objections, although they were very serious ones, the proposal of the noble Marquess was open to considerable objections of substance. It would keep the Militia alive as a separate force with distinct terms of service and distinct regulations. It would preserve the whole of the existing 124 battalions of Militia, whereas there was only room in the reserve for 101 battalions, and the effect of Sub-section (3) of the clause would be that for six years, the present term for which militiamen were enlisted, the Militia battalions would include, on the one hand, men who-were not liable for foreign service, and, on the other, men who were so liable. The former class of men could not be used for drafting purposes, and therefore for six years after the Militia battalions became third and fourth battalions they would be encumbered with a number of men who were useless for the purposes which the third and fourth. battalions were intended to subserve. For these reasons the Government found it quite impossible to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and he hoped in saying

1389
that it would be understood that their non-acceptance of it was on' a matter of form, although, a serious one. He did not wish for a moment that the noble Marquess or anyone else inside or outside that House, should imagine that he wished to go back by one word on the statement he had previously made to the House. He believed that he gave an undertaking to the noble Marquess that he would have the statement he made to their Lordships prepared and drawn up as a memorandum which could be laid on the Table of the House. Not only was it the intention of the Government to put the matter straight as regarded what they could do by legislation, but, as he had said be force, they wanted to act up to the letter as well as the spirit of their declaration. It was well-known, of course, that if they were driven to accept certain things in the letter they could, if they did not wish to keep them in good faith, always destroy them in the spirit. That was not, however, either their wish or their intention, and lie hoped, under the circumstances, that the noble Marquess would not press his Amendment.
*LORD HARRIShoped that the noble Earl would give the House some explanation as to how he anticipated the men. of the fourteen squadrons were to be secured. Who was going to enlist them? Were they going to be obtained from the Yeomanry regiments or not?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,said that personally he did not desire to press his Amendment on the Government. He was afraid, however, that he could not accept the answers of the noble Earl as to the ballot. Everyone knew it to be unworkable in its present form. It was, if he might say so, only a bugbear. He did not wish, however, to detain their Lordships at that late hour. Therefore, he asked leave to with draw the Amendment, but he hoped he would be allowed to return to the subject after seeing the Amendment which the noble Earl had said he intended to move either on this or the report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29:—
*LORD HARRISasked what inducement was to be given to the Yeomanry regiments to get men to enlist as special reservists. It seemed to him that these men would have very little connection with the regiment when once they had gone into the special reserve. Were they to continue to wear the uniform of the regiment? As far as he could make out, a troop leader who had got one or two of the men of the special reserve in his troop would never see them, and he would hardly know that they belonged to the regiment, because their connection with the regiment would practically have ceased. Then again, if they were not recruited from the regiment who was going to recruit them? Were the ordinary recruiting agencies of the Army to be at liberty to recruit these men without reference to the colonel of the regiment and attach them to the regiment without his consent? There was no explanation about these matters in the Bill, and, in the first place, he hoped that the noble Earl would tell them how the men were to be secured. Secondly, he wanted to know who was going to train these men when once they were attached to the Army Reserve. From what he had heard he believed they were going to be trained with the training battalions or regiments. Apparently the same mistake was going to be made with the special reservists that was made with the second contingent of Imperial Yeomanry during the South African War. The first contingent were trained by the colonel and the corps with excellent results. The second contingent were deliberately taken away from the colonel and the corps and sent down to Aldershot in the most inclement weather with no one to look after them. They were afterwards despatched to South Africa untrained and handed over to the columns still untrained, with the result, that they were abused by every body, although as a matter of fact they never had half a chance. There was some risk of the special reservist experiencing the same difficulties, because no one would care the proverbial two pennyworth what became of him. He would have, so far as he could see, no home, unless a home was going to be found for him somewhere in connection

