Sitting of 5 March 1908

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:— London Port and Docks Bill; Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 67 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 67 has not been complied with, viz.:—Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Camborne Water Bill,—" to confer further powers on the Camborne Water Company for the raising of capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
  Mr. WHITBREADreported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills: That Mr. Joyce, 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.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
  Mr. WHITBREADreported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills: That the parties promoting the Swinton
  844
  and Mexbrough Gas Bill had stated that the evidence of William Brock Keen, of 23, Queen Victoria Street, in the city of London, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance-could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said William Brock Keen do attend the said Committee on Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
  Ordered, That William Brock Keen do attend the Committee on Group C of Private Bills on Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have come to the following Resolution, viz., That it is desirable that the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
  That they have come to the following Resolution, viz., That it is desirable that the London and District Electricity Supply Bill, London Electric Supply Bill, and London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION (STREETS AND BUILDINGS) BILL.
  Mr. CORRIEGRANTin moving that it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection to refer, if they think fit, the Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill to the Police and Sanitary Committee, said the Bill was one of the nature usually dealt with by the Police and Sanitary Committee, but by a flaw in the Order it was technically excluded from it. Hence his Motion which he hoped the House would agree to.
  MR. LAYLAND-BARRATTseconded.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection to refer, if they think fit, the Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill to the Police and Sanitary Committee."—(Mr. Carrie Grant.)
  Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked if this course was likely to delay the passage of the Bill. If he had an assurance that it would involve no serious delay he would not oppose the Motion.
  Mr. CORRIE GRANTsaid that hitherto the Police and Sanitary Committee had got through its work at a reasonable period of the session, and would, no doubt, deal with this Bill without delay when it came before them. But the date of its being before them did not depend on the Committee.
  Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Under these circumstances I do not object to the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered accordingly.

PETITIONS.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Petition from Newry, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN)
  Petitions for legislation; From Aspley Guise, Edmonton, Fishponds, Great Wakering, Pangbourne, Runcorn, and Welburn; to lie upon the Table.
  MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL TRAWLING)
  Petition from Burghead, for prevention; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL
  Petitions in favour; From Bristol; Edmonton; Ferry Hill Station; Leasing-thorne; North Shields (three); and Paddington. To lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL
  Petition from Bolton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY LIEU TENANTS, IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy-Lieutenants lodged during 1907, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) ACCOUNT.
  Copy presented, of Account of Receipts into, and Payments out of, the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, under The Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Act, 1888, The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, The Finance Act, 1894, The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, and The Local Government (Ireland) Act 1902, for the year ending 31st March 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906.
  Copy presented, of Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations, No 2, 1907, made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of the American Gooseberry Mildew and Black Currant Mite (Ireland) Order, 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (TRADE).
  Copy presented, of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the five years 1902–3 to 1906–7 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of List of Certified Schools for Blind, Deaf, Defective, and Epileptic Children in England and Wales on the 1st August 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of the Money Order Amendment (No. 2) Regulations, 1908, dated 7th February 1908 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Galmoystown Lands.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Luke Caffrey, Diamor, Crossa-keel, for an economic holding on the lands of Galmoystown; and if it will receive favourable consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) An application from Luke Caffrey for a parcel of land on the Kearney estate, county Meath, was received by the Estates Commissioners on the 14th ultimo, but the applicant is not among the persons whom the Commissioners have selected as most suitable for the allotment of untenanted land on the estate in question.

  Trent Trade and the Railway Conference.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of asking for a representative of the fruit trade to attend the proposed railway conference for the purpose of making known from a practical point of view their difficulties and the conditions involved in the subjects to be discussed.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The representation of traders and agriculturists on the sub-committees of the railway conference is now under consideration, and I cannot at present make any statement thereon.

  Potato Trade and the Railway Conference.
  Mr. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received from the Fruit and Potato Trades Association a request for representation on the Railway Conference; and whether he can state if a representative of those trades will be asked to attend the Conference.
  848
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The association referred to, as well as a large number of other bodies, has asked to be represented on the Conference. The question of the representation of traders and agriculturists on the various subcommittees is at present under consideration.

  Free Railway Passes for Legislators.
  Mr. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will suggest to railway companies in Great Britain and Ireland the advisability of extending to legislators, while attending at Westminster, the same facilities for returning to their homes at week ends as they now do to members of commercial travellers' organisations.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The granting of such facilities as those referred to by the hon. Member is a purely voluntary proceeding on the part of a railway company, and the Board of Trade do not think that they could usefully take action in the direction suggested.

  Gambling in Futures.
  Mr. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that it is proposed by Congressman Hepburn to introduce legislation in the United States to prevent the evils arising from gambling in futures and options; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to take similar measures to co operate with the United States and other nations to safeguard legitimate speculations, investors and commerce generally.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) No, Sir. But, regard being had to the extreme difficulty of distinguishing for legislative purposes between illegitimate and legitimate commercial speculation, I am not of opinion that such inquiry as the hon. Member suggests would be productive of any useful result.

  Trade Statistics.
  Mr. ERSKINETo ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the values of the imports and exports, merchandise only, of the United Kingdom from and to India, self-governing Colonies, other Colonial

  849
  Possessions, and foreign countries, respectively, for each of the years 1902 to 1907.

  Statement showing the Value of the Imports and Exports of Merchandise into and from the United Kingdom in its trade with India, the Self-Governing Colonies, other British Possessions, and Foreign Countries, respectively, in each of the years from 1902 to 1907, inclusive, in millions of pounds sterling.

  Year.

  British India.

  Self-Governing Colonies.

  Other British Possessions.

  Total British Possessions.

  Foreign Countries.

  Total.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  Million pounds.

  (a) Total imports therefrom.

  1902

  28·7

  59·9

  18·3

  106·9

  421·5

  528·4

  1903

  32·3

  63·6

  17·8

  113·7

  428·9

  542·6

  1904

  36·5

  64·9

  18·6

  120·0

  431·0

  551·0

  1905

  36·1

  72·1

  19·7

  127·9

  437·1

  565·0

  1906

  37·8

  82·0

  22·4

  142·2

  465·7

  607·9

  1907*

  44·0

  88·6

  24·6

  157·2

  488·7

  645·9

  (b) Exports of United Kingdom produce thereto.

  1902

  32·7

  60·4

  16·0

  109·1

  174·3

  283·4

  1903

  34·5

  59·3

  17·3

  11·11

  179·7

  290·8

  1904

  40·6

  52·3

  19·0

  111·9

  188·8

  300·7

  1905

  43·0

  52.1

  18·3

  113·4

  216·4

  329·8

  1906

  45·2

  57·1

  19·0

  121·3

  254·3

  375·6

  1907

  52·1

  64·0

  21·3

  137·4

  288·8

  426·2

  (c) Exports of Foreign and Colonial produce thereto.

  1902

  0·8

  6·2

  1·5

  8·5

  57·3

  65·8

  1903

  0·8

  6·0

  1·5

  8·3

  61·3

  69·6

  1904

  0·9

  6·3

  1·6

  8·8

  61·5

  70·3

  1905

  1·4

  6·5

  1·4

  9·3

  68·5

  77·8

  1906

  1·2

  6·5

  1·6

  9·3

  75·8

  85·1

  1907*

  1·2

  7·2

  1·7

  10·1

  81·9

  92·0

  * Provisional figures.

  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The following statement gives the particulars asked for by my hon. friend:—

  Post Office Sub-Engineers.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that in his recent circular applying the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee the present officers of the sub-engineers' class are not specifically mentioned, it is his intention that the Committee's recommendation in respect to these officers, viz., that after three years sub-engineers' service, provided they are pronounced suitable and capable, they be promoted to second-class engineerships, is to be applied to existing sub-engineers.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I do not find that any recommendation was made by the Select Committee in respect of the present members of the sub-engineers' class. Paragraph 490 of the Report, which deals with the question of sub-engineers, applies only to sub-engineers recruited in the manner proposed. I may say, however, that existing sub-engineers will continue to be eligible, if they prove their fitness, for promotion to the class of second-class engineers.

  Monaghan Post Office.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General what is the cause of the delay in the erection of the new post office at Monaghan on the Mill Street site, which the General Post Office Department decided on long since; if he is aware that the contract for the same was given by the Board of Works and accepted by a local man named Francis Duffy, plasterer and contractor; if the latter withdrew from the contract before the bond was signed; and if he will ascertain whether the Post Office Department will give the contract to the next lowest tender to the one mentioned, or advertise again.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The arrangements for the erection of the new post office at Monaghan are in the hands of the Board of Public Works in Dublin. I understand that difficulties occurred in regard to the contract originally placed by the Board; but that a contract has now been placed with another firm, and that building operations are about to be put in hand.

  Clerks to Surveyors of Taxes.
  Mr. J. MACVEAGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether
  852
  he has investigated the case of the clerks to the surveyors of taxes, in accordance with the promise given to the deputation of clerks received by him on 2nd May last; and if he can state when he will announce the result of his investigation.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquiih.) The case of the officers referred to is receiving my careful consideration, and I hope to be able to announce my decision at an early date.

  Non-Fatal Accidents in Factories.
  Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number or percentage of the 123,230 non-fatal accidents reported in 1907 were made the subject of special investigation by factory inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available, and could only be obtained by a laborious examination of the district records. I may explain, however, that all accidents due to power machinery and other special causes, about one-third of the total number, are investigated on the spot by the certifying surgeon. The surgeon reports to the inspector, who then decides whether a further inquiry on his part is necessary. A vast number of the reported accidents are of a trivial character, and even if an investigation of each were possible it could seldom, from the nature of most of them, result in any preventive measures being taken. Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member in this connection to the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Notification of Industrial Accidents which was issued in 1902 (Cd. 998).

  Imprisonment of Anti-Vaccinationists.
  Mr. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board how many persons have been received into local prisons for offences against the Vaccination Acts each year since 1873.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I beg leave to answer this Question. It is not possible to give this information exactly. From a Return laid before this House in June 1881 it appears that from. 1st January 1868 to 31st July 1879, 138

  853
  persons were imprisoned for offences against the Vaccination Acts. From a similar Return published in 1890 the number imprisoned between 31st July 1879 and 8th August 1889 appears to have been 113. For further details reference should be made to these Returns: For the last eight years the figures were as follows:—

  Year to 31st March, 1900

  37

  Year to 31st March, 1901

  44

  Year to 31st March, 1902

  36

  Year to 31st March, 1903

  56

  Year to 31st March, 1904

  106

  Year to 31st March, 1905

  80

  Year to 31st March, 1806

  58

  Year to 31st March, 1907

  9

  Irish Office of Works Contracts.
  Mr. O'GRADY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the firm of Thomas R. Scott and Company, Dublin, have a contract for map-cases and library furniture for the Office of Public Works, Dublin, and that the contract is being carried out by boy labour; whether he is aware that the matter has been investigated by the officers of the Public Works Department, on a complaint lodged by the Dublin branch of the Furnishing Trades Association, and that the reply to such complaint was that the boys engaged on the contract were fully competent to execute the work given; whether he is aware that no other firm of cabinet-makers in Dublin would adopt such a system; and whether, having regard to this unfair competition affecting others firms as well as artisans, he will make representations to the Office of Public Works so that this and other contracts may be carried out under trade union conditions.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed by the Board of Works that the contract referred to is being carried out by skilled men, who work at the cabinet-making machines. The firm, however, employs apprentices and no doubt this fact explains the hon. Member's statements. I understand, however, that the employment of apprentices is quite common in the trade, and that the hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that this firm stands alone in this respect. The boys, moreover, are only given the simpler kinds of work such as they are fully competent to execute and such as
  854
  they must do if they are to learn their trade.

  Scottish Statute Law Revision.
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Lord Advocate whether in view of The Statute Law Revision (Scotland) Act, 1906, a revised edition of the ante-Union Statutes of Scotland is in preparation; and, if so, when it will probably be ready.
  (Answered by Mr. Thomas Shaw.) I am informed by the Secretary to the Statute Law Committee than an edition of the Pre-Union Scots Statutes (Revised) is now in the press and will very shortly be published.

  G. W. Railway and the Passenger Duty.
  Mr. THORNE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Great Western Railway Company make separate returns, when claiming exemption from passenger duty, as to the amount of fares received for journeys on which they do not permit bicycles to accompany passengers as luggage, although an extra charge is paid.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The company makes a monthly return to the Board of Inland Revenue of the amount received for the conveyance of passengers. No return is made in respect of money received by the company for the carriage of bicycles.
  Mr. THORNE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what the total amount of passenger duty paid by the Great Western Railway Company amounted to last year; and what the total amount of passenger duty amounted to in England and Wales, in Scotland, and in Ireland, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Great Western Railway Company paid £51,033 17s. 8d. in respect of passenger duty for the last financial year. The total duty paid in England and Wales for the same period was £332,929 and in Scotland £23,713. The railway passenger duty does not extend to Ireland.

  Passenger Duty Returns.
  Mr. THORNE: To ask the President of the Board, what steps are taken

  855
  to differentiate between receipts from passengers liable to a certificate of exemption from duty and those which do not comply with statutory requirements; and whether separate accounts are kept for season tickets and those issued for single and return journeys.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.). I am informed that the railway companies keep traffic books showing all the particulars required, to enable them to furnish returns to the Inland Revenue giving the extent of bookings liable to and exempt from passenger duty. Separate accounts are kept for season tickets where the issue is of any substantial amount, and also of the bookings for single and return journeys for each class.

  Limited Partnerships Act 1907.
  Mr. MICKLEM: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state when the rules to be made under Section 6 (4) of The Limited Partnerships Act, 1907, which has been in force since the 1st of January last, will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The rules to be made under Section 6 (4) of The Limited Partnerships Act, 1907, are in course of preparation, and will be issued shortly.

  Beri-beri.
  Mr. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any scientific inquiry is being made by the Board into the cause of beri-beri; and if not, whether he will consider the advisability of making a grant either to the Royal Society or the School of Tropical Medicine, to be expended in experimental research to discover specific organism or toxin causing this disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board of Trade have been in communication with the Royal College of Physicians on the subject of beri-beri on board merchant ships, and the matter is now before a special committee of Fellows of the College. On receipt of the Committee's Report the Board of Trade will consider whether any and, if so, what further steps should be taken.
  Mr. COOPER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, as deficiency of nitrogenous food, overcrowding, and defective sanitation are conditions which, if combined, have been found favourable to the development of beri-beri, he will consider the advisability, when directing inquiries into the deaths, from this disease of Chinese or Indian lascars on British ships, that these conditions shall be reported upon as well as; the adequacy and cost of the food-supplied daily.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) Yes, Sir The suggestion made in my hon. friend's Question shall be borne in mind.

  Carlingford Petty Sessions Procedure.
  Mr. MOONEY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement of Mr. Bull, resident magistrate, at the recent petty sessions court held at Carlingford, as to the anomaly existing whereby persons summoned under 34 Edw. 3, to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace, are not entitled to call witnesses; whether he is aware that the late Attorney-General for Ireland prepared a Bill to remove this anomaly; and whether he will promote legislation to remove this admitted! anomaly.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) My attention has been called to the statement referred to in the Question, and I quite agree that it is desirable to allow persons called upon to find sureties to keep the peace to examine witnesses on their own behalf. A Bill was introduced by the late Attorney-General for Ireland, now Lord Atkinson, in 1901 providing for this and other changes in the law on the subject, but it was opposed and failed to become law. The question of again introducing a Bill to allow such witnesses to be examined is engaging the attention of the Government.

  Report of Local Authorities' Accounts.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has had sufficient time to consider the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the accounts of local authorities, dated 8th July, 1907; and, if so, whether he contemplates

  857
  issuing regulations based on the recommendations of such committee, so as to ensure the preparation of accounts of all local authorities on sound and uniform principles, especially where statements of profit and loss are required.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns) I have given consideration to the Report of the Committee referred to, and I hope to give -effect to many of their recommendations. I propose, in the first instance, to deal with the accounts of rural district councils; and regulations with respect to these are in preparation.

  British Sugar Refiners.
  Mr. McARTHUR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that, while British distillers, tobacco manufacturers, brewers, and other producers are compensated for the disturbance to their respective trades arising from the application of Excise regulations, British sugar refiners receive no such consideration, the Excise duty on refined sugar manufactured in the United Kingdom feeing the same as the Customs duty on the same class of sugar imported from foreign countries; and whether he will consider the desirability of granting a similar discrimination to that first mentioned in the case of white sugar refined in British refineries.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The cases are not parallel. There is no Excise duty on sugar, and the obligation to refine in bond was not imposed for Revenue purposes, but under The Sugar Convention Act, 1903, to carry out the requirements of the Convention, which applies to all the Convention countries, and one object of which was to protect the British refiners against still severer forms of the competition of which they now complain. In the other cases the compensation is allowed for restrictions which are imposed for the protection of the Revenue.

  Curriheen Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Mr. John Mulcahy, of Curriheen, an evicted tenant, for reinstatement on the estate of the
  858
  Duke of Devonshire, Conna, County Cork; and what has been the result of the action of the Estates Commissioners in endeavouring to effect his restoration to the holding, which is untenanted and in the possession of the landlord.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application from John Mulcahy, who was evicted from a holding on the estate of the Duke of Devonshire at present in the possession of the owner. The Commissioners are in communication with the owner with a view to the reinstatement of Mulcahy, who is considered to be a suitable person to work a holding.

  Castlelyons Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Estates Commissioners have investigated the claim of Mr. Austin Rice for reinstatement in Coole farm, on the Peard estate, Castlelyons, County Cork, from which his father was evicted in 1886; whether the farm has since been taken by Mr. M'Cauland, who sub-lets the land on the 11 months system; and if the Estates Commissioners can take any action to bring about the reinstatement of Mr. Rice in the holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that an application was received from Mrs. Margaret Rice for reinstatement on a holding on the Peard estate from which her late husband had been evicted. The Commissioners consider Mrs. Rice to be a suitable person to work a farm, and they are in communication with the present owners of the holding with a view to her reinstatement. An application was recently received from her son, Austin Rice, for reinstatement on the same holding, and the application was considered with that of Mrs. Rice.

  Carrickfergus Dispute—Oase of T. M'Kaig.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners sent a letter to a tenant called M'Kaig, of the West Division, Carrickfergus, estate, on 23rd December last, threatening to exclude his holding from being sold unless he agreed

  859
  to terms which ho considered unjust; if he will order in this case a special inquiry or inspection in order to have a proper price fixed; and whether he will cause in due course a final notice to be issued of the exact date when purchase moneys are to be advanced and mentioning a stated time for the tenants to sign or otherwise.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that on 23rd December, 1907, a letter was sent to T. M'Kaig, informing him that the Commissioners were prepared to make an advance for the purchase of his holding in the event of his signing an agreement for purchase at such a price as would represent a reduction of 15 per cent, in his rent, and that in the event of his declining to accept those terms the Commissioners would exclude his holding from the present sale. If at any future time M'Kaig and the other outstanding tenants on the estate mentioned in the Question should come to terms and sign purchase agreements, the Commissioners will be prepared to treat their holdings as a separate estate; but the Commissioners are not prepared to delay the completion of the sale of the portion of the estate on which tenants have agreed to purchase. The Commissioners do not consider that a new inquiry or inspection is necessary. It is not the practice, nor do the Commissioners consider it necessary, to give notice to tenants who have not agreed to purchase of the exact date when advances will be made to the purchasing tenants.

  Westbourne National Schools, Belfast.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education, on the 27th August, 1899, removed the manager and church committee from the control of the Westbourne national schools at Belfast for forcing the teachers to make illegal payments; can he say on what grounds the same manager was afterwards promoted to be patron and the most prominent member of the dismissed committee to be manager of these schools; what steps, if any, were then taken to protect the teachers from illegal exactions; if he can state on what grounds the patron recently dismissed the manager; why the board sanctioned his dismissal; and what are
  860
  the qualifications of the present manager: not possessed by the former one.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform: me that it appeared from an official inquiry in 1899 that certain of the teachers of Westbourne national schools held their appointments on the condition of paying a yearly contribution towards the expenses of the school, that the committee of the Westbourne Church had been acting as a school committee and usurping the functions of the manager, and had irregularly interfered in the matter of the appointment and dismissal of teachers, and that the manager, the Reverend Mr. Witherow, had failed to maintain his position and. exercise his functions as manager as defined by the Commissioners' rules. The Commissioners, by an Order of the Board dated 29th August, 1899, withdrew recognition from the committee and from the manager and, as a temporary arrangement, empowered their district inspector to act as manager. This arrangement continued till October, 1900, when the Hoard considered that the time had come when the school could, without danger of revival of the irregularities, be again placed under local control. Accordingly, by an Order dated the 23rd October, 1900, the Reverend Mr. Witherow was recognised; as patron. The patron of a national school has the right of acting as local manager himself or of nominating a suitable local, manager. The Reverend Mr. Witherow nominated A. P. B. Moore, Esq., M.D., as local manager, and the Commissioners accepted this nomination and recognised Dr. Moore in that capacity. The Commissioners have no evidence that Dr. Moore was the most prominent member of the dismissed committee, as stated in: the Question. In September, 1899, the Commissioners issued a circular to all school managers warning them that to require teachers, as a condition of their appointment, to contribute to the expenses of the school was entirely contrary to the spirit of their rules, and that under no circumstances could the Board sanction the levying of money from teachers as a condition of appointment or of continuance of appointment, and the Commissioners added that they would consider whether they should not withdraw grants from schools in which such practices were-permitted. On 23rd January, 1908, the

  861
  patron nominated Mr. Charles Westbourne Henderson as manager, Dr. Moore having ceased to be connected with Westbourne Church. The patron stated he appointed Mr. Henderson as manager at the suggestion of Dr. Moore, and the appointment was recognised by the Commissioners in accordance with Rule 40 (b) of their code. The Commissioners cannot compare the qualifications of the former and present manager. The present manager is qualified for the position.

  Carrickfergus Estate Purchase Scheme.
  Mr. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that only three or four tenants out of twenty-eight or thirty on the West Division, Carrickfergus estate, have signed purchase agreements within the zones; whether these lands form a compact block of holding; and whether, in view of the fact that the Estates Commissioners, in a letter dated 15th January last, suggested that the said lands should be declared a separate estate, he can say if the Commissioners now propose to declare the three or four scattered holdings an estate out of the West Division, and pay the bonus thereon if the majority refused to sign at the prices demanded under threat of isolation; and, if so, will he take steps, in the coming Land Bill, to protect tenants, and withhold the bonus under such circumstances.
  (Answered, by Mr. Birrell.) The Estate Commissioners inform me that thirty six tenants on the land known as the West Division, Carrickfergus estate, have signed agreements to purchase, and that advances are being made to them. As already stated in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question, the Commissioners are not prepired to refuse advances to the tenants because other tenants do not wish to purchase.

  Irish Local Government By-laws.
  Mr. MOONEYTo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any bye-laws have been issued under Section 15 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of such by-laws upon the Table of this House.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to page 11 of the Appendix to the Report of the Local Government Board for the year ended March 1903 (Cd. 201–2 of Session 1904),
  862
  which contains a copy of the bye-laws made in pursuance of the section referred to in the Question.

  Croagh Evicted Tenant.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have yet inquired into the case of John Hurley, in the parish of Croagh, evicted tenant; and, if so, what steps have they taken to have him reinstated.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of John Hurley, and as a result of their inquiries have decided to take no action in the matter.

  Borrigone Untenanted Lands.
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether it was with the view to purchase the untenanted lands at Morgans, Borrigone, in the county of Limerick, the property of Mrs. Sands, that the inspector of the Estates Commissioners visited them recently; and, if so, whether he has succeeded in bringing about a sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector visited the property of Mrs. Sands, county Limerick, in connection with the application of John Houlihan for reinstatement as an evicted tenant. At Mrs. Sand's request the inspector visited certain other lands in the neighbourhood, also the property of Mrs. Sands, but the Commissioners consider them unsuitable for their purposes.

  Crimean Pensions — Case of Andrew M'Cormick.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War to direct whatever gratuity Crimean veterans are entitled to be sent to Andrew M'Cormick, Bridge Street, Long ford, who was present at the storming of Sebastopol during the Crimean War.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) If the hon. Member will be good enough to forward to the War Office the name of the regiment in which this man served and the date and cause of his discharge, his case shall be inquired into in order that it may be ascertained whether he is eligible for a pension.

  West Kent Regiment—Daniel Harvey's Pension.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state on what grounds the pension of Daniel Harvey, No. 3732, West Kent Regiment, amounting to £2 10s., in January 1906 was stopped for alleged failure to attend ball-firing practice 120 miles away from his home in time was stopped, whereas a man named Hickey, of the Grenadier Guards, who travelled with him on the same train, and was equally late, had his pension paid to him; and will he now direct that this man's pension be paid to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The matter is being made the subject of inquiry, and a further communication will be addressed to the hon. Member when the result of the inquiry is known.

  Private M'Auley, 1st Leinster Regiment.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that for a petty larceny charge, which was not fully proved, Thomas M'Auley, No. 5635, B Company, 1st Leinster Regiment, has been deprived of his pension of 6d. per day after serving all through the South African Campaign, including several engagements; and will he direct that M'Auley's pension be restored to him conditionally upon his never again being found charged with a like offence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am aware that this man was convicted of felony, and in accordance with the regulations was discharged from the Army Reserve. Under these circumstances reserve pay is no longer issuable. The hon. Member has been misinformed as regards this man being in receipt of a pension.

  Patrick Brady—2nd Oxfordshire Light Infantry.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his

  Men fined.

  Percentage to average strength.

  Fines inflicted.

  Percentage to average strength.

  1897

  193

  3·27

  275

  4·66

  Year ending 1st October 1907

  382

  5·20

  559

  7·61

  attention has been called to the case of Patrick Brady, of Smear, Aghnacliffe, county Longford, who was a soldier in the 2nd Oxfordshire Light Infantry Regiment, No. 1201, and who was discharged on a pension of 6d. a day owing to ill health, which was subsequently stopped, leaving him now in a destitute state; and will he direct that this man's pension be restored to him.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This man was discharged in 1885 on account of chronic Bright's Disease, and was granted a temporary pension for six months, which was subsequently renewed for two further periods of twelve months. The Commissioners of the Chelsea Hospital have now issued instructions for his medical examination, with a view to determine whether he is eligible for the award of further pension. The result will be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Temperance in the Foot Guards.
  SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether temperance has increased considerably in the Foot Guards during the last ten years; can he give percentage of cases of drunkenness to strength during the years 1897 and 1907 respectively, and the percentage to strength of the three classes taken together, of military, certificates of education granted to non-commissioned officers and men during the same two years; and can he give the takings of the coffee bars and grocery departments of the various battalions, including the depot of the Foot Guards, as compared with the takings of the liquor bars for the years 1897 and 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The figures for the number of men fined for drunkenness, number of fines inflicted, and percentage of each to average strength are as follows:—
  The figures, however, are not really comparable, as, under Army Order 36 of 1907, a soldier became liable to a fine for the second instance of drunkenness during his service, whereas previously the first

  Men fined.

  Percentage to average strength.

  Fines inflicted.

  Percentage to average strength.

  255

  3·23

  412

  5·21

  As regards certificate of education, the figures for those who gained certificates during the years in question are as follow:—

  1897–1,213 (including warrant officers), percentage to average strength 20·5.

  Year ending 1st October 1907–1,207 (excluding warrant officers), percentage to average strength 16·4.

  It must, however, be pointed out that the number of certificates gained in a year is largely influenced by the number of men not in possession of certificates at the beginning of that year and the number of recruits who joined during the year.
  The figures accordingly showing the percentage of the whole number of men holding certificates in the Foot Guards to the strength should be taken for comparison; these were 46·63 in 1897 and 62·4 in 1907.
  As regards the coffee bars and grocery departments no figures are forwarded to the War Office.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    The "Speedwell" Disaster.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty in reference to the loss of the steamboat of the nucleus crew ship "Speedwell," by which a number of men lost their lives, whether he is aware that a young able seaman stated at the coroner's inquest that he was in charge of the boat as coxswain; what was the reason for such an unprecedented event as a steamboat being in charge of a young and inexperienced able seaman who is not a qualified cox-
    866
    two instances were dealt with by reprimand or minor punishment instead of the first only as now. For comparison the figures for the year ending 1st October 1906 are therefore given:—
    swain; and whether the Admiralty concurred in the verdict of the coroner's jury that the boat was overloaded.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second Question, there have been many cases in which a steamboat has been placed in charge of an able seaman. The man employed in this case was considered by the commanding officer to be a qualified coxswain. The answer to the third Question is in the affirmative.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Can the hon. Member mention a single case of a ship in full commission in which an A.B. was placed in charge of a steam-boat?
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice.

    Australian Naval Contribution.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangement has been made with the Australian Commonwealth in reference to naval affairs; and when the Australian contribution of £200,000 is to cease.
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman will find a statement on this subject in the First Lord's Memorandum. There is nothing further to add at the present time.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter portion of my Question?
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That is really the essential part of the Question. I can add nothing to what the hon.

    867
    Member will find in the Memorandum. Nothing has happened since.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has there not been a fresh development since the Memorandum was published?
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I believe not. It is not known to me.?
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will repeat the Question this day fortnight.

    Royal Naval Reserve Lieutenants.
    SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if there is an Order in Council, dated the 11th July, 1905, whereby a lieutenant in the Royal Naval Reserve was transferred to the permanent list of the Royal Navy; and, if so, has he any objection to its being published.
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: An Order in Council of the 11th July, 1905, empowers the Admiralty to transfer to the active list lieutenants in the Royal Naval Reserve who particularly distinguish themselves while employed in the Fleet. I shall be happy to send a copy of the Order to the hon. Gentleman if he desires it.

