Sitting of 18 June 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Durham (Jarrow Division), in the room of Sir Charles Mark Palmer, baronet, deceased. —(Mr. Whiteley)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

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

  283
  with, viz.: — Aberdeen Corporation Electricity Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Boston Spa Gas Bill; Brockenhurst Gas Bill. Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (Additional Capital, etc.) Bill; Barry Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  St. Neot's Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Canal Tolls and Charges (New Junction Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Ladybank Sewerage Drainage and Water Provisional Order Bill. Read a second time; to be considered upon Monday next.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Sir JOSEPH LEESEreported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills; That, at the Meeting of the Committee this day, notice was received from Sir Walter Nugent, one of the Members of the said Committee, stating that he was unable, on account of an urgent public engagement, to attend the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee—
  "That, in the case of the Coventry Corporation Water Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: — That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  "That, in the case of the Midland Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Devonport Corporation Bill [Lords]. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to: Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Bill; Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill, without Amendment.
  Amendments to: Manchester Ship Canal (Various Powers) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the London County Council to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Pwllheli." [Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. l) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Dorking Water, Freshwaters Gas, New Tredegar Gas and Water, Skegness Gas, and Woking District Gas." [Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Acts for appointing a stipendiary justice of the peace for the parish of Merthyr Tydfil and adjoining places; to provide for the application of those Acts in the event of the grant of a separate commission of the peace for the borough of Merthyr Tydfil; and for other purposes." [Merthyr Tydfil Stipendiary Justice Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring powers on the Imperial Tramways Company, Limited, for constructing a tramway and widening and altering roads in the North Riding of the

  285
  county of York; and for other purposes." [Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 247.]
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].— Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill. 248.]
  Merthyr Tydfil Stipendiary Justice Bill [Lords]; Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).
  Sir HENRY KIMBERreported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That Mr. Charles O'Donnell, one of the members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Eastwood, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration: From Aberdeen; Eastwood; and, Holm; to lie upon the, Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Birmingham, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUNJAB LAND COLONISATION BILL.
  Return [presented 12th June] to be printed. [No. 202.]
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into the Provisions of The Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, together with Appendix, Minutes of Evidence, and Minority Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903 (EVICTED TENANTS).
  Copy presented, of Special Report of the Estates Commissioners of their Proceedings up to the 31st May, 1907, in respect of persons applying as Evicted Tenants, or their Representatives, for restoration to their former holdings or for parcels of land in lieu thereof under The Irish Land Act, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN BOROUGHS (NON-PAYMENT OF RATES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 20th March; Mr. Weir]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203.]

  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether purchasers under the Land Act of 1903 are entitled to pay their annuities as to three-quarters in cash, and one-quarter in Land Stock; whether regulations have been made to enable purchasers to buy Land Stock through the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if not, when it is intended to issue such regulations.

  287
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) It is not considered that Section 2 o The Purchase of Land (Ireland)Act, 1891, applies to annuities payable by tenant purchasers under The Irish Land Act, 1903. As to the remainder of the Question, I would refer to the Answer given on the 12th instant by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, from which it appears that the Treasury are in communication with the Departments concerned in reference to the question of making regulations under the section quoted.
  [The foregoing Answer is in substitution for the Answer circulated with the Votes on June 13, and published in the Debates, clxxv., 1578.]

  Hydrographic Survey of Canadian Coast.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, from what date the Dominion took over the hydrographic survey formerly under the Admiralty, and engaged a British naval officer, and commenced the employment of survey-ships on the Atlantic Coast of Canada; when the survey-ship building for the Dominion on the Pacific Coast is likely to be ready; whether the Admiralty survey in British Columbian waters during 1906, recorded in the Annual Report recently laid before Parliament, was still under Admiralty direction; and what arrangements have been made for the future as to joint action between the Admiralty and the Dominion Government in the extension of hydrographic survey, stated by Mr. Brodeur, in his speech, at the Colonial Conference, to be now taking place.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) No Admiralty survey has been in progress on the Atlantic Coast of Canada since 1888. At the request of the Dominion Government, a naval officer was lent, in March, 1906, for surveying duties. It is not known when the Dominion Government surveying-ship for the Pacific Coast is likely to be ready. The Admiralty survey in British Columbian waters during 1906 was, and is still, solely under Admiralty direction. No such arrangement as that suggested has been made, as the Dominion Government have taken over a large part of the hydrographic surveying, and from what was stated
  288
  at the Colonial Conference they are apparently prepared to undertake the whole of the survey of their own coasts.

  Nucleus Crews for Destroyers and Torpedo Boats.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the provision intended to be made for the complements of torpedo destroyers and torpedo boats, so as to obviate the present arrangement whereby, when a flotilla puts to sea, boats in commission in reserve are depleted of the engine-room artificers required to carry out necessary repairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The present arrangement is that the complements of nucleus-crew destroyers and torpedo boats, which may from time to time for special reasons be brought up to full numbers, shall be completed from the resources of the port to which they belong without withdrawing ratings from other nucleus-crew vessels. It is the exception and not the rule to complete them from nucleus crews. I am not aware of any intention of altering the complements of torpedo-boat destroyers and torpedo boats.

  Rates on Royal Dockyards.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, as the sums paid in lieu of rates for the Royal Dockyards to local authorities appear on the Civil Service Estimates, it is to be understood that the prices quoted for Government work in building ships do not include any proportionate charges for the payments in respect of contributions to local authorities, whereas the private ship-builders have to allow for their payments of full rates levied by the local authorities.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Suggested Select Committee to Examine Estimates.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the Prime Minister, if, for the purpose of an economical formation of Estimates, he will take into consideration the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose of examining and reporting on them, precedent to their being discussed in Committee of Supply, as

  289
  recommended by the Select Committee on National Expenditure.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) This is not so easy or plain a matter as might appear on the surface, and, in addition to the difficulties that have always been foreseen, there is now this fresh objection, that the changes in Procedure, made this session, have involved a large addition to the Committee work of the House, and it is desirable to gain more experience of the working of these arrangements before adding another important Committee to the list.

  Kinvarra Harbour Improvement.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to carry out the pledge given by the Irish Government that a Bill would be introduced in the present session to enable the county council of Galway to carry out a scheme of improvement in Kinvarra Harbour.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It seems to have escaped the hon. Member's notice that my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland introduced the Navigation Works (Ireland) Bill on Thursday last.

  Uneconomic Holdings on the Estate of Mrs. O'Hara.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet dealt with the estate of Mrs. O'Hara, Raheen, Gort, under the Land Act, 1903; and whether the memorial of the uneconomic holders adjoining has yet received the consideration promised in their letter of acknowledgment dated 16th June, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) No proceedings for the sale of the estate mentioned have yet been instituted before the Estates Commissioners. The memorialists were informed in the letter referred to that their petition would be considered when the Commissioners should come to deal with the estate

  Enforcement of the Game Laws at Gort"
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Lough-Contra property, Gort, of Lord Gough, Chargé d'Affairs at Dresden, a tenant on the estate, Mr. John Hennelly, took proceedings against his lordship at the Gort January quarter sessions to recover damages for trespass of game on his corn crops; can he state the approximate amount realised in fines for the past twenty years at the Gort petty sessions against his tenantry for alleged offences under the. Game Laws; is he aware that the tenants on the estate and in the neighbourhood, through fear of the class of men who compose the Gort bench of magistrates, submit to the fines imposed by the gamekeepers and the agent on the estate, outside the petty sessions court; and what action he purposes taking to remedy such a state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) I am informed that Mr. Hennelly brought an action against Lord Gough to recover damages for the trespass of game, and that the action was dismissed by the county court judge. During the past twenty years fines amounting approximately to £21 have been imposed at Gort petty sessions on some of Lord Gough's tenants for offences against the Game Laws. I have no definite information that the practice referred to in the latter part of the Question prevails. If it does, it is the fault of the persons who make the payments. I have no reason to suppose that the magistrates do not act impartially.

  Intimidation of Mr. Farrell at Roscommon.
  SIR J. RANDLES: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on Sunday, 2nd June, a Mr. Farrell was brought before the Roscommon branch of the United Irish League, and there stated that his cattle had been stopped on the road by order of the League and that he himself was boycotted; and what amount of protection is now given to Mr. Farrell and his property.

  291
  (Answers by Mr. Birrell) Mr. Patrick Parrell, who is referred to in the Question, has informed the police that he attended a meeting of the R03-common branch of the United Irish League on the 2nd instant, but made no statement that his cattle had been stopped on the road or that he was boycotted. Farrell, who is himself a member of the branch, is not boycotted. He receives no protection, none being necessary.

  Intimidation at Moylough.
  COLONEL HARRISON-BROADLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Moylough branch of the United Irish League, on Sunday, 2nd June, to the effect that the pressure of the League should be brought to bear upon certain persons indicated at the meeting; whether the circulation of this resolution is or is not considered by the police and the inhabitants of the locality as a direct incitement to boycotting and intimidation; and whether, seeing that it has been held in the courts of justice that it is a criminal offence for a newspaper to publish resolutions under the special circumstances of a disturbed locality, he proposes to take steps to bring to justice those who are responsible for publications of this nature.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) A resolution, which purported to have been passed by the branch mentioned on 2nd June, has appeared in a local newspaper. The resolution appears to be directed against a certain tenant, and the police inform me that previous similar resolutions have produced no effect. As regards the latter part of the Question, I would refer to my Answer to the hon. Member for the City of London on 6th June.†

  Administration of Justice at Roscrea.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on two occasions the proceedings taken before the Roscrea petty sessions court against sixteen men charged
  † See (4) Debates. Clxxv., 813.
  292
  with having driven cattle off the land of Mr. Nathaniel Luttrell have been rendered abortive because five out of ten magistrates are opposed to a conviction; and what steps he proposes to take to secure an effective adjudication upon the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The magistrates at Roscrea petty sessions have been equally divided in opinion on the three occasions on which this case has come before them. The case now stands adjourned to the 24th instant. My right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland will in due course consider what further proceedings, if any, should be taken in the case.

  Intimidation at Craughwell.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 5th June a party of men drove up to the residence of a farmer named Keary, in the Craughwell district of county Galway, and deliberately fired several gun shots into the dwelling house; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this incident.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The police have reported that on the early morning of 8th June several shots were fired into the house of Thomas Keary. No arrest has been made.

  Disturbances at Gurrancoyle.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at midnight on Saturday, 8th June, a party of men entered upon a Gurrancoyle farm in the neighbourhood of Athenry, and in spite of the efforts of the police drove off some of the cattle; whether two shots were fired by members of the crowd; and whether he will state what measures the holder of the farm in this case could have taken to protect his own property.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) A prosecution has been directed in this case, and in the circumstances I am not prepared to enter into the details of

  293
  the offence. It is not for me to enumerate the acts which may be permissible under the law in defence of private property.

  Police Protection to Servers of Writs for Rent in County Cork.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the King's Bench Division on Tuesday, when, owing to the refusal through fear of civil bill officers to serve writs for rent in certain districts in county Cork, Mr. Justice Johnson made an order allowing service to be effected by post; and whether, having regard to the previous attacks made upon postmen while delivering letters supposed to contain writs, adequate police protection will be afforded to servants of the Crown in the performance of their duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative.

  Pay of Men Employed in Building Works Department at Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now see his way to pay the standard rate of wage to the workmen employed in the building works department at Woolwich Arsenal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I would refer the hon. Member. to the reply I gave to a similar Question of his on the 13th March last to the effect that, when the benefits accruing from Government employment are taken into account, the wages paid in the building works department of the Royal Arsenal are considered fully equal to the rates current in the district. There is no intention of making any change in the present conditions.

  Defective Ammunition.
  MR. A. L. LEVER:To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that defective and ill-assorted ammunition has been
  294
  served out to some Volunteer battalions; he will arrange that these battalions do not suffer in capitation grants as a consequence of bad shooting resulting there from.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane) I am not aware that any bad shooting has resulted from defective ammunition Served out to Volunteers.

  Mr. Justice Dodd and Land Appeals.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is proposed to continue Mr. Justice Dodd in the office of a Judge for the hearing of Land Commission appeals.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry) On 23rd February last the Lord Chancellor nominated Mr. Justice Dodd to act, for the term of five years, as an additional Judicial Commissioner for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Land Law Acts, and at the same time nominated him to act for a like term as an additional Judicial Commissioner for the purposes of the Land Purchase Acts. The Judicial Commissioners of the Irish Land Commission regulate among themselves the division of their business, and the Government does not and cannot control them in the matter.

  Thefts from Letter-Boxes.
  MR. STRAUS: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will furnish a Return of the number of prosecutions in cases where letters have been stolen from letter-boxes during the last three years; and whether he proposes to introduce the system in use in Germany for the prevention of such thefts.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) During the last three years there have been only five prosecutions in the United Kingdom for the theft of letters from Post Office letter-boxes and four prosecutions for attempted theft. I am in communication with the German Post Office on the subject of the apparatus in use in street letter-boxes in Germany.

  Metropolitan Police—Effect of Granting One Day's Best in Seven.
  MR. PICKEESGILL: To ask the Secretary for the Home Department whether he is now prepared to furnish the detailed statement and estimate to which he referred on the 26th November last, showing the effect of granting one day's rest in seven to the Metropolitan Police.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following memorandum, which has been prepared by the receiver for the metropolitan police district, gives the details of the estimate. The estimate has been very carefully framed, and errs, if at all, on the side of underestimating rather than on that of overestimating the cost.
  Metropolitan Police
  Approximate Estimate of the additional cost which would be incurred were each man granted one day's leave in seven:—
  At present each metropolitan police officer has on an average: twenty-six

  —

  Total.

  Deduct number of men who do not, now perform Sunday duty.

  Number to whom the 26 additional days' leave would have to be granted.

  Augmentation required at the rate of 8·904 per cent.

  Uniform:

  Inspectors

  464

  24

  440

  39

  Sergeants

  1,876

  148

  1,728

  154

  Constables

  13,094

  165

  12,929

  1,151

  Criminal Investigation. Department:

  Inspectors

  41

  6

  35

  3

  Sergeants

  235

  10

  225

  20

  Constables

  214

  5

  209

  19

  15,924

  358

  15,566

  1,386

  days per annum in fortnightly leave; eleven days per annum in annual leave; ten days per annum in sick leave. Total, forty-seven days.
  The number of working days is consequently 318.
  If a weekly instead of a fortnightly holiday were granted each officer will work twenty-six days less, that is, on 292 days only.
  At present 1,000 men work 318,000 days a year.
  This would be reduced to 292,000 days a year, or 26,000 days less than at present.
  To provide for these 26,000 days the number of men required to be added to the force will be 26,000/292=89–04 per 1,000 men, which is equal to an increase of 8·904 per cent.
  The number of men now employed at the cost of the Metropolitan Police Fund, that is, excluding all those paid for out of Imperial funds or by public companies and private individuals, is as follows—

  The cost of the force for each rank, based on the present actual expenditure, is—

  —

  Exclusive of any charge for pension.

  Inclusive of charge for prospective pension-.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Uniform men:

  Inspectors

  206

  15

  3

  257

  5

  4

  Sergeants

  130

  16

  10

  156

  18

  1

  Constables

  99

  13

  11

  115

  16

  8

  Criminal Investigation Department:

  Inspectors

  269

  10

  9

  336

  4

  2

  Sergeants

  144

  19

  3

  174

  4

  7

  Constables

  101

  16

  11

  118

  8

  11

  These rates include the pay of the officers, rent-aid allowance, gratuities, and reserve pay, the cost of clothing, coal allowance, medical attendance, and supervision by superintendents, and a charge of 7½per cent. to cover all administrative expenses, inclusive of the cost of section-house accommodation.
  The charge for the contingent cost of the men's pensions is calculated at—

  —

  Augmentation required.

  Increased charge excluding superannuation.

  Increased charge including superannuation.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Uniform:

  Inspectors

  39

  8,063

  14

  9

  10,033

  8

  0

  Sergeants

  154

  20,149

  12

  4

  24,163

  4

  10

  Constables

  1,151

  114,749

  18

  1

  133,324

  3

  4

  Criminal Investigation Department:

  Inspectors

  3

  808

  12

  3

  1,008

  12

  6

  Sergeants

  20

  2,899

  5

  0

  3,484

  11

  8

  Constables

  19

  1,935

  1

  5

  2,250

  9

  5

  1,386

  148,606

  3

  10

  174,264

  9

  9

  28 per cent. on the annual pay of an inspector; 24 per cent. on the annual pay of a sergeant; 20 per cent. on the annual pay of a constable.
  These percentages were fixed by Mr. Finlaison, the late actuary to the National Debt Office, after an exhaustive actuarial investigation.
  The cost of the additional men would therefore be—
  The total sum which would, therefore, have to be raised by means of an addition to the Metropolitan Police rate would be £174,264 9s. 9d., if proper provision is made for the future pensions of the men augmented, or £148,606 3s. 10d., if no provision is made for these pensions. The proceeds of a Id. rate are estimated at £223,420.
  In addition to the men employed at the cost of the police fund there are 51 inspectors, 232 sergeants, and 1,572 constables employed at the cost of the Imperial Exchequer.
  These men are employed under varying conditions which necessitate special charges being made for their services, but it is estimated that if the leave be increased by twenty-six days per annum, the additional cost which will have to be provided for by the Treasury will be £21,575 6s. 7d. per annum.
  (Signed) A. R. PENNEFATHER. 17 th June, 1907.

  Crew of Steamship "Maritta."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer "Maritta" engaged a crew at Cardiff on 4th June, 1907, and that on the previous voyage the "Maritta" carried six able seamen, while on the present voyage she has sailed without any qualified able seamen; whether he is aware that six ordinary seamen had been engaged at £3 10s. per month to lake the place of able seamen, and can he say if the superintendent of the mercantile marine office has brought under the notice of the surveyor of the Board of Trade at Cardiff the question of the manning of this vessel, and what steps, if any, did the Board of Trade take to prevent the "Maritta" from proceeding to sea without a qualified crew of able seamen; and whether, in view of the position that may arise in steamers proceeding on foreign voyages without a competent crew, he will take steps so that British ships may be properly manned in accordance with the recommendation of the Manning Committee's Report of 1896.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George) On the previous voyage the "Maritta"
  300
  carried a carpenter, a boatswain, and six able seamen, the wages of the able seamen being £4 per month. On the 4th instant a carpenter and a boatswain were engaged, and six ordinary seamen, the wages of these seamen being £3 10s. per month. The case was referred by the superintendent of the surveyors, and the surveyor who looked into it reported that these men had been seen personally by him and that he was satisfied that they would be found capable of performing the usual duties of seamen. On testing them, it was evident to him that they understood and could carry out the usual duties that are given to seamen. He also observed them moving the steamer in dock, and noticed that they obeyed orders rapidly and in an intelligent and seamanlike way. He also stated that he was informed that they had served three years at sea, and he understood that they held discharges for twelve months of that time. He added that the master stated that he had selected four of these men to act as helmsmen, and had found them satisfactory on the passage round from London. Each of these men was sent to the wheel, and given various orders in his presence which were evidently understood and executed rapidly. My hon. friend will remember that the Merchant Shipping Act of 1897, which deals with under-manning, was passed in consequence of the Manning Committee's Report. Carefully considered instructions as to procedure under that Act were issued by the Board of Trade to their officers, and, as at present advised, although I am watching carefully the way in which shipowners interpret their obligations under the Acts of 1897 and of 1906 in respect of manning, I do not think that any reason has been shown for altering those instructions.

  Patents—Extension of Protection.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of patents in force in the United Kingdom on 1st January, 1907, giving, as regards those patents which have been prolonged, particulars as to the years, serial numbering, names of patentees, dates to which prolonged, and references to reports of prolongation proceedings, and showing,

  301
  as regards the other patents, how many date from Each year.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The information asked for by the hon. Member

  Years.

  Serial Numberings.

  Names of Patentees.

  Dates to which prolonged.

  References to Reports of Prolongation Proceedings.

  1883

  5,718

  S. C. C. Currie and

  11th Dec. 1907

  P. O. R., vol. 15, p. 63

  J. A. Timmis

  1888

  15,159

  J. C. Thompson

  21st Oct. 1909

  P. O. R., vol. 19, p. 565

  1892

  8,700

  C. F. Cross

  6th May 1911

  P. O. R, vol. 23, p. 485

  E. J. Bevan, and

  C. Beadle

  Other patents, numbering in all 68,364, dating from years as follows: —

  Year.

  Number of Patents.

  1893

  542

  1894

  711

  1895

  845

  1896

  1,089

  1897

  1,299

  1898

  1,654

  1899

  2,021

  1900

  2,440

  1901

  3,608

  1902

  5,324

  1903

  15,103

  1904

  16,118

  1905

  14,816

  1906

  2,794

  Women Serving on Boards of Guardians.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many members of boards of guardians are women; and in how many cases the election of such women members was a contested election.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns) According to the latest figures in my possession the number of lady guardians in 1,093, of whom 1,050 were elected and forty-three were co-opted. Some of the Returns, however, for the present year have not at present been received, and
  number is as follows:— Number of patents in force in the United Kingdom on the 1st day of January, 1907, 68,367.
  Patents which have been prolong, numbering in all three.
  in these cases the numbers have been taken from last year's Returns. I am not able to say in how many cases the election of the women who are serving as guardians was contested.

  Boards of Guardians —Visiting Committee of Women.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many boards of guardians have appointed visiting committees of women.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns) I have not the information desired as regards the number of boards of guardians who have appointed committees of ladies to visit workhouses.

  Suggestive Fee for Registration of Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that the granting of exemption certificates to conscientious objectors to vaccination is a matter over which vaccination officers have no control, and that the receipt of exemption certificates entails as much clerical and statistical work upon vaccination officers as do vaccination certificates, he can see his way to insert a clause in the new Vaccination Bill to provide for the payment to vaccination officers of a fee for the

  303
  registration by them of exemption certificates in the same manner as is now provided for the registration of certificates of successful vaccination.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have had occasion to consider this matter, and I do not see my way to propose the insertion in the Bill of a clause to the effect suggested.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Application of Mr. John Graham.
  MR, FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received and considered an application from Mr. John Graham, of Banagh, Clonelly, county Fermanagh, who was, in 1893, evicted from his holding in Aughaleague, near Ederney, for nonpayment of rent.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Estates Commissioners cannot trace receipt of the application referred to.

  Claim for Disablement Pension for Mr-John Flynn.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any claim has been made by Mr. John Flynn, ex-national teacher, of Newtown forbes, county Longford, for a. disablement pension; is he, aware that this man and a large family have been reduced to extreme poverty by the loss of his employment; and will he request the Treasury to take his case into immediate and favourable consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman) A claim has been made by Mr. Flynn. but unfortunately it cannot be acceded to. He voluntarily quitted the service in January, 1905, and the pension premiums which he had paid were returned to him on his application. He is therefore disqualified for the grant of a disablement pension under No. 10 of the Irish Teachers' Pension Rules, 1897.