1391
with the training regiments of which he had spoken. Was the service troop found by the regiment to be a part of the regiment, or was it to be in excess of the establishment of the regiment? If it was to be a part of the establishment of the regiment then obviously the regiment would always be, one troop short, because these men would not come out, he expected, for the annual training of the regiment. They were to be trained, he supposed, in the training regiment and not with their own regiment. If they were to be in excess of the establishment of the regiment it was quite another matter, and in that case there would be no cause of complaint. It was obvious, however, that there was a good deal of uncertainty as to how these men were to be secured, what was to happen to them when they had been obtained, and to what unit of the service they were to belong. He hoped, if not that night, at any rate on the Report Stage, the noble Earl would be able to give a clear explanation about these matters and thus remove the present feeling of uncertainty.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he had taken down a good 'many of the points which his noble friend had put to him, but he did not really know that he need at once go into all the details of the various matters on which he had touched. He (the Earl of Portsmouth) had mentioned already, but he thought his noble friend was not present at the time, that a Committee had been appointed under the presidency of Lord Scarbrough, and it was expected to go into all these details. He might tell his noble friend, however, that these men would be recruited from the regiments. The Government attached the greatest possible importance to securing that interchange—the men being recruited from the regiment and going back to the regiment. He had an Amendment to Clause 29 which he would now move.
Amendment moved—
"In page 21, line 31, after the word 'reservists' to insert the words 'and a special reservist may be re-engaged, and when re-engaged shall continue subject to the terms of service applicable to special reservist?.' "—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
Amendments moved—
"In page 22, line 7, after the word ' enlisted' to insert the words 'or re-engaged.' "
"In page 22, line 10, after the word ' period' to insert as a new subsection'(5) When a proclamation ordering the Army Reserve to be called out on permanent service has been issued, it shall be lawful for His Majesty at any time thereafter by proclamation to order that all special reservists shall cease to be so called out, and thereupon the Secretary of State shall give such directions as may seem necessary or proper for carrying the said proclamation into effect.' " (The Earl of Portsmouth.)
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:—
LORD RAGLANsaid he did not see it laid down anywhere what inducement was to be offered to a special reservist to join the special section. Could the noble Earl inform the House what it was proposed to offer these men?
LORD LUCASunderstood that the amount of the bounty had already been stated to be £4. It was not usually however, included under the Act, but it would be laid down in regulations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he had hoped that the Government would have reconsidered the point about the £4. Surely the Government realised that to offer the special reservists 10s. less bounty than lie got as a Militiaman would be almost certain to result in the militiaman not transferring his services. How could the Militia be expected to transfer their services if they got 10s. less in consequence of doing so? He knew that they were to get a certain sum down because the noble Earl told the House so on the previous night, but for every other year except the first year they would have 10s. less. He thought that that was a most dangerous change to make if the Government expected the existing militiamen to transfer their services. The Government had announced that a militiaman who did not transfer his services would not only receive £4 10s., but would not be called out for training at all.

1393
It seemed rather strange that a man should not only be let off from his obligation for service, but still get his £4 10s.
LORD LUCASsaid that a question had been asked as to whether a militiaman would get the non-training bounty if he did not transfer and was not called out. That had been replied to in the affirmative. He believed it was stated that the reason why the bounty was fixed at £4 was because the pay of annual training for which, after all, the Militia was being paid was considerably shorter under the new terms of service than it was under the present conditions. That he believed was the reason which led the Government to fix the bounty at £4.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that the militiaman will get the £4 10s. if he does not transfer?
LORD LUCASsaid he had pointed out to the noble Marquess that the statement made on that subject was to the effect that the militiaman who did not transfer would until the end of his period of service receive the non-training bounty. He did not know whether it was the intention of the Government to give him the £4 10s., the non-training bounty being, he believed £3.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the question was what would the financial position be of a militiaman who did not transfer. Would he get the £4 10s. a year which was the full amount of the bounty he got at the present time, or would he get £3? If he was going to be left with his full £4 10s. there was a great deal to be said for it, because it was a matter more or less of contract with him when he was originally enlisted. It was rather difficult to say at this time of day that because the Government had changed their policy he was to be deprived of 30s. of his bounty which was part of the consideration far which he undertook to serve for six years. He thought that the Government ought to give at least as much to the militiaman if he was asked to transfer as he received at present.
LORD RAGLANsaid that the noble Lord (Lord Portsmouth) had not yet answered the question which he put to him about the special reservists. Under Clause 31 what inducements were going to be offered to them? Militia commanding officers would be put in a most difficult position. They had the vaguest idea of what duties these men were to be asked to perform, and they had no indication whatever as to what they were going to get for undertaking that liability.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHwas afraid he could not answer the question of the noble Lord at the moment, for the j very good reason that the matter had not been considered by the Government,
LORD LUCASsaid that in order to prevent anything he had said in his previous remarks being perhaps misunderstood, he might point out that existing militiamen who transferred to the special contingent would go on getting the same bounty as they were receiving at the present time; so that an existing militiaman who became a member of the special contingent would continue to draw his £4 10s. bounty.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32:—
LORD RAGLANasked how this Bill was going to affect that arm of the service to which he belonged— namely, the Militia Engineers? They had heard something about Infantry, and something about Artillery, but nothing had been said, nor could he see anything in the Bill, as to what was to happen to the Engineers—under what conditions their recruits were to be trained, and so forth. It was absolutely impossible to train an engineer by giving him fifteen days training a year. Anybody with the most elementary acquaintance with military engineering must know that there was an immense quantity of instruction to be imparted to Engineers. At the present time his own regiment. trained part for seven weeks and part for eight weeks in the year, and he could assure His Majesty's Government that they had not an hour too much for what they had to teach the men. He