    Naval Engineers.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the young officers now being trained afloat will do duty in the engine-room and will then have executive rank; if so, will the engineer commander and the other senior engine-room officers also have executive power; and, if not, how do the Admiralty propose to regulate the relations of the senior and junior engineers.
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second: Under existing regulations the senior engineer officer has, under the captain, all necessary authority within his own department, and is to be obeyed by his subordinates. In answer to the third Question: It will not be necessary to determine the future relations of the engineer officers of the old and new style for some time to come.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I take it that there will be a reorganisation of the status of the old engineer officers before the new officers with executive rank are placed under them in the engine-room?
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is. not a question as between the new and the old.

    Engineer Cadets.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the-Secretary to the Admiralty whether engineer cadets have opportunities-similar to cadets in the military and medical branches of the naval service to-revisit Greenwich College, or in any way to bring themselves up to date with-modern improvements in their branch of the profession.
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Engineer officers who have finished a professional course at Greenwich do not return to that establishment; but opportunities are given them of attending, courses of instruction so as to bring them, up to date with modern improvements in their profession.

    Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company, and the Fair Wages Clause.
    Mr. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the wages paid to the electrical wire workers-by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth, and. Company, Elswick, and can he say why this firm paid 36s. per week, the standard wages, on H.M.S. "Lord Nelson," at Jarrow, and only 34s. and 35s. per week for the same class of men and work on H.M.S. "Invincible" at the Elswick works; and whether this firm is required to observe the fair wages clause.
    Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My attention has not been called to this matter, but I will have the statement referred to in the second part of the Question inquired into. The firm, of course, is required to observe the fair wages clause.

    Volunteer Surgeons.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if Volunteer surgeons on enlistment in the new Territorial Forces will cease to be attached to their present regiments;

    869
    will they be gazetted to a Royal Territorial Medical Corps arid be required to wear the uniform of such corps; will the compound title or rank be abolished; will the senior medical officer, if efficient, be appointed brigade surgeon; and, if so, while holding the appointment will he be seconded from his regiment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Medical officers of the Volunteers will have the option of transferring to the Royal Territorial Medical Corps or of remaining regimental officers. Those who transfer will be permitted to retain the uniform of their former unit until worn out. The compound title will be abolished in the case of those who join the Territorial Medical Corps. The appointment of brigade surgeon in the Territorial Force will lapse, as the Territorial Force will be organised on the same basis as the Regular Army, in which such appointment does not exist.

    Distribution of Cavalry.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the system of distribution of the cavalry, commenced in 1906, has been altered.
    Mr. HALDANE: No change has been made in the system of distribution of the cavalry. As I stated in the House yesterday the organisation of the cavalry depots is under consideration.
    EARL WINTERTONasked whether it was not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated in debate in 1906 that in the new cavalry distribution Brighton and other stations would be abolished, but that now it was again proposed to use Brighton as a cavalry station?
    Mr. HALDANEsaid it was true there were cavalry stationed at Brighton. Did the noble Lord wish them withdrawn?
    EARL WINTERTON: Oh no, I wanted to know if, it having been stated that certain cavalry stations—among them Brighton—were to be abolished, that decision had been changed.
    Mr. HALDANE: The cavalry barracks at Brighton are not very satisfactory,
    870
    though they are sufficient for temporary use.

    Colour Sergeants.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask; the Secretary of State for War if it is intended to abolish the rank of colour-sergeant in the new Territorial Army.
    Mr. HALDANE: No, Sir; there is no such intention.

    Queen Victoria School, Edinburgh.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many boys will the Queen Victoria School at Edinburgh accommodate; and when will it accommodate the full number.
    Mr. HALDANE: The school, when completed, will accommodate 275 boys. It is hoped that it will be ready for occupation this autumn, and it is proposed to open the school with 150 boys, and to complete the establishment of 275 in. 1909.

    Cordite.
    VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an expert Committee was appointed to investigate the whole question of the use of mercury in the manufacture of cordite; and, if so, whether the Army Council intended to be bound by their decision.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the expert Committee on cordite has sat; whether it has arrived at a conclusion; and, if so, whether he will state the conclusion arrived at by the Committee.
    Mr. HALDANE: A conference of. experts under the presidency of Lord Rayleigh was asked to consider and advise as to certain questions regarding, condemned cordite. The investigation of the whole question of the use of mercury in the manufacture of cordite was not referred to the conference. No addition of mercury is or will be allowed to cordite manufactured for the Government. The-Reports of the conference were fully considered in the action subsequently taken by the Army Council. It is not in the interests of the public to publish those Reports.

    Army Leave Regulations.
    Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it will be necessary that applications for leave of absence for -officers, non commissioned officers, and men from the annual training in camp of the Territorial Forces must in all cases be addressed to the General Officer Commanding, Territorial Division.
    Mr. HALDANE: The regulations dealing with the mode of granting leave to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men from the annual training are under consideration.

    Army Clothing Department Inspectorate.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Glasgow Herald and other papers throughout the country, of 27th July last, contained an advertisement for an assistant inspector in the Army Clothing Department, Grosvenor Road; that there were 250 applicants for that position; that on 22nd of October these 250 applications had not been dealt with; whether an appointment has yet been made, and, if so, at what date; and if he will ensure that in future Appointments such delays are avoided.
    Mr. HALDANE: In July an advertisement inviting application for this post was duly inserted in various newspapers. From a large number of candidates a few i were selected and interviewed by the Departmental authorities. The two first selected proved medically unfit, and some delay was thereby involved. On the 31st October Mr. Fitton was appointed on probation, but on the 19th December he resigned his appointment. On the 28th January Mr. West was appointed, and he joined for duty on the 20th February. I do not think that under the circumstances there was any unavoidable delay.

    British Factories in the Congo State.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in addition to the repeated rejection of applications of British traders to be allowed to establish factories in the large portion of the Congo State ruled by concessionaire companies noted by Acting Vice-Consul Beak in his Report at page
    872
    35 of Africa (No. 1), the special attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to discrimination against British subjects by the Congo Government in punishment for alleged offences; and whether any steps have been taken to ask for explanations from the Government of the Congo Free State in the matter of the refusal of permission to communicate with the British Consul in the case of a British subject named by Vice-Consul Michell in his despatch to Consul Nightingale, printed at page 8 of Africa (No. 1).
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,)The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, no specific case has yet been brought to the notice of the Foreign Office, but inquiries are being made into the matter through the local British Colonial authorities, and in the event of the statements alluded to being confirmed steps will be taken to uphold the rights of British subjects to equal opportunities of trade.

    Papers on the Congo.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Congo further Papers will be circulated.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The further Congo Papers referred to by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean will; be laid as soon as possible, but no precise date can be fixed.

    Congo—Case of James Koffie.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British subject, James Koffie, of Elmina, who was reported by Vice-Consul Michell, on the 23rd March, 1907, as detailed on page 8 of Africa (No. 1, of 1908), to have been condemned, though not a soldier, by a court-martial at Lusambo, in the Congo, on the 15th July, 1905, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, has yet been released; and whether, in consequence of statements made by him to the Vice-Consul and communicated by the latter to His Majesty's Government, in his despatch of the 23rd March, 1907, to the

    873
    effect that no opportunity was afforded to him after condemnation, either of communicating with the British Consul or of appealing to Boma, any representations were made by His Majesty's Government to the Government of the Congo.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: It is believed that Koffie was released towards the end of 1907. It is understood that the attention of the Vice-Consul in whose district the incident occurred was drawn to it at the time. A Report has now been called for from him in regard to it.

    Great Britain and Siam.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are in progress between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Siam for the cession by Great Britain of certain extra-territorial rights; and, if so, whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding this.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Negotiations on the subject have been taking place at Bangkok, but I have not yet received any definite Report from His Majesty's Minister there, and am unable to make any statement till I have received and considered it.

    Liberia—Deaths of British Subjects.
    Mr. FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the deaths of two British subjects, namely, John Blenkinsop and E. A. Ditchfield in Liberia, and to the circumstances antecedent to and attending the deaths of these two men; if the Foreign Office has instituted a claim for compensation against the Government of Liberia for the deaths of these two Englishmen; and if he can state the ground on which such claim for compensation is based, and the outcome of the negotiations in regard to it.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Member will postpone his Question, I will give him what information I have. I am expecting a Report from the Consul shortly.

    Labour in the Rand Mines—Comparison between Chinese and Natives.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for
    874
    the Colonies if there is any substantial difference between the treatment of Chinese and Native labourers in the mines in the Transvaal and in the conditions under which they respectively labour.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The special restrictions and disabilities under which Chinese labourers are placed by the Labour Importation Ordinances during the remainder of their term of service do not, of course, apply to natives. In other respects the conditions of employment are not dissimilar.
    Mr. FELL: Are all kept in compounds natives as well as Chinese?
    COLONEL SEELYIn the event of anyone harbouring an escaped labourer other than a. Chinaman, or giving him a crust of bread, is he liable to imprisonment with hard labour?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The conditions under which special restrictions are imposed on the Chinese are fully set out in the Ordinance.
    Mr. FELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question—Are they kept in compounds?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole compound question has been often discussed! in this House.
    Mr. FELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies how many Chinese and native labourers were working in the mines in the Transvaal on 1st January, 1906; and how many of each class were working there on 1st January, 1908.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I state yesterday in answer to the noble Lord the Member for the Horsham Division the official Returns show the numbers employed on the last day of each month. The number of Chinese on 31st December, 1905, was 47,267, and on 31st December, 1907, 37,118, and not, as I said yesterday, 35,676; but between these two dates coolies were imported on licences issued for 16,000 under the late Government.

    875
    The natives employed on the same dates numbered 93,831 and 149,757, respectively.
    Mr. FELL: Am I to understand that there is a larger number of coloured persons in these compounds compared with what there was when the Government took office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a very much larger number of coloured natives in South Africa employed in working the mines than when the Government took office.
    Mr. FELL: Has a large increase taken place in the black population and a decrease in the Chinese?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman has stated the facts perfectly accurately.
    Mr. FELL: And they live in compounds.

    Inspection of Charitable Institutions.
    Mr. H. J. TENNANT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the administration of the Factory Act of last year, so far as regards the industrial portions of charitable and reformatory institutions where women are exclusively employed, will be placed in the hands of the men or the women inspectors of factories.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The inspection of women's work in charitable and reformatory institutions is a duty for which the lady inspectors are, in my opinion, specially suited, and it is my intention that inspection by them shall be the general arrangement. But, as my hon. friend knows, these institutions are scattered all over the country, and, having regard to the available strength of the women's staff, it will not be possible that they should inspect in every case.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of increasing the inspectorate staff?
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I am about to do so.

    Imprisoned Anti-Vaccinators.
    Mr. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many persons have been received into local prisons for offences against the Vaccination Acts each year since 1873.
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg leave to answer this Question. It is not possible to give this information exactly. From a Return laid before this House in June, 1881, it appears that from 1st January, 1868, to 31st July, 1879, 138 persons were imprisoned for offences against the Vaccination Acts; from a similar Return published in 1890 the number imprisoned between 31st July, 1879, and 8th August, 1889, appears to have been 113. For further details reference should be made to these Returns. For the last eight years the figures were as follows:—

    Year to 31st March, 1900

    37

    Year to 31st March, 1901

    44

    Year to 31st March, 1902

    36

    Year to 31st March, 1903

    56

    Year to 31st March, 1904

    106

    Year to 31st March, 1905

    80

    Year to 31st March, 1906

    58

    Year to 31st March, 1907

    9

    SIR GILBERT PARKER: And how many owe it to the influence of the hon. Member for Sleaford?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Carnarvon Magistrates and Dog Licence Exemption.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether magistrates, in granting exemptions under The Dogs Act, 1906, are acting in an administrative capacity only; whether he is aware that the Carnarvon magistrates refuse an exemption to all holding less than six acres of land, whilst in another division the refusal is only to those holding less than two acres, though the tenants in each case have sheep and cattle and exercise grazing rights on the common; and whether, in view of the fact that exemptions have been granted in the past

    877
    without objection, he will, with a view to secure uniformity in the administration of the Act, give instructions that exemptions be granted on the same principle as heretofore.
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg leave to answer this Question on behalf of my hon. friend. I have no information as to the practice referred to, but if my hon. friend will let me know which are the (benches of magistrates to which he refers, I will make inquiry.

    Cost of Vaccination.
    Mr. LUPTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what amount has been paid out of the rates for vaccination in each year since 1895.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,):: The particulars desired by my hon. friend consist of a considerable number of figures. I think, therefore, that the more convenient course will be for me to send him a statement containing them. This I will do.

    Soho Goods Yard Fatality.
    Mr. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to an inquest held at Smethwick, on the 10th ultimo., on the body of George Taylor, who had been found dead in the London and North Western goods yard at Soho; whether he has any official reports showing that the deceased's chest was badly crushed and his heart burst; whether he is aware that the coroner, in view of the conflicting evidence, stated that he thought someone was telling lies about the movement of trucks in the yard, and whether he proposes to have a searching investigation into the facts; whether the jury, after visiting the yard at night-time, added a rider to their verdict that more lights should be provided; and if he can say how many fatal accidents have occurred recently at Soho.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the accident to which my hon. friend refers, and an inquiry is
    878
    being ordered. The officer holding the inquiry will look into the question of lighting. The Board have no record of any other fatal accident having occurred in this yard during the last three years.
    Mr. HUDSON: May I ask if inquiries are made by the inspecting officers of the Board of Trade under the Railway Prevention of Accidents Act 1900, respecting the lighting of goods yards, and if any order has been made by the Department in regard thereto?
    Mr. KEARLEYasked for notice.

    Exports and Imports of Motor Cars.
    Mr. HORNIMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how motor cars taken abroad or entering England for touring or racing purposes are identified, especially when they subsequently return by other Channel ports, and how they are differentiated from cars exported or imported for purposes of sale, many such cars for this purpose travelling by road and not being obviously different in appearance.
    Mr. KEARLEY: According to a Customs General Order, entries are required for all motor cars imported into the United Kingdom, and specifications for all motor cars exported, whether accompanied or unaccompanied. The import entry has to state whether the car is imported for sale, and if it is entered by or on behalf of private persons, whether the car is imported for the first time for permanent use in this country. If the car is a British car returned the fact has to be stated. The specification has to state whether the car is exported for sale, or if exported as private effects whether it has been sold to persons abroad.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Put a tariff on foreign ones.

    Japanese Imitation of British Trade Marks.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the use by some Japanese firms

    879
    of imitations of British trade marks; and whether any negotiations are being entered into in order to secure the protection of British trade marks in the East.
    Mr. KEARLEY: The reply to both the hon. Member's Questions is in the affirmative.

    Board of Trade Rocket Regulations.
    Mr. SUMMERBELLI beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to discrepancies in the regulations issued by the Board of Trade to rocket companies; that such discrepancies have existed for over fourteen years without any attempt at correction; and, if so, will he state whether it is the intention of the Government to issue a new book of instructions with the necessary alterations.
    Mr. KEARLEY: Yes, Sir. The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to a discrepancy between the letter-press and the illustrations in the instructions relating to the rocket apparatus, and it is now being corrected.

    St. John's Ambulance Lectures.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Scottish candidates under St. Andrew Ambulance for masters' and mates' first-aid certificates must attend eight lectures out of twelve, while the English candidates under St. John Ambulance have to attend only four and five lectures; and whether, seeing that this system involves more time, trouble, and expense to the Scottish candidate than is deemed necessary for the English candidate, he will take steps to make the two courses equal.
    Mr. KEARLEY: The St. John Association requires a minimum of four lectures of two hours' duration; the St. Andrew a minimum of eight lectures of one-and-a-half hours' duration. The expense under the St. John varies from about 12s. 6d. to 17s. 6d., that under the St. Andrew's is fixed at £1 Is. We have no power to compel either of these associations to vary its course.

    Excessive Train Speed.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause official inquiry to be immediately made into the circumstances of the running of the 5 p.m. train from Hastings to Victoria on Sunday last on the South Eastern line, to ascertain whether the train jumped and swerved in an alarming manner at certain curves between Tunbridge Wells and Penge, and, if so, what was the cause of the same; whether there was undue delay in stopping the train after the communication cord had been pulled by certain passengers, and, if so, what was the cause of such delay; and whether the brake was in perfect working order.
    Mr. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade are making inquiries of the railway company concerned, and will inform my hon. friend of the result.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: It was only nervousness caused by the bye-election at Hasting.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I have received a number of letters from passengers confirming my allegation. Shall I send them to the Board of Trade?
    Mr. KEARLEY: We are in communication with various parties concerned, and expect to get a reply from the railway company in the course of a few hours.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it permissible for people who complain of a train going too slow to pull the communication cord?
    EARL WINTERTON: And do the Board of Trade say that a person who thinks the train is going too fast may pull the communication cord?
    Mr. KEARLEY: It depends on the part of the line on which a train may be travelling.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: Oh, it was only election nervousness.

    Swiss General Tariff.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been

    881
    called to the fact that under the new Swiss general tariff the imports into Switzerland during 1906 of raw materials increased by 220,000 tons, while the imports of manufactures decreased by 36,000 tons, and that as a result of the application of the new tariff there was a considerable increase in the revenue derived from the Customs in 1906, while more foodstuffs and natural products were imported at a reduced cost; and whether he can give any information as to the amount of unemployment, if any, prevalent in Switzerland.
    Mr. KEARLEY: The statements as to the increase in the weight of raw materials, and decrease in the weight of manufactures imported into Switzerland in 1906 are approximately correct, and it is also the case that the Customs revenue of Switzerland in 1906 was greater than in the previous year. The suggestion that more foodstuffs were imported at a reduced cost is, however, not well founded. Omitting wine, it appears that both the quantity and the value of foodstuffs imported increased, and there was an increase in the prices of such important articles as wheat and other cereals, and live and dead meat. Statistics of unemployment are not officially published in Switzerland.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The figures in the Question were taken from the Board of Trade Returns.

    Hull Telegraphists' Wages.
    Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, in view of his having accepted the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, whether this now involves a scale of wages for large provincial towns commencing at 18s. per week at eighteen years of age, and proceeding by yearly increments to £2 16s. per week; whether he is aware that a clerk named Webster, at Hull, twenty-nine years of age, was on the 31st December last in receipt of £1 3s. 6d. per week, as against the scale of wages giving £2 Is. 6d. per week for telegraphists at Hull at twenty-nine years of age; and whether it is his intention to raise Webster's salary to that amount.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Hull is in Class I. and the scale of wages for an officer entering at eighteen years of age would therefore be 18s. Officers entering the class at a higher age than twenty-one receive "age pay" at twenty-one (24s.) and thence proceed by the scale recommended by the Committee (Paragraph 261) to the maximum. There is no age pay for an officer of twenty-nine years of age. The officer to whom reference is made was nearly twenty-seven years of age when appointed to the class. His pay will be at once adjusted in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.

    Education Returns.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared to print and circulate as a Parliamentary Paper the syllabus contained in a Return to an Order of the House of Lords, numbered 115–1, and ordered to be printed on the 14th June, 1906, referred to in the First Schedule of the Education Bill, 1908.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. McKENNA,)Yes, sir; I shall be happy to comply with the hon. Baronet's request.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: Immediately?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, sir.

    Denominational Schools.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under the new Education Bill, those parents belonging to a religious denomination other than the Church of England in a single-school area who determine, on conscientious principle, to maintain a denominational school for the education of their children, are not only denied all financial assistance from the rates, but, in addition to contributing largely towards the cost of the erection of such school, would be compelled to contribute by rates and taxes to the erection and maintenance of a competing public elementary school in the same area; and if such be the case, whether he will introduce such amendments as will remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. McKENNA: As I have already stated, I think questions of this character can be more conveniently dealt with when the reply can be debated, and no doubt the hon. Member will find an opportunity of raising it in the course of the debates on the Education Bill.
    CAPTAIN J. CRAIG: Does that Answer mean that an adequate opportunity will be afforded the House for discussing the Bill and that it will not be rushed through by means of the closure?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Merionethshire Teachers.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the whole of the arrears of salary due to teachers in non-provided schools in Merionethshire has now been paid; and, if so, whether it has been paid by the local education authority or the Board of Education?
    Mr. McKENNA: All claims which the Board have received and which can be substantiated have been paid or are in course of payment by the Board.
    LORD BALCARRES: Is the Local Education Authorities Default Act in operation at the present moment?
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly.

    Medical Inspection of School Children.
    SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, under the proposals of the Government, the cost of the medical inspection of children in voluntary schools will be defrayed from the same sources and administered under the same regulations as in the case of provided schools?
    Mr. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir.

    Council Schools.
    Mr. FORSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, what is the number of provided elementary schools in England and Wales, and the number of children in average attendance in them.
    Mr. McKENNA: The number of council schools in England and Wales on
    884
    January 1st, 1908, was 7,274, The average attendance for the statistical year ended July 31st, 1907, was 2,878,825.

    Elementary School Classroom.
    Mr. FORSTER: I beg to ask the-President of the Board of Education if he can say how many public elementary schools there are in England and Wales consisting of a single classroom; how many of two classrooms; and how many of three or more classrooms.
    Mr. McKENNA: The Board of Education have no statistics on this subject, and to obtain the information which the hon. Member asks for would involve the examination of the records of accommodation relating to each of the 20,500 public elementary schools.

    Kew Gardeners
    Mr. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that some ten gardeners are under notice to leave the Royal Gardens, Kew, on the 28th, instant, and that such men are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining situations; and, if so, will he state whether it is the intention of his Department to turn these men off without employment, in view of the fact that they have only been receiving a subsistence allowance of 21s. per week, and have therefore had no opportunity of preparing for the time of unemployment.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE (Essex, Saffron Walden; for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): The young gardeners at Kew are employed for a period of two years. Eight of them complete their term of service on the 28th inst., and two on the 4th prox. They will continue to be employed until they obtain situations elsewhere provided that they continue-to give satisfactory service and that they, use their best endeavours to find other engagements.

    Rabies in Northampton.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can give the House any information as to-the reported outbreak of rabies in

    885
    Northamptonshire; and what steps have been taken to ascertain whether the case is confirmed.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: Two dogs were destroyed at Northampton—one on the 21st, and the other on the 24th ult.—which had attacked human beings in circumstances clearly indicative of rabies. On post-mortem examination appearances were found which, confirmed the suspicion. The Board thought it desirable at once to issue an Order prohibiting the movement of dogs out of the Borough of Northampton and an area within a radius of about five miles. The Order also provides for the muzzling of dogs in public places and for the keeping of all dogs under control within the scheduled district.

    Prohibition of Hay and Straw Imports.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that it is now a month or more since the first outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland occurred; that it was due, on the admission of the Board of Agriculture, to infected hay, imported from the Netherlands; that there have been two further and recent outbreaks since then; and that the promised Order prohibiting the importation of hay and straw from countries infected with foot-and-mouth disease has not yet been issued, the Board will issue it at once, without more delay.
    Mr. VERNEYasked whether the Order, when issued, would cover the case of the importation of hay and straw intended for the purpose of packing as well as for fodder.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: The Order was issued yesterday, and will come into operation on Monday next. Whilst the Order prohibits both hay and straw coming into this country for the purpose of either fodder or litter, yet hay or straw which, at the time of importation, is being used for the packing of merchandise, or manufactured straw not intended for the fodder or litter of animals, will be allowed to come in.
    Mr. HICKS BEACHasked how it was the
    886
    Order issued for Ireland differed from that for England seeing that it totally prohibited all imports of hay and straw from infected countries.
    Mr. J. A. PEASEsaid the Board of Agriculture for Great Britain had no control over the arrangements in connection with the issue of Orders in respect of Ireland. As already explained to the House, communications had been entered into with the Board of Customs, and the whole question was being looked into to see what change would be necessary if the Order were extended beyond Great Britain.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: And could not sawdust be used as a substitute for packing?
    Mr. J. A. PEASEsaid there had been no unnecessary delay in the issue of the Order. It had been absolutely necessary to enter into communication with the Board of Customs in order that the issue of regulations might be fully arranged with that body. He believed that in many cases sawdust could not be used as a substitute for hay and straw for packing purposes.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked how long the communications with the Customs would take?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: The decision has already been come to with regard to fodder and litter, and at present it is not intended to extend it. Further information is, however, being obtained.
    Mr. CHAPLINasked the hon. Gentleman how he reconciled his statement that there had been no unnecessary delay in issuing the Order with the fact that it was now nearly a month since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I believe the Board of Agriculture expedited to the utmost of their ability every step which could be taken with a view to issuing the Order at the earliest possible date.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Can-the hon. Gentleman explain the reason for the long delay in the issue of this, most vital Order?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether a cargo of suspected or infected hay, which was refused admission to Ireland by the Vice President of the Irish Board of Agriculture, had been landed in England whilst the English Board of Agriculture was deliberating.
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I have no knowledge on that subject.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Can the hon. Member say whether there has been any hay or straw imported into Ireland since the first outbreak?
    Mr. J. A. PEASE: I am not informed that there has been any.

    Beam Trawling in the Clyde.
    Mr. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in regard to the revocation of By-law No. 16, passed by the Fishery Board for Scotland on 22nd July, 1898, which permitted beam-trawling in the Clyde, whether he proposes to give any compensation to those beam-trawlers who have thereby been deprived of their living, several of whom are elderly men who have pursued this calling for many years.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): There is no fund from which compensation can be provided. Petitions were received from Greenock and Saltcoats against the repeal of the by-law. For these reasons careful preliminary inquiries were made into the circumstances. It is not the case that the repeal will deprive the petitioners, or indeed any of those whom the by-law was intended to protect, of their living. The by-law exceptionally permitting trawling in these waters was designed only to mitigate hardship to individuals and not as a permanent measure. It has been in operation for eighteen years, and has extended to these beam-trawling fishermen during the whole of that period special privileges; and it has been deemed necessary that the exemption should now cease to exist in the general interests of the fisheries in the Clyde district.

    Drift Nets and Herring Spawn.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the net known as the drift net is in any way injurious to the spawn of the herrings when deposited on the bottom of the sea; is there a minimum size of mesh fixed by statute for both the seine trawl and the drift net; and, if so, what are the minimum sizes?
    Mr. SINCLAIR: The net known as the drift net is not in any way injurious to the spawn of the herrings when deposited in the bottom of the sea. There is a minimum size of mesh fixed by statute for both the seine trawl and the drift net; the minimum size is one inch from knot to knot by the Acts of 1808 and 1867, but as under the Act and Convention of the following year the restriction could only be enforced within the exclusive fishery limits, the restriction has fallen into desuetude.
    Mr. WATT: Is it not the case that the use of the seine net is permitted in no part in Scotland but the Clyde, in consequence of the damage done to the spawn of the herring?
    Mr. SINCLAIRasked for notice.

    Shetland Herring Fishery.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the entire failure of the herring fishing on the west coast of Shetland has followed on the whaling operations there, that the whaling stations were placed there without any authority from any public body after the operations had been stopped by the Norwegian Government on account of the ruin caused to the herring fishing, and that there is a practically unanimous opinion in Shetland that continued whaling operations will bring further disaster on the great herring fishing, he will pass the Bill enabling the Fishery Board of Scotland to fix a close time for whaling during the summer herring fishing.
    Mr. SINCLAIR: I am unable to accept the facts and inferences drawn by my hon. friend. The introduction at the present time of a Bill to amend the Whale Fisheries Act is in my opinion undesirable in view of the fact that there

    889
    has been no opportunity of seeing whether the Act, and the Bye-law passed by the Fishery Board fixing a close time for whaling for a period of five weeks during the summer herring fishing season, prove insufficient to meet the requirements of the case.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONreminded the right hon. Gentleman that in Ireland an application for leave to establish a whaling station on the coast of Donegal had been refused.

    Fair Bent Court for County Longford.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the next Sub-Commission for hearing applications to fix fair rents in the union of Longford will be held; and will he direct the attention of the Land Commission to the necessity of fixing these sittings oftener than at present.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Land Commission inform me that the next sitting of a Sub-Commission Court for the district of Longford has not yet been arranged. Two sittings were held in the district last year, the more recent being that held on 29th October. There are at present only two applications to fix fair rents from the union of Longford that have not been listed for hearing.

    The Kilbride Evicted Tenant.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the Estates Commissioners expect to be able to take action in the case of the widow Alice O'Connor, of Kilbride, Granard, who was evicted recently by a middle landlord named O'Reilly, of Drumminbawn, Carrigallen, county Leitrim; and whether, pending some settlement, it is possible to make this woman a grant to enable her to sow some crops for her future support.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace any application from Mrs. Alice O'Connor for reinstatement as an evicted tenant. The Commissioners have no power to make any expenditure from the Reserve Fund
    890
    unless in connection with an estate which is being sold.

    Stacpoole Estate Evicted Tenants.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in answer to the unstarred Question put by the hon. Member for North Longford on 19th March, 1907, he promised that in the case of girls named Lennon, who were evicted on the Due de Stacpoole's estate, the Estates Commissioners would take action on their behalf when this estate was being sold; whether he is aware that this estate is now in the Commissioners' hands; and will he direct their attention to the case of these girls, with a view to inquiry being made, so that they would be compensated at least in part for their lost farm.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no purchase agreements have as yet been lodged in respect of the estate of the Due de Stacpoole, county Longford, and they are unable to identify any application for reinstatement on behalf of the persons named Lennon referred to in the Question.