  Inquiries under the Labourers Acts.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps are being
  304
  taken by the Local Government Board to carry out the numerous inquiries under the Labourers Acts which will soon be going on all over Ireland; and whether it is the intention of the Board to employ such extra help as may be required to carry out existing schemes without unnecessary delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the affirmative. The staff of the Local Government Board has been increased for the purposes of the Labourers Acts, and up to the present the inquiry into every scheme received by the Board has been held within the statutory period.

  Purchase of the Thompson Estate, Clonfin.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the. Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has yet been received on the question of the ownership, for purposes of sale, of the Thompson estate at Clonfin, county Longford; and, if so, whether any offer has yet been made by the Estates Commissioners for its purchase, with a view to subdivision amongst deserving applicants in North Longford.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to add anything to the statement contained in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on the 21st February last. †

  Evicted Tenants—Case of Patrick Brady.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Patrick Brady, evicted tenant, of Aghnagarran, county Longford, whose uncle was evicted from the White estate in 1882; and will he direct that this farm of land, which is at present for sale, shall be bought in by the Estates Commissioners with a view to its being resold to Brady and to his restoration to the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received no application for reinstatement from Patrick Brady referred to in the Question.
  † See (4) Debates, clxxv., 1050.

  Sale of the O'Brien Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any further progress has been made with the sale of the O'Brien estate at Cornakelly and Corglass, county Longford; is he aware that it is nearly six years since the negotiations for sale of this estate were begun; and will he now press that the promise of Judge Ross to push through this sale will be given effect to, and thus relieve a large body of suffering tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Estates Commissioners have not yet been able to make an offer to the Land Judge for the purchase of this estate, but intend to do so as soon as some necessary amendments in the rental have been made. The solicitors in charge of the proceedings for sale are now having these amendments made.

  Firing at Police Patrol at Rivervills (Loughrea).
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a police patrol was fired on at Riverville, near Loughrea, on the night of the 8th inst.; and, if so, what steps were taken to apprehend the persons concerned in the outrage.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) A prosecution is pending in this case, and I must therefore decline to make any statement upon it.

  Untenanted Land of the Estate of Mrs. Anne De Blaquiereat Tubbar.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estate of Mr. William De Blaquiere, Tubber, near Gort, has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners; is he aware that the district is one where small holdings generally are to be found; and whether he will direct the Commissioners to safeguard the untenanted ands on this estate for distribution amongst the people.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is presumed that the Question refers to the estate of Anne De Blaquiere. The Estates Commissioners have made a provisional offer for the purchase of the
  306
  estate, and the owner has expressed her; willingness to accept the offer; but a formal agreement for purchase will not be entered into until title has been shown. The Commissioners will, in distributing the untenanted land, pay due regard to the wants of occupiers of small holdings in the locality.

  Police and the Delegates of the Gaelic Athletic Association.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that delegates representing the Gaelic Athletic Association from the county Galway, who attended the annual meeting of that body held at Thurles, county Tipperary, on the 24th February last, were shadowed by detectives of the Royal Irish Constabulary and were photographed by them; and, having regard to the non-sectarian and non-political character of the association, will he state what was the object of these proceedings.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. I learn from the police authorities that the delegates referred to were neither shadowed nor photographed by the Royal Irish Constabulary.

  Evicted Tenants—Application of Patrick Skerry.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received an application from an evicted tenant named Patrick Skerry, Fiddane, Gort; whether he is aware that Skerry was evicted out of Lord Gough's estate, Gort, in September, 1888, for the nonpayment of two years rent; and whether, in view of the negotiations going on for the purchase of this estate by the Commissioners, the application of Mr. Skerry will be considered with a view to reinstatement, or providing him with an equivalent holding on the estate, when the purchase is complete.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Estates Commissioners have made full inquiries into the case of Patrick Skerry, and have decided that they can take no action in the matter.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of John Keating.
  MR. FFRENCH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of John Keating, of Little Graigne, South Wexford, a sub-tenant on the Marquis of Ely's estate, who was evicted some years ago by the middleman named H. P. Gahan, who is a large farmer, and who has now purchased his holding, which includes John Keating's farm; and if the Commissioners, before making the vesting order in this case, will require Keating's holding to be given back to him so that he may get the same chance of purchasing as the other tenants.

  1905–6.

  1895–6.

  1885–6.

  £

  £

  £

  Net Expenditure under Army Estimates

  28,478,863

  18,470,535

  23,480,086

  Less Loan Annuities

  1,020,824

  131,491

  —

  27,458,039

  18,339,044

  23,480,086

  Add Loan Expenditure

  1,287,416

  619,6706

  —

  28,745,455

  18,958,720

  23,480,086

  The Territorial Force and Regimental Depots.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, when the new arrangement whereby recruits will pass direct to their battalions and will not be retained at the regimental depots conies into operation, the existing establishment of these depots will be maintained; and, if so, what purpose it will serve.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men employed in the regimental depots of the infantry of the
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into John Keating's application for reinstatement in an acre of land which he formerly held as sub-tenant, and have decided to take no action in the case.

  Army Expenditure.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the increase on Army Expenditure in the financial year 1905–6 compared with that in 1895–6 and 1885–6, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures are as follows: —
  Line, and what proportion, if any, of these will be retained when the new arrangement whereby recruits will proceed direct to their battalion comes into operation; whether, when that time arrives, the present strength of the depots at Winchester (Rifle Brigade and 60th), Newcastle, Lichfield, and Bury will be maintained; and, if not, by what numbers will they, respectively, be reduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of sending Line recruits direct to Home battalions for training is still under consideration, and nothing is yet settled definitely. It is largely a question of barrack accommodation. In

  309
  any case the regular staff, which it is proposed to maintain for the 3rd battalions at existing depot barracks, viz., nine officers and seventy-six other ranks, is held to be sufficient for the purpose of training not merely the recruits of the special contingent, but, if necessary, recruits for the Line as well.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Small Admiralty Craft.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what second and third-class cruisers, naming them, have been built to replace the number of small craft removed from the Navy List in the early part of 1905; and how many, and which, of these are in commission or are ready for immediate service.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): No necessity has yet arisen for building the type of vessel named, but the "Boadicea," now under construction at Pembroke, is the first of a new class. Since the date named in the Question, eight scouts and three third-class cruisers have been completed.

  Refrigerating Machinery for Ships' Magazines.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in consequence of recent experience of the decomposition and deterioration of smokeless powders in hot magazines, the Admiralty have found it to be urgently necessary to ask for tenders for refrigerating machinery for the magazines of our ships, involving large additional expenditure on Vote 8; whether he is aware that Vote 8, as presented, does not include any expenditure on refrigerating machinery; and whether the Government will follow the accepted practice in this case, where i the Vote has been presented but not discussed in Committee of Supply, by presenting a Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is true that Vote 8 for the current year does not include any specific provision for refrigerating machinery, but I am not prepared at this date to affirm either that there
  310
  will not be sufficient funds in the several sections of that Vote to meet the charge for such machinery falling in the current year, or that a supplementary grant for naval services will be needed. I hope, however, in accordance with the accepted practice, to make a statement on the general subject when Vote 8 is moved in Committee of Supply.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will not a sum approaching something like £500,000 be required for this purpose, and will this large sum have to be taken from other necessary services?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: But Vote 8 as originally drawn did not provide for that. Is it intended to have a Supplementary Estimate or not?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot yet say if one will be necessary
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is it not customary in cases involving such large sums for us to pay our way as we go along?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am, with the. consent of the Treasury, following the accepted practice in this case.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Will any considerable portion of this machinery have to be supplied during the current financial year?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, and a certain sum will be required this year in consequence.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it intended that all vessels shall have this refrigerating apparatus?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have answered that on more than one occasion.
  MR. GRETTON: Is it not urgent to provide it at once?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not think so.

  Torpedo Destroyer Armaments.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, for the purpose of increasing their fighting

  311
  efficiency against torpedo craft, the river class of destroyers are each being armed with three 8-cwt. 12-pounder guns instead of five 6-pounder guns; whether these guns, instead of being ordered from Woolwich or elsewhere, are being taken without replacement from a large number of ships; and, as these guns were used for boat work or landing parties, and were also mounted on distinct permanent mountings as part of the armament of the ships, will he state if it is the intention of the Admiralty to replace them.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In the opinion of the Admiralty it is not desirable in the interest of the naval service to give information on matters connected with re-armaments.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. friend aware that this information has already appeared in the newspapers, and that these guns have been removed from the ships and put on the destroyers? And he is further aware that he stated, in answer to a Question, that no guns had been removed?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question. It is of very considerable public interest and one in which Members on both sides of the House are interested.

  Channel Fleet.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many unarmoured cruisers are at present attached to the Channel Fleet.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Three, as stated at page 269 of the Navy List.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many torpedo-boat destroyers are at present attached to the Channel Fleet.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: None. They are sent as occasion requires —six and a scout last week, thirty-six and three scouts next week.

  Royal Yacht Contract.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many firms of shipbuilders were asked to compete, or did compete, for the contract for the new royal yacht; whether these tenders included the upholstery and decorative work of the yacht; who was the successful tenderer, and at what price including everything; was the contract carried out by the Admiralty exactly as accepted; and, if not, will he say what alteration was made with the upholstery and decorative sub-contract, and why.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am informed that nine firms were invited to compete, and eight submitted designs and prices. The tenders did include upholstery and decorative work. I understand that Messrs. A. & J. Inglis' tender was accepted at a price of £120,000 to include everything, subject to such modifications as might be found necessary. These modifications were afterwards found to be so important that eventually Messrs. Inglis submitted a new design to meet the altered requirements. At the same time they were relieved from the duty of providing furniture and decoration for the royal apartments, and a contract for this part of the work was placed with Messrs. Waring. Inglis' price was ultimately fixed at £123,500, and the sum to be paid to Waring's at £6,500.
  MR. WATT: Do I understand that by this alteration the price of the yacht was increased by £3,000 on the first estimate?,
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The price was increased a great deal more than that.
  MR. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the designer to Messrs. Maple also designed for Messrs. Inglis, whose contract was rejected?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That was before my time altogether.

  Greenwich Observatory.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the result of the negotiations between the Admiralty and the London County

  313
  Council with reference to the generating station at Greenwich.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No statement can be made yet as to the result of the negotiations, which are still proceeding.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman press the matter forward? It has been going on a long time.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I will do my best.

  The Unrest in India—Cases of Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, by the State Prisoners Regulation, 1818, under which Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh have been deported, it is provided that when it may be determined that any person shall be placed under restraint otherwise than in pursuance of some judicial proceeding the grounds of such determination shall from time to time come under revision, and the person affected thereby shall at all times be allowed freely to bring to the notice of the Governor General in Council all circumstances relating to the supposed ground of such determination, or to the manner in which it may be executed; and whether either of the above-named State prisoner have availed themselves of the permission so accorded by the Regulation.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative; the Answer to the second part, according to the latest information in my possession, is in the negative.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether at the time of their arrest and deportation, or at any other time, Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh made any protests against the treatment to which they were subjected or raised any defence to the charges alleged against them; and, if so, what was the nature of the protests or defence.
  MR. MORLEY: According to my information, the Answer is in the negative
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether at the time of the arrest and deportation of Lala Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh, they were informed of the grounds upon which it was thought necessary to arrest and deport them; and, if so, what were those grounds.
  MR. MORLEY: The persons mentioned knew that they were arrested under the State Prisoners Regulation, and one of them has since applied for a copy of the order authorising his arrest. He had a copy given him and he was informed in the terms of the Regulation that the reason for his arrest and deportation was to preserve a portion of His Majesty's dominions from internal commotion.
  MR WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will say whether Lala Lajpat Rai and others, recently arrested summarily in India, are considered as political prisoners; and what treatment is accorded and where they are detained.
  MR. MORLEY: The two persons referred to are officially designated State prisoners. They are detained at Mandalay, where they are lodged, in houses within the fort. They receive allowances for maintenance suited to their positions in life.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any difference between the treatment of these prisoners and political prisoners in this country; whether they have any means of communicating at all with their friends outside, or whether, under any conditions, their friends have access to them?
  MR. MORLEY: I believe my hon. friend and I have fought together the battle of political prisoners before now. If he will put a Question down, I do not doubt that the Answer will be satisfactory.
  MR. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether the charge of causing internal commotion is not one to be dealt with by the Penal Code, passed forty years after this Ordinance, and whether, under these circumstances, there is any jurisdiction

  315
  under the Ordinance of 1818 to deal with these offencos?
  MR. MORLEY: My hon. and learned friend being a lawyer, must see that a Question of that kind must have notice.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that Lala Lajpat Rai was not connected with the agitation carried on by Ajit Singh, and that no specific charge of preaching sedition has been alleged against him, in what particular did the Regulation of 1818 apply, giving power to the Indian Government to order the arrest and deportation of Lajpat Rai.
  MR. MORLEY: It has never been admitted, and is not the case, that there is no connection between Lajpat Rai and the agitation carried on by Ajit Singh. The Regulation of 1818 gives full power to the Government to take action under it whenever reasons of State, including the security of the British dominions from internal commotion, require any person to be placed under personal restraint.
  MR. O'GRADY: Am I to understand, then, that there has been a definite charge against Lajpat Rai of causing sedition?
  MR. MORLEY: I have already said, almost too often, in answer to my hon. friend and to one or two hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on this side, that it is entirely adverse to the public interest to go into details as to the circumstances which the Government of India, with my full assent, thought justified the application of this law—the law of the land.
  MR. O'GRADY: May I ask, if it can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Lajpat Rai did not preach sedition, is there to be no appeal or redress then?
  MR. LUTON: May I ask whether, if it is so dangerous for Lajpat Rai to go back to the Punjab because it is in such an inflammable condition, the right hon. Gentleman would make an inquiry into the condition of the people and ascertain the causes of disaffection?
  MR. MORLEY: Does not my hon. friend feel assured that I am all day long inquiring into it?
  SIR H. COTTON: May I ask whether it is a fact that Lajpat Rai was only present at one of the many public meetings which were organised and addressed by Ajit Singh?
  MR. MORLEY: To the best of my information, that is not the case.
  SIR H. COTTON: At how many then?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the observation made by the Member for Sheffield, "Why not shoot Lajpat Rai?" That is a shameful observation. Withdraw what you said, Sir.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I rise to a point of order. I beg respectfully to ask you, Sir, whether it is in order for an hon. Gentleman in this House to make the suggestion publicly that one of these British subjects should be shot.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Perhaps it is unnecessary to say I made no observation of any sort. I spoke to myself.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I heard you myself.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: We all heard it here.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With all respect, an hon. Gentleman who speaks aloud in this House speaks to the whole Empire. I wish to ask is it consistent with order and practice in this House that a clear incitement to murder should be made?
  MR. SPEAKER: I certainly did not hear the expression.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: We all heard it here.
  MR. SPEAKER: I said the expression did not reach my ears.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: They listen to private conversations. [NATIONALIST shouts of "Oh, oh!")
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Withdraw. How dare you say that!
  MR. SPEAKER: The observation did not reach my ears. That is all I am prepared to say as to that. I should like to add this, that if the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield could control the observations which he if always interjecting, not only during Question time, but during debate, it would be to the general advantage of the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I with great respect ask the Secretary for India whether, in view of the very serious condition of affairs in India, and the damage and exasperation likely to be caused by the reporting of an observation made in this House that an Indian prisoner should be shot, he would at once take measures to dissociate not only himself, but the Government, entirely from the statement?
  MR. MORLEY: I think all I need to say is that it is very fortunate that the hon. Gentleman is not, and never has been, in any position of executive responsibility.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to give notice that, if anything should happen to any of these Indian prisoners imprisoned without trial, a very considerable section of Members in this House—certainly Members representing Ireland — will take steps to put the blame on the shoulders of those who are responsible.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he was consulted by cable by the Government of India before the order for the arrest and deportation of Lajpat Rai was actually issued; and whether he has since made any inquiries as to whether there were charges sufficiently grave alleged against Lajpat Rai to warrant the case coming under the Regulations of 1818.
  MR. MORLEY: The case being deemed a. case of urgency, the Governor-General in Council decided at once to issue the two warrants, and immediately telegraphed the circumstances and their decision to me. Without hesitation I approved. The Answer to the second; part of the Question is in the affirmative.
  SIR H. COTTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make further inquiries as to the degree of complicity, if any, between Lajpat Rai and Ajit Singh?
  MR. MORLEY: No. I do not think I can promise that, because I have had the advantage of long conversations with Sir Denzil Ibbetson, Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, and I do not think it is necessary for me to make further inquiries of the kind my hon. friend demands.
  SIR H. COTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is universally affirmed in India that there is no connection whatever —
  MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly put any further Question that he has on the Paper?

  The Nawab of Dacca.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India has granted a loan of 3¼ lakhs of rupees to the Nawab of Dacca; whether a larger loan is to be granted; whether he can state the purposes for which the loan was granted; and what are the terms as to repayment and interest charged.
  MR. MORLEY: The Government of India have authorised an advance of £21,000 to the Nawab of Dacca, in accordance with the practice of lending money to land-holders and other notabilities which is well recognised and not at all infrequent in India. I understand that a proposal for a further loan will shortly be referred for my sanction. The purpose of the loan was to maintain the stability of an important family by preventing the Nawab's share of the estate from passing into the hands of outsiders. I am unable to state the terms on which it was granted.
  MR. LUPTON: Was this loan made in order to secure the adhesion of the Nawab to the partition of Bengal?
  MR. MORLEY: I am informed it had nothing whatever to do with it.

  Calcutta High Court Sentences.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the character of the sentences passed by Mr. Justice Stephen, of the Calcutta High Court, upon prisoners for petty crimes, in one case a man of seventy-five years of age being sentenced to ten years imprisonment for attempting to steal an oil canister from a courtyard, another case of four years for stealing a pair of boots exposed for sale in the street, and another case of six years' imprisonment on a young man for theft from his employer; whether he is aware that these sentences are causing apprehension and dissatisfaction in Calcutta; and, if so, will he bring the matter to the attention of the Government of India with a view to inquiry and revision of such sentences.
  MR. MORLEY: My attention has not been called to the cases referred to in the Question, but I will make inquiry.

  Chenab Canal.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the capital sum devoted to the creation of the Chenab Canal was found out of the revenues of the Government of India, which are chiefly collected from small farmers; whether it is incumbent on that Government in the interest of the general taxpayer to recover from those who immediately profit by the construction of such works of irrigation such increased payments as are proportionate to the advantages conferred: and whether the increase in the prosperity of the cultivators affected is greater than the increase in the payments required of them by the Government.
  MR. MORLEY: It is the case that the general revenues of India are financially responsible for the capital outlay on the Chenab Canal, and for that of other undertakings of a similar character. The rates charged to cultivators taking the water are fixed on the principle that they should bear some relation to the economic value of the commodity supplied, while leaving a substantial margin of profit to those who use the water. As regards the last part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to Question No. 25,
  320
  dated 11th June, 1907, as to the selling value of land in the Chenab Colony. †

  Trade Descriptions for Imports.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the self-governing Colonies have similar regulations to those now adopted by Canada as regards the proper description of imported goods; and, if so, will he make the necessary representations to secure that Ireland may be enabled to learn the extent of her annual trade with those Colonies.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I believe that all Colonies with a Customs tariff provide for the proper description of imported goods; but the regulation referred to relates primarily to the nature and value of the goods, and not necessarily to the country of origin.

  Canadian Customs Memorandum
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Canadian Customs Memorandum, dated 1st May, 1907, and in particular to the second clause, to the effect that every invoice shall contain a sufficient and correct description of the goods imported; whether, in view of the facilities thereby given lo distinguish goods of Irish origin, he will represent to the Canadian Government the advisability of maintaining this distinction in the preparation of their annual statistical Returns, and thereby enable Ireland to estimate exactly the extent of her trade with Canada.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the regulation to which the hon. Member refers looks rather to the proper trade description and valuation of goods than to the country of origin, but I see no objection to asking the Dominion Government if they will give such instructions as may enable the separation of the exports of Irish produce from those of the produce of Great Britain.

  Congo Annexation Bill.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  † (4) Debates, Clxxv., 1221

  321
  Foreign Affairs whether he has any information us to the provisions of the Congo Annexation Bill; and, if so, whether he win state how far this Bill will make possible the reforms advocated and urged by the Governments of Great Britain and the United States.
  THE SECRETARY OR STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The terms of the proposed Congo Annexation Bill have not yet been published, and I cannot say what they will be.

  British West Indians and the Galapagos Islands.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that a number of British West Indians have been hold in a state of shivery at the Galapagos Islands, and have been chained and beaten and otherwise maltreated; if so, what steps he intends to take to prevent the recurrence of such incidents; and whether he will demand prompt and adequate compensation for the victims and punishment to the persons implicated.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on the same subject yesterday as to the facts† The question of what steps should be taken to repatriate the men referred to is now under consideration.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will make stringent inquiries as to whether these natives have been encouraged to gamble and borrow money with a view to keeping them in a state of servitude?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The point is this. They owe money to the company, and because they owe money they have been prevented so far from leaving the islands. I do not consider that they ought to be prevented from leaving the islands, and what is now under consideration is what steps should be taken to secure their repatriation.

  Hague Conference.
  MR. GIBBS: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury
  † See Page 155.
  322
  Division of Gloucestershire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to announcements made by various foreign Ministers as to the attitude of their Governments on matters to be raised at the Hague Conference; and whether some similar statement can now be made with propriety in respect of the policy to be pursued by this country.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The only announcements by foreign Ministers which I have seen have been of a very general character, and similar in scope to expressions of opinion which had been previously made on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I think as much publicity has already been given to our views as to those of any other country. The Conference has already met, the various delegates are in communication with each other, and what further statements are made must depend upon their deliberations.

  British Consular Staff on the Upper Congo.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the British consular staff in the Upper Congo are at present compelled to utilise the steamers of the missionary societies in order to travel on the waterways, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of providing the British consular staff with the requisite means of conveyance, independent of outside assistance.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Consul at Boma has just been provided with a steamer, and the question of supplying His Majesty's Vice-Consuls at Leopoldville and Stanley ville with similar means of conveyance is under consideration.

  Housing of the Poorer Classes at Cairo.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that in Cairo the poor quarters of Boulak, Abnssieh, Demerdash, Ghamra, and Old Cairo have in large part been demolished to make way for middle-class and upper-class dwellings, and that no provision has been made for the poorer classes ejected by the demolition, he will advise the Eygptian Government to prepare a scheme

  323
  for the better housing of the working classes of that city.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the Eygptian Government are neglecting this question, but the matter is not one on which any advice can usefully be tendered. It is very desirable that the subject should receive attention in Egypt as elsewhere, but progress must be gradual.

  Egyptian Judges of Appeal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Procureur Général, Mr. E. K. Corbet, C.M.G., Messrs. J. L. Willmore and V. S. Alston, Judges of the Native Court of Appeal in Egypt, were originally appointed by the Egyptian Government without having had any previous legal training whatsoever; and whether he will advise the Egyptian Government to consider the advisability of placing them on the retired list.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not know what the legal training was in all these cases. I have no doubt that the qualifications wore considered when the appointments wore made, and I am not aware of any reason whatever for interfering with them.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Baronet not aware that those gentlemen know nothing whatever of law; that it is a Punch and Judy tribunal?
  Sir EDWARD GREY: My information, especially with regard to one case, is directly to the contrary.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And who is that?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Mr. Will-more. With regard to all, I have no reason to suppose that they are in any way not qualified for their duties.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Having regard to my responsibility for putting the Question, will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to inquire further?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no reason to think there is any need for inquiry.