1395
therefore asked the noble Earl if now, or at a later stage of the Bill, he would be in a position to give him any indication as to what was to be the future position of the Militia Engineers. There were only two corps—quite little ones—and therefore it was not a very big question. At the same time it affected 1,600 men who constituted, he might venture to say, not the worst corps in the Militia, and he considered it very important to know what was going to happen with regard to them.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHappreciated the interest expressed by the noble Lord in the matter, which he had only had before him for a day or two, and in regard to which, therefore, he could not give detailed information at the moment. As soon, however, as he was in a position to give the House any accurate information on the subject, he would do so. He proposed now, with the permission of the House, to insert a new clause of which he had given notice to the noble Marquess —a new clause to be inserted after Clause 32. He proposed to hand in that clause.
After Clause 32:—
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid that the new clause which he had placed in the hands of the noble Marquess some time ago and now moved was an endeavour to give effect to some of the promises he had made with respect to the Militia.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 32, to insert the following new clause—'(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer to the Army Reserve such battalions of the Militia as may be specified in the Order, and every battalion so transferred shall. from the date mentioned in the Order, be deemed to have been lawfully formed under this part of this Act as a battalion of special reservists. (2) As from the said date every officer of any battalion so transferred shall be deemed to be an officer in the reserve of officers and every man in such battalion shall be deemed to be a special reservist, and the Order may contain such provisions as may seem necessary for applying the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, as amended by this Act, to those officers and men; provided that if any officer or man in any battalion so transferred at the time of such transfer indicates his objection,
1396
nothing in this Order shall affect his existing condition of service.' "—(Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that The Times report of the clause as read out to the House by the noble Earl yesterday was quite accurate. With regard to the form of the words, he had no objection whatever personally to those words, but he would like to have a little explanation of the sentence—
"And the Order may contain such provisions as may seem necessary for applying the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act. 1882, as amended by this Act, to those officers and men."
That appeared to give the Government a very wide power. He had no doubt they desired to possess a very wide power. Under those words it might be possible to put right some of the omissions to which he had called attention in the few remarks he had made just previously, and if that were possible, he would be all the more glad to assent to the clause.
Clause 33 agreed to.
After Clause 33:—
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHmoved to insert a new clause providing that the acceptance of a commission in the reserve of officers should not vacate a seat in Parliament. That was a point which had been overlooked in the House of Commons, and it seemed necessary to the Government to insert this new clause, which he hoped the House would accept.
Amendment moved—
"After Clause 33, to insert the following new clause:—' The acceptance of a commission as an officer in the reserve of officers shall not vacate the seat of any Members returned to serve in Parliament.' "—(The Earl of Ports-mouth.)
Viscount MIDLETONsuggested that the word "Member" be substituted for the word "Members."
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he had no objection if the word "Member" was thought better.
Clause 34:—
Viscount MIDLETON(who had upon the Paper an Amendment providing for the laying of Orders in Council under the Act before each House of Parliament within a. certain period) asked whether the noble Earl was prepared to accept his Amendment.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: We do not accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
Viscount MIDLETONsaid that under those circumstances he was afraid he must trouble their Lordships for a few moments, because it was a most important matter. At present the position they stood in with regard to the Bill was that all schemes which were put forward in the first clause of the Bill were laid before both Houses of Parliament, and either House could raise any objection to them. There was no necessity for the Government in any way to come to Parliament for fresh powers for schemes laid before Parliament. Turning to Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill they would find that all matters subject to Orders in Council under those clauses were also laid before Parliament, and if no objection was taken, they had the force of law; but it was in the power of either House of Parliament within forty days to present an address in addition. Then there came a large number of matters which were the subject of Orders in Council in Clause 28, and those Orders in Council were simply ordered to be laid before Parliament, and no power was given for Parliament to take any action whatever with regard to them. What were those matters? They involved provisions in the case of officers who remained subject to the provisions of the Act as to conditions and area of service; they involved the question of transferring to the association any property belonging to a unit; they involved the question of the transfer to the association of any liabilities of any unit which the association was willing to assume, and of providing for the discharge of any such liabilities not so transferred; they involved the question of the transfer to the association of any land or interest
1398
acquired by the council of a county or borough; and they involved the question of the continuance of the right of re-commending for first appointment. All those wore important subjects. It had been almost a universal practice in such cases of transfers in other Acts of Parliament that there were provisions for Orders in Council being laid before Parliament and power of objection by Parliament being given. Perhaps the most apposite case was the Endowed Schools Act of 1873, in which every scheme had to be laid before Parliament for two months. Again, in the Judicature Act of 1875 the Order in Council relating to Rules of Court were laid before Parliament for forty days, and could be objected to. Again, in the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act of 1881, the Rules were to be laid before Parliament for 100 days, and power in addition was given to Parliament in every kind of case, not merely on. such important matters as the transfer of property, but even with regard to the forms to be used, the scale of; costs, and even the attendance of officers at their offices, the service of notices, and so on. All those were under the. Act of 1881 laid before Parliament, and power of objection was given to either House. And there were other Acts which gave similar powers. He thought it would be a little regrettable if His Majesty's Government, having recognised that in all the matters connected with the administration of this Act, and which were the subject of Orders in Council, the regulations should be subject to there view of Parliament in any exceptional cases in which Parliament might desire to review them, they should select a matter of such great importance as this for exemption from such opportunity of review. He did not wish at that hour to trouble their Lordships with any lengthy remarks, but he thought the noble Lord would find some difficulty in establishing a difference between the earlier portions of the Act and this later portion which was to be withdrawn from the cognisance of Parliament. It was true that—he presumed as a matter of courtesy—these questions were to be laid before Parliament, but after they had been so laid, Parliament was not to be allowed to pronounce