    Weatherall Estate Evicted Tenants.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the eviction of five families on the Weatherall estate at Ballincurry, and six families on the Crofton estate at Kiltycreeva, in North Longford, is about to take place under decrees granted at the instance of landlords at the recent quarter sessions; whether this policy of eviction finds sanction with the Irish Government; and whether the forces of the Crown will be granted to carry out such evictions.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of the matter referred to in the Question, nor do they consider that the matter is one in which they could interfere. In any event, if the evictions should be proceeded with, it would not be legal for the Executive Government to refuse the assistance of the forces of the Crown for the protection of the Sheriff when engaged in the execution of the King's writ.

    Crookenden and Casey Estates, Cavan.
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Estates Commissioners have yet made an offer to the syndicate owning the Crookenden and Casey estate, county Cavan; how many tenants are concerned in this matter; when was the inspection of the estate completed; and, if the offer has not yet been made to the owners, will he say when it is likely to be made.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector's Report on the estate referred to was received in May, 1907, and that a preliminary estimate of the price which the Commissioners are prepared to offer has been furnished to the owners, and accepted by them. The Commissioners hope to issue their formal offer for the purchase of the estate at an early date. About 469 tenants are concerned in the matter.

    Cavan Evicted Tenants.
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many evicted tenants have been reinstated in county Cavan for the twelve months ending 31st January, 1908; how many of these cases were dealt with under the Evicted Tenants Act of 1906; will he state the average rate per acre paid to the landlords for the land restored to the tenants; who is the inspector in charge of county Cavan; and will he say what is being done in the cases of M'Nally and Coyle, evicted tenants.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners will shortly present to Parliament a complete Return showing all cases of restoration of evicted tenants, and in the meantime it is not proposed to prepare partial Returns relating to particular districts. The Commissioners are unable to identify, from the information given, the cases of M'Nally and Coyle referred to in the Question. There is no inspector in charge of county Cavan, but three inspectors and two assistant inspectors are engaged in connection with the sale of estates in that county.

    Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Navigation Charges.
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    892
    Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state whether any sum of money is chargeable to the Cavan County Council in respect of the property of the trustees of the Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Navigation District, and, if so, how much; when was this charge first incurred; is there any navigation in the districts named; how were the trustees called into existence, with the name of the present trustees; is there any staff employed by the trustees; and will the expenses of this derelict concern, and the whole matter generally, be considered, with a view to bringing it into conformity with the wishes and interests of the people concerned.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed by the Board of Works that the County Council of Cavan is liable, under the Final Award of 10th January, 1860, for the payment of the rate leviable by the Ballinamore and Ballyconnell Navigation Trustees in pursuance of that award. The liability of County Cavan is in the proportion fixed by the Final Award, namely, about one-third of the total amount leviable. The Board have no information as to when the first charge by the trustees was incurred, as the rate is leviable by the trustees without reference to the Board. The canal was constructed between 1846 and 1859 at a cost of £228,652, of which £30,000 has been repaid by the counties concerned, the remainder £198,652 being a free grant from the Public Exchequer. The navigation of the canal was abandoned in 1865. The trustees were created under Section 6 of the Drainage (Ireland) Act, 19 and 20 Vic, cap. 62. The Board of Works have no information as to the names of the present trustees, or as to whether any or what staff may be employed, but they understand that the secretary is Mr. James Netterfield, Hill View, Ballyconnell. The case of the canal and the question of its improvement for drainage or navigation purposes have been brought before the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways, and any recommendation which the Commissioners may make regarding it will receive full consideration.

    Irish Congested Districts Board.
    Mr. J. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the present state of the finances of the Congested Districts Board; whether he is aware

    893
    that this Board, which apparently has not sufficient money to carry on its legitimate work, employs and pays out of its own funds a large clerical staff recruited with-out Civil Service examination, which is paid at rates altogether out of proportion to their value as judged by either a commercial standard or the standard pay of ordinary Civil Servants; whether he is aware that some of these temporary clerks are drawing salaries of £250 per annum while the maximum salary paid to temporary clerks in several Government offices is only £78 per annum; and whether he will take steps to see that further wastage in this direction is stopped, and that the funds of the Board may be applied, with as little administrative expense as possible, to the relief of the poor people for whose benefit the Board was established.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board inform me that their clerical staff consists of seventy-seven persons, of whom thirteen are permanent civil servants, and sixty-four are temporary clerks appointed by the Board. One of the latter, who has fifteen years service, has a salary of £200, and the salaries of the remaining sixty-three vary from £78 to £180, and average £100 per annum. The Beard's solicitor employs six clerks with legal training, and one typist. The average salary of these six clerks is £150 per annum. Temporary clerks in Government offices are usually employed for the simplest and least responsible duties, but owing to the restricted number of permanent Civil Servants in the Board's office, it is not possible to adopt this course. The Congested Districts Board claim that the average cost of their entire clerical staff is lower than that of any other Government Department in Dublin.
    Mr. J. MACVEAGH: Why does such a large proportion of the staff consist of temporary clerks?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Because they find that the best course to adopt
    Mr. J. MACVEAGH: Is it not because the officials desire to get into the office persons who cannot pass the examiner.
    Mr. BIRRELL: I feel sure it is not so.
    Mr. HAYDEN: Are the temporary clerks paid out of the income of the Congested Districts Board?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Certainly they are.

    Gledstane Estate Evicted Tenant.
    Mr. C. MACVEIGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the case of John Gorman, who was evicted from his holding on the Gledstane estate, Coora-dooey, near Convoy, county Donegal; whether he is aware that the farm is now occupied by Mr. Russell, who does not live on it, as a grazing farm, and is willing to give it up if he is compensated; whether he is aware that agreements were signed to purchase the estate two years ago, and an inspector has visited the estate and inspected the evicted farm; and whether he can state when the sale will be completed, and if Russell will be compensated and Gorman reinstated.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Com-missioners have inquired into the claim of John Gorman who was evicted from a holding on the Campbell and Gledstane estate, county Donegal, and have noted his name as being suitable to work a holding. The Commissioners are aware that Gorman's former holding is now occupied by Mr. Russell, and the matter has been referred to an inspector with a view to providing Gorman with a holding. I have no information as to whether Mr. Russell is willing to accept compensation. No purchase agreements have been lodged in connection with the Gledstane estate, county Donegal.

    Mr. Barry's Cooldorihy Estate.
    Mr. SHEEHANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations have been in progress for the purchase of that portion of the estate of M. F. Barry (in lunacy), situate at Cooldorihy, county Cork; that the tenants offered to buy on terms which would give them a reduction of 7s. 6d. and 5s. 6d. on first and second-term rents, respectively, but that the Registrar in Lunacy would not concede more than 7s. and 5s., alleging that it would be distinctly for the benefit of the tenants

    895
    to purchase at those prices; whether he is aware that the offer of the tenants is actually in excess of the prices prevailing in that part of the country, and that two neighbouring estates have been recently sold on similar terms to those offered by them; and, seeing that the Registrar in Lunacy has ordered that the rents shall now be collected in the ordinary course, and that the tenants, threaten to resist collection on the grounds that they are being unfairly dealt with, will he recommend, in the interests of the peace and good order of the locality, that this is a case in which the Estates Commissioners may usefully intervene to effect a reasonable settlement, and thus avert friction and trouble in the future.
    Mr. BIRRELL: The Registrar in Lunacy informs me that by order of 16th October, 1906, the Lord Chancellor sanctioned a sale to the tenants on the estate in question at 20 and 23 years purchase of first and second-term rents respectively. All the tenants have signed agreements to purchase save five at Cool-dorihy, and there is, in the Lord Chancellor's opinion, nothing in the circumstances of these latter tenants to entitle them to exceptional terms. It would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Lunacy Act governing the sale of a lunatic's estate to refer the matter of fixing a price to the Estates Commissioners.

    Irish Telephone System.
    Mr. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, when he proposes to make a statement as to the proposed extension of the trunk telephone system to rural towns in Ireland; and whether any steps have been taken to determine the possible number of subscribers to be obtained in towns on the main railway lines of Ireland.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: During last year the Post Office telephone system was extended to eleven places in Ireland. Two other extensions are to be completed this month, and extensions to seven other places are in hand. A considerable number of other places have been canvassed and extensions offered under guarantee. In every case in which applications are received, inquiries are made as to the conditions under which an exchange or call office can be established, and as to whether sufficient support for an exchange
    896
    is forthcoming to ensure a remunerative business.

    Navan Post Office.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what is the cause of the delay in erecting a new post office at Navan; and if he will see that the work is commenced forthwith.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received a copy of the resolution of the Navan urban district council referred to by the hon. Member. The guarantee for the establishment of a call office and its connection with the trunk wire system was given in September. The survey of the route from Drogheda and the preparation of the working estimates necessarily occupied a considerable time; but the work will be completed as rapidly as possible. A local exchange is also being established. It is desirable that the labourers employed on works of this kind should, as far as possible, have continuous employment. To engage them in every case locally for each extension of the trunk system would involve constant changes in the staff and would seriously limit its efficiency.

    Navan Telephone Call Office.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Navan Urban District Council, directing his attention to the delay in establishing a telephone call office at Navan, although the agreement was signed by the residents six months ago; and if he will press the matter forward and employ local labour in the construction thereof.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: The acquisition of the site for the new Post Office was attended with considerable difficulty, owing to the death of the owner of the property, and to other causes. The purchase has been completed, and the building plans approved, and the Board of Public Works hope to call for tenders within the next few weeks.

    Milk Imports.
    Mr. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), whether he is aware that in the nine weeks ending 1st February 578 cwts. of fresh milk were

    897
    imported into Great Britain and Ireland compared with only 15 cwts. in the corresponding period ending 1st February 1907, of cream 1,520 against 956 cwts., and of preserved milk 138,710 cwts. compared with 135,744 cwts.; and whether, taking into account the death-rate of infants in Great Britain and Ireland, in the latter country, in 1906, 11,756 deaths occurred, the Government will prohibit imports of foreign milk and cream into the British Isles.
    THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The figures quoted as regards the imports of milk, cream, &c, are substantially correct. The prohibition of the importation of such commodities is not a matter within the province of the Department.

    Irish Inspector of Industries.
    Mr. JAMES O'CONNORI beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) who is responsible for the appointment of Mr. William Townley Seymour McCartney Filgate as inspector of industries in Ireland; can he state the nature of the duties performed by Mr. Pilgate; how much of his official time is occupied in discharging his duties; what were his travelling expenses for the year ended 31st December, 1907; what is the amount of his salary; can he state Mr. Filgate's qualifications for the position of inspector of industries in Ireland; what was his employment previous to his appointment as inspector of industries in Ireland; and did he ever pass a Civil Service examination, or any examination as a test of his fitness to be an inspector of Irish industries.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Mr. W. T. McCartney Filgate was appointed as inspector of industries under the Department by my predecessor in office, with Treasury sanction. The date of his appointment was the 1st April, 1900. Mr. Filgate's duties, which occupy his whole official time, are to inquire into and advise upon questions relating to the establishment of industries, to visit, direct, and report upon the training of workers in new industries, when such training is being aided by the Department; to inquire into possible markets
    898
    for Irish manufacturers; to inquire and' to report upon British and Continental industries suitable for introduction into Ireland, and to endeavour to secure, where necessary, the introduction of capital to"enable such industries to be established Mr. Filgate, during the time he has been in the employment of the Department, has also organised and taken charge of special Industrial Exhibits at the Exhibitions held in Glasgow in 1901, in Cork in 1902, in St. Louis in 1904, in Limerick in 1903, and in Dublin in 1907, these special exhibits being either maintained or subsidised by the Department. Mr. Filgate's travelling expenses for the year ended 31st December, 1907, amounted to £67 2s. 1d., this amount being small, owing to Mr. Filgate's services being devoted for the greater part of the year to the Irish Industries Section of the Dublin Exhibition. His scale of salary is £300, rising by annual increments of £15 to a maximum of £400, his present salary being £400. Mr. Filgate was trained in the well known East Indian firm of Messrs. Graham & Company, where he served for ten years, during which period he acquired an intimate knowledge of commercial work in its various branches, including textile manufacture. Mr. Filgate acted as organiser and secretary to the Countess of Cadogan's Textile Exhibition in the year 1897, and in the year 1898 he was appointed secretary to the Irish Committee of the Royal Commission for the purposes of the Paris Exhibition. Mr. Filgate received a Civil Service Certificate under Clause VII. of the Order in Council of the 4th June, 1870. without examination, the Commissioners being satisfied as to his. qualifications for the post.
    Mr. JAMES O'CONNOR: What, industries has Mr. Filgate inspected and how much of his time is occupied?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: During the whole of the past year he was employed at the Dublin Exhibition.
    Mr. JAMES O'CONNOR: Is the, hon. Gentleman aware that the chief industries of Ireland are the brewing, the distilling, and the linen? Does he inspect them?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: These are-the leading industries, but a great

    899
    Industrial revival is going on, and more than one inspector will be required if we are to do our duty.
    Mr. J. MACVEAGH: Is one of the chief reasons for the appointment of this gentleman to be found in the fact he was an orator on Unionist platforms in England?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I am not -aware of that; I did not appoint him.
    Mr. MOONEY: How many hours a day does this gentleman work? Is it a case like that of Mr. Porter?
    Mr. CLANCY: Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of testing Mr. Filgate's qualifications? Is he worth his money?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I have told how he has been occupied since I became Vice-President.
    Mr. JAMES O'CONNOR: Was the appointment created simply in order to give him a claim to draw money out of the public funds?
    Mr. J. MACVEAGH: Did I understand the hon. Gentleman to say this appointment was made on the 1st April?
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: How was Mr. Filgate employed before he got this appointment? How long was he out of employment?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I really cannot state how he was employed in the year 1906.
    Mr. PATRICK WHITE: Was he then out of employment?
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: Is it the endeavour of hon. Members below the Gangway to drive this man out in the same way as they did Sir Horace Plunkett?

    Irish Precautions against Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will state what precautions have been taken by the
    900
    Government to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease from Scotland to Ireland.
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Three Orders have been issued—the first prohibiting the importation of ruminants and pigs into Ireland. The second, which was issued yesterday, prohibits the landing of hay and straw from infected foreign parts. The third prohibits the landing of hay and straw from Great Britain. What is known as commercial straw will not be interfered with, and as regards packing straw it will be dealt with by licence.

    Crimean War Pension.
    Mr. BYLES:I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Evans, the widow of a man who served on H.M.S. "Caesar" throughout the whole period of the Crimean War, who is now eighty-three years of age, and without any visible means of support; whether she has applied for an allowance from the Royal Patriotic Fund, and has been refused, on the ground that there are no funds at present for assisting such cases; whether the last balance sheet, issued by the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, shows that on the Russian War Fund alone nearly £85,000 remained in hand at the end of 1906, and on the general fund over £154,000; and whether it is possible so to administer these funds that they shall not be beyond the reach of the octogenarian widows of soldiers or sailors who have a claim upon them.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I understand that the case referred to is that of the widow of a man who served in the Baltic (not in the Crimea) during the Russian War, 1854–6, and who survived his service in that War for fifty-one years, dying as recently as December 1907. He left ten children upon whom his widow has natural claim for support. As the husband did not die from service in War, the widow has no direct claim upon Patriotic Funds, and the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation are of opinion, having regard to prospective calls upon the Funds in their hands on account of those with stronger claims, that they would not be justified in entertaining such cases for relief.
    MR. BYLES: Was not a fund collected at the close of the war specially allotted to widows whose husbands died after the war—providing that they had been married previous to 30th March, 1856, and has not the Secretary to the Royal Patriotic Fund admitted in the correspondence that this widow is eligible but that there are no funds.
    MR. ASQUITH: I have no further information.
    MR. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the father of this lady —a pensioner in the Coastguards —had two sons and four sons-in-law in the war.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking a string of questions. He had better put some of them down.

    Lisensing Bill and Unemployment.
    Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in respect of each licensed house in England and Wales, the number of people actually in employment is on the average between three and four; whether the closing of approximately 30,000 licensed houses would throw out of employment about 100,000 people; whether he would be prepared to take any, and, if so, what, steps to obviate the distress likely to be caused thereby.
    MR. ASQUITH: As regards the first and second parts of the Question, I can only say that no certain information is available. The Census figures, for several reasons too long to detail, do not enable the average referred to by the hon. Member to be worked out with any approach to accuracy; so for as they go, they suggest a lower average number of employees than that which he mentions. If, as the result of the Bill now before the House, the expenditure on drink is lessened, the probable result will be that more money will be spent in other and more productive ways; and that the surplus employees, whose displacement under the scheme proposed would be gradual, will be absorbed in other occupations.
    MR. LEIF JONES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the capital at present locked up in these 30,000 licences would
    902
    not be likely to employ more people if invested in almost any other trade?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Plural Voting Bill.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in the Pural Voting Bill this Session, and deal with it in the same manner as with the Small Landowners (Scotland) Bill, and the Land Values (Scotland) Bill; and, if not, will he say when a new Bill dealing with the subject of plural voting will be introduced.
    Mr. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of postponing this Bill until after the next general election?
    Mr. ASQUITH: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. I cannot now make any statement as to the course of business in future sessions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR:asked as to the course of business next week.
Mr. ASQUITHsaid on Monday next the Navy Estimates, Votes A, 1, and 10, would be taken. If they were not concluded on Monday they would be proceeded with on Tuesday. If there was any spare time on Tuesday it would be devoted to one or two small Bills of a non-contentious character. If the Navy Votes were concluded on Monday, Tuesday's sitting would be devoted to the Second Reading of the Children Bill. On Wednesday and Thursday the Army Estimates Votes A and 1, 13, 14, and 15, for the non-effective services, would be taken. If there happened to be any spare time on Wednesday it would be devoted to the small Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection:

903
That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills: Mr. Ward (added in respect of the Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Bill; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Tobacco Growing (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Runciman.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  METROPOLITAN SEWERS AND DRAINS BILL.
  "To amend the Metropolis Management Acts with respect to sewers and drains," presented by Mr. Dickinson; supported by Sir William Bull, Mr. Bowles, Sir William Collins, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Timothy Davies, Sir George Fardell, Mr. Claude Hay, Sir Henry Kimber, Earl Percy, Sir Albert Spicer, and Mr. Waterlow; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]
  RABBITS ON COMMONS BILL.
  "To allow commoners to kill and take Rabbits on Commons," presented by Mr. Everett; supported by Mr. Cobbold, Sir William Brampton Gurdon, Mr. George Hardy, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Soares, Mr. James Parker, and Mr. Nicholls; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 18th March, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

  BREACHES OF BYE-LAWS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to penalties for Breaches of Bye-Laws," presented by Mr. Wedgwood; supported by
  SIR Francis Channing, Mr. Austin Taylor, and Mr. Mallet; to be read a second time upon Friday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 142.]

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
  "To render Married Women with a separate estate liable for the support of their parents," presented by Mr. Hicks Beach; supported by Mr. Staveley-Hill, Mr. Lane-Fox, Mr. Cave, Mr. Micklem, and Mr. Rogers; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TAXATION AND PURCHASE OF LAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the Taxation and Purchase of Land by Local Authorities," presented by Mr. Scott; supported by Mr. Bell, Mr. Wedgwood, Sir Randal Cremer, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Harwood, Sir Maurice Levy, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Arthur Harvey, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Snowden and Mr. Thomasson; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on going into Committee of Supply, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 289; Noes, 89. (Division List No. 31.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beale, W. P.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beauchamp, E.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bell, Richard

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bennett, E. N.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Cleland, J. W.

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Clough, William

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Boland, John

  Clynes, J. R.

  Barker, John

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

  Brace, William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Cox, Harold

  Illingworth, Percy H.

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

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Crossley, William J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford)

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rea, Walter M.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Kelley, George D.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Reddy, M.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.(Inverness-sh)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Lambert, George

  Rees, J. D.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Duckworth, James

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dunne, Major E Martin (Walsall)

  Leese, Sir Joseph A(Accrington)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lever, A Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

  Elibank, Msater of

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Robertson. Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Rose, Charles Day

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rowlands, J.

  Fenwick. Charles

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Runciman, Walter

  Ffreneh, Peter

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Russell, T. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brent ford)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MaeVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Furness, Sir Crhistopher

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Seely, Colonel

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Crae, George

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Glen-Coats, Sir T.(Renfrew, W

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Shipman, Dr. John. G.

  Glendinning, R. C.

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Maddison, Frederick

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Grant, Corrie

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Gulland, John W.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Soares, Ernest. J

  Gurdon, Rt. Hn Sir W. Brampton

  Marnham, F. J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Massie, J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley, Hn. A Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Hall, Frederick

  Menzies, Walter

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Halpin, J.

  Middlebrook, William

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Summerbell, T.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N E

  Morse, L. L.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Harwood, George

  Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Napier, T. B.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Nicholls, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nicholson, Charles N(Doncast'r)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Williams

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Verney, F. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Vivian, Henry

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Wadsworth, J.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

  Henry, Charles S.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Walsh, Stephen

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

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walton, Joseph

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Ward, W Dudley(Southampton

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Dowd, John

  Wardle, George J.

  Halland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Waring, Walter

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, Rt. Hn E(Clackmannan)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Partington, Oswald

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Weir, James Galloway

  906

  907

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

  Wodehouse, Lord

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Williamson, A.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

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

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

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

  NOES

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington'

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Glover, Thomas

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Gordon, J.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Ronaldshay. Earl of

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haddock, George B.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Seddon, J.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Sloan. Thomas Henry

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hill, Sir Clement

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Jowett, F. W.

  Starkey, John R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A. (Wor.

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Ford E. (Chichester)

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lee. Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim. S.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Winterton, Earl

  Doughty, Sir George

  Moore, William

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

  Du Cros, Arthur Philip

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Fardell, Sir t. George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Viscount Valentia.

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

  SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [4th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. LAMBTONsaid he desired to call attention to the statement made by the Secretary of State for War yesterday that there was a shortage in the Army of 8,000 officers and that there were 3,000 short in India. That seemed to be an extraordinarily large number for India seeing that the Indian Army was practically on a war footing.
  MR. HALDANE: I mean short on mobilisation.
  Mr. LAMBTON: Surely the Indian Army was supposed to be ready for mobilisation at any moment. But
  908
  leaving India out of the question altogether, the right hon. Gentleman had said there were 5,000 short in this country out of 13,000, and that included 1,500 Reserve officers. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the quality and quantity of the officers and suggested some remedy, but he had given gave no reason for the cause of the shortage. There must be some cause and the House ought to know the reason. It was a most important question, because officers were a class of men who could not be raised at a moment's notice on mobilisation. He wished to know if this deficiency occurred in regiments on service or whether they were up to their strength He thought that one of the causes was the uncertainty in the public mind as to the kind of service they would be called upon to perform in the Army. Another reason was the expense officers were put to on joining. And yet these young officers—these paragons

  909
  of knowledge and virtue—were expected to serve their country for £100 a year, out of which they had to provide their own uniform. In these days it was no easy thing for parents to send their sons into the Army, because it involved such a large outlay; they could not afford to do it on the miserable pittance allowed. Then the examination to which they were subject had something to do with the shortage. They had constant examinations before their eyes and had to work up to a standard of mathematics entirely unnecessary for officers. Many officers in the Army did not possess what the right hon. Gentleman called "highly trained minds." The right hon. Gentleman expected to get from the public schools 12,500 boys and from the universities from 2,000 to 3,000 a year and 800 from the reserve of officers. The right hon. Gentleman had said that most of them would be schoolmasters, doctors and lawyers. Were these expected to take the place of the officers they hoped to get from Regular forces? It would not be much inducement to those in the Regular Army to find those positions were to be given to ex-schoolmasters, doctors and lawyers. If an officer in the Army applied for one of these posts and it was said on behalf of a certain schoolmaster that he was a splendid fellow because he knew a great deal about Caesar, would he get the position? Then again, take the case of a doctor. The examiner might reply: He has killed a great many more people than you have —I would give him the post." With regard to lawyers who would receive these commissions, did it mean those who had never had a brief, or K.C.'s of a militant nature? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman was encouraging men to join the Regulars by such a policy. He was rather laying down conditions as regarded education which were not needed by the service. It was thought by the Labour Members that those in the Army had a very easy life, and were only just beginning to realise their position. As one who had been in the Army he did not agree with that view. The duties of the Army were more seriously considered now than in the past, but that was no reflection on the men themselves, but rather on the methods adopted by the War Office. The system of competitive
  910
  examinations necessarily left out someone, but if the Government desired to obtain a large supply of officers they would not do so by putting obstacles in the way. In the debate last night it was suggested that if they put a tax on an article they increased the supply of that article, and at the same time reduced the price. Did. the right hon. Gentleman think that by putting obstacles in the way of men he would increase the quantity, and at the same time keep up the quality? One obstacle in the way of men entering the Army was the excessively high standard required in mathematics. The higher mathematics were never required by the ordinary officer. At present there was an examination going on in which there were 450 candidates, and he was told that the examination in mathematics was very severe. Some of the other subjects were easy, but foreign to the whole career of a soldier. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that a candidate otherwise suitable for entering the Army might be cast on account of one little point in which he had failed at a competitive examination. On Tuesday he saw an examination paper in which there were seven or eight subjects mentioned on which the candidates might write essays. One of the subjects was "The House of Lords," and another was "Tariff Reform." Supposing he had been a candidate, and the examiners had been Members of that House, no doubt the paper he would have written on the House of Lords would have received a large number of marks from the Opposition side. That was what the poor candidate had to go through when he went before the board of examiners, who might have particular fads of their own as to the way in which subjects should be discussed. A boy who was going through an examination this week was cast in mathematics. When that boy left Eton it was determined to put him into a business profession. He desired to leave the business profession and to enter the Army, and the consequence was that he had none of the cramming which under the present pernicious system was necessary before entering the Army. When at Eton he was in the sixth form, which meant that he was in the first ten out of 1,000 boys. He hoped these were matters which the right hon.