  Egyptian School Regulations.
  MR. SWIFT MACNIELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will advise the British agent at Cairo to consider the expediency of cancelling Article 89 of the Official Code of Regulations, relating to school organisation and discipline, which enacts that pupils are strictly forbidden, under penalty of expulsion from the schools, to supply any information to newspapers, to write any letters or articles to newspapers, or to become agents for any paper.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not seen the article in question, but the Code of Regulations must be decided by the Egyptian Educational Authorities.

  Foreigners and Income Tax Exemption.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House the two Treasury letters of 1842 granting exemption from income tax to foreigners residing abroad on the dividends of Colonial and foreign loans cashed in England on their behalf.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Presumably the hon. Member refers to the Treasury letters of 7th October, 1842, and 5th August, 1856, the material portions of which Were laid upon the Table by me, at the hon. Member's request, on 10th December last.

  Income Tax on Foreign Securities Interest.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the interest of Foreign Government securities which is not payable in the United Kingdom, but has to be sent abroad for payment, such as French Rentes, Italian Rentes, and Japanese Internal Loan, are assessable under Schedule C, as are the dividends of Colonial and Foreign Governments which are payable in the United Kingdom, such as Japanese Sterling Loans.
  MR. ASQUITH: Interest on all Foreign and Colonial securities is chargeable if and when received in the United Kingdom, whether the interest be paid in this country or be collected

  325
  through an agent. In the former case, it is chargeable under Schedule C; in the latter, under Schedule D.

  Income Tax Refund.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal documentary evidence is required by the Inland Revenue for a refund of income-tax to prove the ownership of securities standing in name or names other than that of the claimant; or whether an affidavit from the person or persons in whose name or names the investment stands would not be accepted as sufficient evidence when there is no deed of trust.
  MR. ASQUITH: On the Question of the documentary evidence required, I can add nothing to the Answers which I gave to the hon. Member on 22nd March, 1906.t I am not prepared to say that a simple affidavit from the person or persons in whose name or names the investment stands, unsupported by any independent documentary evidence, would be sufficient evidence when there is no deed of trust. The circumstances of each cash have to be considered on their merits.

  Suez Canal Shares.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has considered the desirability of offering to the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia, of Now Zealand, of India, of Ceylon, of the Straits Settlements, of Hong Kong, of Natal, and of Mauritius, at the current market rate, a proportion of the shares in the Suez Canal Company acquired for the United Kingdom by the late Earl of Beaconsfield, in consideration of the interest in that waterway of those Governments.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. I do not think it would be practicable to act upon the suggestion.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much those shares have increased in value since they were purchased by Lord Beacons-field?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir.
  † (4) Debates, cliv., 620.

  London's Local Taxation Grants.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, in their final Report published in 1901, recommended a now scheme of grants from the Local Taxation Account which would have the effect of raising London's proportion of such grants from about 18 per cent. to over 25 per cent and will he say whether the total increase in the grants to London proposed under that scheme would have amounted to over£1,000,000 per annum.
  MR. ASQUITH: In the Report signed by the majority of members of the Royal Commission it was recommended that certain new and increased grants should be paid through the Local Taxation Account to the local authorities throughout England and Wales, and it was estimated that the additional cost to the Exchequer would be about £2,500,000 a year. So far as I am aware, the Report did not show how much of this additional relief would accrue to London, or how London's share of the total grants would be affected.

  Local Taxation—Estate Duty.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has taken stops to ascertain whether the proportion of Estate Duty payable into the Local Taxation (England and Wales) Account under Section 19 of The Finance Act, 1904, has proved to be an adequate equivalent of the share of the Probate Duty formerly allocated to that account under Section 21 of The Local Government Act, 1888; and, if not, whether he would be prepared to make the necessary investigation, inasmuch as Exchequer contributions have already been paid to local authorities on the basis of this estimated equivalent for twelve years.
  MR. ASQUITH: There is really no need for any investigation. Prior to 1894, what was paid to the Local Taxation (England and Wales) Account was four-fifths of the Probate Duty Grant, the Probate Duty Grant being one-half of the proceeds of the Probate Duties. As the Probate Duties were at the rate of 3 per cent. on personal property, when it exceeded £1,000 in value, and at lower rates on property of lesser value, the

  327
  Probate Duty Grant was slightly under 1½per cent. on the aggregate amount of such property. Under the Act of 1894, the contribution is fixed at an amount equal to 1½ per cent on the aggregate amount of such property, and therefore must have been slightly in excess of the contribution that would have been made on the ante 1894 basis. As a matter of fact, the contribution to the Local Taxation Account for England and Wales has, since 1894, averaged more than £100,000 per annum in excess of the average contribution for the five years 1889–1893, and, in addition, an average of £125,000 a year has, during the last seven years, been paid in relief of rates on Tithe Rent Charge under the Act of 1899.

  Care of the Feeble-Minded.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, pending the production of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded, and pending legislation founded on the said Report, he will take any steps to supplement the Lunacy Commission so as to relieve the existing congestion in the Department and to procure adequate inspection of asylums.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The number of the Lunacy Commissioners is fixed by statute, and while I am fully alive to the fact that the great increase in the duties which they have to carry out has caused a considerable congestion of business, to meet which an addition to their staff may be required, I could not initiate legislation pending the presentation of the Report of the Royal Commission.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two or three of the Commissioners have had to find substitutes, and those substitutes had no special qualification for the office?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I can add nothing to my Answer.

  Edalji Case.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, before the Home Office Vote is
  328
  taken, he will print all the police reports and communications which have been addressed to the Home Office on the subject of Edalji since the outrages commenced to the present day.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. As I intimated in reply to several Questions yesterday, I do not propose to publish any further Papers in connection with this case.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police reports upon the Edalji case care now in existence which have not been shown to him or his friends; and whether any of them were before the Edalji Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No police reports have been shown to Mr. Edalji or to his friends. All the documents in the possession of the Home Office were submitted to Sir Arthur Wilson and his colleagues.

  Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay Papers showing the sentences passed upon and the periods of imprisonment undergone by all persons who have received compensation in respect of such sentences and imprisonment in the last twenty years.
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the hon. Member will be good enough to put this down as an unstarred Question, I shall be glad to give him the information asked for without mentioning the names of the persons compensated.

  Street Trading by Girls.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will grant a Return of the local authorities which have made by-laws under the Employment of Children Act, 1903, and the names of those authorities which have framed regulations prohibiting street trading by girls under sixteen years of age.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I hope to issue later in the year a full Report on the

  329
  working of the Act, which will include the information for which my hon. friend asks. If, however, he desires to have the particulars he mentions in advance the Return can be granted.

  British Commercial Travellers Abroad.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in nearly every foreign country a British commercial traveller has to obtain a costly licence before he can solicit a single order for British goods; if any corresponding duty is levied upon the agents of foreign firms for the privilege of soliciting orders in the United Kingdom for foreign goods; and, in the contrary case, if he will endeavour to bring about free interchange of practice.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon): I would refer the hon. Member to the memorandum entitled "Commercial Travellers" issued last year as a Command Paper (Cd. 3241), from which he will see that the licences required to be taken out can only be described as "costly" in the case of comparatively few of the more important countries. The charge for licences is in all cases the same for travellers of all foreign nationalities, and there is no differentiation against British travellers. No licence is required to be taken out by foreign commercial travellers in the United Kingdom. The attention of the Board of Trade has on various occasions been directed to this matter, and such steps as seemed possible have already been taken with a view to the reduction of the charges in the case of certain countries, but without any satisfactory result at present. The matter, however, will continue to receive attention.

  S.S. "Ethelburga."
  MR. HALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer "Ethelburga" engaged a crew at the port of Glasgow on the 7th June, and that only two qualified able seamen wore engaged; whether he can state if the superintendent at Glasgow reported this case to the Board of Trade surveyor; and whether the surveyor was of the opinion that the ship was fully and properly manned by qualified men.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I find that the deck hands engaged on the "Ethelburga" on the 7th instant were one boatswain, two A.B.'s, three seamen, one ordinary seaman, one apprentice. As the manning complied with the minimum requirements, the case was not referred to the surveyors, and no report has been made by them with regard to it.
  MR. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by "three seamen." I assume they must be either A.B.'s or ordinary seamen.
  MR. LLOYD- GEORGE: Three ordinary seamen, certainly.

  S.S. "Moorfield."
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer "Moorfield" engaged a crew at the port of Cardiff on the 4th June, 1907; whether he is aware that on the previous voyage the "Moorfield" had as deck hands six able seamen and one ordinary seaman; whether he is aware that on the present voyage the number of able seamen has been reduced to five; and whether the superintendent at Cardiff reported this case to the Board of Trade surveyor that it might be ascertained as to whether the vessel was seaworthy with regard to the manning.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The facts are as stated by the hon. Member, but on the previous voyage three out of the six A.B.'s did not produce proof of their title to that rating. It was not necessary to refer the present case to the surveyors with regard to under manning, as the minimum requirements as to manning were complied with.

  S S. "Adelina Patti."
  MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on 3rd June, 1907, a crew was engaged for the steamship "Adelina Patti," at Newport, Monmouthshire; that only three qualified A.B.'s were signed on the articles of the ship; and that on the previous voyage the steamship "Adelina Patti" carried six A.B.'s; whether he can state if the superintendent at Newport directed the Board of Trade surveyor's attention to

  331
  the manning of the steamship "Adelina Patti"; and whether any steps were taken to ascertain whether the steamer was manned by an efficient crew.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I find that a boatswain, three A.B., and three ordinary seamen at the full A.B. rate of wages were engaged on the "Adelina Patti" on the 3rd instant. The vessel had more than the minimum number of deck hands required, and the case was not referred to the surveyor. On the previous voyage this vessel carried a boatswain and six A.B.'s.
  MR. JENKINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that three able seamen are sufficient for a vessel of this tonnage?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This matter was very carefully considered by a Committee of this House some time ago, and regulations were framed in compliance with its recommendation. I am told that this vessel has complied with these requirements.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To what regulations is the right hon. Gentleman referring?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The regulations made under the Act of 1897 by the Board of Trade.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Are we to understand that these regulations allow a vessel of this tonnage to proceed to sea with less than six qualified able seamen?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am not quite sure as to the tonnage of this vessel. I will look into that matter. My hon. friend knows perfectly well what the regulations are, and our surveyor reports that in this case the regulations were complied with.

  S.S. "Resolute."
  MR. W. E. HARVEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a crew was engaged for the steamer "Resolute" on the 6th June at the port of Sunderland; whether he is aware that this vessel only engaged three qualified able seamen; whether he can
  332
  state if the superintendent reported the matter to the Board of Trade surveyor at the above port; an I what action, if any, was taken.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I find that the deck hands engaged on the "Resolute" on the 10th instant were one boatswain, three A.B.'s, one ordinary seaman, and two deck hands. The two last served in the ship on the previous voyage as A.B.'s, but could not be entered as A.B.'s on the present voyage as they were unable to prove their title to that rating. The manning complied with the minimum requirements, and it was there-I fore not necessary to report the case to the surveyor or to take any special action with regard to it.

  Maintenance of Non-provided School Buildings.
  MR. MASSIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the diversity in the practice of various local education authorities with regard to payments made by them for wear and tear in non provided school buildings and the sums apparently paid by some authorities in excess of their legal obligation; whether he will obtain a Return from all local education authorities showing the methods they adopt both in assessing the amount of their liability and in discharging it; and whether he will issue a general circular giving the authorities such; directions as will secure that the practice is uniform throughout the country, and that expenditure under this head is kept within strictly legal limits.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The matter to which it relates has been brought before the Local Government Board and the Board of Education in various forms during the last few years, and the Board of Education issued a circular with regard to it in May, 1904, intimating the view of the Local Government Board that a local education authority cannot legally enter into contracts with school managers for the commutation of the expenses of maintenance for which the local education authority are liable. The Education Act,

  333
  1902, leaves, however, a certain amount of discretion to local education authorities with regard to the amount which they will pay on account of wear and tear in non-provided schools. I have no authority to give directions which would have the effect of securing a uniform practice throughout the country in this matter, and it does not appear to me that there would be any advantage in obtaining a Return on the subject. If in any particular case it is considered that the action of the local education authority is illegal, it can be raised at the audit of their accounts.

  Poor Law Expenditure.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now able to state the expenditure out of loans on Poor Law administration for England and Wales down to March, 1906, it being now fifteen months since the end of that financial year and, if so, will he state the amount of expenditure out of loans and the amount of expenditure not out of loans, but including the expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, respectively.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The total expenditure of Poor Law Authorities for purposes connected with the relief of the poor during the your ended March, 1906, was approximately as follows:—Expenditure out of loans, £998,000; Expenditure not out of loans, £14,036,000. These figures include that portion of the expenditure of the Metropolitan Asylums Board which did not relate exclusively to their hospitals for infectious disease.

  Local Taxation Grants—London's Share.
  SIR GEORGE EARDELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the amounts of London's share of the Local Taxation (England and Wales) Account in 1889–90 and 1905–6; what were the deductions made from those amounts in each of those years respectively and paid to the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police district; what were the amounts, in each of those years respectively, of the grants which the London County Council are compelled to make out of the Exchequer Contribution Account to guardians of the poor, metropolitan borough councils, public vaccinators, and other authorities
  334
  respectively; what were the net amounts, in each of those years respectively, left in the Exchequer Contribution Account of the London County Council and available for the reduction of the general county rate; what were the amounts of the other grants and payments which the London County Council is required, under the Local Government Act, 1888, to make to local authorities out of the general county account; and what was the final effect upon the finances of the London County Council in each year.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question, but I must point out that the information desired by the hon. Member cannot conveniently be dealt with by means of an Answer to a Question; but if, as I presume, his object is to show that the amounts which the London County Council are required to pay to other authorities in London out of the Exchequer Contribution Account and otherwise has considerably increased in the period to which he refers, I may state generally that this is no doubt the case.

  London Medical Officers' Salaries.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the discontinued grants towards the salaries of medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors were made under the Public Health Act of 1875, which does not apply to London, and that consequently London received no share in these grants; that, notwithstanding this fact, the grant was included in the basis adopted for the distribution of a large part of the grants from the Local Taxation (England and Wales) Account under the Local Government Act, 1888; and that from 1888 to the present time the London County Council has in effect received no grant in respect of sanitary officers, but has been required by Parliament to pay to the metropolitan borough councils one-half the salaries of the medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors employed by them with the approval of the Local Government Board, he can state the additional amount which London would have received from the Local Taxation Account if the sanitary officers grant had been excluded from the basis of distribution fixed in 1888.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. I am aware of the facts referred to in it. The grant in respect of the salaries of provincial medical officers of health and inspectors of nuisances was one of the discontinued grants on the basis of which county and county borough councils outside London have shared in some of the moneys payable out of the Local Taxation Account. Had the grant been excluded from the basis and no other variation in the scheme been made, the county and borough councils outside London would have received less and London would have received more. Calculations have been made showing that on the altered basis about £295,000 would have changed hands, as between the provinces and London, during the period from 1889 to 1907.

  London's Poor Law Grants.
  MR. FLETCHER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the grants made by the London County Council to the guardians of the poor out of the Exchequer Contribution Account have steadily increased from £146,377 in 1889–90 to £248,993 in 1905–6; that the£ grants paid by the London County Council to the metropolitan borough councils in respect of sanitary officers have increased from £131 in 1889–90 to £34,440 in 1905–6; that the balance of London's Exchequer Contribution Account, available for the relief of the county rate, has fallen from£203,547 in 1889–90 and£280,721 in 1891–2 to£53,333 in 1905–6, representing a Joss of more than Id. in the pound to the general county rate; and whether, in revising the bases of the Local Taxation Account, he will consider the desirability of providing means to prevent the charges upon London's share increasing in a much greater ratio than the amount of that share itself.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I am not able to follow the precise figures given by the hon. Member, but there is no doubt that the sums paid by the London County Council to boards of guardians and sanitary authorities in respect of grants have largely increased between 1889–90 and 1905–6, and that the balance of the Exchequer Contribution Account available for general county
  336
  purposes has diminished. As the Government have already intimated, the share which London should receive from the Local Taxation Account will be carefully considered when the Government come to deal with the question of the relations between the Exchequer and Local Taxation as a whole.

  Grantown Telephone.
  MR. A. WILLIAMSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has yet come to a decision as to the best means of providing telephonic communication with Grantown; and, if so, when it is expected that operations will be commenced.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,)The best means of providing telephonic communication with Grantown would be by a new line from Inverness. The line might be useful also as forming part of a direct route for the main trunk lines between Inverness and the South, but the cost would be great and further inquiry is necessary before definite proposals can be made. It may be necessary to ask for a guarantee in respect of the expense of serving Grantown before the work can be undertaken.

  Swedish Telephones.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that his Department have recently taken out the old telephones in the Medomsley district and replaced them with telephones made in Sweden; and, if so, will he state the reason for such change, and also the price and efficiency of the now ones compared with the old.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The telephones referred to by the hon. Member were some in stock of a more modern pattern than the old ones. All such instruments now supplied to the Post Office are of British manufacture.

  Education Code—Secondary School Education.
  MR. GIBBS: On behalf on the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucestershire, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education when it is expected that the new Regulations dealing with secondary schools will be circulated.

  337
  I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Education when the new Code will be in the hands of Members.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): In reply to these two Questions, I hope both sots of Regulations will be in the hands of the printers next week, and they will be circulated as soon as the necessary supply can be delivered.

  West Riding Judgment.
  MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether £428 8s., the costs of the West Riding County Council of their unsuccessful litigation on the question of teachers' salaries has been paid by the Government; if so, by what authority, statutory or otherwise, this payment has been made; and whether any agreement had been made upon the matter before the Government appealed to the House of Lords.
  MR. MCKENNA: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to this Question. The taxed costs of the West Riding County Council Amounted to £483 8s. 0d., and were defrayed from the Vote for law charges under Treasury sanction. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  Queen Victoria Memorial.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he can give any indication when the memorial to Her late Majesty Queen Victoria is likely to be completed.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): This work is not in my Department, and I am unable to give any definite information, but I am told that the sculpture is progressing satisfactorily.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Which Department is responsible?
  MR. HARCOURT: No Department at all. The matter is being managed by a committee representing the subscribers.

  Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any supplementary Estimates, in addition to that dealing with Jamaica, will be presented during the present session.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): Yes, Sir; but I cannot say how many at present.

  Trawling in Weymouth Bay.
  MR. SCARISBRICK: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that, owing to the inaction of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, more than 100 licensed watermen have for a long time been prevented from earning a livelihood by trawling in Weymouth Bay; and will he say when the Board will confirm the by-laws which wore made by the Southern Sea Fisheries Committee so long ago as the 20th September, 1905, and the suitability of which has been proved in evidence at the public inquiries held in relation to such by-laws.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY,: The delay in arriving at a decision in this case has been due to the fact that since the original proposal was made in 1905 several alternative or counter proposals have been placed before the Board, and it has been necessary to hold three public inquiries and to make other local investigations, which wore only completed last month. We are now in communication with the Committee, as required by the Act, with reference to the exact form of the by-laws, and, so far as the Board are concerned, there will be no delay in bringing the matter to a conclusion.

  Scottish Public Parks.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the fact that many burghs in Scotland assess their ratepayers for the purchase and upkeep of public parks, and then charge these same ratepayers for admission to entertainments in these parks; whether he is aware that this is contrary to Section 14, subsection

  339
  3, of the Burgh Police Act of 1903; and if he will take steps to see the law carried out in future.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE( Mr. THOMAS SHAW,): I shall be glad to have from my hon. friend the particulars on which he bases his statement that many burghs in Scotland follow the practice alleged. My attention has not been called to it. I may, however, point out that the legality of such actings is a question proper for decision by the Civil Courts at the instance of any party having a legal interest.

  Duke Street Prison, Glasgow.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the fact that, by the Report of the Prison Commissioners of Scotland for 1906, fifty-nine men were punished in Duke Street Prison, Glasgow, for refusal to work, while in the same prison 145 men were punished by being deprived of work; if these were the same men at different periods; and if the punishment of deprival of work has been found such a success as to warrant its continuance.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I have considered the facts stated in the Report. The fifty-nine wore included in the 145. The Prison Commissioners consider the punishment of the deprival of work a good punishment and find it to be generally effective.

  Irish Grazing Farm Dispute Prosecutions.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, having regard to the frequent assertions made by the disturbers of the peace in the West of Ireland that the Government really supports and approves of the, agitation against owners of grass farms, the Law Officers intend personally to conduct any of the pending prosecutions in Roscommon or Galway, with a view to making it clear that the aforesaid assertions are not well founded; and will Mr. Attorney-General or Mr. Solicitor-General conduct the prosecution in the Ballinagleragh case in county Leitrim.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): It seems to have escaped
  340
  the hon. Member's notice that before this Question appeared my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary stated in this House that it is the intention of the Law Officers to conduct personally the prosecutions at assizes in at all events some of the cases referred to. I am not prepared to say in what particular cases my hon. friend or myself will prosecute That will be a matter for my consideration in due course.

  Cooscroum Pier.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution adopted by the Cahirciveen Rural District Council, on the 6th instant, with reference to the construction of a pier at Cooscroum; and whether any, and if so, what steps will be taken by the Congested Districts Board to comply with the request contained in the resolution.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): I have received the resolution referred to, and the subject of it has been carefully considered by the Congested Districts Board. Having regard to the state of their funds, the Board find it impossible to undertake the construction of the proposed works at Cooscroum during the present year.

  Belfast Civil Bill Appeals.
  MR. GEORGE CLARK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that between the mouth of July and the month of March there is no Court available for hearing civil bill appeals for the city of Belfast; that during such interval decrees of the Recorder appealed against are rendered inoperative; that, with the object of remedying this grievance, it was arranged four years ago that civil business and civil bill appeals should be heard at the winter assize, which is held in Belfast in December in each year; that, at the first sitting of such Court in December, 1903, Chief Baron Palles decided that there was no power under the existing Acts of Parliament to hear civil bill appeals at such Court, and that an Act of Parliament was necessary to confer jurisdiction for such purpose; that no step has since been taken for the purpose of conferring on such winter Assize

  341
  Court the necessary jurisdiction to. hear civil bill appeals; and whether he will take into consideration the question of introducing.at an early date a Bill conferring the necessary jurisdiction on the Judges of such. Court of Assize.
  MR. BIRRELL: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question, but the hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that no step has been taken with the object of providing that civil business may be heard at winter assizes at Belfast. The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill, which was introduced last session by my right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, contained a provision to that effect, but the Bill failed to become law. It is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill containing a like provision when opportunity offers, but in the present state of public business it does not seem probable that the Bill can he brought in during the present session.