1399
against them. He therefore hoped that the Government would accept his Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"At the beginning of the clause to insert the words 'Every Order in Council required by this Act to be laid before each House of Parliament shall be so laid within forty days next after it is made, if Parliament is then sitting, or if not. within forty days after the commencement of the then next ensuing session; and, if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which the said House shall have sat. praying that any such Rule or Order may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the Order so annulled shall thenceforth become void and of no effect, but without prejudice to the validity of any proceedings which may in the meantime have been taken under the same.' "—(Viscount Midleton.)
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I will explain as briefly as I can how it comes about that the Government are not in a position to accept this Amendment. The House will remark that the noble Viscount has pointed out that by an Amendment which was accepted yesterday schemes were to be subject to the revision, in a sense, of this House, and it was an original provision of the Bill that the important possible alterations to be made by Order in Council with reference to military training should lie in draft in the usual manner before they were confirmed as Orders in Council. The natural course for the noble Viscount would have been to have moved for a similar provision at the end of Part II. applying to the transitory provisions, which are the only ones in the Act to which this provision of Clause 34 applies. I take it he did not do that for a very obvious reason—namely, that being transitory provisions—that is to say, being concerned with transfers of different kinds which are to take place under this Act—it is the natural desire that their operation should be as continuous as possible. If the noble Lord had moved that these Orders should lie on the table of the House for forty days, it is perfectly obvious that the whole of the transitory operations might have been brought to a standstill. That, I have no doubt, is a very excellent reason why he did not move his Amendment in that place. Instead of that, he has moved his Amendment in a form which has never,
1400
so far as I know, been included in any Act of Parliament. On that, I challenge contradiction. Attempts have often been made to introduce those particular provisions into minor Acts of Parliament, but I never remember their being seriously introduced by so responsible a Member of either House as the noble Viscount. One case came before us this year in which in a Bill of some importance which never proceeded very far, a similar provision was sought to be inserted; and we objected to it on the grounds upon which every attempt of the kind has always been objected to. What the noble Viscount suggests is this: that His Majesty in Council should approve an Order in Council, and then, after that Order has been approved, it is to come back to the House, and your Lordships are to run the risk of the possibility of placing the Sovereign in Council and one House of Parliament in direct conflict. It appears to me that such a position is one which surely this House would be exceedingly unwilling to occupy; and I should have thought it was scarcely respectful to the Crown to suggest the possibility of such a thing occurring. I am bound to protest against the form of the noble Lord's Amendment; and I trust that, after the explanation I have given, he will not press it. The usual course of laying Orders in Council in draft on the Table is one which I have shown to be practically inapplicable to this particular part of the Bill; and the attempt to get over the difficulty in the manner which the noble Viscount has suggested is one to which we cannot possibly agree. It might save time, in view of the noble Duke's (the Duke of Northumberland) Amendment, if I were to explain that this clause is really common form; it is of a kind which frequently occurs in Acts of Parliament. The Interpretation Act provides that where people are empowered to issue rules and regulations, it is implicitly understood that they can go on issuing fresh rules and regulations. But that does not apply to schemes or Orders in Council; and therefore it is customary that where Orders in Council have to be, as is obviously the case here, renewed or revised, or anything else of that kind, a provision to that effect should be placed in the Bill.
Viscount MIDLETONsaid that he was not quite convinced by the noble Earl's argument. With regard to the transitory nature of these provisions, there was nothing whatever to prevent the same action being taken as was taken in all other cases. The Government could proceed; and if Parliament should subsequently interfere no prejudice was created as regarded any act which they had already committed, but further power of action was then withdrawn. As regarded the form which the noble Earl had criticised, he must point out that it was merely the same form as in Clause 15 had already been applied to other parts of the Bill.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Under Clause 15 the Order is to be laid in draft before Parliament, not after it has been approved by the Council.
Viscount MIDLETONadmitted that that was so in the case of Clause 15; but that would not be so in the case of the scheme under Clause 1, nor was it so in the other eases he had cited in other Acts of Parliament.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Schemes are not approved by His Majesty in Council.
*Viscount MIDLETONsaid that was the case in the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act in a variety of most important matters. He could cite to their Lordships twelve different cases under the schedule of that Act in which that was the case; and it was also the case in the Endowed Schools Act as well as in the Judicature Act. The latter case was not one of a draft, but of an
Order in Council already made; and he thought that, as the Amendment which he had moved was not his own drafting in any way, but legal drafting, the noble Lord would find that its form was absolutely correct. He should very deeply regret if their Lordships parted altogether with their powers with regard to these very important questions, as to which, with all respect, he would say that His Majesty's Government had left a certain amount of vagueness still existing, and as to which he thought, it desirable Parliament should not part altogether with its power of criticising.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the Lord President had argued that the provisions to which the Amendment would apply were provisions of a transitory nature; but they were not all of such a nature. The Amendment, as he understood it, would cover the provisions in Clause 27, Subsection (3), which stated that His Majesty in Council might apply certain enactments, to the Territorial Army. That was an extremely important question for Parliament to part with the criticism of, and it was one in connection with which the Government evidently now asked for a tree hand. He thought that consideration considerably minimised the force of the noble Lord's argument; and that it was extremely important that Parliament should retain some method of control over these transfers.
On Question whether the proposed words should be there inserted,
Their Lordships divided: Contents 54; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Lindsey, E.