  911
  Gentleman would look into. It was not always the best scholar who made the best soldier, any more than it was the best speaker who made the best statesman. The right hon. Gentleman had told them a great deal about the brain of the Army, and he agreed with him that it was absolutely necessary to have as much brain as they possibly could get, but they could not fight with brain alone. They must have body as well, and the body in the Army was the private soldier. He did not think it was always recognised what a force the regimental officer was. The regimental officers were the nerves of the Army, and without them either the brain or the body would be useless. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would pay a little more attention than he seemed inclined to do to the needs of the regimental officers. It had been frequently stated—he thought the right hon. Gentleman had stated—that the officers in the Army had not had the facilities for educating themselves which they ought to have, and which the right hon. Gentleman hoped to give them in future. He did not know that there was anything in the Estimates this year for that purpose. He would point out that officers were neglected in regard to facilities for education, and for bringing themselves up to the mark in what the right hon. Gentleman called the latest science of warfare. He had never yet seen barracks where there was a reference library, or any place where a map could be spread out. These were surely details which ought to be looked into by the War Office.
  MR. HALDANEindicated assent.
  Mr. LAMBTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman agreed with that. Had it ever been, done? Was there any provision for it in the Estimates this year? He hoped that some steps would be taken to enable officers to study in their own barracks, so that it would not be necessary to go to a crammer or to the staff college. Everybody could not go to the staff college, nor did they want that everybody should go there. Of course, all Secretaries for War were in the hands of their military advisers and they were staff officers. He had nothing to say against staff officers; many of them
  912
  were very brilliant people, and many of them were good soldiers, but not all. Staff officers had their own reward, but the regimental officers had not. The regimental officers were quiet, unassuming men, but they did more or the Army than the staff officers. They had never been encouraged in the Army, and he did not think they were going to be encouraged under the system of the right hon. Gentleman. What was the main object of soldiers? They were simply tools to fight. They entered the Army for ten, fifteen, or twenty years of their life. He believed there was more initiative, more knowledge, and more freedom of action given now to junior officers than there used to be. In the old days, staff officers and the general commanding on a field day knew what was going on, but nobody else ever knew. He remembered a field day at Aldershot when he was on picket duty on the summit of a hill. Presently a staff officer rode up and asked him: "What the devil are you doing here?" He replied: "I do not know. My colonel put me here. What am I supposed to be doing?" "What the devil is that to you?" said the officer, and he galloped away. Such procedure was not very stimulating to the brain, but he thought it was excellent for discipline. The right hon. Gentleman talked very much about stimulating the brain and making everybody very clever. He knew some people who were so clever that they did not want to fight. They wanted men who would undertake the hard work of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that some of the regimental officers and others would receive promotion in respect of their education at the London School of Economics. He did not know whether that meant general promotion or promotion in particular portions of the Army. It seemed to him, at all events, rather a strange way of encouraging the regimental officer.
  MR. HALDANE: I said that the training there was for the administrative side of the work of the Army. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that you can have the transport of troops, work out difficult calculations, and do the thousand and one things which have to

  913
  be done in connection with the making of contracts by officers in the field without any training? It is the want of this training which has cost us hundreds of thousands of pounds, and that must be put right. It can be put right by the training given at the London School of Economics.
  Mr. LAMBTONsaid the work of transport could be carried out by officers without going through the London School of Economics. He did not think that the Duke of Wellington would ever have got into the Army at all if he had had to do that.
  MR, HALDANEwas understood to say that such training was recommended by a Commission which sat after the South African War.
  Mr. LAMBTONsaid the South African War was not the only great war that had ever occurred. There were other lessons learned besides those which were learned in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman must not trust too much on the training given at the London S300I of Economics. He must trust the regimental officers and the men who were doing a great deal more for the Army than a good many of the show officers. The Tight hon. Gentleman had stated that the training received through various colonels -was not altogether satisfactory, and that they were not very equal as teachers of their profession. No doubt that was so. Under the present system promotion seemed to be given to those who advertised themselves. A man who gave interesting lectures, who was in touch with newspapers, and got inserted paragraphs written by himself stating that he was instructing his officers in all the newest science of war, would be selected for promotion, while the unassuming man who went in for real military work would be left out in the cold. He wished to put before the right hon. Gentleman the claims of the officers. He could not speak as an educationist. It was twenty-five years since he passed his entrance examination into the Army, which was not then as severe as now. As a soldier he had only six years service, and that in time of peace, but during that time he learned one thing which he never would
  914
  have learned in the London School of Economics, and that was esprit de corps, love of his regiment. When he passed with the other recruits in the Coldstream Guards through the early drills the colonel and the drill sergeants wore the medals for the Alma and Inkerman, and there was not a man or boy in the regiment who did not look upon those officers with pride and almost reverence. The motto of the Coldstreams was Nulli Secundus, second to none. Second to none they had ever been and second to none he hoped they would ever remain. That was the spirit which he trusted would always run through the whole British Army, and that was the spirit which a War Minister should desire to maintain if he expected the British Army to rival in the future the glorious deeds of the past.
  MR. WARDLEin moving "That, in the opinion of this House, the powers now vested in chief magistrates to call upon the War Office to supply troops during times of trade disputes are open to grave abuse, are a menare to the liberty of the subject, and ought to be inquired into and reported upon by a Committee of this House," said that in submitting the Motion he would point out that it dealt with two questions, first, the power of chief magistrates to call on the War Office to supply troops in case of disturbance, and secondly, to the employment of the troops in cases of trade disputes. He, however, would confine his remarks to the latter question. There was not the slightest doubt in the minds of any person in the House as to the position of the trade union leaders in regard to violence in trade union disputes. Violence had always been condemned by them; and they were as anxious as anybody that there should be no such thing as riot or disturbance in connection with trade disputes. Fortunately riots of any kind had been of rare occurrence in this country. For a whole century of history very few disturbances had arisen in which the military had been called out. He might summarise them as those which happened at Peterloo, Liverpool, Southampton, Hull, Trafalgar Square, Featherstone, Belfast, Penrhyn (twice called out) and the famous Bristol

  915
  riots in reference to the suffrage. If a comparison, were made, between the riots and disturbances in the first half of last century with those which occurred in more recent times, it would be found that their nature had entirely changed. Whereas the former disturbances were political in their character and had mostly to do with the franchise, during the last thirty or forty years they were mainly industrial or connected with strikes. To-day with the exception of the unemployed question or woman suffrage there was no. political movement on foot which was likely to be connected with a riot or disturbance. They who belonged to trade unions. hoped and believed that those riots and disturbances would be fewer in the future than in the past. While they agreed with the growing desire for conciliation, arbitration, and machinery which would prevent those great disputes, they could not shut their eyes to the fact that there was a great danger connected with disturbances of that character in which chief magistrates and other officials had the power to call, out the military. He had gone carefully into the history of the two outstanding disturbances which had occurred within the last few years—Featherstone and Belfast. In both these cases he had come to the conclusion that there was no need for calling out the military and no occasion for bloodshed. It was true that some one had blundered, and the person who blundered was the man on the spot. The man on the spot had often been the cause of a great deal of mischief both in this country and abroad; and he was not quite so convinced as some people were as to the wisdom of trusting the man on the spot. The same principle applied to leaving the discretion of calling out the military in the event of a riot or disturbance to the chief magistrate of the district. They were told in this House during the Belfast trouble both by the Secretary for War and the Chief Secretary for Ireland what was the law in this matter; and he believed he was correct in saying that the law was that a military person was called out in his capacity not as a member of the Army but as an ordinary citizen. Yet he was called upon to do things
  916
  which an ordinary citizen could not do, and therefore that was one of the dangers of allowing civil persons to call out military persons. He knew that so far as the Army Regulations were concerned, they were fairly explicit and straightforward, and that the military should not be called out except the occasion warranted it. But at the same time, they could be called out by the desire of a mayor, chief constable, divisional commander, a resident magistrate, and one or two other persons entirely on their own responsibility. That danger he was afraid would be increased in the future by the new Territorial Force. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the-Forest of Dean had pointed out on the previous day that there was a great danger that not only would the ordinary military be called upon to use firearms, but that the Territorial Force might be called upon in the same way as the Regular Army to suppress disturbances caused during trade disputes. The fact that in these days industrial disputes did occasionally take the form of riot should, he thought, make the House pause and alter the-law from what it was in the old days, when disturbances were mainly of a political character. The Chief Secretary for Ireland in the debate which took place on the Belfast riots said that—
  "The position of a chief magistrate in a city like Belfast was not one for envy."
  He and his friends thought that in the interest of the chief persons who were in a position to call out the military as well as of the persons who were concerned in a riot, that power should be taken away from the former. In the case of Featherstone the whole district -was in a ferment and the manager of the colliery and the magistrate lost their heads, called out the military, and bloodshed followed. The bloodshed was caused because the people were incited to riot by the presence of the military. The Secretary for War sat on a Committee which inquired into the whole circumstances of the Featherstone riots, and after that Committee had reported another Committee of Inquiry was appointed which also issued a Report. The Committee on which the right hon. Gentleman sat said at the end of their Report that they

  917
  thought it was necessary that there should be a codification of all the rules with regard to civil disturbances and that these should be circulated broadcast, and that everything should be done to put them on a satisfactory footing in the future. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that codification of the law had ever been attempted to be carried out? If not, considering that the right hon. Gentleman was at present Secretary of State for War and therefore concerned with the King's Regulations for the guidance of the Army, it should be his duty and his pleasure to see that such a codification was made. In regard to the other Committee which made a full inquiry into the whole case of civil disturbances and riots, they reported in January. 1895, and the Report was presented to the House. Along with their Report they issued a number of regulations for calling out the military in future, and they added at the end—
  "We would suggest that these regulations should be revised so as to bring them in accordance with the recommendations which we have submitted."
  Those regulations dealt almost entirely with the power of calling out the military and the provision of additional constables so as to prevent the necessity of calling out the military. But they did not deal with the point which he had raised—viz., that the chief magistrate when exercising his power to call out the military should, as a rule, apply through the chief constable for the military, and not take it upon his own initiative. That would still leave with him the power to do so under certain circumstances. With regard to the provision of additional constables and the exchange of constables, in both these instances he understood that instructions had once or twice been issued by the Home Office calling the attention of magistrates throughout the country to the desirability of providing for the ex-Change of constables so that there should be sufficient civil force in the event of disturbance, thus doing away with the necessity for calling on the military forces. He thought that none of these recommendations had really touched the point as to the power of the chief magistrate or any other magistrate in his particular district. One of the
  918
  reasons why they introduced this Motion was that magistrates were not, in their opinion, the proper people to decide, alone at any rate, whether the military should be called out. They might be entrusted with the carrying out of the common law, but in the case of a trade dispute they might themselves be interested parties, and therefore that these should be the persons who were put in the position of having the power to call out the military, when there might be no need to do so, was a state of affairs which could not be any longer maintained. He did not know whether it was in the power of the Secretary for War to amend the law, but certainly he and the Government with him could do what they wanted. It was not a great deal. It was that there should be a Committee of Inquiry appointed to look into this matter, and see if some provision could not be made to obviate this necessity of calling out the military. There was only one other point that he wanted to deal with, and that was the very grave reasons which existed why the military should not be called out in civil disputes if it could possibly be avoided, and particularly in trade disputes. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman knew what had been the effect at Featherstone and Belfast of calling out the military. It was that innocent people suffered. It was not those who were concerned in the riot or disturbance who were killed; it was those innocent people who had nothing to do with it, and that was because the using of modem weapons of war upon an unarmed crowd, or practically an unarmed crowd, was very dangerous. The use of arms in dealing with an unarmed mob certainly seemed to him. one of the reasons why1 this Committee of Inquiry should be held. When the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War sat on a Committee, with Lord Bowen and another that Committee reported to the effect—
  "We are so impressed by the danger of using the modern rifle and cartridge with its full charge of powder against crowds in thickly populated districts, where there are closelying collieries, districts and villages, that, we cannot rest content that the point should bee left without further investigation. We think the attention of the military authorities should be formally called to the question whether

  919
  special and less dangerous ammunition could not conveniently be used for troops when employed for the purpose of suppressing riots."
  The right hon. Gentleman was a signatory of that Report. Then, again, there was the question not only of the arms which were used, but of when and how the time of firing should be fixed. He understood from that Report that in both France and Germany they were not quite so ready to fire upon an unarmed crowd as we were in this country. He believed he was right, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own Report, in saying that they gave more warning in those countries than we did in this country. They beat a drum or sounded a bugle so as to warn the crowd that the firing would take place, a thing which did not occur in this country, but which certainly seemed to be one of the things that ought to take place He did not desire to weary the House with regard to this question, but it was a very grave and important matter to the trade unions, and affected them very much indeed. The trade unionists did not desire violence; they did not want to see trade disputes develop into riots and disturbances, but when they did so develop, it did not necessarily follow that all blame should be laid on the men or the trade unions; their action was due to the fact that they were forced into it by circumstances over which they had no control. Therefore, they thought that the civil powers first of all, not only in ninety-nine cases out of 100 but in 999 cases out of 1,000, were quite sufficient to deal with any action which arose out of a trade dispute. Having regard to the recommendations made in the Report, it certainly would seem desirable that constables should be drafted from one part of the country to another with much more readiness than they could be at the present time. He knew he was treading on dangerous ground when he spoke of Belfast and the Royal Irish Constabulary, but there was not the slightest doubt that if there was fear of anybody going on strike, police could have been drafted in from other quarters, and there would have been no need to call on the military at all. Knowing that there were religious differences in Belfast, the police could have been
  920
  brought from England, and if there was no co-ordination between England and Ireland in this respect we were not the United Kingdom of England and Ireland some people suggested, and he thought it was time that such a state of things should be removed. He was not going to say a word about magistrates except this, that they were not always the best judges in matters of this kind, and there should be some provision to prevent them calling out the military whenever they chose. He begged to move.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTSin seconding said that the Labour Party in promoting this Resolution did so with no frivolous motives, but because they were convinced of the fact that the employment of troops in time of trade disputes was a serious matter, not only to those concerned in the dispute, but to the community at large. They had been minded to put this Motion down by past experience, such as that referred to by his hon. friend. They contended that the intervention of the military should be very rare and never resorted to unless every other endeavour had been thoroughly exhausted. There was no getting away from the fact that to vest such tremendous power in the hands of any one person was capable of becoming a grievous danger to the community. He was glad that his hon. friend in concluding his remarks had stated that he had no intention of implying any distrust of justices of the peace. He felt that to be a very desirable statement, because he happened to be one himself, and therefore might hope to appreciate the responsibility which would rest upon him in the event of the contingency about which the hon. Member had spoken. It was quite possible that the mayor or chief magistrate of a district might be a person of highly nervous temperament, who would become panic-stricken and call for the intervention of the military when no real cause for that was necessary. Again, it might be also that he would be subjected to pressure from interested persons. In fact, experience during the Belfast dispute somewhat indicated the possibility of this danger. It was there alleged that the Shipping Federation

  921
  had used its influence with the Mayor of Belfast in order to secure the intervention, of the military. It was said, and it had been stated in the House, that the Shipping Federation threatened that if the Government itself did not take strong action they themselves would use force—in fact, would organise a force of their own. The Chief Secretary for Ireland when questioned on this matter on 13th August last year, said that with reference to the letter addressed to him by the Shipping Federation, he dared say that its terms were not very proper, and he had pointed that out in reply. They felt that there was a great danger involved in a circumstance of that character, because it might well happen that interested persons would use their influence in order that these powers might be used to secure the object which they desired. It was just as well to understand that a trade dispute was, after all, a civil struggle with which the State, as such, had no right to interfere on behalf of either of the two parties. It was inconceivable that the military would ever be called out in the interests of the working section involved in such a dispute. Therefore, they could see that when the military were called upon to intervene they really did so in a class interest—a situation which ought to be avoided, at any rate, by the pre eat House of Commons. He was further impressed with the grievous nature of this complaint owing to the new Territorial Force. It seemed to him that they of the Labour Party were perfectly justified in viewing this measure with a certain amount of suspicion. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean yesterday pointed out to tie House a danger that they had anticipated through the passage of the Bill. He had put a question to the Secretary of State for War the other day with reference to a circular issued by the Warwickshire County Association calling upon employers of labour to give preference to men who were willing to join the Territorial Force. He did not charge the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers with any attempt to exercise undue influence in these matters, but nevertheless the right hon. Gentleman himself might not be quite so well aware of the fact as Labour Mem-
  922
  bers were that large masses of British workmen had not that power of choice, of free right, in regard to the work they did, and it might well happen that men were compelled because of fear if they did not accept a situation that others were willing to do so and would therefore feel compelled to accept conditions that under more favourable circumstances they would be unwilling to abide by. The exercise of such influence might mean the pressing of a number of men into the Territorial Force. These men might he members of their respective trade union organisations, and it was not unnatural to expect that some occasion would arise when they were involved in a dispute between their union and those who were, employing them for the time beings They had to contemplate the danger of the employer exercising his influence with the mayor of the district, and the mayor in his turn, becoming imbued with a sense of danger which perhaps in his nervous state of mind he might exaggerate, and use his influence with the Army Council, for the purpose of calling out the Territorial Force ii order to deal with any probable disturbance. Therefore, there would be the spectacle of a trade unionist in that force being turned from an ordinary workman and citizen into a soldier in the course of a very few hours. He was informed that in the Territorial Force a man would have no option of refusal; he would be bound to respond to the call, otherwise he would be subject to the provisions of martial law. He did not know whether they were perfectly justified in anticipating a danger of that extreme character; if they were not, he would be very glad to receive the desired assurance from the Secretary for War. Nevertheless, they felt the danger was a real one and they were very anxious that they should not wait until they were confronted with it ere taking action. If they were right they were well advised in coming to that House and asking Parliament to make provision- against what they were- all prepared to acknowledge was a source of grave concern to a considerable section of law abiding citizens. With his hon. friend the mover of the Resolution he was of opinion that in the Featherstone riots there was no occasion for calling

  923
  out the troops. The situation there was created by the fact that the district was denuded of police, who were called upon to keep order among the swells at Doncaster Races. A contingency of that kind might arise in other parts of the land; therefore he thought that the military should never be called upon save under proper restrictions (imposed by that House, and only when it had become perfectly certain that the civil force, was utterly incapable of coping with the anticipated danger. It was perfectly true that to impress troops into a service of that character had a provocative effect upon an assembly of people. After all, the surest safeguard of peace was the constitutional conduct of a trade dispute by the men's leaders, who were able to exercise over their followers more effective discipline than could be achieved by the military, whose presence had an irritating influence. The Committee, who had inquired into the Featherstone Riots had made the following recommendations—
  "In time of possible disturbance, some magisterial rota or committee, with one or more experienced justices should always hold themselves ready to act in their magisterial capacity, and to accompany, if necessary, any troops which are called upon in aid of the civil Power. Indeed, when matters are so grave as to render military intervention probably necessary, there should be the most complete organisation of the justices and of the civil Powers."
  "We think that the attention of military authorities should be formally called to the question whether special and less dangerous arms Hammunition might not conveniently be used by troops when employed for the purpose of suppressing riots."
  He was not sure that these recommendation would cover all that they desired by the promotion of this Motion, under which they asked for an inquiry in order to guard against possibilities in the future and to protect the interests of the citizens in times of trade disputes. It might be even more necessary to adopt these safeguards now than it was in the time of the Featherstone riots; because the weapons which soldiers carried to- day were more deadly than formerly. Consequently, the military could not be called out without involving great danger to life and limb; and innocent persons, unaware of the gravity of the situation, might be killed or wounded. They desired that legislative action
  924
  should be taken to obviate such possibilities in times of peace rather than wait for the contingency to arise. The; highest quality of statesmanship was to make provision against possible dangers, and it was in that spirit they Submitted the Motion, in the hope that they would receive satisfactory assurances from the right hon. Gentleman, either that some of the dangers they anticipated were not well founded, that they were Well founded, that, they would be legislated for.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words in the opinion of this House, the powers now vested in chief magistrates to call upon-the War Office to supply troops during times of trade disputes are open to grave abuse, are a menace to the liberty of the subject, and ought to be inquired into and reported upon by a Committee of this House.'"—(Mr. Wardle.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HALDANE: I think no one who has listened to this debate will fail to recognise not only the seriousness of the topic but the moderate manner and substance of the statements which have been made. The question is not whether the military are often called in on such occasions. The truth is it has happened very seldom. But the question is whether these occasions have not disturbed the public mind, and given such a sense of unrest that the whole thing should be reduced to the very smallest proportions possible. The unrest thus caused has, I think, done more mischief than the calling-in of the military has done good. Nevertheless, I think it is convenient that I should point out that there have been and may be some cases in which it is essential that the military should act, but I should further point out the narrowness of the limits in which such occasions ought to arise. The two hon. Members who have spoken have both stated the law in a very accurate and sensible form, basing their view On what was laid down in the Report of the Featherstone Committee. I sat on that Committee. The paragraph which contains the statement of the law on this

  925
  subject was the work of one of the most distinguished and most humane Judges who ever sat on the English bench, the late Lord Bowen. It is the classical source of the statement of the law on this subject, and I do not think it can be improved. In fact, I had that very passage, which was read out by the hon. Member for Norwich, and another very admirable statement, reprinted and sent round to the Army, anticipating thereby something of what the hon. Member wished in the way of a codified statement of the law. Let me say at once that much as the Labour Members dislike the Calling out of the troops, the military authorities dislike it still more. I think there is nothing more hateful to the military than to be called out to perform these civil duties. My recollection of the answers of Sir Redvers Buller to the questions put to him by the Featherstone Committee was that this duty was so loathsome that no soldiers ought to be asked to recognise it by pro viding any different kind of ammunition for these occasions from that used on ordinary occasions. Sir Redvers Buller said it was not the business of the military to be asked to act as police, they did not want to encourage the notion that they were to be asked to do the work of police by the provision of a special ammunition, which, moreover, would not be any more merciful than the ammunition ordinarily used. I have always felt that there was the greatest weight in what Sir Redvers Buller urged as to the dislike of the military for this civil duty. Let me remind the House what the law on this subject is. It is not statute but common law. In common law the prime maxim is that the safety of the public is the supreme canon in these matters. The law says, if there is a disturbance going on, the magistrate whose duty it is to restore order may call upon the citizens to come in and interfere, and to use such violence, as is necessary and no more, to put down, the disturbance. Such violence as is necessary and no more. That is often a very difficult thing to judge, but it is to be no more violence than is necessary. Therefore, they have no light to call in the military in a case where the police can quell any riot they have no right to use firearms where they are not necessary, and anyone doing so and
  926
  killing would be guilty of manslaughter] That is the principle which regulates the calling in of the military, and it can only be in very extreme cases that the calling in of the military is justified. I recollect well the circumstances of the Featherstone riots, and it was clearly proved that the military were not called in by the miners, but by a colony of strangers, who were not acquainted with the characteristics of colliers. Lieutenant Barker was called upon by the magistrate to protect these people. They were shut up in the engine-room for hours. The menacing action of the colliery people got more and more violent, and at last they proposed to burn down the colliery and throw the manager down the shaft. They were throwing jagged pieces of iron—I have a specimen still in my possession—and the result was that there was a very serious situation indeed. It was then that a magistrate, not one who had called out the troops, but another who happened to be there, kept his head and took matters into his own hands. He warned the crowd in the most explicit manner, and it was only when this strange body of men were proceeding to actual violence that he called upon the officer to fire, and the officer did fire, and the most damage was. done to innocent people. That only shows that there may be cases in which you have no other means of helping yourself. The police ought to have been there, but they were not, and there will be cases from time to time when you have not an efficient force of police, and in these cases you must call on the military. The military ought never to act unless the case is so extreme and so urgent that more harm will come from their not acting than from their acting. There always comes harm from, their acting. It is always an obnoxious thing to call on soldiers to do this police work, but there may be cases when it is necessary in order to prevent, still greater disaster It will be seen from the King's Regulations that an officer is not bound to fire, or to use military weapons even though he is commanded to do so by the magistrate. That follows from the law that you must not use more violence, that is necessary. In other words, the officer and his men are there only on the footing of eivilians. That is the common law, but we have

  927
  defined it by the King's Regulations. Article 283 says that, if the officer finds it unnecessary to take immediate action, it is not obligatory on him to do so, nor is he to continue any action longer than he thinks is absolutely necessary. All commands to the troops are to be given by the officer, and the troops are not on any account to fire except by the word of command of their officer, who, if it becomes necessary to order the troops to fire, is to exercise his discretion both as to the number of rounds and the object to be aimed at. Officers commanding troops are on every occasion that they are called out for the enforcement of the law to take the most effectual means in conjunction, with the magistrates in explaining beforehand to the people that, in the event of the troops being ordered to fire, their fire will be effective. I think we are more humane here than on the Continent, where the order to fire is given much more easily than here. The King's Regulations say further that every possible warning is to be given to people before the order to fire is made effective.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Are we to understand that the officer in command will be justified in not turning out his troops?
  Mr. HALDANE: He would refuse to turn them out at his peril. By the common law everyone who refuses to aid the civil power is guilty of a misdemeanour. The officer has to exercise the difficult discretion of deciding whether it is necessary for him to come out or not, and it is not concluded by the fact that the magistrate thought it necessary. That is all. Care is to be taken not to fire at persons separated from, the crowd, and to fire over the heads of the crowd. As far as it is possible to put these things into the military code, we have done it. The whole thing depends on the common law, which is of the most elastic character. know no place where the common law is better laid down than in the two documents which I have here, the late Lord Thring's explanation of it, and Lord Bowen's. We have circulated this right through the Army and put it into our military manuals so that everybody is now informed what the law is. There is
  928
  another point which was raised by the seconder of the Resolution. Is it true, or not, that the Territorial Force can be called out for the purpose of putting down a riot? The answer is, it is not true. We carefully provided in drawing the Act of last session that that should not be so. Under the law as it now stands, Volunteers who happen to be out training with regular troops could be called upon to put down a riot or disturbance which was going on near at hand. Nobody would wish to do so, and you would wish Regular troops if you had the choice between them, but the Volunteers are liable, if they happen to be there, to be called upon to act. That is merely because every citizen is liable to be called out, and if the case were one in which is required more power than the ordinary citizen could use you would call on the Volunteers, if you had them there, to use their weapons. That applies also to Yeomanry and Militia. As regards the ordinary soldier, this is the point. He can be called out at any time to render this service. The Volunteer could not. It is only when he happens to be there that he can be called upon.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: What we want to be clear upon is the limitation of the words "training or exercise."
  Mr. HALBANE: In the case of the Volunteer when he was training or exercising with Regular troops he could be called out. In the case of the Territorial soldier, when he is out for training or exercise he is under military law and can be called on, but he cannot be called out for this purpose. That is the point I want to make. The Regular soldier can because he is always under military law. The Territorial cannot be. He is only under military law when he is being trained or exercised either alone or with any portion of the Regular force, or when attached to or otherwise acting in support of any Regular force or when embodied or called out for actual military service for the purpose of defence in pursuance of any agreement When he is being trained or exercised he is there just as the Volunteer, or in the case I have put, and if there happened

  929
  to be a disturbance going on close at hand he could be called upon to go, but he cannot be embodied for that purpose, and that is what we carefully attended to in passing the Territorial Act last year, so that it might not be said that the Territorial Force was one that could be embodied in whole or in part for the purpose of putting down these disturbances. It is obvious that to call it out to put down disturbance is not to call it out for training or exercise, and it is only for training or exercise that you have power to call them out, and then only if they are under military law. The hon. Member asked me whether we would have a Committee on this subject. That is of course a question which should go to the Home Secretary who is responsible for the civil aspect of the controversy, but speaking for myself I do not think anything could be done further than we have done already, and I do not think any Committee would make the common law clearer than it is. It is an elastic law but you cannot make it any clearer.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: asked to be allowed to mention one point which the right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider. It was whether there could not be any different ammunition served out and whether a weapon suitable to the occasion could not be supplied on these occsaions, seeing that in almost every case of recent years the people who had been hurt were those who had been a quarter of a mile away. It was well enough in the old times when the blunderbuss or something of the kind was used, and they hit the man they wanted to hit. Now they hit the men who had nothing to do with the quarrel.
  Mr. HALDANE: I am not sure that I agree that the blunderbuss would hit the man you want it to hit. I am speaking not from experience but from actual knowledge of what happened at Featherstone. The marvel was that more people were not hit, and I think what saved them was this. It was a small bore rifle of eno mous muzzle velocity. The troops fired low and the shot wen between the legs of the people and ricochetted. There was an
  930
  unfortunate Sunday school teacher a quarter of a mile off looking on, and the bullet went through both his thighs and lodged in the thigh of another Sunday school teacher who was with him. I should be very sorry to substitute the-old Brown Bess for the modern high velocity small bore bullet which makes a much slighter wound. The truth is, you ought not to use the soldiers at all. The only justification for using them is-when you are absolutely driven to it. There may be cases in which you are absolutely driven, but they should be-I reduced to the very minimum. It is-for that reason that I am not in favour of encouraging the idea that soldiers are there to be used and should be given special weapons suitable to the occasion.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he understood that there was to be some alteration in the responsibility which was now placed upon a subaltern officer in regard to riots. It had been laid down that the officer must do his best and take his-chance afterwards as to what a jury would say. As an adjutant it had fallen to his lot to instruct subalterns, but he now understood that there was going to be an alteration made in the King's Regulations and Manual of Military Law. Was the alteration going to date from this year? He understood that in future the officer was not bound to fire at the order of the magistrate.
  Mr. HALDANE: That has always, been so.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that under the old law if an officer refused to act and loss of life occurred, he was liable to a court-martial. They might have a very fussy magistrate who would order the officer to shoot, and if he refused to shoot and loss of life occurred, he would-still be liable to court-martial. Let them take the case of a very humane magistrate who said he would not have any firing at all. If loss of life and damage-to property occurred and if the officer-used force, he would be liable to be tried for manslaughter if he fired. That would place the officer in a very difficult position. Even if the magistrate did I give the order and the officer used

  931
  violence and loss of life occurred then the officer could be tried by a civil power for murder. He did not think that was a responsibility which ought to be placed upon the officers of the British Army The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was not a military question, but a common law question. If it was a common law question it should be so amended and defined that the officers of the Army, who loathed this duty more than any other, should, at all events, not be subjected, whatever course they took, to be tried twice in a Civil Court and three times in a Criminal Court.
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he did not think anyone would quarrel with his right hon. friend's exposition of the law when he said that a single magistrate might requisition the military. He might requisition them by writing or telephone according to the King's Regulations, and then the military authorities were bound to obey. The magistrate must take the preliminary step by directing the military officer to fire. The military officer might, according to the military regulations, abstain from firing if in his judgment it was unnecessary. That was the state of the law before the right hon. Gentleman spoke and as it would be after. It was that state of the law to which he objected. What was a soldier when acting in civil service? He was not a soldier and was not recognised as a soldier. Lord Justice Tindall had laid down that there could be no distinction in such a matter between a soldier and a private individual. As a matter of fact, according to the dictum which had been laid down, soldiers were not there as soldiers but as armed police. The grievance in this matter was twofold. In the first place, however, they might recognise the humanity of the military and the magistrates, and whether through malice or hate, excessive zeal or lack of judgment, it was in the power of a single magistrate to enable the armed forces of the Crown to fire upon the people. He thought they should have had from the Secretary for. War some assurance that greater precautions than the discretion or lack of discretion of a single magistrate should govern matters of this kind. He
  932
  had gone through a category of cases in which the military had, in the past, applied force, and he had no hesitation in saying that in the Featherstone case, the South Wales case, the famous Lancashire riots, the Nottinghamshire riots, and the West Country riots, the employment of the military was wholly unnecessary, and the civil force would have been able to deal with every riot about which there was any record without the assistance of the military. The military used weapons with a range of over two miles, and consequently, the use of such weapons was not effective in dealing with the persons participating in the riot, but was most effective in regard to the people entirely outside the area or ambit of the riot altogether. He thought they ought to get some assurance that the use of firearms in such cases should never be resorted to without the enaction of the Home Secretary or the right hon. Gentleman himself. That, at any rate, would be some safeguard. His right hon. friend had said that the Territorial Army could not be employed, or rather could not be called out for this purpose unless they were exercising or training with the Regular Army. He thought it was perfectly competent for the Territorial Force to be called out for the purpose of training and exercised and employed for the purpose of suppressing a riot. His interpretation was, apart from the regulation which had been read out, that it was perfectly within the competence of the War Office if they chose to call out a section of the Territorial Army for the purpose of training, and then employ them for the purpose of suppressing a riot. He could conceive nothing more calculated to produce difficulties than the employing of any portion of the Territorial Army for that purpose. An eminent Judge had deprecated in the strongest possible terms the use of the Volunteers for such a purpose. He thought the House was indebted to the hon. Members who had brought this matter forward in the moderate way in which they had done, and he confessed himself disappointed at not receiving from the Secretary for War an assurance that better precautions would be taken in the future against a recurrence of this evil.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD:said that if the officer did not shoot he would be tried for mutiny, and if he did shoot he would be tried for murder. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider very seriously this point before he issued the explanation of the common law which he had to-day foreshadowed. No officer reading the Order to be issued would have the nerve to act if called upon, even if he had gone through the London School of Economics. Did they suppose for A moment that a man when called upon to act suddenly and with judgment, in the face of a great danger, would be able to avoid falling into one of the faults which had been foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman? Before issuing such an order the subject ought to be gone into more fully, or else a better explanation ought to be given in order that the unfortunate subaltern officer and even the officers of higher rank might have no doubt as to what their duty was. If an officer was ordered to fire he did so at his own peril. When an officer was ordered by the magistrate to shoot he might either shoot or refuse, and that was placing a very unfair responsibility upon the officer and the men. Those men would, in pursuance of an odious duty, be called upon to fire on their fellow citizens, who might be their own brothers and relatives. When placing men in such an unfortunate position, surely it was only asking a small thing to demand, that the exact duty required of them should be clearly defined in order that the officers and men should not be placed in the extraordinary position of having, first of all to interpret the law, and then to carry out their duty, it wag perfectly true that generally it was innocent people were killed, and the reason was that the men invariably aimed high, and the bullet at its extreme range killed people who were not militant. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would; Seriously consider the position in which he was placed, and that he would lay down absolutely clearly, and once for all, what the troops, should do. and what they should not' do when called out in aid of the civil power.
  MR. ACLANDsaid that the hon. Member for North-West
  934
  Durham had suggested that in spite of the law and the Army Act it would be possible to call out the Territorial Army for the purposes of training or exercise in order that they might be used to aid the civil power in suppressing disturbances. There were only two ways in which that could be done. Either the War Office must direct commanding officers of the Territorial Army to call their men out for training in camp or for drill at a time when they would not otherwise be called up, or the officers themselves must do it on their own responsibility in Order that their men might be handy. Both these suggestions were absolutely unworthy of the hon. Member. It had been admitted on all hands that the regular solider hated this business, and was it less likely that the Territorial Force would do so?
  Mr. ATHERLEY-JONES: I never made that suggestion. What I did point out was that it was within the power of the War Office to mobilise these men at any time for the purpose of exercise or training and that it would be competent for the War Office to call upon them, whilst so mobilied, to assist the civil powers.
  Mr. ACLAND: The suggestion that the War Office would order the training or mobilisation of the Force in order that the civil powers might employ their services is an unworthy one that ought never to have been made.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: said he was very glad this question had been raised, because it was one of very great importance. It was a question of peculiar interest to the Irish people, and to those connected with the agitations which had been going on in Ireland. In this country it was fortunately true that occasions when masses of unarmed people found themselves confronted with armed soldiers were few and far between. In Ireland what were called police were in reality soldiers; they were armed with rifles, and in Ireland they had had more frequently than in England during the past twenty-five years the miserable spectacle of unarmed people being fired upon. He saw the case some years ago at Mitchelstown where two or three perfectly innocent persons were shot in cold