  Turoe Outrage.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether on the night of the 9th instant the residence of Mr. H. Dolphin, at Turoe, county Galway, was fired into; and, if so, whether any person has been arrested in connection with the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. Dolphin's house was not fired into, but out of. No person has been arrested.

  Mr. P. J. Kelly, J. P.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what decision he has arrived at with reference to the speech of Mr. P. J. Kelly, J.P., delivered at New Inn, county Galway, on 2nd inst., in which he incited his hearers to treat Lord Ashtown in the same way as John Blake, who was shot dead in 1883, was treated; and whether Mr. Kelly is still a justice of the peace.
  MR. BIRRELL: It has been decided to institute criminal proceedings in this case. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1898, Mr. Kelly is a justice of the peace by virtue of his office as chairman of a rural district council.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Is Mr. Kelly to be deprived of his office of justice of the peace?
  MR. BIRRELL: Pending the proceedings it would obviously be improper to take any action in the matter.

  Cappawhite Evicted Tenant.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether Thomas Franklin, of Ballykevoen, Cappawhite, county Tipperary, who was evicted from his holding about eighteen years ago by his landlord, the late Valentine Ryan, of Chadville, Cappawhite, county Tipperary, has yet boon reinstated; is he aware that the estates of the late Valentine Ryan in the counties of Tipperary and Limerick were sold to the tenants about seven years since; can he say whether an inspector has been sent from the Estates Commissioners to Thomas Franklin to inquire into the particulars of his eviction; and will he instruct the Estates Commissioners to approach Mrs. Helena Ryan, widow of the deceased Valentine Ryan, or his executors, Dr. Barry, of Thurles, and Thomas Kenny, solicitor, of George Street, Limerick, with the view of arranging for the reinstatement of Franklin.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into Thomas Franklin's case, but have not been able to effect his reinstatement. The present owner of the land from which Franklin was evicted has been approached by the Commissioners, but so far has not consented to his reinstatement. The Commissioners have placed Franklins name upon the list of applicants suitable to receive an allotment of land if it can be obtained.

  Castlewaller Evicted Tenant.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say whether Thomas Molony, of Castlewaller, Now-port, county Tipperary, evicted a few years since by his landlord, John B. Barrington, has as yet been reinstated; is he aware that John B. Barrington, when only agent on the property to Captain Hamilton, before his having

  343
  purchased the estate over the heads of the tenants, induced the late Michael Molony, brother and predecessor in tenancy of Thomas Molony, to exchange the tenancy under which he and his people before him hold the farm form any years from a leasehold into an eleven months one, thereby shutting him out from the benefits of the Act of 1881; and will the Estates Commissioners use their best endeavours to enable Molony to be reinstated and admitted to purchase, as the other tenants on the property who have purchased for the past few years.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have investigated Thomas Molony's application for reinstatement and have decided to take no action in the case. It has been judicially decided that the lands in which Molony seeks reinstatement are demense lands, and moreover it appears that the applicant is already in possession of a holding of about fifty acres.

  Grazing-Farm Disputes in Ireland.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can inform the House how many grazing farms have been surrendered since 25th May, and of these how many have been surrendered owing to pressure from the United Irish League; whether all the farms on the Caheroyan lands are now unoccupied; and whether this land is shortly to be sold to the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. BIRRELL: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer to my Answer to the right hon. Member for South Dublin on 30th May.† I am informed that the grazing farms on the Caheroyan estate are now unoccupied. The Estates Commissioners have had the estate inspected, and have entered into negotiations with the object of purchasing it. The negotiations are pending.
  MR. CHARLESCRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to prohibit the Estates Commissioners from granting holdings on these farms to any persons arrested for intimidation?
  † (4) Debates, clxxv., 92.
  MR. BIRRELL: That is a matter I have already replied to in answer to former Questions.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: What is the meaning of the statement of Lord Crewe in another place?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must know that that is irregular.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Surely, Sir, when a member of the Government in one place makes a statement, and another member of the Government in the other place makes another statement diametrically opposed to it, we are entitled to an explanation?
  MR. SPEAKER: Differences of expression continually occur, not only as between members of the Government in the two Houses, but also in this House.

  Colonial Trade with Ireland.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in considering the recommendations made by the Board of Trade Commercial Intelligence Committee, to which reference is made in the current Journal of the Board of Trade, he will endeavour to secure that the self-governing Colonies furnish information as to the extent and character of their trade with Ireland.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The point referred to shall not be lost sight of, but, as my hon. friend is doubtless aware, any commercial agents appointed by us in the Colonies would have no control over the form of the Official Trade Accounts issued by the Colonial Governments.

  Irish Education.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the statement on page 118 of the recently issued special Report on educational subjects, Vol. 17, that if in Ireland some Father Mathew could initiate a high-school crusade, with something of the Danish enthusiasm, Ireland's day of prosperity would have come indeed; whether the writer of the Report has any acquaintance with educational affairs in Ireland, and in particular with

  345
  the work of the Gaelic League in enthusiastically promoting the study of the language, history, and poetry of Ireland on the lines sketched out by Bishop Grundtvig in founding the Danish high schools; and can he say whether the Board of Education assumes responsibility for giving currency to a statement which deliberately ignores the existence of an Irish intellectual and educational movement.
  MR. MCKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the last sentence in the Prefatory Note to the volume in question, which reads as follows:— "In this case, as always, the Board must not be taken as necessarily endorsing the opinions of the author; the responsibility for these is his, and his alone."

  Allotment of Parliamentary Time.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the block of legislation both in the House and the Standing Committees, he would consider the expediency of appointing a Committee of the House to apportion the time to be allowed for the discussion of particular measures and parts thereof in the Committee stage in the House and in the Standing Committees.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HENRY CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I have already expressed my own view and that of the Government in regard to this matter. We are entirely favourable to the establishment of a Committee of Public Business. But the demands made upon the time of the House in connection with other questions of procedure have, as I have already informed the House, left us no opportunity for taking steps to set up a Committee of the kind.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask what Bills will be taken next Friday?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the business on Friday would be, first, the Small Holdings Bill (Finance Resolution in Committee), then the Second Reading stage of the Telegraph (Money) Bill, British North America
  346
  Bill, Australian States Constitution Bill, and the Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Bill. The next orders would be the Criminal Appeal Bill (Finance Resolution in Committee), and the Motion regarding a new Judge, and there might be other Bills.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand-that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies says the British North America Bill must pass by the 1st July. In that case, would it not be better to put it earlier in the list—the responsibility for passing it, of course, rests with the Government.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will consider whether the Bill may not be put higher in the list.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  First Report brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 205.]

  VACCINATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 204.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.[No. 204.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. T. W. Russell; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rendall.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Married Women's Property Bill): Sir Edward Boyle; and had appointed in substitution (in respect

  347
  of the Married Women's Property Bill): Viscount Turnour.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Married Women's Property Bill): Mr. Attorney-General; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Married Women's Property Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Incest Bill): Mr. Goddard Clarke; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. William Pearce (in respect of the Incest Bill).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Leeds (South Parade Chapel) Charity, the Kingswood (Whitfield Tabernacle, Schoolroom, &c.) Charity, the Longton (Caroline Street Chapel) Charity, and the Board of Education (Hulme Trust Estates Educational) Confirmation Bills):—Mr. Burdett-Coutts, Mr. Barran. Mr. Billson, Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Lewis Haslam, Mr. Chiozza Money, Mr. Hay Morgan, Sir Henry Seymour King, Mr. Everett, Mr. Liddell, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Whitwell Wilson, Mr. Marnham, Mr. William Jones, and Mr. Watt.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Walter Long, Earl Percy, and Mr. Abel Smith; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cave, Mr. George Faber, and Mr. Gretton.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON: further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Idris, Mr. Hart-Davies, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Findlay, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. James Duncan, Mr. Paul, Sir Albert Spicer, Sir Philip Magnus, and
  348
  Mr. Thornton; and had appointed in I substitution: Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Masterman, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Rowlands, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Essex, Mr. Nussey, Major Dunne, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Lane-Fox, and Mr. Bridgeman.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Nicholls, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Ernest Gardner, Mr. Burns, Mr. Lambert, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Dudley Ward, Mr. Winfrey, Sir John Dickson-Poynder, Mr. Grant, and Mr. Ellis Davies.
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill): Lord Willoughby de Eresby: and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Starkey.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked leave, under the ten minutes rule, to introduce a Bill to appoint a Commission to inquire as to the need for the inspection of monastic and conventual institutions.
  MR. J. MACVEAGHrose to a point of order and asked whether the motion of the hon. Member did not amount to an abuse of the rules of the House. A year ago the hon. Member brought forward the same Bill, and he wished to call attention to Mr. Speaker's ruling on the point then raised by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. Mr. Speaker, speaking on that occasion, said that the frequent repetition of the use of the form of introducing Bills would have a tendency to become an abuse, but so long as it was only put into use occasionally it could

  349
  not amount to an abuse of the forms of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think I can hold that a Member bringing in a Bill once a year amounts to an abuse of the rules of the House.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: But it is an abuse of the ten minutes rule.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the time of the House was constantly being occupied by private Members making speeches under cover of bringing in Bills under the ten minutes rule then it would be an abuse; but as far as I can recollect we have not yet bad a speech from the hon. Member for North Down, and I think he is entitled to introduce his Bill.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: I regret to have to inform you we had to endure a speech from the hon. Member upon this i subject twelve mouths ago.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he had not made a speech on the subject before, because on the last occasion he was so interrupted by hon. Members below the gangway that he was unable to do so. He felt therefore that he was entitled to make another appeal to the House to reconsider the decision they then took, but he would not occupy even the narrow limits allowed under the ton minutes rule. First of all he wished the House to understand that the Bill was not a Party one, and he looked forward to, and, indeed, expected, as much support from the opposite side of the House as he would got from his own. He did not expect much support from the Front Benches on either side, because those in power on the Front Bench generally voted against the Bill, and those on the Opposition side abstained from voting altogether. The only Loader he could remember as having voted for him upon the issue was one whose absence he was sure they all deeply deplored, viz., the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The Bill proposed that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into the need for inspection of conventual and monastic institutions. There were now, in connection with the Roman Catholic Church alone, twenty of those institutions for every one that existed fifty years ago. There were also, as recent events had proved,
  350
  a very large number in connection with the Church of England. He had no desire to say one bitter or provocative word about the Roman Catholic Church or the Ritualistic section of the Church of England, nor did he wish to say anything against the idea of monastic or conventual life. He believed in absolute liberty being given to every man and woman to worship God according to his or her lights. What he did say was that no man or woman should be held in bondage against his or her will. That was a state of things which existed in no other country, except Spain, and even there was a kind of partial instruction given. He trusted that no individual would be invested with power to keep in bondage young men and women who had entered such a state of living, without, perhaps, having fully considered what the circumstances of that life were. He appealed with confidence to that sense of justice and love of freedom which he believed were characteristics of the British race. He was quite sure, taking into account a! I the facts, which were well known to anyone who had studied the subject, that the Bill would be approved by the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to appoint a Commission to inquire as to the need for the inspection of Monastic and Conventual Institutions." —(Mr. T. L. Corbett.)
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought it would have occurred to most hon. Members that it was strange, to say the least of it, if the hon. Member for North Down was so anxious to have legislation passed on the subject dealt with by his Bill, that he had deferred its introduction until so late in the session. He could not have the slightest expectation that, under any circumstances whatever, the Bill could become law this year, even if it received the support of every Member of the House, which it did not. Therefore, he thought that many hon. Members would be forced to the conclusion that the hon. Member had introduced his Bill without any hope of its making progress or becoming law, but that it had been introduced rather in the nature of a demonstration which was now becoming

  351
  to be regarded as an annual institution. Exactly twelve months ago the hon. Member introduced a similar measure, and his speech upon that occasion was somewhat similar to the statement they had just heard. Leave to introduce the Bill was then refused by an enormous majority. He had not the slightest doubt that a majority equally large would register the same opinion when a division was taken that afternoon. The hon. Member for North Down had appealed to hon. Members opposite on the ground that the Bill was not a Party measure nor intended to give offence to any section; on the contrary, he said it was a measure having for its purpose the prevention of the holding in bondage in convents or monastic institutions in this country. He thought he need hardly tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that these periodical attacks upon monastic and conventual institutions, in Ireland more particularly than in England, invariably emanated from the same quarter, which represented that narrow section of opinion known as "Orangism" in Ireland. The insinuation contained in the proposal of the hon. Gentleman carried with it the grossest offence and insult to the vast majority of not only the Catholic population of those islands, but of the "population of all religions. If the hon. Member's Bill meant anything at all it meant that at the commencement of the 20th century things were being done in monasteries, convents, and religious institutions which were unable to bear the light of day, and required the strictest investigation. He thought it was necessary, on behalf of the people of Ireland and England, to say that they resented that insinuation in the strongest possible manner. Everyone knew that the most magnificent work, educational and otherwise, was done by the inmates of those convents and schools; and it was altogether too late in the day to hope to succeed in arousing sentiments of bigotry and intolerance in that House, the Members of which, he was sure, would show by their votes that they believed there was
  nothing wrong or scandalous done in those institutions. Unfortunately for Ireland, however, there were always at this time of the year demonstrations to arouse intolerance and bigotry. Last year, in June, a similar Bill was introduced in view of the approach of the 12th of July in the North of Ireland. There could be no one in that House so ignorant of Irish affairs as not to know that, unfortunately, in the section of Ireland represented by the hon. Member for North Down, on the 12th July the bitterest feeling of sectarian animosity was aroused, with the result that men and women who lived in perfect peace together in their own country the great part of the year, when the month of July arrived were often seen to be in conflict, and crime and violence occurred. The direct result of bringing forward a Bill of this kind was to prepare the way for those miserable and wretched disturbances and riots, which in a greater or less degree marked the month of July in the North of Ireland. Speaking as a Catholic, like the majority of his colleagues, he believed that there was nothing they more earnestly desired in Ireland than that the dead past should be allowed to rest, and that Catholics and Protestants should be allowed to live side by side in their own country in a spirit of tolerance and good faith. An attempt was about to be made once more to blow into a flame in Ireland the embers of religious and sectarian strife, and he asked the House to give a vote which would show that they believed that Catholic and Protestant alike were entitled to respect, and that it did not lie with the House of Commons or any of its Members to sanction a measure which was considered an insult, and which in its effect could only have the worst possible results in Ireland.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 125, Noes, 121. (Division List, No. 240).

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barker, John

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Black, Arthur W.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Arnold-Forster. Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Brace, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

  Bramsdon, T. A.

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

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

  Branch, James

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hills, J. W.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hodge, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Roberts. S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Clark, George Smith( Belfast, N.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  dough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Sears, J. K.

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon Col W.

  Shemeld, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford

  Snowden, P.

  Craig, Charles Curtis.(Antrim, S.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Craig, C. James(Down, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Crossley, William J.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lee, Arthur H.( Hants., Fareham

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Maclean, Donald

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Massie, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Fell, Arthur

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Nicholls, George

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Radford, G. H.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Mr. T. L. Corbett and Mr.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Hugh Barrie.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Ambrose, Robert

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lundon, W.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lupton, Arnold

  Astbury, John Meir

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macdonald, J. M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Barnes, G. N.

  Glover, Thomas

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, K.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  M'Killop, W.

  Billson, Alfred

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hall, Frederick

  Meagher, Michael

  Boland, John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Herbert, Colonel Iver(Mon., S.)

  Murray, James

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nolan, Joseph

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Cameron, Robert

  Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)

  O'Dowd, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Grady, J.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Malley, William

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Delany, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St Pancras, E.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Rees, J, D,

  354

  355

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Summerbell, T.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid )

  Scott, Sir R. (Marylebone, W.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wilson. J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Thorne, William

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Waring, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Mr. Patrick O'Brien and

  Soames, Arthur Wellegley

  White, J.D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Captain Donelan.

  Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Question put and agreed to.

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. L. Corbett, Mr. Hugh Barrie, and Mr. Harmood-Banner.
  While the hon. Gentleman was walking up the floor of the House to present the Bill to the Clerk at the Table—
  MR. JOYCE: I hope that will be known in Jarrow. We will show you what Irishmen can do in Jarrow.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That puts an end anyhow to the Liberal alliance.
  MR. KILBRIDE: There is sixteen more years of Tory rule for you.

  MONASTIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS BILL.
  "To appoint a Commission to inquire as to the need for the inspection of Monastic and Conventual Institutions," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 249.]

  TERRITORIAL AND RESERVE FORCES BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERmoved the omission of Clause 16, which provides for the embodiment of the Territorial Force. He said that in previous discussions on this clause they had had no very satisfactory replies to the arguments put. forward by both friends and opponents. He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman in drifting it had. in mind not merely the pious expression of a principle, but intended in time of war to make an embodiment which should be really effective. If he did so intend, he accepted the principle that the theories of the "blue water" school were not
  356
  sufficient, and that the Territorial Army was intended not only to protect the country against raids, not alone to take the place of the Regulars in time of emergency, but also to supply reinforcements in times of great crises. That was to say, the right hon. Gentleman assumed that in time of war in any part of the world, where we were arrayed against any Power or any combination of great Powers—he hoped that day would be very far off—he would have to rely not only upon the Reserve of his Army, but upon what he had himself called the strong manhood of the country whom 'he found under arms, and in order to create "a nation in arms" the right hon. Gentleman had provided a training which, as it seemed to them on that side of the House and to many on the other side, began at the wrong end. The right hon. Gentleman proposed with the assent of Parliament to embody the Territorial Army when war broke out. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had thought the thing out very carefully, but if he admitted the right of the country to make a demand upon its manhood to serve it, he had no doubt he had also considered the point that there should be training not only at the time of a crisis, but at the time of enlistment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet his hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Abercromby division, who had urged that the preliminary training should be prolonged. He would say that they should have three months' training, or even two months, and he thought the latter period would go a long way to give them what they wanted. But whatever the period of preliminary training was, whether it was two, three, or four months, it should in any case take place before the outbreak of war and the necessity for embodiment, so that the ration would, not

  357
  find itself unprepared. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he would not call on the Volunteers who belonged to Departments of State, and he bid rejected the reasonable Amendment of the hon. Member for Blackpool, that if Volunteers desired permanent training, and to form units to be ear-marked to go abroad in time of war, they should ' be allowed to do so. He never could understand why the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept an Amendment of that kind, which was honestly supported on that side of the House, and also on the other side. If the right hon. Gentleman did not accept some modification of the clause, he would, he thought, be taking risks which no Minister for War ought to take. If they accepted the principle that the manhood of the nation ought to be trained for war they should also accept the principle that it ought to be trained at the right time. He thought that there was no Labour Member who would not agree that it was quite impossible to call out men at a time of crisis and that it ought to be done at a time when training would be acceptable to the working classes of the country. He was one of those who believed that every man should be trained to arms, but the right hon. Gentleman held that he would not have men compelled to enlist under any circumstances. He understood that that was also the view of the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby division; but to his mind it was unsound to ask for the embodiment of the Territorial Force and for "a nation in arms," and not to train the Volunteer Forces at a time when the members could best afford to come out. That was the main point he wished to make. The man who enlisted with the knowledge that he was to have a long preliminary training was a willing Volunteer, knew he was exposed to the risk of embodiment, and was a valuable mm in the force. On the other ' hand the vast majority of Volunteer? would join and take their chance. They would join the Volunteers saying, "We hive not had a war for a hundred years in which the Volunteers have been called out, and we shall not have such a war"; but when the time came for them to be called out, no matter
  358
  how patriotic they might be they would find it a desperately inconvenient time. In time of panic, when the country was in great trouble and military organisation was worked to the highest pitch, and there was nervousness, not only in Army circles but throughout the whole country, it was important that the e should be trained men ready to take the posts allotted to them. There would not be an opportunity for good training when war broke out, and in any case there would not be six months. He did not believe that the military experts, however wise they might be, were really of opinion that we should have six months in which to, prepare our irregular troops; it was always the unexpected that happened in war. There had been wars in which practically no notification at all was given of the outbreak of hostilities. There might be disturbances between countries which although they looked like war did not involve it; but, on the other hind there might be circumstances under which war broke out without there being sufficient opportunity for preparation given to one of or both the belligerents. He thought, therefore, the Secretary of State was wrong in thinking that he would have that calm six months in which to prepare his Territorial Army for the emergency. The right hon. Gentleman had made what he could not call a concession, although he had preserved the Militia in a form acceptable to hon. Members on that side of the House. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would give along preliminary training, at least three months, upon enlistment, which would make him more secure in his position. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted the principle of "a nation in arms" he ought not to hesitate to impress upon every man in time of peace the absolute duty of adequately preparing himself to play his part in time of war. His hon. friends behind him who were prepared to accept the Bill would find themselves in peculiarly difficult circumstances if the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept this Amendment. He begged to move.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGin seconding the Amendment said that the question

  359
  of whether the training should take place on the outbreak of war, or at what some considered the proper time, struck at the success of the whole scheme. After what the right hon. Gentleman had said, the whole effort of the House must be directed towards making the scheme a success, if possible, and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to modify in some degree the expressions which fell from him on a former occasion. He understood that the Bill was so framed that if, on the advice of his advisers, the right hon. Gentleman desired to make this change he could do so without altering one word of the Bill, and in that respect the Bill was a good one. There were a great many men who were most desirous of doing their best in time of war, and those men, no matter what scheme the right hon. Gentleman produced, would come and give him a helping hand in time of need. But one thing was absolutely necessary, no matter where the men came from, and that was that before the outbreak of war some training must have been undergone, if they were to face the best trained troops in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman must undoubtedly see the gravity of the situation. He did not know whether it was possible to get any men to turn out for six months upon joining the Territorials, but it would certainly be impossible to get every man to do so. The beauty of any scheme dealing with a Territorial Force was its elasticity to suit the local conditions of different parts of the country. In Ireland, for instance, it would be extremely difficult for many of the Yeomanry to come down from their homesteads for any length of time. He thought it would be impossible for them to come down even for three months, and as those regiments had a very high standard of efficiency it would be a thousand pities if anything were done to lower it. If those men were asked to come down for three months training on embodiment three quarters of the best men would be lost. No doubt men would be got to join the Yeomanry on those conditions, but they would be men who had nothing to do and desired to earn a little money, and not the old-fashioned Yeomen who now joined. If the latter were to be retained there must be elasticity. The right hon.
  360
  Gentleman must not restrict the recruiting of that class by making the conditions of service impossible for them. To the Militia which came from the large towns no doubt different conditions might apply. But whatever the right hon. Gentleman did, he hoped he would not have a hard and fast rule for every class of service. If he had, he feared that the scheme would be unworkable.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 6, to leave out Clause 16."—(Sir Gilbert Porker.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word ' to' in line 8, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that, as this Amendment gave the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity, if he cared to take it, to make some general remarks on the scope of the clause and the methods by which it would work in practice, he ventured to intervene before the right hon. Gentleman replied. Everyone was agreed that a long preliminary training was infinitely superior to the training for six months on embodiment when the time for action arrived. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman had taken power under Clause 14 to give a longer preliminary training in certain cases, if he thought fit. There was nothing in the Bill, as it now stood, to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from giving the Yeomanry a month's training, if he pleased, and the Yeomanry accepted the conditions. But there were two points to which he desired to draw attention. As he understood, the first part of that clause was permissive, and then came the mandatory provisos. He took it to mean that if any portion of the First-Class Army Reserve was called up, the right hon. Gentleman had these powers. That looked very well at the first glance. The right hon. Gentleman might call out 1,000 men, and so endow himself with all these powers. But if that was his intention, as he hoped it was, it should be more clearly stated in the Bill. If it was intended that after calling out 1,000 men the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to call out the whole of the Territorial Force, it