Hill, V.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Lonsdale, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Morton, E.

Bath, M.

Mount-Edgcumbe, E.

Camden, M.

Onslow, E.

Abinger, L.

Hertford, M.

Roberts, E.

Addington, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Romney, E.

Ampthill, L.

Salisbury, .VI.

Scarbrough, E.

Basing, L.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Belper, L.

Camperdown, E.

Westmeath, E.

Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

Cathcart, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Cawdor, E.

Falmouth, V.

Clinton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Goschen, V.

Clonbrock, L.

Dartrey, E.

Hampden, V.

Colchester, L.

Devon, E.

Hardinge, V.

Digby, L.

Dunboyne, L.

Hindlip, L,

Newton, L

Ellenborough, L.

Kensington, L.

Raglan, L.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

Forester, L.

Methuen, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Harris, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Allendale, L.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Beauchamp, E.

Brassey, L.

[Teller.]

Carrington, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Craven, E.

Denman. L. [Teller.]

Haversham, L.

Dundonald, E.

Elgin, E. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Kinnaird, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Lucas, L.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Ribblesdale, L.

Esher, V.

Glantawe, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Preamble of the Bill agreed to.

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND,:who had a Motion upon the Paper to leave out Clause 34, said that, as he gathered from what had fallen from the noble Earl that the Government were not prepared to accept his Amendment in the form in which he had orginally put it upon the Paper, he would, with the leave of the House, move, it in another form; because he quite recognised that it was impossible, after what had been said, to leave out the whole clause. He would therefore move that they leave out the word "Orders" in the first line of the clause, which would, he thought, enable him to raise the point that he wished to raise. He could not help thinking that the noble Earl had rather misunderstood the object which he (the Duke of Northumberland) had in view in moving this Amendment. He did not wish to touch the question of the Orders in Council, which it had just been decided to leave alone. The schemes had already been dealt with by the House, and it had been decided that they must be laid before Parliament. Now it was proposed to leave in the Orders of the Army Council, and the regulations which the Army Council might make under this Act, and they would then have the force of an Act of Parliament. Surely, that could not be intended. Was it really intended that the Orders of a body like the Army Council were to have the force of an Act of Parliament, so that any act which they did, and any Order which they made, or any regulation which they made, could not be appealed against? He was assured, the other day, upon legal authority that under this clause, even if the Army Council did something which was ultra vires, if it was taken before a
1404
Court of law, that Court of law would say that in the face of this clause it had the effect of an Act of Parliament, and therefore could not be considered by His Majesty's Judges. Surely that could not be intended. He believed he would be raising the point correctly if he moved to leave out the second word "Orders" in the first line
Amendment moved—
"On page 23, line 33, to leave out the word 'Orders.' "—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Do I correctly understand that that is the only word in the whole clause which the noble Duke wishes to omit? The word "Orders" occurs again more than once further down. Perhaps the noble Duke will move that, in the first instance.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: That was my idea, to move that in the first instance.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I wonder whether the noble Duke has fully considered what the full effect of that Amendment will be? He desires that every Order made by the Army Council under this Act shall be laid on the Table of the House.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that was not what he intended; 'he had simply asked that an Order of the Army Council should not have the effect of an Act of Parliament. There was nothing in the clause about laying it on the Table of the House.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: On this point I speak with diffidence, because it is a purely