  935
  blood in the street. He did not think anybody could point to a single case of a conflict between the people on the one hand and the soldiers on the other where the calling in of military had had good effect in preventing the spread of disturbance and in preventing violence. In every single case he knew of where people had been fired upon the men who had been shot had been entirely outside of the dispute, and that made the whole circumstances of the case all the worse. He agreed with the hon. Member who declared that soldiers, and especially officers, suffered a grievance in this matter. It was perfectly true that there was no work that soldiers had a greater repugnance of than that of being called upon to confront unarmed people in an industrial or agrarian dispute. He knew that was the case in Ireland where he had seen troops called upon to carry out evictions. The people recognised that they disliked the work intensely, and the result was that there had never been the same feeling against the Army as there was against the police. It was a monstrous thing to say that, if troops were called out, the responsibility should be put on the officers and the troops. Those who were responsible first of all for calling out the troops ought to take the responsibility. A great many magistrates were not experienced; they were men without training, local or otherwise, and to spy that any magistrate who got into a panic or lost his head was to have the power of calling out troops and ordering them to fire on the people, and that, if it turned out there was no justification, the officer was to be held responsible, was to put the officer in a position which was quite unjust. He Was surprised that the Secretary of State had not recognised the force of the case which had been put before him by hon. Members. If the matter was to be left as it was now, it would be a most unsatisfactory ending to the debate. The Secretary of State had told them what the ordinary law was, and no doubt his description was perfectly true. This was a matter that ought to be specifically dealt with. First of all, there ought to be more stringent regulations with reference to the calling out of the troops to deal with unarmed masses of people in industrial or agrarian disputes. Those who called
  936
  out the troops ought to be made to bear the entire responsibility. If the Secretary of State for War would place this question on a different footing, if he would place the responsibility for calling out the troops to deal with cases of industrial disturbance or agrarian agitation more clearly on the shoulders of the people who called them out, he would be doing something which would result in much good in future, and something for which many people would thank him. He was surprised to hear an hon. Member say that cases of firing on the people took place, if not more frequently, more readily in this country than abroad. He was under the impression that people were more frequently and more unnecessarily fired upon abroad, but cases had occurred too often in this country. When cases of firing on the people, either by the military or by the police, had occurred in Ireland the bitterest feelings had been aroused and the greatest damage done.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have not had the opportunity of hearing the whole of this debate, but I think I have been able to gather from what has passed since I entered, the views which are held in the various quarters of the House. I think the hon. Member for East Clare may set his mind at rest in regard to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War; he does not in the least oppose the settling of this matter permanently on a practical footing and on the soundest basis which can be established, having regard to the complexity of the law on the subject. I agree with my right hon. friend that we cannot take too much care with regard to this. These unhappy occasions occur fortunately very seldom, but when they do occur there is no time to settle questions of responsibility. I quite agree that the commanding officer, whether a senior or a subaltern, is in a very difficult and a very disagreeable position. Not only so, but it is equally difficult, perhaps more difficult, for the solitary magistrate who may have to give him the order. At any rate, my hon. friend will admit that it may be extremely difficult for the magistrate—I do not carry it further than that. Great responsibility has to

  937
  be taken at a moment's notice, and at a time of confusion when it may be difficult to see clearly what should be done. Everything possible ought to be done to put the matter on a sound and rational basis. Therefore, we have no objection to the appointment of a Committee, and we hope—though we are not very sanguine— that the law which is at present obscure, will be made more explicit. Whatever the difficulty of that may be, at any rate the Committee will do their best to elucidate the law, and by practical suggestions endeavour to avoid the troubles, difficulties, and dangers encountered in the time past. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Stockport that as we have given a substantive undertaking to appoint a Committee to report to the House he should withdraw his Motion.
  Mr. WARDLEsaid that under these circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I understand that the Motion cannot be withdrawn. I did not wish to intervene, but in the absence of my right hon. friend I think it my duty to say that we do not oppose the Government in the course they have decided to take. But we reserve to ourselves the full power to criticise the terms of the reference and any other matter pertaining to the appointment of the Committee. We recognise fully the complexity of this problem. On the one hand, we desire as ardently as any Member of the House can desire, that the duty of a soldier under the particular circumstances when he is called upon to intervene in aid of the civil power, should be denned with greater precision; but on the other hand, we do not desire that the soldier as a citizen should be absolved by law from doing his duty as a citizen. The law imposes on every citizen, even if he is not a soldier, the duty of acting in aid of the civil power. The soldier when called out in aid of the civil power is a conspicuous and effective citizen whose action everybody takes note of and whose failure to do his duty as a citizen becomes a matter of common knowledge. Again, if he
  938
  fails, he is exposed to a double punishment—to an action in a civil suit and also to the loss of his career as a soldier. We cannot discriminate between him as a soldier and as a citizen in ordinary cases. If a soldier sees a man beating a woman in the street he is bound to go to the assistance of the woman. Or if a soldier sees a policeman being attacked, he is as bound to assist the policeman as any Member of this House would be. The difference in the case of the soldier is that his conduct is before the eyes of all and is also subject to review by his superior officer. To that we make no objection in ordinary cases. But in the particular case which has been brought before the House when a magistrate summons a soldier to aid him in the discharge of certain duties —we hold that the duties of the soldier ought to be defined with greater precision than at present.
  MR. HALDANE: The Motion to which this is an Amendment is that you, Mr. Speaker, do leave the Chair. The most convenient course would be to negative the Amendment, and the Government will undertake to appoint a Committee "to inquire into the powers now vested in magistrates to call upon the War Office to supply troops during the time of trade disputes."
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if that would cover agrarian disputes?
  MR. HALDANE: It will cover every thing connected with trade disputes.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman's terms of reference do not touch the point which I tried to enforce on the House. What we want is an attempt to define with greater precision than at present the duties of the soldier when called upon to assist the magistrate, not the powers of the magistrate.
  CAPTAIN J. CRAIGsaid he would not have intervened in the debate had it not been that the basis of the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Motion was the riot in the City of Belfast, and he thought it was only fair to the House that some slight explanation should be given of the facts of the case. He admired the care and moderation with

  939
  which the Motion was brought forward and seconded, and he hoped to speak moderately himself. He was present in Belfast at the time of the riots, and was therefore qualified to speak of the action of the chief magistrate. His Lordship was blamed by some for the action he took, but eventually he was admired by all for the restraint with which he exercised his powers after obtaining the test possible advice at a very critical time. The suggestion that the power of calling out troops should be taken away from the chief magistrates, and placed in the hands of the War Secretary or the Home Secretary, appeared to him to be pernicious. Those who were on the spot at a critical period must take the responsibility of calling out troops to aid the civil power. If the War Secretary had the power he would have to apply to the chief magistrate as to whether it was necessary to call out the military—that was to say, the very man from whom it was proposed to take away the power. At any rate, they were bound to have someone responsible. They might surround him with advisers, but in the end One man must give the order. In Belfast the Lord Mayor called in the advice of a large number of resident magistrates from the surrounding districts, who had had long and various experience in such matters, but in the end his Lordship had to give the order. It was said by the Labour Members that at the present time owing to the discipline of trade union officials it was not necessary to bring in the military in case of trade disputes. But he would point out that, in Belfast, the trouble arose through the action of a trade union official. When Mr. Larkin was sent across the water to Belfast to organise the dockers a most regrettable affray arose in the streets in which Larkin was implicated. If the trade union officials could be trusted to exercise some control over the great body of workers, there would be no necessity to call out either the military or the ordinary police. How could the Labour Members sitting in that House, using the powers behind their organisation, be responsible for any person like Larkin?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is taking this opportunity of reviving old
  940
  animosities connected with Belfast Nothing he has said so far relates to the Army Estimates.
  CAPTAIN J. CRAIGsaid he bowed at once to the Speaker's ruling, but he merely wished, to point out the other side of the question of particular riots to which the hon. Member had referred. He would like to refer to a remark of the Secretary for War to the effect that more unrest had in the past been occasioned by the present state of the law than good had ever been done by calling out the troops. He did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning. Theoretically all of them deplored at any time having to call out troops in any dispute, trade or otherwise, but at the same time if serious troubles did come upon any community of people it was difficult to say where a trade dispute ended and a party riot commenced. What was to take the place of the military in such a case as that? There must be some force. The hon. Member opposite had suggested that there was no necessity whatever for calling out the troops on account of disputes in the United Kingdom, because of the great facilities which railways gave for getting constabulary from any part of England or Wales to the seat of the trouble. But that did not apply to all parts of the United Kingdom, because in Ireland they could not train the Royal Irish Constabulary from the North to the West of Ireland or vice versa, and it became absolutely essential, if life and property were to be maintained, that there should be some power by which the chief magistrate, or the magistrate of the city, or the county council, should have authority to call out the military in case of an emergency. He understood from the Amendment that all that it was intended to do at present was to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole matter, both from the civil side and the military side and the arguments which were used in the first part of the debate were nearly all from the civil side of the question and only in the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech did he come to the question of the officer's responsibility. He must confess that he thoroughly agreed with what had fallen from the right

  941
  hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench. The right hon. Gentleman insisted, and he thought quite rightly insisted, that if there was to be a Committee of Inquiry into the whole of this matter it should be more for the protection of those officers who had to carry out the unfortunate and disagreeable duty of giving the order to fire on the people in the case of a strike or riot. He hoped the Committee would look at the question from every point of view and see that there was no undue sentimentality about it. In this country passions might be aroused, they knew not how, and if there was any weakening or sign of weakening on the part of the Secretary for War or the Home Office it would be a very great pity so far as maintaining law and order was concerned. This power was never unnecessarily used, and no instances had been brought forward of undue harshness or of anyone deliberately using the power in their hands for anything other than that which they considered was good and right. He hoped the authorities would, in their wisdom, be very careful before they affected or frittered away any of. the powers which they possessed. They must all agree how very disagreeable it was when it was necessary to call in the military power, but they must have the power of maintaining law and order in the country, for all persons irrespective of class or creed, whether they were labouring men or landlords or tenants. It was with the object of asking the right hon. Gentleman not to enter into any sentimentalism on this subject and see that proper suggestions were made to uphold the law that he had risen.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that before the Amendment was withdrawn he would like to say one word. The terms of the reference, as he understood them, were to the effect that a Committee should be appointed to consider the employment of the military in the case of trade disputes. In his opinion that was not desirable. In the opinion of an ordinary citizen of this country a riot was a riot, whether it arose out of a trade dispute or from
  942
  any other cause of disagreement, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman by the terms of his reference should, lend any encouragement to the idea, that he would sanction different treatment to a riot which arose out of a trade dispute and a riot which arose out of anything else. That was what was underlying the whole of the speeches from below the gangway. [Cries of "No."] He thought if hon. Gentlemen-would refer to their speeches they would find that that was so. One hon. Member had said that in the old days riots arose out of political disturbance, and then, perhaps, it was not unnecessary or inadvisable to call in the military power, but that now they arose out of trade-disputes which was a different thing. To show that he was right he would point out that the hon. Member for Clare wished to include agrarian disputes. That proved what was running in the minds of hon. Members below the gangway. It was no use appealing to the Party opposite he knew, but he wished to call the attention of the country to the fact that a distinction was to be drawn between a riot which arose out of a trade dispute and one that did not.
  MR. WYNDHAM:: By the leave of the House I should like to say I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman has formulated any terms of reference, and I reserve on behalf of the Opposition our full right to examine any terms of reference put on the Paper. All I understand is that it has been agreed that a Committee is to be appointed to consider two topics, one the powers of the magistrates, and the other the duty of soldiers when they are called out to aid the civil power.
  Mr. T. L. CORBETTsaid, that although the speeches made were moderate in tone, underlying them the impression was conveyed to the Ulster Members that this Resolution was aimed at the City of Belfast. He did not wish to transgress the Speaker's ruling, which he understood to be to the effect that they could not discuss the causes in Belfast which had led to the intervention of the military. But if he was at liberty to do so he would like to point out to the hon. Member who said that there

  943
  was danger in the military being in the streets, that he would have found, if he had been in Belfast, that there was danger of being in the streets without the military. The whole city was in confusion, business was paralysed, tourists were afraid to cross to Belfast, and he was told at one hotel that they had been empty for a fortnight. In that case the municipal authorities were prepared to act and to act in a way in which he thought the Chief Secretary and his advisers ought to have acted in other parts of Ireland. If this Motion was meant as conveying any blame or censure upon the authorities in Ireland, then he for one would make his protest against such a Resolution being passed. If the Government would give them an assurance that in the amended form in which they accepted the Motion, they implied no kind of censure upon the authorities in Belfast, he would not press the matter further.
  Mr. MOOREsaid he desired to associate himself with what other hon. Members had said with regard to Belfast. He witnessed a good deal that was a disgrace to the city When he said disgrace to the city he meant a certain organised artificially imported section of it.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member was not here when I ruled before. This is not an opportunity for discussing what took place in Belfast. We are now on Army Estimates, and the hon. Gentleman must consider this question solely from the military point of view.
  Mr. MOOREsaid he had no intention of transgressing the ruling, but merely wished to make an observation on the terms of the reference.
  MR. SPEAKER: They are not before the House.
  Mr. MOOREsaid a remark was made by the hon. Member for East Clare, and responded to by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to how far the military were to be used in certain cases of agrarian dispute. Might he not refer to that?
  MR. SPEAKER: The remark does not seem to be relevant. The Secretary of State for War has said he will propose a certain reference, and no Committee can be appointed without that reference. If the terms of that reference are not agreeable to the hon. Member, then he will have an opportunity of criticising them.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. MACLEANsaid he rose to call attention to a subject as to which he had a notice on the Paper, namely, the social condition of the private soldier. The question was one of citizenship. The British soldier, if he might attempt to define him, was merely a citizen who had temporarily and voluntarily abandoned certain civil rights for the service of his country, getting in return, food, clothing, lodging and money. Two things followed upon this; first, that his training while in the Army should leave him not only an efficient soldier, but also fit for the full duties of citizenship, and, secondly, that he should have a fair chance when he resumed full civil rights. A great improvement had taken place in the position of the private soldier in the Army from the days when the Duke of Wellington told the Royal Commission of 1840 that the discipline of the Army could not be maintained without adequate measures of flogging. A very important point was the substitution of detention for purely military offences instead of imprisonment. The soldier, like the civilian, took his chances in the matter of offences against the criminal law. For the first time there was a differentiation, and a proper differentiation, in favour of the soldier who offended against purely military regulations. Formerly he was sent to prison and thus lost a certain amount of self-respect and the respect of his fellows for an offence which was not against civil law, but against military regulations. He was very glad to find that there was now a place of detention for such offences where the soldier wore his uniform, was known by name and not by number, attended drills, exercises, school and gymnasium, and ultimately

  945
  regained his unit, a better man and a I better soldier than formerly. Another point of great importance was the housing of the soldier. The herding together of large numbers of men in unsuitable barracks inevitably lowered their self respect and the tone of the regiment with which they were associated. He was glad to find that improvement in that respect had taken place. In the new barracks men were even given cubicles where they might have the privacy of at any rate a small space during the hours they were, loft to themselves. Some months ago he had visited Gibraltar. There he found some barracks of modern type, but there were others which certainly did not provide such accommodation as should be given to soldiers. As to the feeding of the soldier, the canteen system required further overhauling. Many of the wet canteens were little better than beer shops. He was glad to note that great improvements had already been effected, and that the canteen was being made a comfortable club for the men, where they could get beer, tea and coffee, and also food. The extension of the privilege of wearing plain clothes was a welcome reform. He did not pretend to talk as an expert on military matters even though some years ago he attained to the dizzy eminence of the rank of corporal in a Volunteer corps. He was one of those Members who accepted the invitation of the War Secretary to visit Aldershot last summer, and he had been struck by the arrangements made for the social life of the soldier there. There had been a marked, an almost marvellous, improvement in many respects in the social life of soldiers, and that had had very good results in the character of the men as shown by the following figures. In 1866 cases of drunkenness were 26·4 per cent., but in 1906 only 4·5 per cent. Trials by court martial in the former year were 12·5 per cent, and only 3·2 per cent, in the latter year. And cases of desertion were 13 per 1,000 in the former and only 5 per 1,000 in the latter year. The requirement of a character from all recruits had tended very largely to raise the standard of the men who joined the Army. He suggested that still further improvement was easily capable of being made
  946
  in the social conditions of soldiers. Another test of the rise in the standard of soldiers was the fact that 52 per cent, of the men of the British Army possessed an education certificate of proficiency. The large number of old soldiers who were out of employment was lamentable, and the country should find means by which these men might re-enter civil life and hot drift, as they so often did, not only into the ranks of unemployment, but into the ranks of the unemployable. He was glad to note the keen interest of the War Office in this important matter. Since 1906 the War Committee had taken practical interest in training men to occupy positions in civil life after leaving the Army. Much more work in this direction could be done to provide a brighter future for the soldier after he left the Army. The two points he had tried to make were that the social life of the soldier should be developed, and that not only for the soldier's own sake but for the sake of the community he should be given ample opportunities of taking his place in civil life once more.
  MR. WHITEHEADsaid he should like to make a few observations about the latter part of the Resolution which stood in the hon. Gentleman's name.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no Resolution in the hon. Member's name, and if there were it could not be moved. The only Question before the House is that I now leave the Chair.
  MR. WHITEHEADsaid he had put it in the wrong form; he ought to have said the latter part of the hon. Member's observations on the question of the employment of soldiers after they left the Army. There were certain difficulties in connection with the attempt which he believed was being made to find employment for soldiers. The difficulties arose in this way. In places where there were works under the War Office, the present policy was to dismiss civilians who had been previously engaged by the Department in Order to find employment for soldiers. While they were all sympathetic with soldiers who desired to find employment, still he thought they ought to

  947
  look at the other side of the picture. Soldiers who left the Army were mostly unmarried men; they had small pensions, or something at all events to fall back upon. The civilian employees on the other hand were mostly married men with families dependent upon them, It was, therefore, a very great hardship on civilians who had been in the employment of the War Office for years, that they should be dismissed with no fault found, but merely in order that employment might be given to soldiers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not pursue this policy too harshly, and he appealed to him to bear in mind the fact that these civilians who had been dismissed during the last two years, or were being threatened with dismissal, had entered the employment of the War Office at a time of pressure. Probably they had thrown up other work on a sort of understanding that work in the War Office would be more or less permanent. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that this particular class of employees were worthy of every consideration. He hoped that such dismissals as had been going on at Shoeburyness and elsewhere would not continue, merel in order to substitute soldiers, and that if the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary for purposes of economy or in the interests of the public as a whole to effect dismissals he would do it at a time of the year when these men who had settled down near the Government works might have a fair opportunity of getting work elsewhere, not in seasons of slack trade. He would ask whether finality had yet been reached in the matter of dismissals and whether those now, engaged in that part of the war service in which his constituents were particularly interested might now look for a continuance of that civilian element which had been part of the establishment so long. He also submitted that it might be not really in the interests of the public at large to have dismissals take place in this way, because in time of public pressure the War Office must look to trained artificer, engineers and other civilians to come and help them, and if it should happen that subsequently such men were dismissed merely in order to make way for soldiers who
  948
  were in many respects more fortunately situated it would be a great discouragement to civilians to go into the service of the War Office and to that extent the nation would be prejudiced in time of pressure and of difficulty. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would weigh this consideration.
  Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he would like to have information as to the position in which the barracks now stood. He understood that something was not altogether right with the barracks at Brighton, and they had a number of debates and answers to Questions last year with reference to Piershill barracks, when an artistic difference was drawn he understood between being insanitary and unhealthy. They would be most gratified if the right hon. Gentleman would give them further information as to how these barracks now were, because there was no difference of opinion in the House that every effort should be made to put them into healthy and sanitary condition without any mincing of words as soon as possible. They remembered debates in previous years largely in connection with loan expenditure deliberately incurred for the purpose of seeing that barracks were built which were thoroughly healthy, sanitary, and satisfactory in every respect. Although they knew the policy of the Government was strongly against loans, it was better to have healthy and sanitary barracks even if they had to borrow the money than to leave them in an antiquated and unsatisfactory condition. He had noticed in the abstract of the account for this year that the total decrease amounted to £307,000. If that was analysed it would be found that there was a diminution in expenditure of £205,342, and the so-called decrease was due to an increase of the appropriations-in-aid of £95,000. That was not very far off one third of the so-called total decrease shown on the face of the abstract of the Army Estimates, a id it was really due to enhanced receipts. He knew there was a school of thought not very strongly represented in that House which had the greatest possible objection to the system of appropriations-in-aid. It was only fair and right that these

  949
  Votes should be credited with any genuine receipts that might belong to them, and accordingly fewer demands should be made upon the Exchequer for issues to meet payments under the various Votes. It was somewhat remarkable that at a time when very considerable reductions were being made in the effective forces of the Army they should also be able to increase the appropriations-in-aid which came to the relief of expenditure. It would be interesting and he thought useful if the right hon. Gentleman could give an explanation as to where and from what sources the main bulk of these receipts were expected to come. They must bear in mind that to all intents and purposes what appeared as an appropration-in-aid came sooner or later either from the British taxpayer himself or from some individuals or classes of individuals. Whatever merits or demerits the Army might possess, certainly that of money making was not one of them, and accordingly these receipts must come from other sources, and he thought if they were analysed they would be found either to be from the taxpayers of the country for services rendered, or that a considerable increase was anticipated this year to come from various sources in connection with India. For instance, if they took Vote 6, sea transports and remounts, there was an increase of something like £6,000 for receipts connected with sea transport. That was presumably for services rendered to the Navy. At a period when considerable reductions were being made in the effective forces of the country it would be interesting to know how it was that the right hon. Gentleman Was able to make that still further demand from the Navy to the extent of some £6,000. To take another instance, he saw that right hon. Gentlemen anticipated during the coming financial year to be able to obtain another £3,000 for payments by officers for the use of horses. It would be interesting if he would tell them where these extra appropriations were expected to come from, and if they were the result of any deliberate change of policy. No doubt there was an admirable and excellent reason; but he noticed that under Vote 7 there was an considerable sum for clothing which had to be recovered from
  950
  the Indian Government. Also on Votes 13 and 14, the non-effective votes, there was an anticipation that the receipts made would be considerably in advance of previous years owing to contributions from the Indian Government. He did not know if this was likely to be a continuing process or whether it was automatic, but practically all the appropriations-in-aid which figured in the Estimates would be found to be for services which had been rendered either at home or by the Indian Government. Still where they found there was such a large increase in appropriations-in-aid amounting in the course of this year to £95,000, they would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give them some further information. He did not quite understand the relations of the appropriations-in-aid under the new vote for the Territorial Force. He presumed to some extent they balanced one another, but he found that under the new Vote 4, there were anticipated appropriations-in-aid amounting to £36,000. Under Votes 4 and 5 of last year, which corresponded he understood to this, the sum amounted to £31,000, showing an increase to be expected for the new Territorial Force on appropriations-in-aid of something like £5,000. He would like further information on the matter which completely puzzled him. Under sub-head G. there were repayments in redemption to the amount of £20,000. Last year the right hon. Gentleman thought it advisable to reserve certain sums of money for defraying debts' incurred by the various Volunteer corps on drill halls and ranges. Those he understood had now been extinguished with the exception of about £25,000. This year it was proposed on somewhat the same lines to clear off certain outstanding debts resting on the Volunteers. He could not Understand why, after having cleared off those debts in regard drill-halls, etc., this year there was a credit to the Territorial Force of £20,000. Upon Item G, there was an appropriation-in-aid of some £35,000, and on page 50 there would be seen an item, repayments in redemption of loans, £20,000. Why was there this repayment of loans in regard to Volunteer corps?
  MR. HALDANE: They are surpluses.
  Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he could not see any loans outstanding which could be repaid and come in as appropriations-in-aid, and, therefore, he could not see how they could come in as a reduction of the Vote which they were now called upon to pass. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday had given various estimates as to the expenditure of the Territorial Force, and he hoped the figures he then gave would turn out to be something like final. He sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman because when the House was asking to have this, that, and the other done, it was bound to be a troublesome thing for any Government to resist proposals, which, however small they might be themselves, when added up amounted to a very considerable sum. What was asked for last year it was quite clear had considerably swollen the Estimates and cost of the Territorial Force. He hoped the Secretary for War would not be too sanguine in thinking they had arrived at finality as far as the demands of the Territorial Associations were concerned. He hoped the training he had had in the House of Commons would always induce him to take every step he could to keep down unnecessary expenditure. The more he understood and grasped the details of the work of the County Associations, the more he was bound to confess that he thought the expenditure upon them would be sure to increase in the future. There was the boot allowance which required a good deal more attention than had been given to it. There was also the subject of travelling allowances. Under the Memorandum which had been issued in Sections 26 and 65, there appeared a scale of travelling allowances. He could speak with some confidence upon this point because he knew the conditions of scattered counties in which travelling expenses must necessarily be heavy, and where he was extremely doubtful that they would be able to make both ends meet under the present allowances. With regard to allowances made to enable the men to do the necessary musketry courses, he had been asked to find out if any allowance was to be given for providing the men whilst at musketry practice with food and provisions. He had been informed that no such provision had been
  952
  made in the Memorandum, and it was obvious that if the men had to be away from home at musketry practice for a considerable portion of the day, they could not expect satisfactory results in the way of shooting unless they had had a fairly good dinner. Such matters as this would tend to irritate and annoy those men whom they were hoping to retain and to induce to join in the future. With regard to sergeant-instructors, he found in Paragraph 66 of the Memorandum that an allowance of £6 10s. was to be given to them. No doubt there were portions of the country where that allowance might be sufficient, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would fully appreciate the importance of sergeant-instructors living up to a certain standard. In colliery districts or big manufacturing centers it was very important that the sergeant-instructor, who had to live in the midst of those whom he had to drill and induce to join and with whom he would have a good many connections, must be in a somewhat superior position. He doubted whether £6 10s. was sufficient to enable such a man to do his duty efficiently. All he could say was that he had paid a good deal more than that out of his own pocket to enable the sergeant-instructor to live in better quarters and to enable him to live up to his position. He understood from the Secretary for War that these allowances, were not to be paid from private sources, and that no obligation would be placed upon the officers to make up any deficiencies. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be too sanguine in this matter and would recognise that when they were asking him to make still further demands upon the Exchequer, they were only doing it in the best interests of the Territorial Force. Although the right hon. Gentleman might have to adopt certain rules of thumb for the purpose of enabling grants to be given to the different Associations, he hoped he would allow, subject to his control, far greater latitude in forming the estimates of expenditure. It was almost impossible to draw up Estimates for the Volunteers which. would cover all circumstances, and which were applicable under one definite rule. A battalion largely recruited from the