  361
  certainly ought to be made clear that he had the power. Then they should bear in mind also Clause 31, under which a great addition had been made to the Section A of the Reserve, and although Clause 31 was not now under discussion it had some bearing on this clause. Previously there were 5,000 men in Section A who could be called to the colours without proclamation. The right hon. Gentleman had made that 5,000 into 6,000, and to those he had added the 4,000 special contingent, making 10,000 men that he could call out without proclamation. The House would see that that put a considerable limit to the discretion which the right hon. Gentleman took under the first part of the clause, because he would, or might, have to call out those 10,000 men without being in a position, under the permissive paragraph of the clause, to call out any part of his Territorial Force. If he wanted discretion to call out all or any of this force, the right hon. Gentleman should say so. He hoped, therefore, that as that part of the Bill debarred the right hon. Gentleman from using his permissive provisions he would deal with that point, if not by this Amendment by some other. There were 101 battalions of Militia to be put into the Reserve, and fourteen squadrons of Yeomary, and he desired to be informed whether all these would be called out in addition to the Reserve, as they understood it, before the Territorial Force could be embodied.
  Mb. HALDANEsaid it might be convenient if he explained Clause 16 a little more fully. The clause referred to the system under which the Army Reserve could be embodied. It was well known that the proclamation ordering the Army Reserve to be called out could only issue in the event of there being "imminent national danger or a great emergency." That was a sine qua non. The first step, if the Government of the day thought there was imminent national danger or a great emergency, was to issue a proclamation. That enabled the Army Reserve to be embodied forthwith, and put them under the hand of the Government of the day. Although the proclamation was issued, it did not follow that the whole of the Reserve would be called out at once. In 1882 only a comparatively small part of the Reserve was called out, and even
  362
  in 1899 the Reserve was not all called out at once. Therefore, the proclamation was issued against the whole of the Reserve for the purpose of giving the powers, but the powers were put into operation by a subsequent step. Supposing the proclamation were issued—and it could only be issued in those two cases of imminent national danger or great emergency— then the position was this: that it was in the power of the Government of the day to order the Army Council to give directions for the embodiment of the Territorial Force. That having been done, and the Government having that discretionary power, then automatically the Army Council must issue directions for embodiment. As he had pointed out, that did not depend merely upon the proclamation, it also depended on the directions to be issued for calling out the whole of the Reserves, a contingency which had rarely occurred in recent times, and which could only occur in the case of imminent national danger or great emergency. Suppose that happened, and an order was issued by the Army Council for the embodiment of the entire Territorial Force, what then? Still, the whole of these people, in their civil occupations, need not be called out. The directions might be issued, but they might be suspended; that was to say, the whole of the men who were coming might remain where they were until they were, actually wanted. That would give a very valuable power to the Army Council, because the men would be left to go on as they were at the time, but would be ready when wanted. That actually happened in the case of the South African war. Many Volunteers were directed to embody, but they were told to come up only for a day to receive instructions as to when and where they were to appear when wanted. That being so, the liability, which was a real one in case of imminent national danger or great emergency, was carefully safeguarded. There must be a general proclamation, there must be directions to call out the whole of the Reserves, and then, even so, the embodiment did not necessarily mean that all the men were to be brought away from their occupations, but merely that they could be summoned at the shortest notice. There was a further safeguard. If, in consequence of calling out the whole

  363
  Army Reserve, directions had to be given, then there must be a meeting of Parliament within ten days, if Parliament was not then sitting, so that the action of the Executive might be reviewed, and the orders and directions might be dealt with by an address presented by both Houses, which might decide that the number called out was to be limited, or that the order directing the embodiment was to be restricted to a certain number. Parliament might take that course, or take the shorter one of passing a vote of censure on the Government for calling out the Territorial Force unnecessarily, when, of course, the directions would lapse. He thought he had shown that all these powers, and the machinery for putting them in force, were carefully safeguarded. The force to be called out should not be one merely on paper, or one which could not be easily embodied, but there should be connected with it machinery by which it could be made automatically a reality in time of imminent national danger or great emergency, and that was the theory of the clause as it stood. It was obvious, of course, after what he had said, that the first Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had been answered and the second Question also. By the second proviso of Section (1) of Clause 16, it was laid down that "where any such proclamation and directions have been issued for calling out all the men belonging to the first class of the Army Reserve," certain directions should be given. In regard to what the hon. Member for Gravesend had said he quite agreed that the preliminary training did not qualify men in the way one could wish for meeting foreign troops who had invaded these islands. But, in an emergency, they could only use all they could, in the best way they could. The very purpose of the embodiment, however, was to secure that the training of the Home force should be as good as they could make it before it was brought against the shock of the invader. It was not likely that the whole of the divisions would go abroad in a case such as the hon. Gentleman had described; but if they had gone abroad, there would have been an embodiment at the same time and a certain amount of preparation going on. But
  364
  they would not send away the whole of the six divisions of the Regular force if they could avoid it. In a tremendous emergency such as occurred in the time of Napoleon they would do the very best they could, and all he could say was that they would be much better off in the future than they were at the present time.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERwas understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, if any body of Volunteers desired to train for two or three months, would regard such a proposal sympathetically.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he would, of course, be very sorry to discourage Volunteer corps, but he would not like to commit himself as to the future, though it was open under the clause to meet the point of which the hon. member had spoken.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid he knew something of the training of Militia, and happening to meet the commanding officer of a Militia regiment the other day, he asked his view with reference to the proposed six months training. He replied that in his county there were two regiments of Militia which had experimentally received six months preliminary training, and so successful was the experiment in those battalions, that the other Militia battalions in the neighbourhood found it difficult to obtain recruits. An ounce of fact, it was said, was worth a pound of theory, and he had thought that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know the results of that experiment. In reference to the possibility of a serious attack upon these islands, he very much appreciated the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had constitutionally safeguarded the calling out of the different military bodies in the case of national danger. It prevented those great powers from being exercised without sufficient forethought by the Government of the day, and he thought it was very advisable that there should be those constitutional safeguards in respect of calling out the national forces other than the Regular Army. But another point to be kept in view was that they had not

  365
  Only to look to constitutional safeguards in calling out those necessary forces, but also to see in how short a time they could get the whole force together in the event of a serious invasion of this country. Supposing it was necessary to call them out, the whole of the forces should be ready at their lines for the defence of these islands in four days. Many authorities thought that limit of time to be really necessary to meet an emergency. They ought to have their military forces so much at hand that they could have a thoroughly complete Army, with its stores for all branches of the service, formed ready in its selected positions in four days at the latest. That was the utmost time that could be given, and however good the scheme might be in its details, in respect of constitutional safeguards and other matters, that essential point in the efficiency of the force should not be lost sight of in considering it in its practical, strategic form.
  MAJOR SEELYthought that from practical experience it could be shown that some of the objections urged by the hon. Member for Gravesend were devoid of foundation. Of course, the longer the initial training the. better, but what had taken place on the previous day should be considered in discussing the matter. His right hon. friend had said across the Table of the House that he proposed to give a longer initial training to the Irish Yeomanry, and suggested six months. The noble Lord opposite, who belonged to that corps, assured his right hon. friend with natural vehemence that if he attempted to do any such thing, they would lose every single man in that force. That showed how difficult it was to obtain a long period for training, or to accept the Amendment of the hon. ' Member for Gravesend. Experience how ever, had shown that training after the emergency had arisen was enormously more valuable, at any rate with a people like ours, because when men knew the country to be in danger they made immense efforts. That was proved to be the case in the South African War. The men, when they realised the danger in which the country stood, learned in a week what in time of peace it would
  366
  have taken them a month or two to acquire. That had been dwelt upon with great emphasis by many Japanese officers after their experiences of the war against Russia. In their time of national emergency they had only three months training He had had many communications with Japanese officers, who stated that so great was the desire of the men to become efficient during the national emergency that they learned in the three months what would have taken them two years in time of peace. Therefore, so far from training after an emergency being the wrong thing to do it was actually the most economical thing they could possibly desire. He thought it was proved, from what the noble Lord said on the previous day, that if they insisted on a long initial period of training, they might lose many recruits and thus be forced to the alternative of conscription, which none of them desired. It had been represented that six months embodiment would cause great hardships to a certain class of men and especially to Volunteer officers in professional situations. He supposed his right hon. friend would meet the case by saying that when the men came up for training it would not be necessary to keep all the officers the whole time. If they took the Indian Army, which was more ready for service than any other part of our military forces, they always had a large number of officers on leave; and on those lines they might have an embodiment of the Territorial Force. He threw out that suggestion, coming as it did to him from a great many distinguished officers of the Auxiliary Forces; and if the right hon. Gentleman could, at a subsequent stage of the Bill, relieve officers in that way he would make the Territorial Force a success. Might he ask his right hon. friend to dispel the illusion which was created in another place, as to the value of the Territorial Force, by what seemed to be an extraordinary speech of the Under-Secretary for War, who must have been misinformed? He was asked whether the troops of the Territorial Army would ever be fit to meet the troops of a Continental Power, and his reply was, "No; they will not." He had never heard such an amazing statement

  367
  from a responsible Minister. It might be that the troops of the Territorial Army would not have the amount of training received by the troops of the Regular Army, but to say that they would never be fit to meet Continental troops in a foreign war was equivalent to saying that they were bound to be defeated. He thought there must be a mistake. He hoped his right hon. friend would dispel that illusion.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERconfirmed his hon. and gallant friend's recollection of the curious remark made by the Under-Secretary in the other House, and slid it had struck him in the same way. As to the present discussion, he had thought that the interest in it was exhausted, but, after what the right hon. Gentleman had said that night, that was not quite the case. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman emphasised what he had said, it might be of some value. He had ventured from the beginning to maintain that the calling out of the force-; need not be taken into consideration by the Volunteers. He had gone so far as to advise the Volunteers, who had been good enough to communicate with him, that they need not trouble themselves about it at all; it was never going to take place, and they could fashion their lives without any regard to its ever occurring. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as that. Of course the Secretary for War was in the difficult position of having at one time to rely on getting the six months training, and at another time to minimise the inconveniences of that training. He now understood that the position was very much changed since yesterday. In the first place the embodiment would never take place at all, until the first-class Army Reserve had been called out.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the Volunteers were not to be called out, but they had the power.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he did not think that as far as individual Volunteers were concerned that would
  368
  make much difference. In the first place the Volunteers had between them and their being called out, the First Class Army Reserve and the new First Class Reserve, and nobody anticipated that they would have to take such an extreme measure as to embody the whole of the Territorial Army. Standing between the Volunteers and the remote possibility of their embodiment they had the Regular Army, the whole of the Army Reserve, which now consisted of 115,000 men, the whole of the new First Class Reserve, which they hoped would consist of at least 100,000 men, and the whole of the contingent Reserve, which was going to include, he supposed, that portion of the Army which was with the Territorial Force in time of peace. Even when all those forces had been put into array, he understood that the provision was merely permissive, and the probability was that most of the Territorial Army would be allowed to stay in their homes. When they added to all those considerations, a consideration which had been very much in their minds after what was said by the Secretary of State some days ago, namely, that they were to eliminate from the Territorial Army all those men who were not able by reason of their callings and occupations to accept the terms in regard to the six months embodiment, it would be seen that the proposal which had to a certain extent alarmed some Volunteers was not one which need cause any uneasiness at all. He and his friends would support the proposal, and he must say that the assistance would be given without any great regret, because since what took place yesterday they had to contemplate that the Territorial Army now was not going to be that which had for some time been under discussion. It was going to be something different. It was to be made up of short service battalions of the Regular Army, and there was now between the Volunteers who enlisted under the present conditions and the whole of the Territorial Army, as he understood it, short service battalions of the Regular Army. That, at any rate, ought to allay the fears on the part of those Volunteers who had been in doubt whether they could retain their positions in their corps on account of the liability of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken.
  MR. ACLANDsaid the contingency of calling out the Territorial Army for extra training did not appear to him to be quite so remote as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had represented. The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned a number of forces which he thought would be all called out before there would be an embodiment of the Territorial Army. He would remind the House that the Bill actually said that it should be possible, though not compulsory, to call out any part of the Territorial Army without embodying the whole of the forces which the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned. No doubt in a case of great emergency all those reserve force would be embodied before the Territorial Army was embodied, but the power was definitely taken, and was intended to be used, to embody any part of the Territorial Army which it might be thought desirable to call out for extra training, even though all the Reserves were not failed up to the colours for war purposes. He did not think that what was said yesterday by the Minister for War had made the position of the Territorial Army so very different from what it was before. He understood that the alteration announced yesterday amounted to this, that a certain number of English Militia battalions would be fourth battalions to be used primarily as units. In that way they would be differentiated from the third battalions, which were to be used primarily for drafting purposes. It would be a mistake to say that any great bulwark had been erected by yesterday's operations between the Regular Forces and the Territorial Army. The change was not so great as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had represented.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he had given notice of an Amendment which it would not be necessary to move, as that proposed by the hon. Member for Gravesend would afford him the opportunity he desired of calling attention to the stringent terms of the sixteenth section of the Bill. It was of the greatest importance that the country, and the Volunteer Force especially, should understand what the provisions of the Bill were in regard to liability to be called out for actual military service. The Volunteer Act of 1863 provided that
  370
  they should be called into actual military service in the case of apprehended invasion of any part of the United Kingdom.' He was one of the first in bygone years to call attention to the fact that that would be much too late to call out the Volunteer Force. An Act was passed in the nineties strengthening the position and making them liable to be called out in the event of "imminent national danger." He could not help thinking that in regard to the Volunteers that was a sufficiently wide provision. The provision in the sixteenth section of this Bill was an enormous extension of the principle, and might interfere seriously with the civil occupations of large numbers of the force. Though successive Secretaries of State had attempted to make the Volunteer Force more military, it should be remembered that, after all, their primary function was to get a livelihood by civil means. If a young man who was doing well in a civil vocation was taken away for six months training without sufficient ground, it would interrupt the course of his career. Parents might not allow their sons to join the force if they were to be prejudiced in their civil employment. During the South African War between 70,000 and 80,000 Volunteers offered their services, and of that number 30,000 were accepted and actually went to the front. The point he was anxious to bring before the Secretary of State was that the provision in the sixteenth section would have a material effect on the recruiting of the Territorial Force. A father would very much dread the calling out of his son for actual military service when there was no real and urgent danger, because it would interrupt the course of his civil vocation. In many cases those who went out to South Africa were not engaged actively in civil vocations, and their experience did them an enormous amount of good; but he knew a number of eases in which young men who had been doing extremely well in their civil life, and whose places were kept open for them, said when they came back, "We cannot stand this life any longer," meaning life behind the counter or in the office. In those cases the civil careers of the Volunteers had been interrupted, and the current of their lives diverted in a marked degree. The

  371
  Army Reserve was called out for the Egyptian crisis in 1882. He did not know whether there was any subsequent occasion.
  MR. HALDANE: In 1885 and 1899.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether in the serious crisis of 1882, though there was no imminent national danger in regard to the interests of the country, the Territorial Force would have been called out if it had been in existence.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that since 1900 the contingency in which the Volunteers could be called out was when there was any imminent national danger or great emergency.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he could hardly think that the condition of things in 1882 would have been regarded as a great emergency. There was nothing more necessary in the conduct of a Volunteer corps than to keep faith with the parents of the men. If they thought that their sons by joining the Volunteers would have their civil careers interfered with a stream of public opinion would set in which would be most injurious to the recur ting of the force. A good deal had been said as to the preliminary training being given previous to rather than on the occurrence of a national emergency. He thought that the Secretary for War might do a great deal in that direction if there were regiments, as in America, to which the Volunteers might be attached to enable them to get preliminary training at soldier's pay and expense. If that scheme were adopted he believed that a considerable number of Volunteers would join. At present there was no facility for that. The civil soldier could only be attached with great difficulty to a particular regiment. That training could not be done under six weeks or two months. A man might say that he was seriously anxious to learn the business of a soldier, and that, as he had a month to spare, he would like to be attached at Aldershot to such and such a regiment. By that means they would get efficient training; but it would be still more attractive if there were a
  372
  permanent school at Aldershot for the Volunteer Forces—not only for the officers and non-commissioned officers. There should be no hard and fast rule as to attendance at it; it should be entirely voluntary. He was sure that a considerable number of Volunteers, certainly from London, would attend if they knew that they would be attached to particular regiments. The provisions in Clause 16 were entirely novel and changed the whole conditions of liability to service. An hon. Member had spoken of the difficulty professional men, like doctors and solicitors, going into a prolonged compulsory training. Doctors especially found it extremely difficult to get away. Their patients objected to their joining the Volunteers. If a young doctor was seen to go out of his house in uniform his practice was in considerable jeopardy. [Cries of "Oh."] He spoke of what he knew. He did not hesitate to say that the best officers in the Volunteer Force were not young men with money or of what was called good family, who joined the force simply as a pastime. He held that professional men made the very best officers for the Volunteer Force; and. if any obstacle were placed, cither bylaw, regulations or custom, in the way of their joining the Volunteers i would be most disastrous to the Territorial Army. He hoped the House would consider well before finally sanctioning that great extension of liability to military service.
  MR. McCRAEsaid he could not understand the objection the hon. and gallant Gentleman had to Clause 16.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he did not object to it; he only wanted to call attention to it.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid that anyone with acknowledge of the Auxiliary Forces, familiar with the provisions of the Act of 1863, as modified and extended by the. Act of 1900, would approve of Clause 16 as it stood at present. He had always said that the Volunteers had no fear as to that clause, because at the present time they were under equally stringent regulations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, who had

  373
  always a Cassandra way of speaking when dealing with the Volunteer force, had tried to minimise the value of the Volunteers, and had said, or insinuated, that they would never be called out. He did not believe there was any justification for that statement. On any occasion when the country was in a position of danger or emergency he was sure that the Volunteers would come forward freely under the conditions of Clause 16. j An hon. Gentleman had declared that there was a fear that something like conscription would be imposed under the clause; but he believed that the hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate, in his estimate of its effect. He thought it was a very reasonable provision. He did not think that anyone knowing the conditions of Volunteer service would for one moment say that it was possible to get from the Volunteers an initial training of six months. That was outside the range of possibility, having regard to their occupations, although it might be possible with the class from which the Militia were drawn. But the Militia were to go into the first line, and therefore they must deal with the Territorial Army having regard to the conditions of their employment. He said emphatically that it was absurd to impose an annual training of six months in normal circumstances, but it was a very different thing when a national emergency arose. Then they would have men who had, for the most part, been through an annual fifteen days training for years. He maintained that a very little additional training would enable them to take the field. He had great pleasure in supporting Clause 16, because it did not make the conditions of service of the Volunteers any more onerous than at present, and also because it provided a definite provision for the perfection of the Auxiliary Forces.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that what they wanted to know was what training would make the Territorial Army efficient. Other things being equal, he thought that they ought to have a long preliminary training. The Volunteer officers said that that was impossible, and therefore they left the country to understand that that force was not going to get a training
  374
  which would make them efficient. He did not want to run down the force. He understood its value, even in the event of a war, but he contended that it was not efficient, and the country should understand that the force would not be efficient unless they had had a preliminary training previous to the outbreak of war. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division had said that when the Auxiliary Forces were embodied the War Office could get over the difficulty by not calling up all the officers at the same time, and gave, as an illustration, the case of the Indian Army, when many of the officers were on leave. But the Indian Army was in a state of high training, and the officers on leave could be called in immediately. He knew that his hon. and gallant friend had his idiosyncrasy, which was that the less a force was trained, the less it was disciplined, and the more insubordinate it was the better, and the more likely it would be to give efficient service. They could only hope that that would never be put to the test. The real point was whether the Volunteers were to have an efficient training or not. He agreed that after six months we should have an efficiently trained force, but he wished it to be understood that that training should not be postponed until the danger had arisen.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he desired to ask one further question. They had, iii discussing the clause, acquiesced in it with a good will, and from what he understood from the right hon. Gentleman to be his present attitude with regard to the Militia, there would be seventy-four battalions of 500 men each, and twenty-seven of 800 men each, making a total of 101 battalions in all, comprising 58,600 men. That number of men would all be in battalions, and he wished to know whether, after they had had their six months training, they would be drilled annually as battalions.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the battalions of 800 men would, as far as possible, be called out as battalions. In regard to the battalions of 500 men, the details had not been worked out. All the men would certainly be called out at some period of the year for their yearly training, but he could not pledge himself at present that they would be embodied as

  375
  entire battalions every year; they certainly would be in alternate years. He did not wish to commit himself on that point.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they attached a great, deal of importance to battalion training. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was giving a complement of battalion officers to each of these battalions.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid they had been discussing Clause 16 for some time, and they found that if the First-Glass Array Reserve were called out it would be obligatory upon the Government to call out the Territorial Force or decree it? embodiment. He moved an Amendment to Subsection 1 of the clause in order to provide that the embodiment of the Territorial Force should be "subject to the proviso that units consisting mainly of men whose service would be required in civil employment in time of war shall only be called out to repel invasion." They had discussed this question under different circumstances a fortnight ago, and then they discovered that certain Volunteers employed in certain professions or employments would not be eligible for service in the Territorial Army, because the right hon. Gentleman considered that their civil employment would prevent their coming out on the embodiment of the force. The matter, however, was left in a very vague and nebulous state, as it was discussed at ten o'clock at night when the guillotine was about to fall. The Secretary of State asked whether the right hon. Member for Croydon imagined that they intended to take and enlist into the force men whose service in civil life would be required when war broke out, and said that that would be a wholly crude proceeding which would be adopted at the cost of a good deal of efficiency. No doubt there was a great deal to be said for what the right hon. Gentleman then stated, but two days afterwards, on second thoughts, he considerably changed his attitude, because in answer
  376
  to the right hon. Member for Newport he said—
  "I have never stated that any particular Volunteer units will be disbanded or reduced, or that any individual now serving must be discharged if the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill becomes law."
  But if the right hon. Gentleman adhered to what he said on the first occasion, he would surely have to take some steps in that direction.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Member must not take it that the newspaper report represented what he said in the first instance. He made a fairly long speech, which was embodied in the printed report, but the particular point to which the hon. Member was referring was not present in the mind of the reporter, or probably he would have given it more fully. He said in the course of his original speech what he repeated subsequently in answer to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newport.
  MR. ASHLEYwas glad that the right hon. Gentleman had made that explanation, because, after it, he could not see why he should not accept the Amendment. It, was clearly impossible to embody all those 300,000 men. It was obvious they would not be able to embody men employed on railways and in dockyards and large manufacturing centres. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have thought what a state of disorganisation must be created, say in the cotton industry in Lancashire, if the whole of the Volunteers were called out fur six months training. He could not see why all the Volunteers should be called out in order to serve in the Territorial Force. There were two classes of was. There was the kind which involved the danger of invasion, and the kind whore there was no such danger. The Amendment merely called upon the Government to recognise that there was those two classes of war, just as much as there were two classes of Volunteers, those who could come up for six months training, and those who could not. Of course if there was danger, of invasion the whole of the force would, have to come out, but there were many, who could not otherwise do so. Why should the Government, for the sake of mere red tape, exclude the latter class of