1405
legal point. I think the noble Duke is unreasonably alarmed at what he thinks will be the effect of these words. They are words which are very frequently placed in Acts of Parliament, and I believe their legal force is not very great; they have very often been put into similar Acts of Parliament; and it has been found convenient in practice to have them in. As a matter of fact, the rather alarming effects suggested by the noble Duke could not and do not happen. The noble Duke, I understand, does not object to power being given to the Army Council to revise and vary the regulations. It is the fact that all Orders are to have the force of law to which he objects. I do not suggest it to the noble Duke, because I am not in a position to make any bargain with him upon the subject, but would not his object be more fully met by leaving in the word " Orders," and omitting the last words of the clause?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he should be very happy to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, if it would have the effect which he desired; but he was afraid that would not be the case. If the noble Lord would tell him what he would accept, it would be of considerable assistance to him. What he thought was wanted was that in line 37 of Clause 34 the words " Orders " and " Regulations " should be left out. He thought that would meet the case.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Not "Regulations," I hope. The word "Regulations" in any case ought not to be omitted; because, by the Interpretation Act, there is power to vary and revise Regulations in all Acts of Parliament, and there is no reason why that power should be different in this case. But I still do not understand the noble Duke's point. I understood that his objection was not to varying or revoking the Orders so much as to the fact that all orders and schemes of the Army Council should have the same effect as if they had been enacted in this Bill. But, if that be so, why does he propose to leave in those words and to leave out the word "Orders" only? Because he does not object, as I understand, to the power to vary an Order.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDwas sorry he had been so obscure. Perhaps, if he were allowed to read the clause, he could show what he meant. What he proposed to leave in the clause was as follows:—
"All Orders in Council, orders, schemes, and regulations made under this Act may be varied or revoked by subsequent Orders in Council, orders, schemes, and regulations made in the like manner and subject to the like conditions, and all such Orders in Council and schemes, whilst in force, shall have effect as if enacted in this Act."
He wished to leave out "Orders" and "Regulations." What he objected to was not their being varied, but their having the power of an Act of Parliament. He did not think they should give to the Army Council the power to make Orders and Regulations which were never to be laid before Parliament. He could quite see that the Army Council should have the power in question, but not that their exercise of that power should have the validity of an Act of Parliament.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked why the noble Duke left in the word "scheme."
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDreplied that "scheme" had already the validity of an Act of Parliament.
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsuggested that the noble Duke should adhere to his original Amendment, and move to leave out altogether Clause 34
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Would the Government assent to that?
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am quite willing to take that course.
THE EARL OF ON SLOW: The noble Duke will observe that that will necessitate leaving out the words at the beginning of the clause, which the Committee have just agreed to insert.
*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The point appears to be a very difficult and technical one. But I think that many who sit here would think twice before we