  953
  urban districts where distances were met great, and where means of communication were easy, could not fairly be compared with battalions recruited from a very large and extended area. He did not like to be constantly referring to his own battalion, but when one saw a battalion recruited from a big population like Derby, it would readily be seen that it was not nearly so expensive as a battalion recruited from the Peak of Derbyshire, where there were outlying stations fifty-one miles away from the headquarters of the regiment. It was obvious that the same conditions would not apply in both cases. He hoped the Secretary for War, when he had got over the initial difficulty of setting these Associations on their legs, would allow them considerable latitude in forming their estimates for providing all their requirements, because it was evident that the same rule could not possibly work out satisfactorily in all cases. There were two distinct classes from which the infantry portion of the Territorial Force could be drawn, viz., the big urban districts and the scattered country districts. He had not had time to find out what were the allowances to be given for attendances at drill, but it was perfectly clear that they would not be able to arrive at a satisfactory result by laying down a general rule for all battalions without considering the different circumstances. As to whether grants could be given to half companies or even to actions, it was not quite clear under the proposals before them. He presumed that further information would lie given on these points which would enable them to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the answer he gave him that afternoon as to the rules of training. Apprehensions had been excited in the minds of certain commanders of Volunteers by one of the regulations affecting the annual training in camp. The same thing he understood applied to sergeants and the rank and file. He hoped that so far as the men were concerned the right hon. Gentleman would not insist In maintaining that regulation. It would obviously be extremely complicated, and it would be difficult for a man living in a far distant place to find out who
  954
  was the general officer commanding his division. He did not know whether many people now serving in the Territorial Force would be able to attach much meaning to the regulation, but obviously it would be better that those applications should be addressed, as had always been done before, to the officer commanding the units who would have the means of finding out the true facts of the case, and be able to deal with them properly. He noticed that that was marked "Provisional" on the outside, and he hoped the matter would receive the right hon. Gentleman's attention.
  MR. HALDANE: It is quite clear in the Act.
  Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISHwas afraid he had forgotten the Act. He was dealing with the lesser volume of the two, namely, the pamphlet which had been issued within the last two or three days. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not be too sanguine in thinking that he had reached finality so far a s the cost of the Territorial Army was concerned.
  MAJOR DUNNEsaid the House must have been struck by the amount of work that was being done by the Secretary of State for War and those responsible to him for the organisation of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman had been less than just to himself in applying to his scheme the quotation: "The little done, the undone vast." He thought the House and the country generally would feel that a great deal had. already been accomplished. He was particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman had made reference to what was called the striking force of 160,000 men, because there was a great deal of misconception not only in the House, but outside, as to what exactly that force consisted of. When they examined the figures which the right hon. Gentleman had placed before them, he thought the feeling of alarm in the country that the striking force was far more than adequate, and that it might be called an aggressive force, would be dispelled. As to the Cardwell system, whenever it was debated in the House it met with a certain amount of abuse; but he thought it had been pretty conclusively shown

  955
  now that that system held the field against any other yet proposed, and that it would continue to hold it. Most soldiers, at all events, were agreed that the advantages of a system by which the training was carried out in this country in units, these units being kept together in large military centres like Aldershot and Salisbury Plain, enormously outweighed those of the opposite system of training in depots. If that system were departed from great expense would be involved in re-building and renovating the present depots. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to a matter in which, personally, he took a great interest, namely, the instruction of officers. He had the good fortune to graduate at the staff college, and he could speak of the inestimable value of the training received there. The right hon. Gentleman had paid a well-merited compliment to the value of the instruction given at that institution, and what he foreshadowed in regard to the facilities and inducements to be offered to officers, who could not all have the advantage of a staff college education, should go a long way in the direction he desired. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Durham that the new tests and higher educational standard required of officers would meet with opposition on their part. If the officers were given facilities for instruction, and the inducement that when so instructed they would be afforded adequate employment, the right hon. Gentlemen might rely upon their most cordial co-operation. But there was no part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which to him was more satisfactory than the evidence given of the improvement in the conduct of the rank and file. It showed that the Army was becoming year by year a more respectable and attractive profession in the eyes of the classes from which recruits were mainly drawn.
  COLONEL IVOR PHILIPPSexpressed the opinion that the extension of the privilege of wearing plain clothes to the private soldier would have a great deal to do in popularising the Army. He knew it would be said by a great number of his right hon. friend's advisers that such a step
  956
  would tend to depreciate discipline, but he thought they already had sufficient examples to show that such would in no way be the case. The police were allowed to wear any costume they liked, when they were off duty, and the soldiers of the Indian Army, whose discipline, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, was on an even higher scale than that of our own Army, wore plain clothes, no only when they were on leave, but when they were walking out and in their barracks. The right hon. Gentleman could effect a very great economy in his Clothing Vote by adopting the reform which he was suggesting. If he called for a statement from the India Office showing what it cost to clothe the Indian soldier he would be very much struck by the difference. He believed the British soldier would willingly provide himself with a decent and respectable walking-out suit if he were allowed to do so. He hoped his right hon. friend would look into the matter.
  Mr. LANE-FOXcongratulated the Secretary for War on the breezy spirit of optimism which permeated his opening address. He hoped the shortage of 8,000 officers, which was a very serious matter, would be overcome by the remedies he had suggested. It was necessary that the conditions under which a man entered the commissioned ranks should be made easier. So long as an officer was required to provide himself with so much in the way of furniture, uniform, and horses, the Army would remain—as it was called—a playground for the rich instead of an open field for all classes of the community and for men with most ability. He hoped to receive some assurance from the Secretary of State for War that he proposed to do something to remedy the very grave danger arising from the shortage of horses. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that 126,000 horses were required to keep the Army up to war strength, but that he proposed a reduction of 70,000 to keep it at peace strength. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to make that reduction, what preparation was he making in case a serious emergency arose, to meet this shortage? The French Government

  957
  and to a certain extent the German Government, had a system of a required number of horses ready-trained, to keep the Army up to war strength. The question could only be thoroughly dealt with by bringing it before the House and the country and reminding them of the danger we were running. The President of the Board of Agriculture stated last December that there were 10,000 fewer foals dropped last year than in the previous year. On another occasion the noble Lord said that a reserve of 37,000 horses would be required for a peace establishment and he advocated the registration of horses. It was necessary to ask the question what steps were the Government taking to remedy the existing shortage Every day there was a tendency for the general omnibus utility horse, which had done such good service in South Africa, to drop out in view of the growing amount of motor traction. This was affecting the horse supply all over the world and produced obviously a great shortage. He asked for some details of the proposed scheme of registration and when it would be put into operation. Inquiries conducted by military experts like Colonel Birkbeck of the Remount Department showed that the English-bred horse was the most reliable for cavalry purposes. It was time to do something to encourage horse breeding in this country by direct means in order to remedy the shortage. Good mares were going out of the country owing to the neglect of the Government to keep them. Yorkshire used to be the great horse breeding county of England, but it was enormously decreasing. The horses young farmers used to hunt with were not now bred to the extent they used to be. Under these circumstances the Government ought to be prepared to establish depots in which they could train the horses they purchased and secure that there would be a supply of trained horses at any given moment. So long, however, as (hey adhered to the custom of buying horses five years old it would be difficult to solve the problem. If horses were bought at a younger age they would be able not only to get them cheaper, but to secure their proper training at an earlier age, and that would lead to greater efficiency. A good deal might be done by offering premiums to farmers.
  958
  It was no use providing men, guns, and equipment, without providing horses to supply the cavalry and artillery. There were as many as 2,010 men in the cavalry walking about because they had n6 horses to mount. It must be a very expensive matter to keep these men practically doing nothing when they ought to be mounted and trained as cavalry and artillery soldiers.
  MR. C. E. PRICEcongratulated the Secretary of State for War on the approval given to his scheme by the country generally, but expressed regret that something more had not been done to encourage men who passed through the rank to gain a commission. Taking the Return issued last year he found that only fifty-six men who had passed through the cavalry regiments had received commissions as second lieutenants during the past twenty-two years, and fifty-two of them were given during the first eleven years, leaving only four for the second period. That number could not possibly represent the measure of the brains and capacity of the men who had passed through the ranks. Taking any other trade or profession, such as the legal, medical, or the more important trades of the country, the found that men born in the humblest houses rose to the highest positions in their professions or trades. The same thing would take place in the Army if due recognition was given to the men of brains and capacity who passed through the ranks. He sincerely trusted the right hon. Gentleman would signalise his occupancy of office by doing something to make the Army attractive to men of the better working class, by giving them some hope that they could rise to the highest positions in it if they showed by their efforts they were capable of filling them.
  Mr. GUY BARINGdo-sired to say a word or two upon the subject of the education of military officers Having himself served through three of the stages of that education he could say that he was thoroughly in agreement with what had been said a to the third stage of it being absolutely unsatisfactory. The young officer when about twenty or twenty-one years of age joined his battalion from Sandhurst. He had had, partly at the public expense,

  959
  a very good elementary education. He came fully primed into his particular branch, of the profession. He knew a good deal about military law, and was very well grounded in attack, but very often he had not the remotest chance in the earlier part of his life of exercising the practical part of his profession. Of course there were undoubtedly the industrious apprentices who looked at their books and kept themselves up to date, but the ordinary officer did not, because there was no occasion for him to do it, and the result was that, after leaving Sandhurst, he got rustier and rustier, and then he arrived at the point when he had to pass a promotion examination. What happened was that he naturally flew to his great friend the crammer, who got him over the fence, and then he proceeded again until he got to another step of military promotion, and then came the next examination. That was a very unsatisfactory state of things. It was rather a bold step to suggest, but he would like to see promotion examinations done away with altogether, and if possible annual examinations put in their place, and some machinery set up by which the officer was obliged to take down his books and refresh his memory and keep himself up-to-date. All that was done now was to ensure that perhaps twice in fifteen or twenty years the officer knew the subjects which he was supposed to know, but the authorities ought to ensure that he always knew them. There was another part of the officer's education which was neglected through the various branches of it being in such -watertight compartments. Unless an officer went to the Staff College he had no opportunity of learning the work of other branches besides his own. He supposed there were very few infantry officers who knew artillery tactics or artillery officers who knew about infantry tactics, or cavalry officers who knew about either. He would like to see that altered. It would be for the benefit of the Army if competent officers from the different branches were to deliver lectures to other branches in the service. He very much hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take to heart the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Durham made earlier in the evening It was an interesting speech, and it put
  960
  very well the feeling of a great many officers in the Army. It was to this effect, that it was not only to the Staff that the officer should look for his advancement and promotion. He thought the right hon. Gentleman from being at the War Office and coming naturally into contact with staff officers allowed undue weight to the staff branch of the Army, but he would be doing the Army a great disservice if he let an officer think that it was only on the staff that he could do himself good. The ordinary regimental officer ought to have every opportunity of getting promotion or getting some advantages, even if he did not want to go on the staff. One other point he wished to make was that if all these demands were made by the right hon. Gentleman on the officers—he did not believe for a moment that they would be resisted, he was certain that they would be only too delighted to respond to the call—either they would have a shortage of officers or they would have to increase the pay. Other professions were getting more and more attractive, while the Army was getting more hard-working. The regimental pay of the British officer had not been altered since the days of Queen Anne, and he did not think they were asking anything extravagant in requesting that the matter should be looked into in the near future.
  MR. SUMMERBELLwished to call attention to the case of a deserving class in the British Army and to win the practical sympathy and support of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on their behalf. At the beginning of last session the hon. Member for the Abercromby division and himself called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the treatment of the soldier suffering from consumption and to the fact that he was discharged without any consideration whatever. The basis upon which he put his argument at that time was the fact that the War Office had sent out a blue paper to the municipal authorities asking them when a soldier was discharged for this cause and sent home to keep him under supervision. That he thought was rather unfair treatment so far as the authorities were concerned, because the War Office was placing upon

  961
  municipalities responsibilities that ought to be discharged by the Army Department. As a result, the right hon. Gentleman kindly appointed a Select Committee, four out of six of the Members of which were leading military gentlemen, and he himself had the honour of serving on it. They received a good deal of evidence of a very practical and skilful character, and the work of the Committee finished in August of last year. There was a unanimous recommendation made that the Department should endeavour to give every diseased soldier discharged for tuberculosis, from four to six months residence in a sanatorium before he was finally discharged from the Army. This matter was considered in 1902 by the late Government and by the Army Council, and there was a great similarity with regard to the decisions of the War Office Authorities in 1902 and 1908. In 1902, it was decided that this matter could not be dealt with without similar treatment being meted out to all Government employees, both military and civil. He wanted to point that out, because he considered it to be a very important aspect of this question. The soldier suffering from consumption was altogether different from a soldier suffering from heart failure or any other disease. It had been urged that a man suffering from heart disease should have the same treatment meted out to him as was given to a man suffering from consumption, but let the House consider the subject in what he submitted was its proper light. He would take the ordinary soldier to-day. Directly it was found that he was suffering from consumption the officer had no option but to discharge that man and send him home. What was the home of the soldier? Ordinarily, the soldier was the son of a working-man, and he was sent back to his home where he could not have the ventilation and other adjuncts of life necessary to bring about a good state of health and prevent the spread of infection. The soldier went back, slept in some cases in the same room with other members of the family, in many cases in the same bed, and yet it was proved by the evidences of medical officers of the Army that these men were a danger to anyone with whom they came into contact, and that the greatest
  962
  precautions should be taken to prevent them coming into contact with other people. The fact that the Government to-day compelled the local authorities to notify tuberculous disease as infectious showed that these men constituted a danger. He contended that the Government were not doing their duty unless they rent the men to a sanatorium. Every year 350 men suffering from this complaint went into the municipalities where they spread the disease. They all loved the British soldier, but he thought that their treatment of him when he contracted consumption while serving with the colours was bad and utterly unfair. It could not be said that the authorities; did not take all the precautions that were necessary to get a soldier who was sound in wind and limb. After the medical examinations he had to undergo, and the measures they took to see that he was physically fit, he thought he could draw the inference that no less than eight out of every ten men who were discharged suffering from consumption had contracted the disease when serving with the colours. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to dealing with this matter was, he considered, very disappointing. The finding of the Committee was that the average number of these men was 350 every year, and in order to provide the necessary accommodation and give these men a hen e in life and prevent the spread of disease the initial expenditure would be £16,000 and the annual expenditure £6,000. That would give to 350 soldiers every year an opportunity of being cured of this terrible disease and being enabled once more to fight the battle of life after they had been discharged from the Army. Yet the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had decided that so far as the finding of the Committee was concerned they were not going to adopt it. All he could say was that had the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues considered the Report of the Army Council of 1902 and decided upon it, the time of Member s of this House, of witnesses outside this House, and the expense of the Select Committee might have been saved so far as the taxpayer was concerned. The Army Council in 1902 arrived at the same decision, and why the right hon. Gentleman should appoint this special Committee in view of the

  963
  finding of the Army Council in 1902 and then take up the same attitude as was taken up six years ago, he could not possibly conceive. The Select Committee's work was exhaustive in the extreme; the matter was fully investigated by medical experts, and it was with the intention of finally appealing to the right hon. Gentleman before the Report of that Committee was issued that he rose. He was rather surprised at the delay which had taken place in issuing the Report The work of that Committee finished last August and he signed the Report last year and although we were in March of this year it had not seen the light of day. Before it was issued he wanted, as he had stated, to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision arrived at, and at a cost of £6,000 a year give tie soldiers a chance of four to six months residence in a sanatorium, so as to enable them to recover their health, to fight the battle of life, and to prevent the spread of the disease in various parts of the country. The soldier in America got an opportunity of residence in a sanatorium, and was allowed, if he was cured, to rejoin the Army and serve under the colours. Certainly it could not be argued for a single moment that what could be done in America could not be done for our soldiers at home. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to take a broad arid sympathetic view of this question, and not allow a few paltry thousands to stand in the way of those unfortunate soldiers having an opportunity of being cured of this disease, and so enable them to regain their health.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNERwho was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that there would be a difficulty in getting officers for the special Reserve to serve for a year, or even four months, and he urged his right hon. friend to alter the proposal for obtaining Special Reserve officers. The only time when they could get Special Reserve officers was when they came into the Army and when they were young, and at that stage they could not get from them a year nor even four months consecutively, because they had not the time to go through that long period. He did not
  964
  say that that was not necessary if they were going to make Regular officers of them, but he thought they ought to have Regular officers if they liked of inferior quality, who would fill up the gaps in time of stress. Therefore, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see some easier way in regard to officers for the Special Reserve than that of going up for a year's work at a time, or doing two examinations, one in the public school and one at the university, and then four months after that. He did not think that they were getting; sufficient officers towards filling up the enormous deficiency that would inevitably take place on mobilisation. In the Regular Army the deficiency was already 5,000 and on mobilisation it would be something enormous.
  MR. LUPTONsaid with regard to this question of officers the difficulty could not be for one moment a question of money. He had been going through the Estimates and he found that they were spending on the officers of the Army something like £4,000,000. That was a tremendous lot. As far as he could make out the officers got about £500 a year on the average. Surely that was plenty. He would venture humbly but persistently to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there was one way of getting any number of the best possible officers, and that with great economy, namely, to make it absolutely essential that every officer should have passed through the ranks. If the officer was a man of the people his pay would be ample The men who passed through the ranks and rose to be officers were of the class who became the managers of large works and industrial concerns, mine and factorie—men who were capable of commanding thousands of workmen under great difficulties, men who had risen from the ranks in their various industries. Therefore, he suggested that they might utilise in other ways this lavish expenditure on officers. For instance, there were four generals getting £4,000 a year each, and three getting £2,250 each. Thee were half-pay field marshals getting from £1,300 to£25000 a year each. There were twenty-six other generate on half-pay, getting from £500

  965
  to £800 a year each. There were 218 retired generals getting from £600 to £1,185 a year. There were 331 generals. What on earth could the right hon. Gentleman do with 331 generals? They must be tumbling over each other; it was impossible that they could be needed for our small force, for which a dozen generals would suffice. This enormous number of highly paid officers, he thought, was a great waste of money, and they got no return in any shape that was worth having. If they were to have an efficient Army at anything like a reasonable price they must give up spending £4,000,000 a year on officers for a little bit of an Army. No other country paid their officers in anything like the same, proportion. Out of an Army of about 170,000 men about £4,000,000 went on officers in pay and pensions. What they should do was to give a retired officer about £100 a year, which was enough to keep him out of the workhouse, and if he were an officer of good family let that family keep him when he retired. Any man of education and of talent, however, could surely turn himself to something that would be for the good of his country. Why should a man retire in middle life, full of health and strength and capacity, to live on a pension all the rest of his days? They did not treat, the soldiers like that. For a soldier £26 a year was enough; four times that ought to be enough for an officer. Of the £4,000,000 a year nearly £2,500,000 was wasted on ineffective pensions. Until that matter was tackled, until they had some man of strength and iron will to deal with it, they would not make satisfactory progress. If the right hon. Gentleman put his services to such a good use he would find that he had a difficult job. He would have to face the Opposition in the House of Commons, and the opposition of the Department with which he had to work, and at the same time offend the people with whom he had to deal, in suggesting really practical economies. In a private concern the managing director dealing with a similar a e of extravagan e in salaries would either have to shift some people, or be shifted himself. In regard to officers they could get the best talent in England for
  966
  £500 a year, and to pay any more was simply a waste of money. He would not draw the line strictly at £500, for field marshals might get £1,000 a year. It was not a question of whether the pay was £500 or £5,000; if an officer liked the Army he would stick there. In regard to the Yeomanry and horses, he had heard mentioned that agricultural horses had increased; but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was right in preparing for the time when motor cars would take the place of horses. Generals in the future would have 10,000 motor cars to carry, 60,000 men to attack the enemy's communications and then get back again out of harm's way all in a night With regard to the Army generally, he under stood that the size of the striking force depended to a great extent on the size of the Army outside of this country. But it should be remembered that our soldiers had rifles and artillery four times, as effective as the weapons possessed by our soldiers fifty years ago; therefore one-fourth the number of troops should now be sufficient 25,000 troops would be enough in India instead-of the 78,000 we had now uselessly got there.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL GENERAL POWERS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MR. COURTHOPEin moving "That it be an instruction to the Committee to strike out from the Bill all clauses dealing with the milk supply other than the model milk clause" said he was speaking on behalf of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which had the

  967
  support of the County Councils Association and of Lord Northcote's Committee, which was appointed to inquire into the question of tuberculosis. Behind this proposal there was the whole agricultural community and the bodies responsible for local government in agricultural districts. In addition there was a large number of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House who had signed a memorial to the President of the Local Government Board, and of course this matter was also supported by innumerable resolutions and petitions from agricultural bodies in all parts of the country. Their position was that in this question of the milk supply, which was admitted on all hands to be a most important question, they must have general legislation. It was the only thing that would meet the case from the point of view of the consumer or the producer, and the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the other bodies he had mentioned had for a number of years past been pressing for this general legislation, though unsuccessfully. The attitude which they now took up on these Bills was that pending a general Act, they must have uniform local legislation, and in order to secure uniformity they must move on the basis of the Model Milk Clause, which had already been adopted in the case of a hundred private Acts. He might perhaps be allowed to give a summary of the circumstances which had led up to the present situation. In 1899 the question of tuberculosis of the udder became very prominent, and a great many towns and boroughs sought to obtain local Acts dealing with the matter, and these Acts contained a vast variety of remedial proposals. It was naturally felt that some attempt at uniformity was essential, and with that object in view the Local Government Board and the Board of Agriculture of the day consulted and hurriedly framed what were known as the Model Milk Clauses. He thought even the framers would admit that they were incomplete, but at the same time they were the only basis that they had for any attempt at uniformity, because they were inserted in all this vast number of local Acts already including all the London boroughs, and last year, in a form which was only very slightly modified,
  968
  the clauses were inserted in the London County Council General Powers Act. Some authorities had other clauses dealing with the matter of the milk supply, and all, whether model or otherwise, gave power of inspection and other powers outside their own area and jurisdiction, and it was that jurisdiction outside their own area which had caused such vast inconvenience to the agricultural community. He knew of one case where a certain dairy farmer was registered in no fewer than twenty-nine different places, and if this Bill passed he would have to be registered in a thirtieth, with the result that he was liable to visits from an enormous number of inspectors with varying views and acting under varying regulations, and he did not know where he stood. This was true more or less of the whole of the producers of milk. In addition to this they had the general question of the purity and cleanliness of the milk supply. It used to be considered that this could be completely dealt with at the source of production by regulations affecting cowsheds, and the Dairies, Cowsheds and Milkshops Orders were the result. They dealt with sanitary conditions and other matters, but they were not compulsory. That was a very important point. It had now been found, and he thought the whole agricultural community as well as local authorities and representatives of the consumers would admit, that these orders had not been quite sufficient and that milk arrived in a dirty condition at the place to which it was consigned. It was now sought to place on the dairy farmers responsibility for the state of the milk on its arrival. He did not deny that pollution was sometimes attributable to the agriculturist. In many cases it was difficult to ensure that the milkman should wash his hands and cleanse the cow which had possibly been rolling, before he milked. It was absolutely necessary for the milkman to press his head and shoulders against the cow, and he sometimes scraped off caked dirt which might fall into the milk. But that was not all. A vast variety of things had been found in milk churns which had come to London, including tobacco, tobacco pipes, and tea leaves. It was no uncommon thing to see a number of churns standing open at the

  969
  London railway termini, because many of the companies would not carry them if they were locked. The milk was liable to pollution on that account. It was admitted on all hands that there was a good deal of theft and consequent adulteration at the railway termini. It was said that workmen going early to their work brought their cans of hot tea, tipped part of it into the churns and replaced it with milk. Agriculturists naturally objected to accepting the responsibility for such things as that. The railway companies refused to accept it and no steps had been taken to enforce it upon them. This Bill threw the whole responsibility for these matters on to the producer. The agricultural community had no wish to avoid inspection or to resist any sound proposals to ensure a pure and clean supply of milk, but they said the regulations must be uniform. The matter was first taken up by the Chamber of Agriculture. The Dairy Products Committee of the Central Chamber issued a report which was adopted by the council and submitted to a joint conference of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the County Councils Association, and Lord Northbrook's Committee. Certain alterations were made and were submitted to the general body and approved. They recommended, inter alia: (1) That the authority dealing with the question of the purity of the milk supply should be the same authority as under the Diseases of Animals Act, otherwise the county council; (2) That the Dairies, Cowsheds and Milkshops Order of 1899 should be consolidated and amended; (3) That proper legislation of a general kind should be introduced dealing with sanitation and matters of that kind, providing for proper inspection and setting up a new class of regulation as regarded tuberculosis. There was also a recommendation that there should be no further overlapping jurisdiction, which was a very important matter, and that the Dairies, Cowsheds and Milk-shops Order should be made compulsory. The agricultural community did not desire in any way to shirk their responsibility, or to hinder any steps to secure a pure supply of milk. On the other hand, they asked that they should not have liability for pollution in transit after
  970
  the milk had left their hands, or else that steps should be taken to render the use of sealed vessels obligatory. The dairyman was already responsible to the local authority in his area, and if this Bill were passed he would be made responsible to the London County Council. He admitted that the position of London, into which 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 gallons of milk were brought every year, was unique; but that only strengthened the case of the agriculturist, because it meant that the county council would be given a power of interference outside their area which would affect dairies over a very large area of country; this would make the nuisance intolerable and unbearable and prevent the producer from supplying his milk any longer. It would be impossible for the milk producer to contend with all these disadvantages which would be placed upon him, if London in addition to all the other bodies was given powers of this kind. He had endeavoured to put the case for the agricultural community on general grounds, and he submitted that they had a very strong case. The President of the Local Government Board had promised legislation on this subject this year, and there was, therefore, all the more reason for resisting piecemeal legislation now. He felt that the House could not resist a position so strong, the disturbance of which would bring so much injustice and discomfort to the whole community. Without any further argument he begged to move.
  Mr. HICKS BEACHseconded the Motion, He said that he would briefly summaries the points upon which their case was based. This was a demand put forward by the agricultural community in general Dairy farmers throughout the country whatever their opinions might be on matters of legislation affecting the tenure of land or other controversial topics, were unanimously of opinion that if Government legislation was to be introduced in connection with the regulation of the sale and supply of milk such legislation should affect not one particular area of the country, but the country as a whole. The President of the Local Government Board would no doubt tell them that London was unique, and its

  971
  position unlike any other borough in the country. That was quite true. Probably they would be told that the innovations introduced into these model clauses were very slight, but they were of vital necessity to the well-being and health of the inhabitants of London. Nobody pretended that the Model Milk Clauses were all that could be desired, but this Bill introduced dangerous innovations which gave the London County Council power to deal with milk and penalise the seller if the milk contained any matter Tendering it unwholesome or unfit for the food of man. Under the Model Milk Clauses they possessed this power only in regard to milk which contained the germs of tuberculosis. There were one or two other objections, but agriculturists based their claim mainly on the ground that they wished any legislation to be uniform throughout the country. In this they had the sanction of the Government of the day contained in declarations made by Ministers during the present session. The President of the Board of Agriculture had announced in the House of Lords that it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with the regulation of the sale and supply of milk, and the President of the Local Government Board had made a similar pronouncement. On those grounds the agricultural community asked the House to give this instruction to the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to strike out from the Bill all Clauses dealing with milk supply other than the Model Milk Clauses."—(Mr. Courthope.)
  MR. GUINNESSsaid he was very glad to notice that the proposer and seconder of this Instruction had both acknowledged the necessity for a change in the present regulations regarding the supply of milk. There was another point on which, as representing the London County Council, he found himself in accord with what they had said. They had both pointed out the great advantage of public legislation as opposed to piecemeal legislation in dealing with this question. In that the London County Council entirely
  972
  concurred. Before the London County Council drafted the clauses which were now being considered they approached the Local Government Board to find out whether they proposed to bring in a public Bill dealing with the whole matter. The London County Council realised that the right hon. Gentleman had exceptional facilities for judging of the necessity for further legislation to ensure a pure milk supply for London. They all remembered the views to which the right hon. Gentleman frequently gave expression on the London County Council in favour of a purer milk supply and hoped that he would bring in general legislation on the subject. It was only when the London County Council received the answer that the Local Government Board were not in p position to commit themselves to legislation that these clauses were drafted. He admitted the desirability of uniformity. It was a great disadvantage that there were at present over 100 Acts of Parliament dealing with the milk supply. Their first object was to ensure a cheap supply, and if they hampered the producers of milk throughout Great Britain by unnecessarily harassing restrictions the price was likely to be raised. The London County Council, being unable to get an assurance from the President of the Local Government Board that he would introduce a general measure dealing with this question, felt it necessary to bring in a modification of the model clauses. It was no argument for acquiescing in the existing unsatisfactory state of affairs because they were told they could not get an ideal state. If the President of the Local Government Board would give an assurance that he would bring in legislation which would ensure a pure supply of milk, and also take into consideration the special position of London, the County Council would gladly be relieved of the necessity of pressing their proposals. The hon. Member for the Tewkesbury division had stated that the modifications which the London County Council proposed were slight modifications of the model clauses. The view of the council was that the model clauses did not go half for enough. It was not enough to cheek the supply of tuberculous milk; they wanted also to keep out dirty milk.