  377
  men from becoming Volunteers, and not allow them to continue in the Volunteer corps? The Amendment provided that that particular class of men were only to be embodied when invasion was imminent, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider what would happen if it were not accepted. He would also like to know whether under Clause 2, sub-section 1, a Member of the House who happened to be a member of the Territorial Force belonged to the class of men in civil employment who would not be called out.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTseconded the Amendment, the moving of which, he hoped, would afford the Secretary of State for War an opportunity of giving some further explanation of the statement which he made last week to the effect that it was only intended to allow men to enroll who would be able to fulfil all the conditions of the Bill, including embodiment. It was only natural that a statement such as that should cause considerable alarm among regiments which were by no means the least efficient in the Volunteer force—regiments which were recognised as being an example to the whole force, consisting of men of stronger intelligence than that of the average Volunteer, and whose coming forward was a great incentive to others to do likewise. He had raised the question the other day about the iron and steel workers and those who made clothing and saddlery. Everybody knew that in 1899 those who were engaged in manufacturing equipments for the Army were working night and day, and not a man could be spared, because the demands of the Government were so prodigious that it was quite impossible to satisfy them. The right hon. Member for Dover would, he was sure, corroborate him, because he was the very capable Under-Secretary of State for War into whoso hands these matters fell. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would describe the difficulty which would have been created if an order had gone out embodying the whole of the Volunteer Force. The Government wore absolutely dependent upon the workers at Rushcliffe, Walsall, Birmingham, and other places, and the result would have been very serious indeed. Then as to the Civil Service Volunteers, it would be extremely inconvenient if they were called out in a
  378
  body, but it would be a great disaster if the Civil Service Rifles were disbanded and the country deprived of their services. There were many corps in the same position—corps comprised of men in Government offices and men occupying superior positions in mercantile houses who in times of very great pressure could not be spared without great difficulty. If employers were faced with the fact that they would lose their men at the very time when they wanted them most they would not subject themselves to the risk. It was therefore absolutely necessary that there should be some official explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of his previous statement on the subject. There were a lot of these regiments—the Post Office Volunteers, the London Scottish, the Queen's West ministers, and others. What was to be their fate under the Bill? They did not themselves desire any relaxation of the provisions of the Act, but nevertheless their civil vocations and the requirements of the persons by whom they were employed had to be borne in mind. It was not right to dwell only upon the effect in Government offices and large mercantile houses, because in commercial centres the same thing would be found everywhere. The most efficient Volunteer was generally the most efficient man in civil life. He was the most active member of his family and of the house by which he was employed. The House was indebted to the hon. Member for Blackpool for bringing the matter forward, because it could I not be laid to his charge that he was anxious to obtain favours for one regiment as against the rest of the Volunteer Force.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 8, after the word 'Majesty' to insert the words 'subject to the proviso that units consisting mainly of men whose service would be required in civil employment in time of war shall only be called out to repel invasion.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that the Amendment went to the root of the difficulty which underlay every voluntary system. Under a compulsory system all were trained at the most convenient age of their lives, and no advantage was given to one set of employers or employees over another. But we had not a compulsory

  379
  system and it was not intended that we should have. That being the case the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to dwell so constantly and so strongly on what he called efficiency. He was not entitled to say that no man should have training under a voluntary system unless at a particular time that man could be available on an appointed day for the purpose of fighting at any spot which the Government of the day directed. Under a compulsory system it might be done, and in such an Army they would not retain a man who was not available within those limits. In a voluntary Army something more was necessary than to have numbers of men told off and taken to the precise places they were to occupy in time of national emergency. The Volunteers created an environment within which the whole nation learnt something of the use of arms. The fact that a postman could not come out on a particular day because he was delivering letters did not prove that it was not useful that that man should be a Volunteer. In time of calamity he would come, but apart from that the fact that he was a Volunteer was important, because the chances were that his son who might not be a postman might become a Volunteer because his father had been one. It was a fact that for a considerable period after the outbreak of war there would be a number of men in this country whose services would not be available for the fighting line. Apart from those working in the arsenals whose whole energies would be there required, there were men employed in certain trades who could not be spared to come out within two or three months of the outbreak of war. He would instance the harness trade. After the outbreak of the South African war we went through a period, which he did not think could be avoided, of expanding the normal resources of the country in certain industries. The wages of the harness makers went up Gs. and 7s. a week during that war. It might be said that that was because the authorities did not make proper preparations, but that argument did not meet this case, because goods of certain descriptions perished in the store. It would not be wise to have saddles for 100,000 horses, and lock them up in a room, because at the end of ten or twenty
  380
  years, when they were required, in all probability they would not be the kind required. A certain stock must, of course, be kept in reserve on a peace establishment, but even then they had to be passed out, and the store made up with new stock. What was true of leather goods was true of tinned meats, which might be kept for six months, but became dangerous in twelve. The whole tinned meat trade of the world went through great stress during the first few months of the war until the process of production was expanded. The whole tinned meat trade of the world could not be expected to support 300,000 men in the field until some seven or eight months had expired. What was true of the saddlery and tinned meat trades was also true of cartridges. As the right hon. Gentleman had stated recently, cordite very soon perished. It would not be wise to store up large quantities of cordite cartridges, because when the time came to use them they might be found to be useless owing to the powder having become disintegrated. It therefore followed that at the outbreak of war a large number of Volunteers would not be available to go to the front for some months, and that being so, why should the House set its face against the fact? If the right hon. Gentleman faced that difficulty, he would certainly modify in some degree the speech he made the other night, when he said that it would not be any good to train or have men in the Territorial Army who could not come out when called. Such a thing could not be done under a voluntary system. The Volunteers could not be tied down to a hide-bound plan which, however appropriate to a compulsory system, was not appropriate to a voluntary one.
  MR. HALDANEthought the controversy turned largely on a question of definition. He had stated the other day, and he now repeated, that their would be certain men whom it would be quite impossible to enlist in the Territorial Force—men whose services would be required in other capacities in time of war. For example, there were a certain number of men required at Woolwich to make cartridges. They could not take those men for filling cartridges in time of war, and also take them to form a part of the force. He had tried to lay down

  381
  perfectly clearly that, if the Territorial Force was to exist, the men must be available when required. He did not think that men would care to serve with other men who they knew would not be available if an emergency arose. He did not mean to say that it was intended to disband any particular corps. It was perfectly plain that in order to provide for the defence of the country employers i of labour as well as the Government would have to make sacrifices, and part with a proportion of their men. But the work of a great arsenal could not be carried on without men; therefore, the logical conclusion was, not that particular corps should be disbanded, but that they should be particular as to how many men they could allow to go from each department. They did not want to see the Elswick works dismantled; but he rather thought that they manned a battery which went to the Transvaal war. That would show that a certain proportion of men could be taken even from those occupations which would be most busy in time of war. The Government ought to be ready to part with as many men as possible for so necessary a need as that of securing the defences of the country. It was possible that under Clause 12, the men would be so free that they could be counted upon to do something more than that and undertake obligation for foreign service. That was a class which stood by itself. He did not think they ought to enlist those men whose services they knew would be required for other functions in time of war. What he wished to convey was that they needed to consider a great deal more carefully than it had hitherto been considered, the whole question of what proportion they could take from such employments. He did not believe it was desirable to take that class of men to train and put into units merely because training was a good thing for them, if they could not be called on to assist in fighting. That was a great deal too costly a process, and he could conceive I nothing more demoralisings to the Territorial Force than to have those men in it. Every man in that force should be under one liability, and expected to perform the same dudes, and any differentiation should be guarded against. That was why he objected to the Amendment. He could not look with the least favour
  382
  upon any proposal to bring in a further differentiation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURcontended that they ought not in time of peace to lay down exclusive and excluding regulations for the simple reason that they could not foresee what was the precise kind of need that would be felt. They ought not to say to a willing Volunteer, "We cannot permit you to have the opportunity like your fellow-citizens of enrolling yourself in the Volunteer Army, because, your trade being what it is, you will be required in some other capacity, and therefore the money spent on your training will be money thrown away." He did not know now exactly the principle the right hon. Gentleman wished to adopt with regard to the workmen at Woolwich. Undoubtedly they could imagine a war arising when their services would be required, not in the field, but at Woolwich; but they should not be excluded from training now because conceivably that training might be thrown away. They ought not to lay down principles excluding particular classes of the community from the privilege of serving their country under arms in case of a national emergency. His right hon. friend the Member for Dover had mentioned the case of the leather merchants and saddlery. It was certain that in case of a land war there would be a great strain upon the leather trade as well as upon the great arsenals and the manufacturers of cordite and small arms. Ono was quite as certain as the other. It might seem at first sight that the right hon. Gentleman ought to exclude all those engaged in the leather trade, but he did not think that would be at all wise. When the right hon. Gentleman simply laid down the principle that a man should not be counted as a soldier twice, then he was with him, because that was clear, precise, and definite, and it was common-sense. But the right, hon. Gentleman went further and entered the region of speculation as to whether a man would be more useful in the fighting line or in the workshop. That would belaying down a principle which would inflict great hardship and almost a slur on a large part of the population, and he ventured to hope the right hon. Gentleman would do something to depart from.

  383
  the rigidity of the principle he understood him to lay down. The problem had to be faced by other countries where service was obligatory, and they did not grudge the cost of training a man because he might not be required. That was the principle adopted by the great military powers under a system of conscription, and it ought to be imitated by this country. They ought under a voluntary system to give every opportunity to their young men to learn the use of arms and to obtain that preliminary training in the art of war which was imposed compulsorily upon every man in foreign countries. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was not only opposed to common-sense but also to the experience of foreign nations who worked under a wholly different system of recruitment but had nevertheless to face the same problem as faced the House of Commons to-day. He ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should guard himself against too rigid an interpretation of the principle he had laid down.
  MR. WEDGWOODsaid the object of the Amendment seemed to be to set up two classes of Volunteers, those who would and those who would not fight. He did not think they could have anything more detrimental to the Territorial Force. In the first place, it would be bad from the point of view of the camaraderie, and, secondly, it would absolutely ruin the unit if certain members were withdrawn in time of war in order that they might follow their regular occupations. The reason for dividing the Volunteers into two sections was that so many civilians were thought to be necessary for certain work in time of war. He had risen to speak because he happened to be the captain of a battery which went out to South Africa, and he knew how very important certain individuals were for a certain class of work in time of war. Everybody thought their own particular work was essential to carry on a business, and yet when they came to deal with certain kinds of employment in time of war they found that the places of the men who joined the force were quickly filled up. In his opinion they were more quickly filled up in time of war because other people were only too anxious to do the work the troops
  384
  had been doing. In the case of the regiment to which the Elswick Battery was attached every single officer volunteered for active service. About one-quarter of those officers worked at the Elswick Works, and they could all have been spared. As a matter of fact, five out of the seven officers came from the Elswick Works. During the South African War their naval resources were not taxed, and from every soldier who worked in the Elswick Works upon ships there were five who worked in the ordnance factory. Consequently more than half of those who went out to South Africa were drawn from the ordnance factory. Those men were all readily spared from the Elswick Works, and their places were easily filled, with the result that no serious injury was done to the trade of the country, and the preparations for war did not suffer in consequence. The right hon. Member for Dover had pointed to the saddlery trade as one that would require every man in time of war. The saddlery trade was very busy during the late war, but it should not be overlooked that saddlery employees were extremely valuable to the Volunteers. In the battery to which he had referred they had no difficulty in getting four collar-makers, and their work was absolutely essential. He understood the hon. Gentleman to state that certain men need not go out until actual invasion took place.
  MR. ASHLEY: I said units.
  MR. WEDGWOODsaid they would want every single man to come out at the earliest possible moment to get as much training as was possible before the fighting took place. The hon. Member had instanced a war on the North West Frontier of India which was not likely to entail an invasion of this country and would not necessitate the calling out of these men. Personally he would have thought that that would be an occasion when they ought to call out the Volunteers in case there might be some entangling alliance. It was necessary that the men should have as much training as possible before the invasion took place, and if they postponed the training the danger would be obvious, and they would run the risk of being placed at a great disadvantage.

  385
  The idea of setting up two different forms of Volunteers—namely, those who were to come out in the case of a national emergency and those who were only to come out in case of an actual invasion— would, in his opinion, as an old Volunteer, be absolutely fatal to the success of the Volunteer movement.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTERsaid the arguments put forward by the hon. Member opposite seemed to be in favour of the Amendment. The hon. Member had pointed out that every man in his battery was taken from a great industry. The example of the collar-maker was very relevant not only to the artillery but to all the mounted branches of the force in which it was necessary that there should be collar-makers. He did not see what answer could be made to the contention advanced by the Loader of the Opposition that it would not be wise to exclude from the Volunteers in time of peace persons who might conceivably be required for other purposes in time of war. He did not. think there was any real intention of carrying this exclusive provision into effect, and he did riot imagine for a moment that any corps would have such men turned out. The objection to committing themselves to the theory which had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and enforced in the most practical way by the hon. Member opposite was unanswerable. They must train all these men, and when war broke out those who could be utilised with their regiments and battalions would be all the better for the training. He was aware that there wore men in Woolwich who could not be spared, but they had no guarantee that they would be serving the Government at Woolwich when war broke out. No body could say that a man occupying a particular place in industry at the present time would be occupying that particular ' place one year or two or five years: hence. A man who had been in the carriage department or the foundry at Woolwich for five years, and who had transferred his services to some bicycle or railway workshop later in life, would be a most valuable adjunct to any such i unit as the hon. Member opposite took with him into the field in South Africa.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid he would like to remind his hon. friend opposite that the Elswick Battery did not go out immediately on the outbreak of war, and the country went through the period of urgent stress while those men were in civil employment.
  MR. WEDGWOODsaid the battery he referred to were embodied within three months of the beginning of the war.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid the stress was, over in three weeks after the commencement of the war. [Cries of "No."] In the case of the men who went out people came forward eagerly to fill their places and learn the work, and thus a largo number of men were released from their civil employment. It seemed to him that they were somewhat at cross purposes in regard to the Amendment, and the Secretary of State for War appeared to have overlooked one or two things which he had said at an earlier stage. If they were to refuse recruits employed in industries which were likely to be urgently required during war, what would happen? Some of the great industrial centres might be deprived of their power to repel a sudden raid. The great railway centres were well able to protect themselves against any sudden rush, but under the scheme before the House they would be absolutely at the mercy of a single troop of cavalry if the men at the great railway works were not allowed to join the Territorial Army. What was required in the scheme was greater elasticity. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear that fact in mind. Whether he accepted the exact form of words which his hon. friend had suggested or some other words to the same effect, it was, in his opinion, an urgent matter that they should not refuse to enlist a man in the Territorial Force simply because he might be required in civil employment during a war.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he would like to have the opinion of the Secretary of State for War with regard to the permanency of the employment to which he had referred. It was just possible that a man who up to quite recently had been employed at Woolwich, and who would

  387
  under this scheme be forbidden to join a local corps, might find after a month or two that his services would be dispensed with at Woolwich, and he would have no knowledge of the corps to which he would like to belong. Many young men belonging to cadet corps or some local association might find them selves at the age of seventeen or eighteen discharged from the postal service, and they would have no knowledge of drill or of the work required in the Territorial Force. A large number of eligible young men might in that way be debarred from joining. The Secretary of State for War was unconvincing in the answer he had given that afternoon. The other day the right hon. Gentleman asked the right hon. Member for Croydon if he thought it was intended to enlist men who would be required at their ordinary vocations when war occurred, and a few days afterwards he said he did not anticipate that any serious consequences would follow if this Bill became law. The question and the statement seemed to be rather opposed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make a clear and precise statement on the point, because, so far, it was shrouded in mystery. In the case of large works where war materials were made, such as ammunition, guns and carriages, it might happen that the men in a particular department would not be required at home at all. Those men would immediately become available for service abroad, but by the selection which he understood must take place under the Bill the recruiting officer might say that they could not be allowed to join a particular corps because in the event of war they would be required at home. That was a dangerous position to be in. It was more dangerous than if the men were allowed to join the most available corps under the scheme. If their services were required at home, they could be released at once. The experience in regard to the Elswick battery in the South African War was the best example that could be cited to prove the utility of having available for service abroad men with expert knowledge. The Secretary of State for War was incurring serious responsibility in picking and choosing the men who were willing to volunteer for service abroad. He sincerely hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow it to go forth that railway men who
  388
  were willing to join were to be interfered with in any way under the Bill. Their services would be invaluable in the event of war breaking out in this country. Were or were not railway men to be allowed to join? He asked the right hon. Gentlemen to give a clear answer to that question in order that the House might know the views of the War Office.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he might be allowed to make a suggestion in order to bring both sides together on this matter. There did not seem to be a very wide difference of opinion on the most important aspect of the question. He did not think the words proposed by his hon. friend were very satisfactory. His hon. friends idea would, he thought, be better carried out by inserting after the word "force" in line 11 the words "and in particular to make such special arrangements as they think proper with regard to units or individuals whose services are required in other than a military capacity." If those words were inserted the men at Woolwich would not be debarred from joining the Volunteer Force, but the Amendment would enable the Army Council for the time being to see that the public service did not suffer by their going under arms when they might be more usefully employed in looking after their own special business.
  MR. ASHLEYasked leave to with draw his Amendment in favour of the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURmoved to amend the clause by inserting the words he had suggested.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill —
  "In page 13, line 11, after the word 'Force' to insert the words 'and in particular to make such special arrangements as they may think proper with regard to units or individuals whose services are required in other than a military capacity.'"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. HALDANEthought they were all agreed that there might come cases where, for example, for the defence of a great arsenal the workers should

  389
  be trained to repel a raid upon it. That was the kind of case which he thought the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind. It was quite right that there should be elasticity sufficient to provide for that and other cases. He gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that he did not think the words would add very much to what was already in the Bill, but that they would operate as a suggestion. On that footing he was glad that he could accept the Amendment. He did not think they were inconsistent with the rest of the clause.
  *MR. CARLILEdid not think the definition of the right hon. Gentleman was comprehensive enough. He felt pretty sure that his right hon. friend did not wish the Amendment to be tied down to the case of arsenals. He himself did not wish that anybody should, because of any civil employment, be debarred from qualifying to act in the defence of the country. Very many of the persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman had referred were the élite of the classes to which they belonged. Hon. Members who had had experience of the Auxiliary Forces know that men who were selected for positions as heads of departments in business concerns were frequently appointed because they were in the Volunteer Force. He remembered when it was his good fortune to be in command of a Volunteer battalion in an industrial district, a man at the head of a large industry, who was not himself a Volunteer, was asked by him why he selected men from the Volunteer Force as heads of his different departments, and his reply was that he did so because they were accustomed to receive words of command and to see that they were carried out. He found that that was a great advantage to both employers and employees. The same thing applied to men employed in the railway departments, and in the Post Office service. Why should such men be deprived of a privilege which they valued highly, as was clearly proved, because they undertook such duties? He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman, who would have difficulty enough in securing sufficient recruits for his Territorial Force, should hesitate to accept those who would form perhaps the most valuable part
  390
  of the force, and who, although they might not be available at the outbreak of war, would be available in a national emergency. He quite realised that for the sake of symmetry the right hon. Gentleman wanted a force which he could call out complete, but he and those beside him thought that the other side of the question was so important that they ventured to put it before him. If what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do was carried out, it seemed to him that probably the hon. and gallant Members for Abercromby and East Edinburgh would be conspicuous by their absence from the very places where they would be bright and shining lights.
  MR. WYNDHAMmoved the addition of the words "excepting men enlisted under Clause 29," after the words "Army Reserve." Those who were present at an earlier hour of the sitting would, he thought, agree with him that those words would only carry out the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman attached to the position. If this automatic embodiment did not take place, and if all the Reserves were called out, that would not happen until the fourteen Yeomanry squadrons and the 101 ordinary battalions of Militia Infantry, and the third and fourth battalions, which were not in the First Class Army Reserve, were called out. From the point of view of creating an impression, he thought it would be an advantage to the Minister occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman in a time of great national emergency to have his hands free, and be able to call out the Territorial Force, not waiting for the calling out of the Yeomanry and Militia battalions. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 14, after the words 'Army Reserve' to insert the words 'excepting men enlisted under Clause 29.' "—(Mr. Wyndham.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. HALDANEsaid that he had fully considered the matter, and he preferred

  391
  the words of the clause as they stood. Under the first part of subsection (1), the Secretary for War had the power, though he was not under the obligation, to call out the Territorial Force. But if there was a contingency so serious as to require the expeditionary force to be set in motion, then he thought that the Territorial Force ought to be embodied. When the whole of the First Class Reserve was called out, then obligation arose.
  Question put, and negatived.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHmoved an Amendment to substitute the words "or any part of, "for the words" the men belonging to." He could not understand why the right hon. Gentle man did not reserve to himself the right to call out a small or large portion of, or all, the Territorial Force as circumstances might require. He thought that there was not sufficient elasticity in the Bill in that regard. Much of the success of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme would depend on the way in which it was received in the country, and he thought that the elasticity, on which the right hon. Gentleman laid stress, would be secured by adopting his Amendment, which left it to the discretion of the Army Council whether all or part of the Territorial Force should be called out. He knew that the words did not appear to indicate any very important change in the Bill, but he thought they would give to the Army Council a discretion which it was desirable they should have.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: in seconding the Amendment, said the clause as it stood would compel the Army Council to call out the whole of the Territorial Force, but the Amendment would give them an option to call out the whole or any portion of it. They might find it desirable not to call out certain portions of the force because they were engaged in manufacturing articles for the Government, such as munitions of war, clothing, saddlery, etc.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 13, line 16, to leave out the words 'the men belonging to' and insert the words 'or any part of.' "—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HALDANEsaid the clause they were discussing was one framed in order to meet a special emergency such as a great war, when the whole force of the country was to be put in motion. Power to call out "any part" of the Territorial Army was taken in another portion of the Bill. But when they came to this proviso, to insert the words "or any part of" and omit "the men belonging to" would defeat their object, because under this clause the whole of the Reserve Forces would be in motion, the object being to present before the enemy the impressive spectacle of the whole nation mobilised and under arms. He did not think that any case would arise in which the whole of the First-Class Army Reserve would be called out and mobilised at one time. Such a thing as that could only happen in times of extraordinary emergency. It was one thing to embody a Territorial Army and bring them under the War Office, and another thing to bring them out all together. They could tell portions of them to go on furlough and come up upon notice being given to them. For these reasons he thought it would detract from the scheme of the clause if they were to say that the embodiment should not extend to the whole of the Territorial Forces.
  MR. WYNDHAMwas curious to know why, if that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman, he did not give effect to the last Amendment. There was so little that made for progress in the clause that he did not think it mattered whether the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment or not. They wanted to bring the clause up to the point they desired, but it was so hopeless that he did not think the Amendment would have any real effect.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid the only reason the right hon. Gentleman could give against the Amendment was that it would prevent the embodiment of the whole Territorial Force. He could not see that that embodiment would win a battle, and a certain amount of elasticity being necessary in the clause, he failed to see why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment.
  Question put
  The House divided: —Ayes, 238; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 241.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Essex, R. W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Agnew, George William

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs )

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Maclean, Donald

  Astbury, John Meir

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Crae, George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Barker, John

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Menzies, Walter

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gill, A. H.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Money, L. G. Chiozza,

  Beale, W. P.