1407
voted for the omission of the whole clause. The point whether "Orders" and ''Regulations" should be omitted in the penultimate line of the clause seems to be a matter worthy of consideration; and I should have thought the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would have undertaken to consider it before the Report stage.
*THE EARL OR PORTSMOUTHdid not desire to discuss a question in Committee which should have been decided by the House itself.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid it seemed strange that the Government should attach great importance to preserving "Regulations," and yet should have no objection to striking out the whole clause, which struck out "Regulations" also.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I have a further suggestion to make to the noble Duke; that he should leave in the first four lines—
"All Orders in Council, orders, schemes and regulations made under this Act may be varied or revoked by subsequent Orders in Council, orders, schemes, and regulations made in the like manner and subject to the like conditions"—
and leave out the rest.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that would be satisfactory to him.
Clause as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUin moving that the provision in Subsection (4) that the Governor of the Isle of Wight should be ex-officio a member of the Association of the County of Southampton should be enlarged so as to include the Deputy-Governor, inquired whether the Government had noticed the strange effect which the clause as it stood in the Bill would have in regard to the Isle of Wight? The present Governor of the Isle of Wight was the Princess Henry of Battenburg; and it seemed hardly right for a Royal
1408
Princess to sit on an association and to take part in possibly turbulent proceedings. He suggested that the clause should read "Governor or Deputy-Governor."
Amendment moved—
"In page 24, line 25, after the word 'Governor,' to insert the words or Deputy-Governor."—(Lord Montagu, of Beauties.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he quite saw the force of the proposed Amendment, and there would be no objection to making the alteration suggested by the noble Lord. He supposed there was such a person as a Deputy-Governor of the Isle of Wight?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Yes.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38:—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUmoved an Amendment to substitute "National Guard" for "Territorial Army" as a description of the Territorial Force. He said it was generally admitted in all quarters of the House that the term "Territorial Army" was not satisfactory; it was a tremendous mouthful and would never be pronounced properly when speechmaking commenced after dinner; it would be liable to all kinds of abuses, and he could foresee the Territorial Army in the future being called "Haldane's Terriers" or even "Haldane's Terrors." He did not wish that the force should start with a bad reputation by reason of having a bad name. There was a great deal in a name, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would admit; and he suggested that a better name might be found. For instance would not the name of "National Reserve" do very well? He had put down in his Amendment "National Guard," but he quite admitted that it rather suggested the French Revolution. It was, however, certainly a better name than the one which had been chosen.
Amendment moved—
"In page 25, line 21, to leave out the word 'Territorial' and insert the words 'National Guard.' "—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
*THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHasked whether it was really necessary for the House to sit up to that hour of the night to consider what would be the best name to use. It seemed to him that they might just as well leave in the words "Territorial Force," as substitute any others, because probably, whatever name was chosen for the force, the public or the soldiers themselves would give it a very much better name.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid it seemed to him that it would be a great pity if the House made it impossible for the Force to be called "Haldane's Terriers."
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEUconsidered it important to start with a good name, and he was sure that "Territorial Army" was not a good name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Title:—
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU,who had proposed to substitute "An Army for National Defence" for "Territorial Force," said that this was practically the same point as he had raised on Clause 38. Perhaps the Government would consider whether they could find a word which would define the Territorial Army better than the words they had now got. He left the matter to them to consider.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported to the House, with Amendments.
Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday, the 18th instant; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 102.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, at a quarter past Four o'clock.