  973
  They approved of the machinery of the model clauses, but sought to extend their application. The county council had in some cases not satisfied the metropolitan borough councils, because they had not gone far enough. In order to ensure a cheap supply, the council were anxious not to throw any undue burden upon the local authority, and therefore they had kept the whole power of inspection at railway stations in the hands of the council. Certain metropolitan borough councils complained of that, but the county council proposed to strengthen the hands of the borough councils by provisions in the draft clauses to enable them to proceed for penalties against those retailers of milk who put on sale dirty milk. Section 47 of the London Public Health Act, of 1891 was not strong enough, for it only enabled a borough council to seize milk which was obviously unfit for human consumption. A good many magistrates had refused to convict sellers of milk which was certainly dirty, because they were not absolutely convinced that it was unfit for human consumption. The powers now asked would enable the borough councils to bring pressure to bear on retailers to keep milk free from contamination in the retail shops where milk was bought in small quantities. They did not propose any inquisitorial powers whatever and they felt certain that no clean farmer would be penalised in the least by their clauses. The Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration had recognised the importance of clean milk, and had recommended that in default of action by the Rural Sanitary Authorities, County Councils, and as a last resort the Local Government Board should be empowered to intervene. The National Conference on Infantile Mortality also recommended in 1906 that the scope of the regulations should be extended to cover dirty milk. No doubt many large dairies were doing all that was necessary to ensure a clean supply, but a large proportion of the population had to depend upon small shops, and under present conditions that supply was very insanitary, no less than 73 per cent, of the milk sellers in Finsbury exposing their milk for sale in uncovered vessels. The state of affairs now existing
  974
  was very dangerous. In Finsbury Dr. Foulerton found that 32 per cent, of the samples of milk he examined contained pus and 40 per cent, contained dirt. Dr. Harris, medical officer of health for Islington, last year examined the contents of thirty-four churns at Finsbury Park station, and out of the thirty-four successive churns thirty-three contained cow dung. The House was aware that tuberculous milk was only excluded by the model clauses if it came from cows suffering from tuberculosis of the udder, but there were many other disorders of the cow's udder which caused pus in milk, and which was probably very dangerous to human life. In the report of the National Conference on Infant Mortality one witness gave evidence in regard to an outbreak of 600 cases of sore throat where the ailment was very like diphtheria. That outbreak was traced to a skin affection of the udder of a single cow. There was no doubt that the presence of pus in milk was very dangerous to human life. Another form of contamination in milk for which there was no excuse was the presence of cow dung. That was dangerous even from the point of view of tuberculosis. A Report published last year by the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States showed that there was a large amount of tuberculous infection from this cause in milk quite apart from that caused by tuberculous udders. Under present conditions the milk passed through so many different hands in London that it was quite impossible to discover where contaminated milk originally came from, and so the dirty farmer got off with impunity. If the President of the Local Government Board was going to bring in general legislation, he should remember that it was no use for the Metropolitan borough councils to be enabled to proceed against the retailers of milk in London unless some authority—in his opinion the London County Council seemed to be the only possible one—was enabled to go to the railway stations and find out there what milk was dangerous before it reached such a stage in its distribution, as would make it impossible to find out whence the milk had originated. He hoped that the general legislation promised by the President of the Local Government Board would embody provisions such those laid down in Part 2 of the

  975
  London County Council General Powers Bill. All the trouble with this dirty milk was due to the fact that in a large number of districts in the country the Dairies, Cowsheds, and Milk-Shops Orders were not enforced. He would remind the House that it was optional on the part of the local authorities to put these Orders into force. The Privy Council had laid down some very valuable regulations as to the condition of the milk, the sanitary condition of the cowsheds, and the prevention of contamination; and Paragraph 13 of that Privy Council Order enabled the sanitary authorities to frame additional regulations in regard to the inspection of cattle, the sanitation and ventilation of the cowsheds, and the general cleanliness of the milk supply. It was a very disquieting fact that, according to the Local Government Board figures, no fewer than 324 sanitary authorities had made no regulations under that Order, and in the case of a large number of other sanitary authorities no enforcement was insisted upon. He was sure they all sympathised with what had been said by the hon. Member for Rye as to the danger of over-lapping between local authorities, and they realised that it was a disadvantage to farmers that they had sometimes to notify as many as 100 different authorities of the occurrence of cases of tuberculous disease. But, as the present arrangement had failed to ensure a clean and pure supply of milk to London, it was now insisted that the matter should be put into the hands of the consumers, and that the London County Council as their representatives should be enabled to look after the interest of those primarily affected. The reports of various medical officers of health in different counties from which the London milk supply was drawn would show the dangerous condition of thing; which existed, and the filthy and revolting state of the cowsheds in various places. The report from Derbyshire stated that the local authorities did not see why the ratepayers in the rural districts should pay for the inspection of dairies the milk from which was consumed in London. They thought the cost of administering the Orders should come out of Imperial taxation. The result was that in many districts there had been
  976
  no inspection of the cowsheds. Prom Leicestershire the report was that the registration of dairymen, cowkeepers, and purveyors of milk appeared in some distracts to be a dead letter, and that the legal safeguards were allowed to remain in abeyance. Men in the district might with impunity sell milk no matter from what source it came, even where there had been an outbreak of typhoid fever. In Wiltshire certain rural district councils imposed no supervision whatever, and in Cheshire the cowsheds were, for the most part, dark, badly ventilated and drained, and dirty. If possible the conditions were worse in many cases in Lancashire than in Cheshire The veterinary surgeon in Manchester mentioned a large number of farms which were totally unfit for dairy purposes, and where they had been able to stop the supply of milk from these farms coming to Manchester it was sent on to London. In one case a farmer applied to the Manchester Corporation asking to be allowed to keep a tuberculous cow because he had discontinued sending the milk from it into Manchester and sent it now to London. In another report it stated that very rarely were the cowsheds washed down, that the dirt on the floors was inches thick, and that other animals than cows were kept in the sheds. Another medical inspector stated that the introduction of various abominations into the milk at the cowsheds might account for the high death rate in the district. In many districts no regulations had been adopted by the local authorities. In one case of twenty-nine members of the district council no less than five were milk sellers, and four of these occupied unregistered premises. The reports from Anglesey stated that the conditions of the dairies there was a scandal and a danger, and that the butter and milk came from foul and filthy premises. In very few instances were the cows udders washed before milking. Dirty cowsheds were really only a part of the danger. The milk after being drawn stood in cowsheds with little ventilation and in an atmosphere laden with pollution. The milking was done often by men who came dirty from doing dirtiest farm work, with dirty clothes and hands to milk even dirtier cows—cows which had not been groomed for twelve months

  977
  or in fact since they were born. Cows in many cases were only able to obtain water from ponds which were contaminated with very dangerous drain water, and bacteria and cow dung dried on to the cows, and found their way into the milk. A great many of these undesirable ingredients were knocked into the milk in the process of milking, and when the milk was not strained at once it was charged with bacteria. If the milk were drunk while fresh there was less danger, but 95 per cent, of the milk supplied to London came from a greater distance than 100 miles. None of it was drunk before twelve hours, had elapsed, and in the case of a very large proportion, it had to wait twenty-four hours.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid it appeared to him that the hon. Member was going into many details suitable for the Committee, and he should confine himself more closely to the Resolution before the House.
  MR. GUINNESScontended that what he had said had a good deal to do with the question before the House, because the model milk clauses referred to by the hon. Member for Rye only dealt with tuberculous cows, and he wanted to show that there was danger quite apart from tuberculosis, and that no restrictions which dealt only with that danger would meet the needs of London. He would not say anything more about that matter, except to bring home the urgency of the case as shown in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, which showed that in 1902 in London of every thousand births no less than twenty children died before reaching the age of one year, owing to dysentry, diarrhoea, enteritis and cholera, and that in the country districts out of a thousand births only eight children died from the same causes. This showed that in London these diseases which were chiefly due to an inadequate and impure milk supply were two-and-a-half times as great as in the country where the milk was drunk fresh before the bacteria were able to multiply in it. He thought that, considering the conditions under which our population lived, the death rate in London was
  978
  exceedingly low and reflected the greatest credit upon our medical officers of health and on the sanitary authorities. It was lower than in any other part of the country, and the only figure which stood out in black contrast to the general condition of health in London was that of infantile mortality, which was chiefly due to the contaminated milk supply. This was a matter of the gravest importance, and he hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would, if he was proposing legislation, keep in mind the special position of London and remember that, if we were to have a sanitary milk supply in London and keep down this infant mortality, it should be possible for the local authorities in London to step in and take the place of those sanitary authorities in the country who neglected their duties and allowed milk to be contaminated by sewage.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,)said the House had before it that evening three Bills promoted by three separate local authorities, dealing with the subject under discussion to which the Motion of the hon. Member for Rye related. One was the Bill of the Widnes Corporation for the establishment of a sterilised milk depot and also containing tuberculosis clauses. Another was a Bill promoted by the Blackburn Corporation, which had inserted in it what were known as model clauses, but it had two clauses which went beyond the model clauses in one respect and dealt with tuberculosis in an exceptional manner for local legislation. The other Bill, around which the discussion had mainly ranged that evening, was a Bill promoted by the London County Council. They, a year or two ago, got the model clauses in one of their Bills, and the county council, in his opinion, very properly applied to Parliament now for additional powers to enable not only the borough councils, but the London County Council to deal, as they must do if they discharged their public health duties to their constituents, in a more effective and drastic way with the milk supply than was now possible under their limited powers. As these three Bills from three different towns dealt more or less with the same subject in a

  979
  somewhat similar way, it was only right that at that moment he should express the views of the Government on the London County Council Bill, the Widnes Bill and the Blackburn Bill, and in so doing he would briefly say that the Government took no exception to the hon. Member for Rye's Instruction. It must be clearly understood, however, that the Government did not identify itself either with all the objects or motives that might have induced the hon. Member and the interest on whose behalf he acted to take the course implied by his Motion. The hon. Member sought uniformity of law and of general regulation. He wanted penalties to be co-ordinated—in a word, to make the punishment fit the crime. The hon. Member wanted, he presumed, on behalf of those for whom he spoke, uniformity of law, of penalty, of procedure, and of method in dealing with all the aspects of the milk supply. If that was his object, and it was a very desirable one, the Government thought that it could be done better by a general Bill, by general law and by general regulation, in preference to spasmodic and exceptional local attempts; and they took that view because they thought in the interests of all, particularly the farmer whose interests in his judgment were not at all damaged nor were they incompatible with a better protection of the consumer than now prevailed —they thought in the interests of the farmer, the dairymen, and the general consumer, and especially the children in our large towns, that the time had arrived when they should have a better milk supply, a cleaner milk supply, he hoped a larger milk supply, and he should rejoice to hear that these three conditions could be secured without having a dearer supply. To bring some of these objects about he had on behalf of the Government to say in a word that they would fulfil the promise he had given on an earlier occasion to bring in a general Bill for dealing with the milk supply of the country. They thought that the interests of a great industry and what he hoped would be an ever-increasing and growing industry, demanded this general treatment, and he was very pleased to hear from the hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion that the farmer and
  980
  the dairyman and the agriculturist generally clearly recognised that the conditions that now prevailed could not much longer continue. What was more, the best of them went so far as to say that they ought not to continue, and he believed that the interests of the progressive farmer and of the clean and healthy and enterprising dairyman were such that they ought to co-operate with all sections of the public and the Government and the local authorities to prevent the worst of their casing from carrying on a great industry except under the best, cleanest, and most scientific conditions. In other words, milk had become a national question, and he felt that the House by the speeches to which they had just listened regarded it as an Imperial obligation upon the Government to carry out the proposal they all had in view, and considered that a general milk Bill was demanded. He must tell the House frankly that his chief object was the protection of the public health, and he believed that that could be done without handicapping the farmer or harassing the dairyman. On the contrary, he believed that it would be profitable to both and beneficial to the public. The Bill which he intended to bring in, and he hoped that those who had spoken would assist to carry it through this session, would help them to satisfy a number of requirements which he did not intend to elaborate, but he might say it would seek to secure cleanliness, purity, and reliability in the milk supply, and to remove the evils of overlapping jurisdiction, and would deal with the question of compensation if any, in certain cases, and a number of other matters. There was another aspect of this question which had only been lightly touched upon, and that was the necessity of doing this in the interests of the town children. He had the honour of being the President of the Infant Mortality Conference at which he spoke last year, and intended to speak again this month, at their annual conference. He believed that what was being increasingly brought home to those who were responsible for the diet of old and young alike, both in the home and in institutions, was the great value of milk, good milk and plenty of it as an article of diet, and

  981
  he must frankly say that the increasing demand that there was for pure milk was not going to be further increased if the public were to rest content with the description of the circumstances under which some milk was produced, that had been given by the hon. Member who had just sat down. In fact the hon. Member's speech was rather inclined to tempt nearly everyone who was microscopically acquainted with the condition of some dairies and some shops to paraphrase Bob Eccles, in Caste: "What, milk! Milk! I'd rather have a drop of cool refreshing gin." Perhaps the hon. Member would substitute stout for gin. He was convinced that we could not get the children as strong, as vigorous, and as beautiful as they ought to be, unless milk more thoroughly entered into the diet of the poor children in the poorer districts in our towns and he noticed with interest that the dairyman, the milk purveyor and the farmer at least that night, had come to the conclusion that the time had come when they should co-operate with the Government and the local authorities in putting their trade on a better footing than it was now. He trusted that in regard to the provisions of their Bill, which would deal with the conditions of transit of milk and the vessels in which it was sold, and other things, they should have the co-operation of every interest which wanted to promote agriculture and farming, and above all milk farming, on the lines he had laid down. He could only assure hon. Members on all sides of the House that the Government would clearly take into consideration the unique and exceptional character and size of London and the need in this matter of exceptional treatment for London by virtue of its peculiar position. The milk supply of London could not be satisfactorily controlled unless the central body had greater control than it now had, not only over milk but over a number of other things. He assured the Members for Blackburn and Widnes, and the Members who re-
  982
  presented the London County Council, that much that each of them sought would be embodied in the Government Bill along with other matters which they had not mentioned. He hoped the Motion of the hon. Member for Rye would be carried without a division, and that he might enter upon his task of dealing with the whole question by Government Bill with the knowledge that all parties and interests would be ready to cooperate in carrying a just, reasonable, fair, and equitable Bill dealing with the milk supply of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he had no wish to stand between the House and a decision, but he desired to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the promise he had made. He had no right or claim to speak as an agriculturist or as a representative of agriculture, but in his opinion the agriculturists would be well advised if they did their best to co-operate with the Government in endeavouring to arrive at a system which would be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Now that they had arrived at an agreement, he did not like to criticise the speech of his hon. friend, but he was bound to say that a speech couched in terms such as he had used was one not calculated to conduce to a satisfactory settlement. The logical conclusion of his speech was that, if one was allowed to drink milk at all, he ought only to be allowed to do so under exceptional circumstances and the greatest possible supervision. He did not think language of that kind was calculated to promote a satisfactory conclusion. He did not commit himself or anyone to supporting any Bill in all its details, but he certainly thought they ought to wait until they could see the measure; they would be well-advised to leave the matter and ask the Government to introduce the Bill as soon as possible, assuring them that they would do their best to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory

  983
  not only to consumers but also to agriculturists throughout the country.
  MR. COOPERsaid he had a certain amount of interest in the Bill, because the clauses in question were introduced in 1905 when he was Chairman of the Public Health Committee of the London County Council, and were the product of that committee. No one was more earnest at that time in supporting those clauses than the present President of the Local Government Board. He showed certain reasons why London should be treated exceptionally. He pointed out that thirty-five county councils of England had not appointed medical officers of health. At the present time thirty-two had not appointed such officers. He also pointed, out that a number of sanitary authorities had no efficient sanitary inspector. It was important for the London County Council to push these clauses on. If it had been necessary he would have supported in a division the hon. Member representing the London County Council, because he recognised that the London County Council ought to have this legislation placed in their hands. But if the President of the Local Government Board was going to bring in legislation dealing generally with England, of course he felt they were bound to withdraw these clauses and to do their best when the Bill was introduced to make it available for the whole country. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to see that the administration of county councils in these matters was improved, as there was no legislation on the subject at all and the tuberculosis order did not affect it in any shape or form. This was absolutely new legislation in England, but it had been applied to at least twenty or thirty large cities in America. In Massachusetts it had proved very successful. The Massachusetts Board of Health published what was called a White List of farmers who
  984
  obeyed their regulations, and this was a potent force in getting them to carry them out, for they were extremely anxious to get on the list. He would have liked the President of the Local Government Board to have stated when the Bill would be introduced, but he hoped there would be no delay. He did not think it would be a contentious Bill, and it would certainly be a very valuable one. The reason why London should be treated exceptionally was that there were 150,000 gallons of milk imported every day, and of that at least 15,000 gallons probably a far larger quantity, were dirty, being contaminated in the manner described by the hon. Member opposite. That fact alone ought to induce the President of the Local Government Board to expedite the measure.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he should like to speak on behalf of his constituency which was a daily increasing factor in the milk-producing area for London. The farmers he represented were anxious to assist in every possible way in producing a pure milk supply, but they hoped the right hon. Gentleman would lay down a sharp limit showing where the farmers' responsibility began and where it ended. He had endeavoured to obtain the opinion of the farmers in his constituency on this Milk Bill which he had predicted, and there was a universal consensus of opinion on this point. They said that the retailer's limit was fixed, and they were very anxious indeed that the limit of responsibility of the farmer should also be fixed. They, of course, knew that the cleanliness of the milk was a very important subject, but there was another point to be considered. They might produce and retail milk in as cleanly a way as they would, but they must educate the people to keep it in a cleanly way. Milk produced and retailed under the beat possible conditions was very often rendered harmful by the way in which it was kept.
  Mr. SEDDONsaid he rose to express his disappointment at the decision of the President of the Local Government Board. No doubt he had the welfare of the people at heart, but the Widnes Corporation Bill had a clause which he maintained did not invade the grounds of objection laid down by the hon. Member for Rye. He was glad the Bill was not to be jeopardised, because there were many provisions in it which would be very useful. Clause 67, which dealt more particularly with sterilised milk, and down that the milk should not be supplied, except for consumption by children under two years of age. He came from a town, St. Helens, which might claim credit for its efforts on behalf of sterilised milk and the reduction of infant mortality. He would therefore be very much obliged to the hon. Member for Rye if he could make an exception in the case of Widnes, and let the Bill go to the Committee without the instruction to strike out from it all clauses dealing with milk supply other than the model milk clauses. If he agreed, he would be doing something for the prevention of infant mortality in the town of Widnes. He would not endeavour to move the hon. Member by argument or logic, but he would appeal to his good nature to use his good office with the President of the Local Government Board to make an exception in the case of Widnes.
  Mr. HARMOOD-BANNERexpressed disappointment with the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. It seemed to him that the agricultural interest in this question had squared the Local Government Board to the prejudice of the municipalities.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I do not think you will say so when you have seen the Bill.
  Mr. HARMOOD BANNERsaid that, in view of the full complement of Bills the
  986
  Government was going to introduce, he would have much preferred to have seen a local Bill so good as this carried rather than wait for the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. The milk was coming in daily. In Liverpool they already had means for the supply of sterilised milk, for which there was a great demand both in that city and in the surrounding locality. It seemed to him extraordinary, when proof had been given of the necessity and the desirability of sterilised milk depots in towns, that the President of the Local Government Board should step in and stop the acquirement of them. He could, as President of the Municipal Associations, assure him that this was a matter that they had very much at heart, and, although they had not had the honour, as a deputation, of waiting upon the right hon. Gentleman, they would be very glad to discuss it with him and show him the desirability of the inquiry. He was really astonished that in the case of Widnes, where the clauses would not anticipate the provisions of the right hon. Gentleman's excellent measure, they were to be put off in the interests of the Royal Agricultural Society. It was distinctly against the desires and wishes of the Corporation, who were actuated by earnest intentions in the interest of the health and happiness of the children of the district. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question of the sterilised milk depots so far as Widnes was concerned. He would cause enormous disappointment if at the instance of agriculture he turned round from his earnest endeavours on behalf of municipalities. He hoped on this question of sterilised milk he would not require the inhabitants of Widnes to go to London or Liverpool for the means which brought their children health and were so necessary for the good of the community.
  Mr. E. GARDNERon behalf of milk producers thanked the President of the Local

  987
  Government Board for the very commonsense view he had taken of the question. He did not believe there was a man inside or outside the House who had a greater desire for the welfare of the people and the children in particular than the right hon. Gentleman. He understood him to say, however, that in regard to London the Bill he proposed to introduce would in all probability impose different conditions. That was a very serious matter indeed. There was no question of such great importance as the advantage of a pure and cheap supply of milk, but the question was how they were to get it. They would not get it by imposing harassing conditions on those who supplied it, and although London was a very important centre of consumption it took a very large area to supply it. If different conditions were imposed in regard to London it would do something to damage the source of supply and the quantity. He had raised some degree of dread in the minds of those who produced the milk.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he must remind the House that the only question before the House was the instruction on this particular private Bill, and it was not in order to discuss the provisions of the public Bill which was to be introduced.
  Mr. E. GARDNERthanked the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done, and hoped that in his legislation he would treat them fairly.
  Mr. COURTENAY WARNERwished to add his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman and to put one point that had not been mentioned, and that was that the fewer people were satisfied the sooner they would achieve their object. If these boroughs and London, which was such an exceptional case, had this protection they would have to wait a long time for it in the country. There were other large
  988
  towns—Birmingham, Glasgow and others —where the mortality was very nearly as great. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on bringing in a universal policy instead of allowing this piecemeal work which would be an injury to the farmer and very little good to the country.
  Mr. T. DAVIESWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he can bring in the Bill this session?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to strike out from Part II. of the Bill all Clauses dealing with milk supply other than the Model Milk Clauses.—(Mr. Courthope.)

  BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to strike out from the Bill all Clauses dealing with milk supply other than the Model Milk Clauses.—(Mr. Courthope.)

  WIDNES CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to strike out from the Bill all Clauses dealing with milk supply other than the Model Milk Clauses. —(Mr. Courthope.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes before Ten o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with: Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company [H.L.].
Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with: London and Windsor Motor Roads, Tramroads and Tramways.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Herne Bay Pier Bill [H.L.]; Huddersfield Water Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order) and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
North British and Mercantile Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railway, Evesham, Redditch, and Stratford-upon-Avon Junction Railway, and East and West: Junction Railway (Amalgamation) Bill [H.L.]; Alliance and other Assurance and Insurance Companies Bill [H.L.]; Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.]; West London, Barnes, and Richmond Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Croydon and Southern District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Camborne Water Bill; London and Windsor Motor Roads, Tramroads, and Tramways Bill. Examiners Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Thursday next.
Swansea Valley Gas Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly Gas Bill [H.L.]; Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great
818
Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Bill H.L.]; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [H.L.]; Thames River Steamboat Service Act, 1904 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, that the Lord Belhaven and Stenton be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Graham (D. Montrose); read, and agreed to.

LONDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]
  LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [H.L.]

    LONDON (WESTMINSTER AND KENSINGTON) ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move, "That it is desirable that the London and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; the London Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]: and the London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament." In asking your Lordships to agree to the appointment of this Joint Committee, I trust you will forgive me if for a moment or two I remind you of the position of the question of the supply of electrical power to London. The story goes back a long way, but I shall only trouble your Lordships with the history of the matter from the year 1905. In that year one important Bill, called the Administrative County of London Bill, was introduced. That Bill was examined by two Committees, one a Committee of your Lordships' House presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, and the other a Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by Lord Airedale, then Sir James Kitson. In 1906 the London County Council itself promoted a Bill, on the ground that the demand for electrical energy in London and certain surrounding districts comprised in the area of supply was rapidly increasing, that there was every reason to believe: that the demand would continue to increase, and that in the near future the use of electrical energy would be far more general. There was also in that session a Bill promoted by the same parties, as in the previous session

    819
    called the Administrative County Bill, and some dozen more. The Bill of the London County Council was referred to a Committee in the other House, and the Committee reported that in their opinion the preamble had not been proved and gave their reasons therefor. In 1907 the County Council again introduced a Bill, but before it was considered by either House of Parliament it was materially modified, great portions of it being withdrawn, and the Committee to whom it was referred finally decided that it ought to be rejected. The other Bill, the one promoted by the companies, remained until near the close of the session, when it was withdrawn. The position now is that there is no Bill promoted by the London County Council before Parliament, but there are three Bills the names of which appear on the Notice Paper—namely, the London and District Electricity Supply Bill, the London Electric Supply Bill, and the London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill. The first of these is for the formation of an independent commercial company to supply electrical energy to London, the second is to form a joint committee of most of the existing electric supply companies in London for the purpose of supplying the whole of the area, and the third is for what I may call linking up a smaller number of companies in London and enabling them while maintaining their own installations and their own generating stations, to supply electricity in bulk to each other, and, of course, in detail to consumers. I think that the reasons which prompted the London County Council to promote their Bill in the year 1906 are even greater to-day than they were then. There can be no doubt whatever but that it is high time that a supply of electricity for power purposes should be given to consumers in London, and I venture oven to go so far as to say that it is approaching a scandal that they should not be able to avail themselves of that supply from some source or other. It is for that reason, and in the hope that the matter may now be threshed out before what I venture to think is the most competent tribunal which Parliament can possibly appoint — namely, a Joint Committee of both Houses—that I ask your Lordships to send these Bills to such a Committee. I do not know, of course, what view will be taken of them.
    820
    I know that strong views are held, on one hand, that the supply of electricity ought to be given by an ordinary commercial company, and, on the other hand, that it ought to be given by a municipality, either the smaller municipalities or the London County Council; but I certainly think the time has arrived when the whole matter ought to be most carefully considered. It may be that the Committee to which these Bills will be referred will decide that the third and the least ambitious of all the schemes— namely, the one which proposes to link up the existing companies, very much in the same way as the water companies in London were linked up very shortly before the Bill was introduced which enabled a public authority to acquire them—is the best; and, if so, that may prove to be the solution of the difficulty. But in any case I think that this is a matter which may very properly be referred to a Joint Committee, and in the hope that this question may be settled in this session of Parliament, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
    Moved, That it is desirable that the London and District Electricity Supply Bill [H.L.]; the London Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]; and the London (Westminster and Kensington) Electric Supply Companies Bill [H.L.]; be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of; of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Supplementary regulation for secondary schools in Wales (including Monmouthshire) 1907.

  VIVISECTION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Fourth Report, with appendix (minutes of evidence) October to December, 1907.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND).
  Accounts of receipts and payments for the financial year from 1st April, 1906, to 31st March, 1907.
  FERTILIZERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1906.
  Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations No. 2, 1907, made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
  The American Gooseberry Mildew, and Black Currant Mite (Ireland) Order, 1908.

  MILITIA ACT, 1882.
  Returns of description of qualifications of deputy lieutenants lodged during 1907, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILL.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the closing of shops and the prohibition of street trading on Sunday. Was presented by Lord Avebury; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, the 17th instant. (No. 25.)