  Glover, Thomas

  Montagu, E. S.

  Bell, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Grant, Corrie

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Murray, James

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gulland, John W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Bertram, Julius

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Napier, T. B.

  Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex, R'mf'rd

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Nicholls, George

  Billson, Alfred

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Nicholson, Charles N.( Doncast'r

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Grady, J.

  Branch, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Brigg, John

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

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J.T. (Ches.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hodge, John

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Radford, G. H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

  Cameron, Robert

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

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

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Richardson, A.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clough, William

  Jenkins, J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Br'df'rd

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robinson, S.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Jowett, F. W.

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Russell, T. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Crombie, John William

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Seddon, J.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lambert, George

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Wals'l

  Levy, Maurice

  Snowden, P.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Vivian, Henry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Walsh, Stephen

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Waring, Walter

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Winfrey, R.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Thorne, William

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Pease.

  Verney, F. W.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  NOES.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Forster, Henry William

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Balcarres, Lord

  Haddock, George R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, H.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Keswick, William

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Viscount Castlereagh and

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, G'v'n

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Captain Craig.

  SIR HOWARD VINCENTmoved an Amendment in Clause 17 (Disembodying of Territorial Forces) providing that it should be lawful for His Majesty by proclamation to order that the Territorial Force be disembodied, and thereupon the Army Council should give such directions as might seem necessary or proper for carrying it into effect "upon the expiration of thirty days notice." He argued that it would be very hard were the members of the Territorial Force to be disembodied suddenly and without adequate notice, during which those who had been in a civil occupation might have an opportunity of communicating with their former employers. An opportunity should be given to find civil employment at the end of their service. Nothing would be more unsatisfactory than that a large number of men should be disembodied without having had such an opportunity. Disembodiment should be as gradual a process as possible, in the interests both of
  396
  the men themselves and of law and order. It would be a most serious thing to have large bodies of men wandering about the country without occupation. He begged to move.
  MR. ASHLEYseconded the Amendment. He said it would not only be a great hardship to the men to be dismissed without adequate notice, but it might have a very serious effect on good order if they were suddenly turned adrift without an occupation to go to.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 14, line 2, after the word 'effect' to insert the words 'upon the expiration of thirty days notice.' "—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. HALDANEsaid that it had been the practice in modern times to give a

  397
  man six weeks furlough so that he might receive six weeks pay; and in future that would no doubt continue to be the practice. He thought that this was one of those cases that had to be judged by circumstances, and the Amendment would not cover all the cases that were contemplated by the hon. Member. It would be preferable to leave the question to administrative freedom, with subsequent responsibility to Parliament.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought it would be a good thing if something definite could be put into the Bill. He quite agreed it was the practice to give a month's furlough, during which time the soldier did his best to obtain some kind of employment, but he could not see any reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
  MR. ACLANDsaid that the whole of the point was covered by the Army Regulations. In 1902 the notice to be given to the men on demobilisation was a minimum of forty-two days.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGadmitted that there was a great deal in what the hon. Member said, but he thought it would be better to put a definite time in the Bill. He would suggest that the Amendment should be "upon the expiration of at least thirty days." His hon. friend would agree to that, and he thought it would meet the point of the right hon. Gentleman, who objected to the Amendment upon the ground that it did not cover the whole point. There was one important point and that was the payment of the men. In some cases that was most unsatisfactory. The Volunteers did not know definitely upon what terms they were engaged, whereas if a man joined the Regulars he knew from the day he signed his attestation papers what the terms would be. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman ought to take as much precaution with the enlistment of the Volunteers as with the enlistment of the Regulars. It was upon such details as these that the success or otherwise of the Bill depended. What they wanted was that when the recruiting sergeant was sent to a district, he should be able to answer the questions of intending recruits, and tell them that they would be expected to do so many drills, and to train on enlistment for so
  398
  many weeks; he ought to be able to in form recruits that when they were de mobilised they would not be thrown on the country at short notice to pick up a livelihood. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might really accept the Amendment, which would, from the point of view of the Volunteers, be very much appreciated.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down had confused two things. He had spoken about Volunteers coming back from war, and he had altogether omitted to observe that the clause did not refer to active service abroad, but only to embodiment for home defence.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he understood from the Secretary of State for War him self that he expected a large number of the Territorial Force to go out and help in time of war.
  MR. McCRAEsaid that that was the very reason why the hands of the Secretary of State should be perfectly free, because if they laid down a hard and fast line under this clause, he was quite sure they would got into difficulty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that he could speak for Volunteers, but for himself he would say that the view of Volunteers would be that, as soon as circumstances would allow of it, they should get back to their civil employment. Therefore, he thought it would be a mistake to stereo type the conditions under which disembodiment would take place. He would go further and say that of the many complaints they had against the War Office he had not come across one as to the treatment which the men had received when relieved from active service. He did not think the Amendment was really in the interests of the Auxiliary Forces. He should certainly say that the proper course to pursue was to leave the Secretary of State a free hand, and he was quite sure that the Auxiliary Forces would rely on getting fair and generous treatment as they had received in the past.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked leave to amend the Amendment by inserting the words suggested by his hon. and gallant friend, so that it would read—"at least" thirty days.

  399
  Proposed words inserted in the pro posed Amendment.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he understood that the Amendment as amended was now before the House, and if that was so he could not see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's speech. The Amendment now said that there was to be at least thirty days, but the hon. Member opposite had said that they had better leave it to the sense and consideration of the Secretary of State. But let them remember that never had there been a war concluded without many complaints being raised. What they had to consider, however, was the question of recruiting. Conversations took place with recruiting officers, and those conversations were not under the guillotine. The candidates would ask as many questions as they pleased, and undoubtedly those who in future wanted to join the Territorial Force would desire to know when and how the six months training began and when and how it ended. The six months term, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, was not in the Bill, but it was a period thrown out by way of suggestion. The period might be a much longer term; it might be as long as the emergency endured or as long as the Territorial Force was embodied. He took it that it would not be disembodied so long as it ought to be serving, and the period might be a year. If that were so, what became of the other point, that the service would in
  many cases be at home? A man who was withdrawn from his employment for six months or longer required a margin at the end of that time during which he should be paid as a soldier while he was picking up the thread of his civil occupation. Why should they not lighten the task of the recruiting officer and assist him to get the men of the Territorial Force by putting into his mouth the promise that, at any rate, if a man joined the force, he would have a month's pay after his military service, during which he could look after civil employment either in his old place or elsewhere? If they could make the period of pay longer so much the better, but a man wanted to know what was to be granted to him by the action of the House.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he could not accept a hard and fast line. A man might only come up for one day, and per haps not even that, and yet in such a case they proposed that at least thirty days should elapse before he was free from legal liability. And in the second place, would it be right to compensate such a man in the same way as they would the man who had been actually out for service? For that reason he thought the Amendment was about the worst that could be proposed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 56; Noes, 222. (Division List No. 242.)

  AYES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

  Arnold-Foster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J. W.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Sir Howard Vincent and

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Mr. Ashley.

  NOES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Agnew, George William

  'Astbury, John Meir

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Gulland, John W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Barker, John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Hall, Frederick

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Radford, G. H.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Beale, W. P.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Bell, Richard

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Bellairs, Carlyon

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

  Renton, Major Leslie

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Bertram, Julius

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

  Richardson, A.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bethell, T, R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Billson, Alfred

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott( Bradford-

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hodge, John

  Robinson, S.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rowlands, J.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Runciman, Walter

  Brace, William

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Russell, T. W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Branch, James

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brigg, John

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Seddon, J.

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T. (Cheshire

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jenkins, J.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Byles. William Pollard

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Cairns, Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

  Snowden, B.

  Cameron, Robert

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Steadman, W. C.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Lamont, Norman

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Clough, William

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Summerbell, T.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Lough, Thomas

  Thorne, William

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ure, Alexander

  Crombie, John William

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maclean, Donald

  Walsh, Stephen

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  M'Crae, George

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Waring, Walter

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Elibank, Master of

  Menzies, Walter

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Essex, R. W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Montagu, E. S.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Ferens, T. R.

  Myer, Horatio

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Napier, T. B.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Findlay, Alexander

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Nicholls, George

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Nuttall, Harry

  Winfrey, R.

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Grady. J.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Grant, Corrie

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Pease

  MR. ASHLEYmoved to omit from Clause 19 (Punishment for failure to attend on embodiment) the words providing that any person who knowingly employs a deserter from the Territorial Force shall be deemed to aid him in concealing himself. Hon. Members would observe that in Section 19, subsection (2), it was provided that—
  "Sections 153 and 154 of the Army Act shall apply with respect to deserters and desertion within the meaning of this section."
  He had no objection to that, but his contention was that the same punishment should be meted out to a man in the Territorial Force as to a man in the Regulars. He considered that a civilian ought not, as he apparently would be under the clause as it stood, treated more severely for an offence committed with regard to a member of the Territorial Force than for an offence committed with regard to a soldier of the Regular Forces. On page 15 of the Bill it was laid down that—
  "Any person who, knowing any man of the Territorial Force to be a deserter within the meaning of this section or of the Army Act, employs or continues to employ him, shall be deemed to aid him in concealing himself within the meaning of the first mentioned section."
  He did not think it was right to have one law for a deserter in the Regular Force, and a more stringent law for the Territorial Force. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that employers should act as whippers-in for his force in case of embodiment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would explain this provision more clearly.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought this portion of the clause should be deleted altogether. The right hon. Gentleman, he was sure, desired to make the Bill as much a reality as possible, and it was for the purpose of removing any difficulty or anything which might act as a deterrent to recruiting for the Territorial Army that he thought the words should be deleted. He begged to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill —
  "In page 15, line 1, to leave out from the word 'sections' to end of subsection (2) of Clause 19."—(Mr. Ashley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Member for Blackpool had not quite appreciated the point to which the clause was addressed. In the case of the ordinary soldier, he was in continuous employment in the Army, and if he deserted he deserted his occupation. This clause referred not to things of that kind, but simply to the man who knowingly and willingly and without lawful excuse did not come up on embodiment. That was the serious emergency dealt with in Clause 16, which provided in subsection (3) that—
  "every officer and man belonging to that part shall attend at the place and time fixed by those directions, and after that lime shall be deemed to be embodied."
  If hon. Members would turn to Clause 19 they would find that the first sub-clause provided that—
  "Any man of the Territorial Force who, without leave lawfully granted, or such sick ness or other reasonable excuse as may be allowed in the prescribed manner, fails to appear at the time and place appointed for assembling on embodiment.…"
  It was quite true that there were other cases provided for under Section 153 of the Army Act, but this particular clause was directed against the case of a man who knowing that one of his employees was a member of the Territorial Force "employs or continues to employ him." The hon. Member would see that the provision only referred to special cases of a very grave order—namely, cases in which men without reasonable excuse failed to come up on embodiment; that was to say, when the country was face to face with a serious emergency. It was proposed that measures should be taken to prevent a person who had committed that very serious offence from being employed.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid they ought to be extremely careful not to do anything that would deter the would-be recruit from joining the Territorial Force. They had also to consider the employer of the would-be recruit. He was afraid that the proposals they were now discussing would have the effect of frightening employers and would deter them from allowing their employees to join the Territorial Force. At any rate he felt certain that the provision would give employers an excuse for refusing to allow their men to join the Territorial Army. When a man said that he thought of joining the Territorial

  405
  Force employers would be inclined to say, "If you are going to enlist I do not think I shall keep you on, because I find on looking through the Bill I might run the risk of being run in for concealing a deserter." An employer could not always remember which of his men were members of the force or which of them had served their time. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would lose anything by taking out this sub section. Their experience in the past had been that when the Reserves were called out they had answered the call to a man. Some employers were ready enough to find any excuse to prevent their men from joining the Volunteers.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he supported the Amendment most heartily. He thought the right hon. Gentleman failed to understand the responsibility he was putting on employers. Not only was he asking them to be in a sense recruiting officers, but he was using the very worst form of compulsion. If an employer and his workman were on the most friendly terms during the civil employment, it would be a pity to disturb that feeling. Any man who joined any of the forces under the territorial scheme would, under the proposal now before the House, have to be watched. If on embodiment he failed to join his corps, the employer would be liable to so heavy a penalty that he would say, "You must join because if I keep you here another day I shall fall under this severe penalty." He thought the country could very well do without those men who, instead of turning out voluntarily on embodiment, had to be frightened by their employers into doing their duty. What was required was more fully met by the Army Act.
  MR. LUPTONasked his right hon. friend if he really meant to send an employer to prison for six months if he employed a man who had been called out. To send middle-aged men to prison would in many cases kill them. The way in which the jails were managed was a disgrace to the Empire. If a man was called out and did not respond, that could be proved, and it could also be proved that he was at the time working for a certain employer. But how was the prosecution going to prove that the
  406
  employer "knowingly" employed a man who had not responded to the call? If the employer went into the witness box, a clever counsel might be able to examine him in such a manner as to make him appear guilty, although he was ignorant of what the employee had done. On the other hand, if the accused did not go into the witness box to defend himself he would be assumed to be guilty.
  MR. HALDANEreplied that the employer would not be convicted unless full knowledge were brought home to him. If the man were punished, the master who had acted knowingly and without any excuse must be punished too. There could be no hardship in that. If the master did not act wilfully, he would not be convicted.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the man had taken an oath and entered into obligations to the State, but the master had not. These penal clauses were indefensible. The second half of the Bill contained penal clauses which might be right or wrong in dealing with the previously enlisted soldier, but were most unwise when dealing with men who were willing to serve the country in the Territorial Force. He was not one of those who, like the hon. Member for Sleaford, took an extreme view in regard to the treatment of persons in British prisons. He believed British prisons were managed in a more humane manner than those in any other part of the world. It would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to find a more drastic deterrent to recruiting than the half-a-dozen penal clauses in this part of the Bill. The fines to which the members of a corps would be liable would not be compensated for by exempting them from service on juries. His opinion was that the five lines which his hon. friend proposed to omit were superfluous. It was a mistake to put an employer of labour, whose relations with workmen in the Territorial Force were purely casual, in the position of being responsible for the whipping up of bismen at the time of embodiment. What was the meaning of "employer" in this section? A man who had been called out and did not respond might have five or six employers during the six months over which the embodiment was to

  407
  extend. Were all those men to defend themselves in court against the charge of having knowingly employed that man who had failed to turn out when called? He deprecated the enactment of penal clauses which might have the effect of making employers hostile to their employees being connected with the Territorial Force. They had no business to make employers take the place of recruiting officers. He was convinced that those words should be excluded.
  MR. J. WARDprotested against the whole of the penal suggestions contained in the clause. He was extremely sorry that neither during the Committee nor on the Report Stage had any opportunity been given for the full consideration of those penal suggestions. He believed that if the clause had been thoroughly understood it would not have been accepted in the form in which it now appeared. Hon. Members would remember that on the First Reading of the Bill he called attention to this matter, and in view of the altered character of the Bill he thought it was time for the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider its penal clauses and if possible to mitigate the punishments. There was some reason for these clauses being applied to the Militia, which, to a certain extent, were under martial law when called up for training; but now that they were dealing with the purely voluntary element of the Territorial Force he saw no reason for retaining these penal clauses beyond what in practice had been found to be necessary. He would point out also that there was a general tendency to reduce the penalties attached to offences committed by men on military service and to approximate them as nearly as possible to the penalties imposed in civil life. That was so in the case of France, where in time of peace, the ordinary law was found to be quite effective. If these clauses were to be insisted upon, they might well consider that the Bill was introduced rather to bring the Volunteers under martial law than for any other purpose, and the effect would be most disastrous. There was a strong feeling in the House that to apply more stringent punishment to the Volunteers and Yeomanry was not to improve their general strength nor to adapt the Volunteer organisation to the wants and needs of the country.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that they were not now discussing the case of the men but that of the employers.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he understood that the case of the men had been decided, but he hoped not finally. It was a mere chance that the subject had not been thoroughly discussed on the Committee stage; and he believed that there was a general opinion that applying the penal clauses to the men was not a way to improve recruiting, or to meet the needs of the defence of the country.
  THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell)said that the Amendment before the House dealt entirely with the employers. The clause in regard to the men had been passed.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he quite under stood, but was it not rather a novel kind of punishment to inflict on the employer? The clause lent itself to the suggestion that the main object of the Bill was to place the two branches of the Territorial Force under more severe regulations and punishments than hitherto. He would have thought that the last person to suggest such stringent military conditions was a Liberal Minister for War. Those who were in favour of conscription, and who thought that the patriotism of the people was not adequate to the defence of the country, might approve of these penal clauses, but he thought the last to suggest them should have been a Liberal Government. He, and those who agreed with him, did not want to place obstacles in the way of recruits joining the Territorial Force. He did not want to make the conditions so irksome that instead of getting twenty men offering their services, they would get only one.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that he was sure his hon. friend did not wish to misrepresent him. This was a clause which only dealt with embodied Volunteers. In the case of the employer who engaged a man, knowing that he had deserted, then they insisted that the penalty should be applied to that employer. Of course, when the Volunteers were embodied the Army Act applied to thorn.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had referred to this question when the Annual

  409
  Army Bill was under discussion. In his opinion the position of the Volunteer was certainly changed by the present Bill. He could not be called out now in the case of civil disturbance. The Yeomanry under the Yeomanry Acts could be called on by the Lieutenant or Sheriff of the county, to act within the county or adjacent counties for the suppression of riot, and in so doing were subject to military law. The Volunteers would be assimilated to the Yeomanry in the Territorial Army. The sub-clause now before the House appeared to be an extension to the employers of Volunteers of the penalties for the grave military offence of harbouring a deserter. It seemed to him to be most unwise, and would have a detrimental effect on recruiting, because there would be a difficulty in getting employers to engage men who were Volunteers from the fear of the responsibilities and obligations they would incur under this section.
  MR. THORNEinquired whether a person charged with the offence of harbouring a deserter would be tried by a civil court or by a court martial.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he would be tried by a civil court. It was not a military offence.
  MR. GUY BARINGpointed out that there might be people who on the outbreak of a war might object to it, and they might find them selves employing a man in the Territorial Army. They might object to the whole spirit of militarism, and they might induce the man to stop with them instead of joining the Territorial Army.
  MR. HALDANEreplied that a Quaker who now concealed a deserter of the Regular Army was, notwithstanding his creed, liable to the penalties of the law.
  MR. W. T. WILSONappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this portion of the clause. It was, doubtless, the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to punish an employer who wilfully concealed a deserter, but he would, in effect, be penalising a large number of working men, because employers would not be
  410
  inclined to give work to those who were members of the Territorial Force if these conditions were attached to the service. Another point he would like the Secretary of State to make quite clear was, whom did he intend to proceed against in the case of a limited company giving employment to, and concealing a man who was a deserter? Speaking as an old Volunteer, he would not enlist in the Territorial Army under the conditions contained in the Bill, and he trusted that in the interests of the scheme itself the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to modify the penal clauses of the Bill.
  MR. ACLANDsaid he would like to point out that under the old Volunteer Act there were infinitely more severe penal clauses than were provided for in this Bill. The liabilities under this Bill and under the old Volunteer Act were precisely the same, that they were to be called out to serve in times of national danger or of great emergency. The Territorial Force would not, under the Bill, be embodied until the Army Reserves had been called out, and that would not happen until a national danger or a great emergency had arisen. The words "great emergency" would re main in the one case as in the other. Under the Volunteer Act, at present, there was no possibility, as there was under this clause, of granting leave for any cause except serious illness. That was provided for under Section 17 of the Volunteer Act, but in this Bill a provision was inserted to the effect that leave could be granted upon "a reasonable excuse" being given. If the Bill were examined it would be found to be much more favourable to the Volunteer than the existing law.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid that by this clause the right hon. Gentleman proposed to put before the employers of Volunteers far more clearly than before what his liability might be if he incurred a penalty. It put the case far more strongly, but the mere fact of bringing his liability to the notice of the employers of Volunteers would, he thought, make it more difficult to obtain recruits, and he wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the enormous difficulty that at present existed of getting facilities for men who

  411
  enlisted in the force. He would not belittle the great patriotism of the vast majority of the employers of the country; but still there must be a very grave tendency on the part of employers, especially if they increased their obligations, to consider whether it was worth their while to employ men who belonged to the Territorial Force. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he could not modify these pro visions, or, at any rate, the wording of this clause.
  Mr. McCRAEsaid that, dealing with the question from the employers' point of view, under present conditions
  by the provisions of the Act of 1863, officers, non-commissioned officers and men, who did not respond to the call if not incapacitated from active service, would be treated as deserters. The Act said they "shall" be so treated. This clause only dealt with the position of affairs after the force was embodied under certain definite terms of service, and therefore the position was improved by the present Bill which rather modified than accentuated, existing conditions.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 243.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Agnew, George William

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Allan, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Astbury, John Meir

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Maurice

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barker, John

  Essex, R. W.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lough, Thomas

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Beale, W. P.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bell, Richard

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Fenwick, Charles

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bertram, Julius

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  M'Crae, George

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'rd

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Billson, Alfred

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Grant, Corrie

  Menzies, Walter

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gulland, John W.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bramsdon, A. T.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mond, A.

  Branch, James

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brigg, John

  Hall, Frederick

  Montagu, E. S.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Montgomery, H. G.

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Napier, T. B.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Henry, Charles S.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Hon. S.)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Cameron, Robert

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Clough, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Radford, G. H.

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Crombie, John William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dalziel, James Henry

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Robinson, S.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, J. D. (Dunbartonshire)

  Rowlands, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Russell, T. W.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Thomas. Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Vivian, Henry

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

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

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Winfrey, R.

  Shipman, Dr John G.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Waring, Walter

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pease.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Weir, James Galloway

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Glover, Thomas

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Haddock, George R.

  Seddon, J.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, t. Hon. Sir H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Higham, John Sharp

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester.

  Hills, J. W.

  Snowden, P.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hodge, John

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Jenkins, J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Brace, William

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Thorne, William

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lupton, Arnold

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Tumour, Viscount

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nicholls, George

  Walsh, Stephen

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Nield, Herbert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  O'Grady, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark. Govan

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Richardson, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Mr. Ashley and Mr. John

  Gill, A. H.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Ward.