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, in asking your Lordships to read this Bill a second time, I need only detain you a very few minutes. The subject is a familar one to your Lordships, because a very similar Bill was passed through
  822
  this House in the session before last. Last year a similar Bill was introduced in another place, but I think it was only introduced and was not read a second time.
  As regards the present Bill, I need only remind your Lordships that its first clause deals with some additions which are considered necessary to the schedule of poisons. The second clause, which is an important one from an agricultural and horticultural point of view, enables certain poisonous substances used for sheep dips and other purposes to be sold by dealers who are not chemists, where the need arises, owing to the absence of qualified sellers. The third clause is also an important, but not a controversial one. It provides that where a chemist carries on business at more than one shop there shall be a qualified chemist in charge of each place of business. The fourth clause deals with some amendments to the Pharmaceutical Society's examination, and the fifth clause has to do with the further safeguarding of the sale of certain poisonous substances in common use for household and other purposes.
  But, my Lords, this Bill differs from the previous Bill in that it omits to touch on two subjects about which some controversy took place on the former occasion. There was some question whether or not the Bill should apply to Ireland. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with the arguments pro et con on that subject, and I will state the reason in a moment. The other controversial point related to what should be the powers of limited companies trading as chemists as regards the titles which they could use—ought they to be allowed, or ought they not to be allowed, to describe themselves as chemists and druggists, and use similar titles of that kind. Considerable controversy arose on both those points and we have not included them in the Bill for this reason. There is a sharp demarcation of feeling upon both of them, exhibited, I think, even more strongly in another place than here. We therefore propose that this Bill should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, in order that they may take some further evidence, if they so desire, upon those two points, and make a recommendation upon them to Parliament. We think that time will certainly be

  823
  saved by the adoption of that course, and I hope that the Bill will come back from the Joint Committee in sufficient time to enable those very valuable un-controversial clauses to become part of the law of the land, with such additions on the two disputed points as Parliament may think fit to make after hearing the views of the Joint Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, the subject dealt with in this Bill is one of the greatest importance, and it involves considerations which require the most careful attention before legislation is passed. I therefore think the course suggested by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council is a convenient one. It is possible that the matters to which the noble Earl referred in the earlier part of his remarks, though they may not be controversial, may still be open to criticism and difference of opinion, and therefore I assume that what will be referred to the Joint Committee will be the whole Bill.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Hear, hear.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: And the Joint Committee, I understand, will be able to make such suggestions as they may think right in reference to the clauses in the Bill, and to new clauses which they may think it important should be introduced. The reading of the Bill indicates that, although the subject is susceptible of the clear and simple statement that has been made by the noble Earl, it is one upon which there may be certain misunderstanding. The very definition and ascertainment of what are poisons is a matter open to difference of opinion. The first clause sweeps away the schedule to the Pharmacy Act of 1868. That was in itself a long schedule in two parts, specifying the articles to be deemed poisons within the meaning of that Act. It is, however, to be repealed, and Clause? substitutes for it a very much longer schedule. The Act of 1868 when applied to Ireland in the year 1870 had a very substantial addition made to its schedule, and I have no doubt that at the present moment no one could off-hand, without
  824
  being an expert, say exactly which schedule in reference to both countries could be regarded as at all perfect. The power of addition must always be given in such legislation. You can never stereotype a schedule of poisons at any particular moment; the growth of scientific knowledge may require additions, and I have no doubt that the schedule to the Act of 1868 has been added to by Orders just as the schedule to the Act of 1870 relating to Ireland has been added to by Orders issued by the proper authority there. It is obviously desirable to have a schedule which is intelligible. But in this Bill there are two or three methods of treatment. That may be necessary in view of the difficulty and complexity of the subject. The schedule to this Bill is divided into two parts. In reference to the first part, any chemist selling the poison must know the purchaser or have the purchaser introduced to him; but the remainder of the schedule is not open to that provision. Clause 5 enables regulations to be made in order to safeguard the sale and distribution of certain poisons commonly employed for domestic and industrial purposes, and the clause contains a brand new definition. Why these poisons are not left to be dealt with by existing schedules I do not know, but I am quite sure there is some valid reason worthy of attention. In regard to Clause 2, to which the noble Earl rightly directed attention, I think there is considerable ambiguity as to the class of poisonous substances introduced. They are not called poisons but poisonous substances, and I think it is right to treat them differently, as they are intended for agricultural purposes. But they should be marked. If a person is permitted to sell them he should be bound to put some mark to indicate that, though not exactly poisons, they are poisonous substances. It will be found, on reference to the Bill, that there is this restriction in regard to the sale of poisonous substances for the purpose of sheep dips. That is intelligible. But should not similar cautionary measures be applied to the other poisonous substances sold for agricultural purposes? That is, however, a matter of detail. I only mention it now to indicate the necessity of enabling purchasers to see that they

  825
  are dealing with something which may be detrimental to health and may kill. That is a matter which should not be lost sight of in examining this Bill. The noble Earl mentioned—and I do not dissent from what he said—that it is wise and reasonable to enable local authorities to grant licences for the sale of sheep dips, weed killers, and other poisonous substances for use in connection with agriculture and horticulture in places where the reasonable requirements of the public are not now met. I think it is very desirable, indeed, that some change in this respect should be made. I have known hard cases in Ireland where highly respectable country shopkeepers have innocently sold poisonous matters for agricultural purposes, to discover afterwards that they had by so doing violated the law. Therefore I think it is desirable that this should be remedied. Towards the end of his remarks the noble Earl referred to two controversial matters, one of which affected Ireland. The question of Irish legislation cannot be left out of view here. We are fairly intelligent people in Ireland, and very advanced in our civilisation, but very few of us wish to be poisoned, and therefore we should like to see the subject of poisons dealt with in some clear and intelligible way; and if there is to be an improvement in the law in England we should like to have it extended to Ireland. I do not press the case to any extreme point. I am quite ready to recognise that there may possibly be some difference of opinion; but, if it is not found convenient or desirable to apply the whole Bill, I can see no possible objection to saying that the same schedule of poisons which science has found to be necessary for England should be extended to Ireland. We are on what should be common ground in this matter, and I do not see why there should be any difficulty in applying the revised schedule to Ireland. I am glad the Bill is to be considered by a Joint Committee, and I have no doubt that the matters to which I have referred, and other points, will receive full consideration.
  On Question, Bill read 2a
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I now beg to move, "That it is desirable
  826
  that the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."
  Moved, "That it is desirable that the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ENGINEER MILITIA.
  LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War some Questions with regard to the Engineer Militia of which I have given him private notice. I have spent a considerable amount of time in trying to get answers to most of these Questions, and I trust that to-day the noble Earl, after the long notice I have given him, will be able to supply definite answers to at least a certain number of them. My first Question is: Upon whom will rest the responsibility of obtaining officers for the new Special Reserve? Those of your Lordships who have been connected with the Militia, whether as lords-lieutenant or as regimental officers, will know what extreme difficulty there has been for many years, more especially of late years, in obtaining officers. It has come home particularly to myself, because I have the honour to command a Militia regiment of which the establishment of officers is larger than that of any other Militia unit in the United Kingdom. I know from my own expperience that hitherto a very considerable amount of work has devolved on commanding officers of units in trying to find officers to fill vacancies. The War Office has never lifted a finger to assist us, and the matter has been left primarily to the lords-lieutenant; but practically the responsibility of obtaining officers has fallen entirely on the commanding officers of units. The War Office, I am informed, now propose to take the work on itself, but I hope not in the same light-hearted way in which it has taken up other duties connected with the changes introduced by the present Secretary of State for War, because the matter is an exceedingly difficult one, and upon the success in obtaining officers will largely, if not entirely, depend the

  827
  success of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme.
  My next Question is—Will a recruit officer do the six months drill with his unit and the remaining six months with the Regular Forces, or will he only do sixty-three days with his unit? The latest Order I have received is that recruit officers are only to do sixty-three days with their unit. Therefore, I presume that the remainder of the training will be done with units of the Regular Army or at the depots. I do not find any fault with the idea of sending an officer to do a course with the Regular Army after he has learnt a certain amount, but I do view with suspicion the idea that he can be trained from the very first with a unit other than his own. I think every one of your Lordships who has any knowledge of military matters will know that a young officer attached to a strange unit runs the risk of not learning very much, and I therefore trust that the noble Earl will be able to inform us that six months recruit drill at least will be done with the officer's own unit.
  Then I should like to ask the noble Earl what officers will be called up for duty during the six months recruit drill in the Engineers. It would be interesting to know whether the same proportion of officers will be allowed to come up for six months, as have been allowed to come up in the past for sixty-three days or less. Another important question is that of travelling expenses. The tradition that the Militia consisted of county gentlemen who officered the regiments of their own counties has endured to this extent, that travelling expenses are allowed within the boundary of the county only; but as Parliament has successfully legislated the country gentleman out of existence, many regiments are officered by gentlemen not residing in the county, who have expensive journeys to and from training. In the past the Militia was trained for at least four weeks in the year, and in certain cases the Artillery, and in all cases the Engineers, trained for six weeks; but in future no Militia regiment, a s far as I can understand, will be trained for more than three weeks, and Engineers for only fifteen days. It does seem to
  828
  me that it would be a great hardship if officers who were only to be out for fifteen days were required to pay their own travelling expenses. I therefore ask whether Special Reserve officers in future will receive travelling expenses to and from their homes: (a) For annual training; (b) if called up for duty at depots, etc. I trust that the attention of the War Office has been directed to this and that some relief will be given in the desired direction. I remember pointing out to the War Office some years ago the injustice inflicted upon officers in this matter, and the answer I received was that if the expenses were paid it would involve an exceedingly large grant. My comment upon that is that it shows what a very large sum of money the country is extracting from officers who serve in the Militia.
  My next Question is with regard to Regular officers. What establishment of Regular officers will be given to units of the Special Reserve Royal Engineers, and will they be Royal Engineer officers? At the present moment it is laid down that except the adjutant and the quartermaster, the officers of those particular units will consist entirely of Militia officers. I should be glad to have the noble Earl's assurance that that is not going to be altered. Again, I think it would be a gracious act on the part of the War Office if it could see its way to confer on quartermasters attached to the Special Service section the honorary rank of captain in the Army, as is at present done in the case of the adjutant. If it is important for the adjutant, I venture to think it is a great deal more important for the quartermaster. The quartermasters are a most deserving body of officers; no praise can be too high for their services, and the concession would make a considerable difference in their social position. Mr. Smith is a nobody, but Captain Smith is a somebody. The conferring of this honorary rank would cost the country nothing, but it would be very greatly appreciated by a large body of most deserving servants of the Crown. Then I should like to call the noble Earl's attention to the question of the up-keep of the band and the mess. It must be evident that with the reduction of the period of training the band and

  829
  mess will cost more in proportion than with the longer period. I have gone into the figures, and I find that the band of my regiment costs us £300 a year. With the reduced period the cost will be £180, but this the officers will have to meet out of fifteen days pay instead of £300 out of eight weeks pay. I also desire information as to the messing arrangements for the Regular officers attached to the Special Service unit. In future we are told that a certain number of Regular officers will form integral parts of these units. These Regular officers will be the only permanent part of the units except for three weeks in the year. Are those officers to have the use of the band, and of the whole of the messing property, for which they will have paid nothing, and which belong to the Militia officers? If not, what arrangements will be made in regard to the band and the mess? If they are to be handed over to the Regular officers, all I can say is that it strikes me as an exceedingly unfair arrangement. I hope these matters have been considered, and that justice will be meted out.
  I now come to perhaps the most difficult question with regard to a force raised and trained as the Militia is, namely, the question of non-commissioned officers. I should like to ask what number of Special Reserve noncommissioned officers will be allowed to come up for recruit drill. In the past I have been allowed in my regiment to call up for duty with the recruits during the sixty-three days preliminary drill one-half of the non-commissioned officers. Now that the preliminary drill is to be extended to six months I should be glad to know if the same proportion of non-commissioned officers will be -allowed up as before. It is a matter of great importance to get these non-commissioned officers up at this time, because the opportunity afforded at the preliminary drill is the only one we have of instructing them. I look upon the training which they get then as most valuable, the more so as the annual training follows immediately, and the non-commissioned officers fall into their places with a much better knowledge of their duties than if they had not attended the preliminary drill. It is
  830
  most important that these non-commissioned officers should be encouraged to go through the various courses. I should like to know if it is proposed still to allow them to go through the railway course, the Engineer course at Chatham, and so forth, and to encourage them to do so by means of special bounties on passing the examinations.
  Then I should like to ask, will separation allowances be granted to non-commissioned officers when called up for recruit drill or when doing courses? Again, will the War Office reconsider the question of allowing old soldiers to enlist in the Special Reserve as at present? The age limit of thirty will stop them. The old soldiers who join the Militia are an excellent and valuable body of men; they provide a large proportion of the non-commissioned officers, and their knowledge of military duties is of inestimable value. I should look upon it as a great misfortune if these men were prevented from joining the Special Reserve, as would be the case if the age limit remained at thirty. Then I should like to ask whether, if a retired Regular non-commissioned officer enlists in the Special Reserve, he will receive an additional bounty as at present. I trust that the additional bounty is to be continued. I believe that at the present moment something like a third of the Militia are over thirty years of age, and I should like to ask the noble Earl how many men over the age of thirty were in the Militia at the date of the last annual return, and how the loss of these valuable men will be made good.
  There are other points with regard to non-commissioned officers. As the training will now be so short and the non-commissioned officers more important than ever, will an attempt be made to induce retired non-commissioned officers of the Royal Engineers to enlist in the Special Reserve units? If these units are to go straight on active service as they are in peace time it is essential that their officers and non-commissioned officers should be the very best it is possible to obtain, and I think if a few pounds a year bounty and a little judicious advertising of the advantages of the Special Reserve section would

  831
  induce retired sergeants or corporals of the Royal Engineers to join the Special Service section, it would be a great advantage. At the present moment the non-commissioned officers are promoted from the ranks of the Militia on the recommendation of their company officers. A company officer in the future will see very little of his company. In the fifteen days he will hardly get to know the men by name, let alone their characters and qualifications. Therefore, I should like to ask how promotion to non-commissioned officer rank is to take place, and who will recommend for it. I am afraid these units will become what used to be called adjutant's regiments, and that the recommendation for promotion to non-commissioned officer rank will rest with the adjutant.
  As to training, I should like to ask how the fifteen days annual training in engineer units will be allocated, and what degree of efficiency for war will be expected from them. I heard with great astonishment the statement by the noble Earl the other day that it was not necessary that these men should be trained in musketry, because they were only going to be used in future in siege works and on railways. I can assure the noble Earl that I had a company in South Africa, working on the railway, which was fired at every day for two months, and in my opinion to send men ignorant of musketry on advanced siege and railway works would be little short of murder. Are the Royal Engineers in future to be considered a non-combatant corps? Next, I would ask the noble Earl to state the average number of recruits enlisted for the Militia from 15th January to 15th February for the last ten years. The noble Earl took credit to the War Office that 2,531 men had enlisted in the Special Service section since 15th January. That is quite possible, but I have seen a great many Militia commanding officers who have been to the depots to see the recruits, and there is not one single man yet enlisted in the Special Service section who intends to remain in it; they all intend to go on to the Army. These men have probably joined the Special Service section to feed up to the required standard for the Line. In the future, I do not
  832
  think any men will enlist direct into the Army; they will do three months at the depot, receive the bounty of 30s., and then go on to the Regular Army.
  Then I have a question or two with regard to the Engineers. Why was the bridging battalion abolished? Who is to transport the material in future, and who are to make bridges if required in war? It is curious that in this country we are always copying somebody else and I believe the bridging battalion was abolished, primarily, of course, for economy, but, secondly, because the Japanese in the war in Manchuria had no bridging battalion. As a matter of fact, the engineer work of the Japanese during the war in Manchuria was remarkably badly done, and since the war the Japanese have, I believe, devoted themselves to largely increasing the numbers of their engineers. We, on the other hand, are going to the opposite extreme. We have abolished our bridging battalion, and also reduced many other companies of Royal Engineers. In future, I understand, the pontoons will have to be dragged about by the Army Service Corps. If that is the case, it is any odds against the pontoons ever leaving the base. And, even if the pontoons could be got to the river, it is long odds against any persons being on the spot who know how to construct bridges. Those who saw the pontoon brigade bridge the Tugela, admit that it was one of the most beautiful pieces of work they ever saw, and it must obviously be a most dangerous thing to entrust this work, which is often done under fire, to partially instructed men.
  The other day the noble Earl the Under-Secretary stated that I was incorrect in saying that the Submarine Miners had been disbanded. They had, said the noble Earl, been transferred to the Admiralty. Well, either the War Office does not know what it has done, which is quite possible, or else it is unable to explain to the noble Earl what it has done. The Submarine Miners were disbanded straight away, and the men were told, "Good morning; we don't want you any more." This action has produced an exceedingly bad effect on recruiting generally in those districts, where the Submarine Mining Section of

  833
  the Militia existed. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Earl can tell me how many of the men of the late Submarine Mining Engineers have been enlisted by the Admiralty for similar duties. Then I would ask what is to happen to the officers of these disbanded units? And, finally, have any steps been taken by the Admiralty to defend any of our ports by mine fields, search-lights, or similar methods?
  When the Submarine Miners were abolished the duties of defending the ports were handed over to the Admiralty. The mines, I believe, have been sold, and at the present moment I understand that no defences of a similar character exist. I believe it to be quite a matter for discussion whether the system of defending the ports by mine fields is a right or wrong one, but, whether it was efficient or not, it gave a sense of security to the people residing in those particular ports; and I am firmly of opinion that when there is again a war scare, which, naturally, in the course of events will come, there will be a clamour for the restoration of those means of defence. If not, in the event of war the Fleet will be tied to the coast in order to give that appearance of defence which the people of this country will demand. I trust that, even if these units have been disbanded, the plant, if I may so call it, has not been sold, and that the mines and electric cables are still in existence and are being preserved from deterioration by careful storage.
  Many of these are very important points. I cannot think that the War Office sufficiently consider the fact that you cannot pull up by the roots an old institution, which has lasted many hundred years, without affecting men of all classes. This policy has been destructive of the efficiency of the Militia in the past; it will exercise a bad influence on the Special Service section in the future; and I do most earnestly entreat the War Office, if it cannot answer the whole of these Questions, now, to make up its mind as soon as possible to let the force know what is to happen.
  THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I have no personal
  834
  grievance against my noble friend, be cause he gave me private notice of the whole of his Questions; but I do think the fact that the Questions are not on the Paper places your Lordships in some difficulty. I therefore rather regret that my noble friend, when I informed him at the beginning of the week that I would be ready to answer his Questions, did not put them on the Notice Paper.
  LORD RAGLAN: I was actuated by a consideration for the printing bill.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My noble friend asks me, in his first Question, upon whom will rest the responsibility of obtaining officers for the new Special Reserve. In the first instance, we have every hope that the existing Militia officers will accept the new conditions as far as they can, and that for the present at any rate they will form the backbone of the Special Reserve as far as officers are concerned. That they may do this on as large a scale as possible the Committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir W. Nicholson, to which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State referred at the recent gathering at the Militia Club, is being appointed. Secondly, as I indicated in a recent reply to Lord Hardinge, we hope to establish the "Officers Training Corps." An Army Order will shortly be issued on the subject. This corps will be specially designed to create a supply of officers for the Special Reserve. Its training, which will be under the immediate control of the Chief of the General Staff, will be devoted to fitting members of Universities and schools for such commissions.
  In his second Question, the noble Lord asks whether a recruit officer will do the six months drill with his unit and the remaining six months with the Regular Forces. The question as to how an officer is to be trained during his first two years of service is still under consideration, as a great number of details have necessarily to be settled. Then my noble friend asks what officers will be called up for duty during the six months recruit drill in the Engineers? Subsequently he put to me a Question bearing on the same subject, namely, will Engineer units be allowed a sufficiency of old hands for the recruits

  835
  training? I will answer Questions 3 and 17 together. Regulations will shortly be issued dealing with this matter; it is proposed that officers and old hands should be called up in much the same way as in the past under the Militia regulations.
  The noble Lord, in his fourth Question asks me whether Special Reserve officers will in future receive travelling expenses, to and from their homes: (a) for annual training; (b) if called up for duty at depots, etc.? Our intention is, when officers are ordered up for military duty by a competent authority, that they should be given their travelling expenses not exceeding the cost of conveyance from and to their permanent residences. We hope shortly to publish regulations on these and similar points of detail. In reply to Question 5, in which the noble Lord asks what establishment of Regular officers will be given to units of the Special Reserve Royal Engineers and whether they will be Royal Engineer officers, I have to say that one adjutant and one quartermaster Regular Royal Engineer officers will be on the establishment of the Royal Monmouth group and on that of the Royal Anglesey group, which will be the only special reserve Engineers.
  Then I come to a point on which the noble Lord laid considerable stress. He asked, can honorary rank of captain be given to quartermasters on appointment to units of the Special Reserve, as is now done in the case of adjutants of Auxiliary Forces and only lieutenants in the Army? In reply to that question I have to say that the grant of this honorary rank to quartermasters appointed to the Special Reserve will be, as in the past with the Militia, governed by Article 51 of the Royal Warrant, viz.:—
  "A quartermaster may be granted the honorary rank of lieutenant on appointment, of captain after ten years commissioned service on full pay, and major after fifteen years commissioned service on full pay."
  Next I am asked what additional allowance will be given for the upkeep of the band? My answer is that the band allowance will not be increased at present. Then the noble Lord desires to know what further allowance will be given for the upkeep of (a) officers' mess; (b) non-commissioned officers' mess? No allowance is given even now for the
  836
  upkeep of officers' and non-commissioned officers' messes. A daily mess allowance of 4s. will be given to each individual officer, and I may point out that this is already largely in excess of that given to the Regular officer.
  LORD RAGLAN: It is the same as the Militia get now.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Then I am asked what number of Special Reserve non-commissioned officers will be allowed to come up for recruit drill? It is not anticipated that it will be necessary in the normal to call up any Special Reserve non-commissioned officers. If and when this is found to be necessary, special instructions will be issued. In his ninth Question the noble Lord asks whether non-commissioned officers will be encouraged to go through the various courses and receive a bounty for doing them as now. The training authorities are now considering what courses of instruction will be necessary under the new arrangements. It is anticipated that they will be much the same as at present. But in any event bounties will be given as now for any courses deemed necessary by the responsible authorities.
  Will separation allowance be granted to non-commissioned officers when called up for recruit drill or when doing courses, is the next question? Separation allowance will be given to non-commissioned officers when up for annual training or when attending authorised courses of instruction. They will not be given the allowance when drilling recruits, as this attendance is voluntary—see Paragraphs 185 and 188 Militia Regulations. Then the noble Lord asks, will the War Office re-consider the question of allowing old soldiers to enlist in the Special Reserve, as the age limit of thirty will stop them? This matter has been very fully considered, and I am unable to give my noble friend any hope that the age limit for enlistment will be extended. Then the noble Lord asks whether, if a retired regular non-commissioned officer enlists in the Special Reserve, he will receive an additional bounty as at present? Yes, an additional bounty of £3—see Appendix 10 of the Special Army Order of 23rd December.

  837
  I am next asked how many men over the age of thirty were in the Militia at the date of the last annual return, and how will the loss of these valuable men be made good. The total number of men (all arms) of thirty and upwards on 1st October, 1907, was 20,629. As my noble friend has already asked this question in connection with some Militia Infantry statistics which I gave, in a recent debate, the Infantry figures corresponding to the figures I then gave would be those in the last published annual return, i.e., the strength on 1st October, 1906. According to the return, the number would be 14,246. As to how the loss of these men will be made good, I may point out that our proposals do not necessarily imply their immediate loss. It is laid down in the Army Order of 23rd December that existing Militiamen who are under forty-eight may transfer to the Special Reserve, and there are no grounds for believing that men over thirty will not remain by re-engaging in the Special Reserve as they have hitherto done in the Militia.
  LORD RAGLAN: But no man over thirty will be able to enlist in future.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Yes.
  LORD RAGLAN: You must lose -them all eventually.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My noble friend's fourteenth Question reads as follows: As the training will now be so short and the non-commissioned officers more important than ever, will an attempt be made to induce retired noncommissioned officers of the Royal Engineers to enlist in the Special Reserve units? It is not proposed to offer any special inducements to retired noncommissioned officers of the Royal Engineers to enlist, beyond those offered in Appendix 10 of the Army Order of 23rd December, to non-commissioned officers of the Artillery, Engineers and Infantry alike. Next, the noble Lord puts this Question: Seeing the training will be so short that the company officers will hardly see, and certainly will not know, their men, how will promotion to non-
  838
  commissioned officer rank be arranged, and who will recommend for it? The system which at present obtains in the Militia will be followed. We do not anticipate that the somewhat shorter period of annual training necessitates any change.
  Then the noble Lord asks how the fifteen days annual training in Engineer units will be allocated, and what degree of efficiency for war will be expected from them? The fifteen days annual training of the Royal Engineer Special Reserve units will be primarily devoted to instructing them as a unit in the technical duties which they will be required to perform in war, and a syllabus of training is being drawn up. The degree of efficiency will depend on the class of men who enlist and the efforts of the officers of the corps concerned, but must, necessarily, be limited by the time available for training. If expert men enlist as Special Reservists, these companies may attain a considerable degree of efficiency. My noble friend's seventeenth Question—namely, Will Engineer units be allowed a sufficiency of old hands for the recruits training?—I have already answered in dealing with his third Question. Next I am asked, If the trained men do no musketry, how can they be expected to work under fire, certainly in siege work, and probably in railway work (as occurred continually in the South African War) practically unarmed? I have to inform my noble friend that the question as to whether the trained Royal Engineer Special Reservist is to be required to fire a course of musketry has not yet been finally decided. In reply to the next Question as to whether the Royal Engineers will, in future, be a non-combatant corps, I have to say that there is no such intention in the mind of the Army Council.
  I am next asked to give the average number of recruits enlisted for the Militia from January 15th to February 15th for the last ten years. My noble friend, on a moment's reflection, will. I hope, understand that, while I can give the figures for the corresponding month in each of the ten years, it is impossible to give them for the exact dates he has indicated. The only figures

  839
  available are for four weeks from Saturday to Saturday for the nearest period to the dates asked. He will understand this when I explain that the returns we get are weekly, not daily. The average number of Militia Recruits on this basis —viz., for the nearest period of four weeks — is 3,508 per annum. If he wishes, I shall be glad to let him have the numbers for each of the ten years. In taking this average figure, however, it must not be forgotten that it includes the period of the South African war, when all such statistics were obviously affected in various ways.
  The noble Lord then refers to the bridging battalion. He asked, why was the bridging battalion abolished? Who is to transport the material in future, and who are to make bridges if required in war? The Engineer duties of bridging can be taught to the same individuals to whom those of (a) field fortification and demolition; (b) repair of roads; and (c) water supply and encampment will be taught. Under the old Army corps organisation the field companies performed all these duties, although the bridging battalion existed in addition. All bridging work could, therefore, be perfectly well carried out by the field companies, so long as a park of bridging material was kept at some convenient point ready to send up when required. On the introduction of the divisional organisation last year the two field companies allotted to each division were given in a somewhat larger personnel, and increased amount of bridging material to make them independent of the new bridging trains when only small rivers were in question. Two of these new bridging trains form part of Army troops attached to six divisions of the expeditionary force, each transporting the material for 200 yards of medium bridge. These will be sent forward when large rivers have to be crossed, and the actual bridging work will be carried out by the field companies with divisions.
  LORD RAGLAN: Who will transport the material? Will they have their own drivers?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: It will depend on the conditions, on whether large or small rivers will have to be crossed. Then the noble Lord asks, Is
  840
  the War Office aware that other countries are increasing the number of their Engineers (especially Japan) while we have largely reduced the Royal Engineers, and the Militia Engineers are to be reduced by twenty-two officers and 500 men? The War Office is aware of changes in Engineer organisation in foreign armies. Though the establishments of our new Royal Engineer units show a reduction of strength on the whole, the proportion of Engineers to the other arms in the expeditionary force-shows an increase on our former organisation. The reduction arises from the policy of handing over submarine mining to the Navy, and also to a policy based on our sea supremacy, which allows us to make a reduction in our fortress companies. In pursuance of the above policies there will be a reduction of the Militia Engineers, due to the fact that we do not require Special Reservists either for the mobilisation of Engineer units in the Expeditionary Force or to meet the wastage of war. The old Militia field and fortress companies, therefore, are not required, but new railway units and siege companies are being organised from the old Militia units.
  The remaining Questions put to me by the noble Lord are—(23) How many of the men of the late Submarine-Mining Engineers have been enlisted by the Admiralty for similar duties? (24) What is to happen to the officers of these disbanded units? and (25) Have any steps been taken by the Admiralty to defend any of our ports by mine fields, search-light or similar methods? These questions put by my noble friend afford me an opportunity of clearing up a misapprehension regarding the service of Submarine Mining Engineers. What I meant to convey on a recent occasion when this question was before your Lordships was that the care of defended ports which was formerly, to the extent of submarine mining, etc., thrown upon the Army, is now altogether assigned to the Navy. Submarine mining, therefore, ceased to be one of the duties of the Regular Engineers, and, consequently, of the Militia Engineers. This fact I considered to be a likely cause why recruiting for Militia Engineers in a seafaring place like Swansea should fall off. As regards the steps taken by the Admiralty to defend our ports by submarine

  841
  mining or other means, I have no doubt adequate measures have been taken, but what they precisely are would be rather a question for my noble friend who represents the Admiralty.
  LORD RAGLAN: The noble Earl has not answered the Question as to what is to happen to officers of disbanded units of Submarine Miners.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: That is a matter the War Office are still considering.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve on the Standing Committee—

  L. Archbp. of Canterbury.

  E. Yarborough.

  E. Russell.

  L. Chancellor.

  E. Dartrey.

  L. Archbp. of York.

  E. Feversham.

  E. Lytton.

  E. Crewe. (L. President.)

  E. Ancaster.

  E. Carrington.

  E. Halsbury.

  M. Ripon. (L. Privy Seal.)

  E. Cromer.

  E. Plymouth.

  D. Bedford.

  V. Falkland.

  D. Northumberland.

  V. Hutchinson. (E. Donoughmore.)

  M. Winchester.

  V. Cross.

  M. Lansdowne.

  V. Knutsford.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Llandaff.

  M. Bath.

  V. Ridley.

  V. Churchill.

  E. Derby.

  V. Milner.

  E. Denbigh.

  V. Selby.

  E. Chesterfield.

  V. St. Aldwyn.

  E. Jersey.

  E. Lauderdale.

  L. Bp. London.

  E. Carnwath.

  L. Bp. Hereford.

  E. Waldegrave.

  L. Bp. Southwark.

  E. Portsmouth.

  L. Hastings.

  E. Clarendon.

  L. Clinton.

  E. Malmesbury.

  L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

  E. Onslow.

  E. Chichester.

  L. Clifford of Chudleigh.

  E. Beauchamp.

  E. Stradbroke.

  L. Barnard.

  E. Vane. (M. Londonderry.)

  L. Saltoun.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Cawdor.

  L. Kenyon

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Stewart of Garlies. (E. Galloway.)

  E. Lichfield.

  842

  L. Brodrick. (F. Midleton.)

  L. Ampthill.

  L. Reay.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Tweedmouth.

  L. Granard. (E. Granard.)

  L. Monk Bretton.

  L. Herries.

  L. Colchester.

  L. Monkswell.

  L. Ranfurly. (E. Ranfurly.)

  L. Ashbourne.

  L. Montagu of Beaulieu.

  L. Rosebery. (E. Rosebery.)

  L. Macnaghten.

  L. Kilmarnock. (E. Errol.)

  L. Newton.

  L. Stanmore.

  L. Poltimore.

  L. Burghclere.

  L. Denman.

  L. James.

  L. Oranmore and Browne.

  L. Heneage.

  L. Ludlow.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

  L. Newlands.

  L. Curzon.

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

  L. Avebury.

  L. Alverstone.

  L. Shuttleworth.

  L. Belper.

  L. Allerton.

  L. Brougham and Vaux.

  L. Sanderson.

  L. Desborough.

  L. Kinnaird.

  L. Weardale.

  L. Lawrence.

  L. Haversham.

  L. Castletown.

  L. Courtney of Penwith.

  L. Wolverton.

  L. Sandhurst.

  L. Airedale.

  L. Lamington.

  L. Collins.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Committee have nominated the following Lords to serve as Chairman of the Standing Committee:—

  E. Crewe. (L. President.)

  V. St. Aldwyn.

  E. Onslow.

  L. Balfour.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Burghclere.

  V. Cross.

  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from the Committee of Chairmen of the Standing Committee, That they have appointed the Viscount Cross Chairman of the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.