  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 15, line 5, at the end, to add the words, 'Where a man of the Territorial Force commits the offence of desertion under this section the time which elapsed between the time of his committing the offence and the time of his apprehension or voluntary surrender shall not be taken into account in reckoning his service for the purpose of discharge.' "— (Mr. Haldane.)
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 15, lines 13 and 14, to leave out the words 'less than twenty shillings and not more than' and insert 'exceeding.' "—(Mr. Haldane.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he at this stage desired to renew the protest he had previously made. The Amendment moved did not affect the £5, but only the 20s. It would have been far more suitable if the Amendment had related to the £5 instead of the 20s. Upon this point the right hon. Gentleman had apparently given way to the criticisms in Committee, and was going to introduce a sliding scale. Upon what system was the scale to be graduated?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN,)was understood to say that the desire of his right hon. friend was to make the clause as elastic as possible.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was becoming increasingly evident that none of these provisions would be enforced. One by one they were being blotted out of the Bill. The time for which a man served did not matter. The penalty a man might incur was to be £5; now it might be only 6d. They might have been told at the beginning that the whole thing was a sham. They were going to call the Volunteers by a new name, but they would be under exactly the same regulations as now.
  MR. CARLILEsaid that many hon. Members would have preferred to have seen the £5 taken out altogether. Because the Volunteers devoted a large amount of time and money to qualifying themselves to serve their country, were they to be subject to this serious penalty, whilst those who had no public spirit and did not come for ward got off scot-free? If the right hon. Gentleman desired to amend the clause he should have done so by taking off the heavy liability on men who came forward in times of peace to qualify themselves to assist their country in time of war. If the right hon. Gentleman thought these penalties would help recruiting he was much mistaken. This Amendment might have been moved for the purpose of relieving the members of the Territorial Force of these liabilities, but if that was the intention it should be put down in black and white. He thought its effect would be to deter the best men from coming forward.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Proposed word there inserted in the Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGmoved an Amendment to provide that the penalty should be recoverable by "his commanding officer," instead of by "the prescribed officer." He felt very strongly, he said, on the question of the prescribed officer having full jurisdiction in matters which should be under the control of the commanding officer. All matters pertaining to the control of the regiment should properly be in the hands of the commanding officer, and he thought that the Bill from first to last
  416
  went in the direction of making the commanding officer feel that he had not full control of the men under his command. They could not possibly start a new scheme in a worse way than by making those responsible for the management of a number of men feel that they were not trusted, in the first instance by the War Office, and secondly by the County Associations. If the penalty of £5 was to be recoverable by somebody appointed by the County Associations they would strike at the root of the discipline of the force by weakening the hands of the commanding officer. That was a detail in one sense, but it was of great importance in another. The opportunity which a commanding officer would have of showing that he could be lenient sometimes while dealing with these penalties was taken away from him; but he hoped that now at the last moment the Government would accept the Amendment, and show that they were fully alive to the fact that a commanding officer could not be expected to control his men in the true sense of the word unless the Army Council were prepared to trust him with all the powers a commanding officer should have. Not only would the appointment of the prescribed officer have a bad effect on the men who would not know who their prescribed officer was, but it would militate against the influence of the commanding officer, who in ordinary circumstances was looked up to for guidance in all matters affecting the interests of the regiment. The Government were placing this scheme in the hands of officers to make the best of it by bringing in men to serve, and the moment they raised the regiment all the necessary attributes of the commanding officer were taken away, and the authorities were going to act through the adjutant in matters such as were de scribed in Clause 20. He had urged in Committee that there should be less of this board of guardians or county council officer, or whoever was to be the functionary interfering between the commanding officer and the men under his control. The prescribed officer might be under the colonel of a regiment which competed in popularity with the corps of the colonel over whose head the prescribed officer would be set. It seemed to him to be one of those absurd and unnecessary propositions which were introduced by some busy-body at the War Office in order

  417
  not only to make the Bill fail in essential details, but also to confuse the mind of the House in its consideration. The County Association was to be formed of commanding officers of units in the county, lords-lieutenant, and in some instances the higher officers of the county councils. These men together were to prescribe the officer who was to go to the colonel of perhaps a first-class Yeomanry regiment and say to him, "You are not the person who is to have this forfeit paid over to him." It was conceivable that it might be a sergeant-major who would have to say that. Many of the men felt strongly on the point, and he thought that the right hon. Gentle man ought to accept the Amendment. If he did so, he might be assured that those who were interested in the scheme would be prepared to back it up in a way which would leave the supreme control in the hands of the commanding officer.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH,in seconding the Amendment, said he welcomed the opportunity of putting forward this principle, because on the Committee stage he was led to believe by the right hon. Gentleman that it was his intention to do something in this respect, in fact to give a little more power to the commanding officer; but he was sorry to say that on the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of what he had put forward on the Committee stage. It was obvious that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise what the position of the commanding officer was. He imagined that the Secretary of State for War looked upon the commanding officer of a Yeomanry regiment or of a Volunteer corps as called upon to carry out certain duties, and with regard to other duties to be ignored altogether. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman must have taken his lines from some decayed Volunteer corps.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell)said the Amendment simply pro posed to leave out "the prescribed," in order to insert "his commanding." The discussion must be limited entirely to the question of who was to recover the penalty whether "the prescribed" or "his commanding" officer.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid that while he believed that in a great many
  418
  cases the prescribed officer would be the commanding officer, yet they had to remember that the prescribed officer was to be appointed by the County Association, who might nominate some junior officer to have a jurisdiction in this matter greater than that of the commanding officer. Instead of "prescribed" it was most important that the word "commanding" should be inserted. If the prescribed officer was appointed by the County Association it was obvious that the commanding officer must lose that sense of duty which would be his if he had all the duties connected with the regiment under his control; if that control were taken from him, obviously he was deprived of that which was a main factor in the command of a regiment. The ruling from the Chair had precluded a certain amount of argument on the point, which was perhaps unfortunate, because they had had very little opportunity in Committee to discuss the matter. He would, however, raise that question on the Third Reading.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 15, line 15, to leave out the words 'the prescribed,' and insert the words 'his commanding,'" —(Captain Craig) — instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the Amendment revived a question which they had discussed on various Amendments in Committee, and he could not agree with the noble Lord who supported the Amendment as to the want of discussion, for he thought that the position of the commanding officer had been debated at considerable length on different occasions during the Committee stage. His right hon. friend had endeavoured, at any rate in some degree, to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, on Clause 14. In putting "prescribed officer" into the Bill they in no degree whatever intended to reflect on the authority or position of the commanding officer. It was perfectly true that, owing to the inclusion of County Associations in the Bill, the position of the commanding officer of a Volunteer corps did not remain quite the same under the now system as it was under the old. But with regard to this

  419
  particular duty the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under the misapprehension that the prescribed officer was nominated by the County Association. That was not so. The prescribed officer was an officer "prescribed" by order or regulations drawn up by the Army Council. They had come to the conclusion that it was better to leave to the Army Council the discretion of nominating any officer they chose rather than impose that duty on the commanding officer only.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he was sorry that the hon. Member had not seen his way to accept the Amendment. The refusal was another indication of the tendency shown throughout the speeches of the Secretary for War to give the go-by to and to ignore the commanding officer. If the force was to be a success, it could only be by being ad ministered with the good will and hearty co-operation of the commanding officers. The commanding officer was responsible for the efficiency of the unit, and the regiment ought to look up to him in regard to all matters affecting the regiment. If the Army Council was not going to place any confidence in the commanding officers the sooner it said so the better. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had moved a most reasonable Amendment in a reasonable and moderate speech. He could not understand why the Financial Secretary to the War Office was unwilling to accept it, because it must commend itself to anyone who had any practical experience in the administration of military affairs. Why should the term "prescribed officer" be inserted at all? Who was the prescribed officer? He hoped the hon. and gallant Member for Down would press his Amendment to a division.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: hoped the Amendment would be pressed. The hon. Gentleman had told them that commanding officers were such fainéants that they did not wish to have the unpopularity of enforcing certain duties on their men. Who had told him that? Was it some soldier? Was there any officer at the War Office who would like to have this slight put upon him? He had heard what the hon. Member for Central Sheffield and the hon. Member for East Down had said, and everybody knew that the person to
  420
  deal with the men was the commanding officer, and why they should have introduced a person of whom nobody knew the name or the functions he was utterly at a loss to understand. He had taken out a collection of papers about half-an-inch thick of the things about which the Government had not been able to tell them anything in regard to this Bill. Why should they be left in this state of ignorance? As far as they could make out the Government did not know themselves. Surely the Government did not wish to pass the Bill in the dark. He complained of the inadequate information given by the Government about their Bill; they did not seem to know what the answers were to nine-tenths of the questions put by the Opposition. The Financial Secretary said he did not know, and it was a most unsatisfactory state of things. Who was the prescribed officer? Was he to be the commanding officer? If he was going to be a senior officer why not say so? Did the Financial Secretary to the War Office really mean that any soldier in the War Office had told him that he, as a soldier, would submit to a regulation of that kind? He did not think that any officer commanding a regiment in the Army would tolerate for a moment the substitution of another per son to perform one of the elementary duties of a commanding officer. And yet the Financial Secretary refused to to give them a plain answer to these questions.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that on the few occasions upon which he had intervened in the debates he had endeavoured, at any rate, not to imitate the discourteous tone of the speeches which had been delivered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. They had all heard the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just delivered, not once but several times, and he had merely chosen a new text for an old sermon. He strongly repudiated the perversion of his remarks by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman attributed to him the statement that commanding officers were afraid to undertake unpleasant duties. He had said not a syllable to warrant such a charge.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: You said they would be very glad to be relieved of a disagreeable duty.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he made no such remark as that attributed to him by the right hon. Gentleman. The mover of the Amendment had suggested that a man might accept this position from a desire to become popular. Upon that he simply remarked that this was a duty which would not be particularly attractive or one likely to bring popularity to the man who discharged it.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Gentleman in the course of his irregular intervention in debate had touched on many topics, the merits of the Bill, the skill of his chief in conducting it, and so on; but in the heat of the moment he had altogether forgotten to deal with the question, "Who is the prescribed officer?" The hon. Gentleman had referred the House to Clause 35, and there it appeared the expression meant "prescribed by orders or regulations." But who issued those orders and regulations? Was it the County Association?
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Army Council.
  MR. WYNDHAMasked whether they were requested to believe that the Army Council would concern itself with the penalty to be imposed upon a man in any battalion absent without leave? The hon. Gentleman must be misinformed; it was not credible A man absent without leave granted by his commanding officer was liable to a penalty, and who was to en force it? Who would know of the absence? Did the hon. Gentleman know what happened on parade? Yet they were told that it was not the commanding officer, but somebody else appointed by regulation issued by some unknown body, which the hon. Gentleman—singular in his belief—said was the Army Council.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERhoped the heat would
  422
  die out of the discussion. There was a point here of some importance. It was clear that only the commanding officer could have the responsibility for inflicting punishment for absence without leave. He did not see how discipline could be maintained unless the commanding officer was the person made responsible. It seemed to him that there was another difficulty in the matter. If the Army Council had the privilege or power of appointing somebody else to perform this most important duty, he thought it would be very difficult for the commanding officer to remain in command. He did not know how it was going to work if some junior officer was to have the power of superseding the commanding officer. The clause either meant that the Army Council was to have power to do something underhand in the way of putting somebody over the commanding officer, or it meant that the power was to be given to a civilian. There were certain arguments which recommended a civilian authority for this purpose, but certainly there were very strong arguments against it. He hoped the Secretary of State for War would consider the point and see if something could not be done to leave the power in the hands of the commanding officers.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid the Financial Secretary had made the most extra ordinary speech delivered during the debate. He got up to answer a question and did not make the slightest reply, but simply lost his temper. It was not surprising that he was seldom allowed to take part in the debates. [Cries of "Oh, oh," "Order," and "Withdraw."] Now that the Secretary of State for War had returned to the House, perhaps he would state who was the prescribed officer. Who was to have the right to make the orders and regulations? When the Financial Secretary said it was the Army Council, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was speaking from his knowledge of the Bill or not.

  423
  He and his friends wished a straight answer from the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that he entirely agreed with all that had been said by the Financial Secretary, as it had been reported to him. These units were units of which the commanding officers might be absent, and such contingencies must be provided for. It was necessary that the Army Council should have the power to make regulations as to who should exercise this authority. If the commanding officer were the right person, then the Army Council would prescribe him. If he were not, they would appoint some one else to take his place.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was introducing an extraordinary idea of discipline into the future Territorial Army. The Secretary of State had said that if the commanding officer was the right person, the Army Council Would prescribe him. But if he were not the right person, why on earth was he made commanding officer?
  MR. HALDANE: He may be absent.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that in that case there would be a second in command.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked whether the officer second in command was to be prescribed by the Army Council.
  MR. HALDANE: He may be.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODasked why, if he was not to be prescribed by the Army Council, was he put in the responsible position of second in command? Supposing he were absent, there would be a junior major or a senior captain.
  424
  Were they to have no powers of discipline? No doubt we had been reduced to a democratic state of affairs, and perhaps discipline was to be enforced by the chairman of the education committee or the chairman of quarter sessions. If the subordinate officers were not fit to be trusted in the absence of the commanding officers, they were not fit to hold their commissions. In making that statement he was backed up by every man in the Yeomanry, Volunteers, and Militia.
  MR. LANE-FOXasked what com plaints the Government had received as to the enforcement of discipline in the past to make it necessary to insert this provision in the Bill. Why should not the commanding officer have the right to delegate his powers to the next in command?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the Amendment was wholly unworkable, and he could not assent to it.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid that what happened in the Regular Army when the commanding officer went on leave was that he delegated to the second in command his powers to administer the regiment. Why should not that system be carried out in the Territorial Forces?
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAYsaid it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the military law, written and unwritten, that throughout the service there was a chain of responsibility. The commanding officer was appointed, and he was responsible for the whole of the discipline of his regiment. Supposing he disappeared the duty devolved on the next officer in rank, and so on, down to the junior corporal. The word "prescribed" was unnecessary, unless there was mistrust of the officers, in which case they should be superseded.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 260; Noes, 102. (Division List No. 244.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

  Lambert, George

  Agnew, George William

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamont, Norman

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

  Armitage, R.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Astbury, John Meir

  Elibank, Master of

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lever, A. Levy( Essex, Harwich

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Levy, Maurice

  Barker, John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Barnard, E. B.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lynch, H. B.

  Beale, W. P.

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bell, Richard

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'gas

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Maclean, Donald

  Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonport

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Bertram, Julius

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Grant, Corrie

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sit Edward

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Billson, Alfred

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Marnham, F. J.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Massie, J.

  Brace, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Menzies, Walter

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Hall, Frederick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Branch, James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mond, A.

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brooke, Stopford

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

  Montagu, E. S.

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J. T(Cheshire

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Harwood, George

  Murray, James

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Myer, Horatio

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Napier, T. B.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn Sydney Charles

  Henry, Charles S.

  Nicholls, George

  Byles, William Pollard

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Clough, William

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Corbett, C H. (Sussex, EGrinst'd

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cotton, Sir H. J S.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Crombie, John William

  Jenkins, J.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Crooks, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, W. (Muneaton)

  Richardson, A.

  Crossley, William J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Ridsdale, E. A

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Waring, Walter

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Robinson, S.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rowlands, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Russell, T. W.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Summerbell, T.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Ure, Alexander

  Winfrey, R.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Vivian, Henry

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Pease.

  NOES.

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gill, A. H.

  Seddon, J.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Glover, Thomas

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Baring, Capt. Hn G.(Winchester

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Snowden, P.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Starkey, John R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hodge, John

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Thorne, William

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Walsh, Stephen

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

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

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Watt, Henry A.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Nield, Herbert

  Captain Craig and Viscount

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  O'Grady, J.

  Castlereagh.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  SIR HOWARD VINCENTmoved to omit from Clause 23 (Trial of Offences and Application of Penalties) sub-section (1), which provides that any offence
  428
  under that part of the Act or under the Army Act, if committed by a man of the Territorial Force when not embodied, which is cognisable by a Court-martial

  429
  shall also be cognisable by a Court of summary jurisdiction, and punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding £20, or both. He said that the clause dealt with the penal provisions of the measure, and it looked as if a poor unfortunate member of the Territorial Force might not only be punished by his commanding officer, but be dragged off by police before a magistrate and fined £20. He was to be punished by both fine and imprisonment, and that indignity was to be inflicted upon him for some very trifling offence, perhaps for being a few minutes late on parade. Why such an indignity should be put on the Territorial Force he could not understand. Upon what ground were these penal pro visions put into the Bill? The Labour Party had protested against them in Committee, and hon. Members would remember the words of the hon. Member for Merthyr, that if a Conservative Government had introduced such a mea sure there was not a man sitting on that side of the House who would not have denounced it in the most unmeasured terms. He would take care that the matter was ventilated on the platforms where greater interest was taken in these penal provisions than by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He begged to move.
  MR. ASHLEYseconded the Amendment. It was quite right that a man should be taken into military custody when he was on active service or under military discipline, but he objected to the power given to arrest a man and take him into military custody after he had ceased to be under military law.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill— "In page 16, line 9, to leave out sub-section (1) of Clause 23."—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HALDANEexplained that the sub-section had been framed with the object of giving an alternative to trial by court-martial when the Territorial Army was not embodied. To see what was the kind of offence they must turn to Clause 10, in which were set out the offences which might be tried by court-martial, and this clause was introduced to give the man an opportunity of being tried by a civil Court. Yet the hon. Member moved to reject it.
  MR WARDutterly failed to under stand why these punishments should be inflicted upon men who volunteered for home defence. "Nothing in this section shall affect the liability of a person charged with any such offence." The man might have been charged and tried before a Court of summary jurisdiction, but that was not to save him from military arrest. [Cries of "No."] What did the words mean if they did not mean that? Under these circumstances they were entitled to protest against the clause. It seemed to him now that the Militia had been taken out that the measure was merely a Bill to include and bring under the military law the Yeomanry and Volunteer Forces of the country.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 270; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 245.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Agnew, George William

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Alden, Percy

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Armitage, R.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Findlay, Alexander

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Marnham, F. J.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Massie, J.

  Barker, John

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Menzies, Walter

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somers.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Mond, A.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Montagu, E. S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Bell, Richard

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt)

  Gulland, John W.

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morrell, Philip

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Murray, James

  Bertram, Julius

  Hall, Frederick

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Napier, T. B.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc.)

  Nownes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Billson, Alfred

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

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncas'r

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Norton, Capt. Cesil William

  Bramsdon, T. A.

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Branch, James

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Brigg, John

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Brooke, Stopford

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T (Cheshire

  Hills, J. W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Pollard, Dr.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

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

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Holt, Richard Darning

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

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

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth

  Cleland, J. W.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Clough, William

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Corbett, CH. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Jones, SirD. Brynmor (Swansea

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robinson, S.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crombie, John William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Rose, Charles Day

  Crossley, William J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rowlands, J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Russell, T. W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lambert, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Lamont, Norman

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Davids, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acerington

  Scarisbrick. T. T. L.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Levy, Maurice

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Erskine, David C.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Essex, R. W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Maclean, Donald

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Callum, John M.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Everett, R. Lacey

  M'Crae, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh,

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Steadman, W. C,

  432

  433

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Verney, F. W.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Vivian, Henry

  Wiles, Thomas

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmart'n

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Waring, Walter

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Winfrey, R.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Whitbread, Howard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Tomkinson, James

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Pease.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  NOES.

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

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike( Darlington

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Radford, G. H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n;

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Gill, A. H.

  Richardson, A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Glover, Thomas

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

  Haddock, George R.

  Roberts, S. (Shefield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Seddon, S.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Harwood, George

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hereford, East)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Brace, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hervey, F. W. F. (BuryS. Edm 'ds

  Snowden, P.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, John R.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hodge, John

  Summerbell, T.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jenkins, J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jowett, F. W.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

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

  Thorne, ; William

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  King, SirHenry Seymour (Hull)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cooper, G. J.

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Crooks, William

  M'Callum, John M.

  Younger, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Dunean, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Howard Vincent and Mr.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  John Ward.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Nield, Herbert

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  O'Grady, J.

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

  And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 6th May, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments
  434
  moved by the Government, of which notice had been given.
  Amendments—
  "In Clause 24, page 17, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words' tried by both of those

  435
  courts,' and insert the words 'liable to be tried both by a court-martial and by a court of summary jurisdiction.'"
  "In Clause 27, page 18, line 25, after the word 'defence,' to insert the words 'and shall be liable to dismissal as a punishment.'"
  "In Schedule 1, page 25, line 42, at the end, to insert,' S. 181 (6).' After the word 'Volunteers' there shall be inserted the words 'or the Territorial Force.' "—
  Agreed to.
  Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid this was a protectionist Bill, and therefore he did not oppose it.
  SIR EDWARD STEACHEYsaid the Bill gave protection against disease. It gave power to the Board of Agriculture to make orders to enable county councils to take steps to prevent gooseberry mildew. There was a serious outbreak in Worcestershire.
  SIR. HOWARD VINCENTasked if they could have some information as to how this disease arose. Did it arise from foreign insects and foreign pests? If so he was heartily in favour of the Bill.
  SIR F. BANBURYasked whether he was right in saying that the Bill provided for the prohibition of the importation of foreign fruit if such prohibition was considered desirable.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the Bill was intended to prevent the introduction of insect pests by means of fruit imported from abroad. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 16, to insert the words, 'Provided that the Board shall not make an order directing the payment of compensation by any local authority for the removal or destruction of any crop or any trees or bushes unless the local authority consent to make the payment."—(Sir Edward Strachey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. STANLEY WILSONexpressed the hope that the Government, while adopting precautions against the introduction of insect pests, would not interfere with the foreign fruit trade at the present time.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he did not think it was very clear what the Government had asked the House to do.
  Clause 1, as amended, was agreed to.
  Clause 2 was agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  EDUCATION ACTS AMENDMENT BELL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Adjourned at four minutes before Eleven o 'clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Alton Military Hospital Bill [H.L.]. Committed.
London County Council (Money) Bill. Read 2a
Great Central Railway Bill. Read 2a, and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection. Sunderland Corporation Bill. Brought from the Commons, read la, and referred to the Examiners.
Metropolitan Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [H.L.]; Simon-Carves Bye-Product Coke Oven Construction and Working Company, Limited, Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Read 2a (according to order).

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS, ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3828. Turkey (Crete) (first six months of 1906).
  No. 3829. Turkey (Monastir).
  No. 3830. Turkey (Benghazy District).
  No. 3831. Spain (Cadiz).
  No. 3832. China (Hangchow).
  No. 3833. Netherlands (Rotterdam).

  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) 1899.
  Departmental Committee of Inquiry into the provisions of the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, and the methods followed in carrying out those provisions: Report; Appendix to the Report; Minutes of Evidence; Minority Report.

  IRISH LAND ACT, 1903 (EVICTED TENANTS).
  Special Report by the Estates Commissioners of their proceedings up to 31st May, 1907, in respect of persons applying as evicted tenants or their representatives, for restoration to their former holdings or for parcels of land in lieu thereof under the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, at half-past Ten o'clock.