Sitting of 12 March 1908

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Derby Gas Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Rochdale Corporation Bill; Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Board Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Darvel, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (EXCLUSION OF CHILDREN).
  Petition from Cardiff, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Higher Broughton; and, Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  MORAY FIRTH (ILLEGAL TRAWLING).
  Petition from Hopeman, for prevention; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Eldon; Leigh on Sea; Westcliffe on Sea; Weston super Mare; and, Wigan; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from Leeds, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT, 1907.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum issued by the Home Office relative to the Administration of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, containing the Rules made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under Section 7 of the Act [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIONS (EXPLOSION OF CAR TRIDGES ON REGISTERED PREMISES).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an Explosion of Cartridges which occurred on the Registered Premises of Messrs. F. Dyke and Company, at 5, St. George's Avenue, Aldermanbury, E.C., on 1st January, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, 1906–7).
  Annual Accounts presented, for 1906–7, of Shipbuilding and Dockyard Transactions, etc., with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 88.]
  WINES IMPORTED.
  Return ordered, "showing the alcoholic strength, degree by degree, of Wines imported to this country during the year 1907 in cask from the various countries of Europe, Madeira, Australia, and other countries (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 81, of Session 1907)."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Stolen Postal Orders in Ireland
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that three postal orders forwarded on 15th May by Mr.
  1706
  Patrick White, of Greencastle, County Down, were stolen in course of post; whether he is aware that two of them, have since been cashed through them Newry branch of the Provincial Bank; and whether, as the person negotiating; a postal order cannot legally acquire a, better title to it than that of the person from whom he received it, he will call upon the Provincial Bank to make good the loss sustained by the sender, especially in view of the negligence of the bank in not keeping any record of the circumstances under which the postal orders were cashed.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have no power to call upon the Provincial Bank of Ireland to make good the loss sustained by Mr. Patrick White, as the hon. Member suggests. The Post Office (Money Orders) Act, 1880, provides that a banker who shall have received payment for a postal order shall not incur liability to anyone except his principal by reason of having received, such payment.

  Post Office and Lottery Literature
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in reply to a recent complaint relating to the transmission of lottery literature through the post, the person complaining was informed that in the ordinary course packets containing: lottery literature are stopped, but it is. not the practice to interfere with the? transmission of such packets when the circulars relate to drawings promoted for religious or charitable objects; whether such letter correctly represents the practice of the Department: and whether such practice has his official sanction.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Euxton.) It is the practice of the Post Office to stop packets which are observed while in course of transmission to contain lottery circulars, except in cases where the: authorities responsible for the execution of the law regard the drawings as permissible.

  Loss of the 'Pernambuco."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: To ask the President of the

  1707
  Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Court of Inquiry held with regard to the loss of the steamer "Pernambuco"; whether he is aware that the captain of the vessel was in default for not using the lead more frequently; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to whether the vessel had a sufficient number of men in each watch to use the lead snore often.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) The Board f Trade have not yet received the Report of the inquiry into the loss of the steamer "Pernambuco "; when it reaches them the point which my hon. friend raises in regard to the casualty shall receive consideration.

  Uganda Railway
  MR. TILLETT: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the total amount spent on the construction and equipment of the Uganda Railway; and whether all works connected with the railway are mow completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The total sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund for the construction and equipment of the Uganda Railway is £5,502,592. Of this sum about £5,300,000 in round numbers has been expended, leaving a balance of some £200,000, which is being expended on capital works connected with the railway.

  Tea Garden Labour Commission.
  ME. REES: To ask the Secretary of Stats for India whether he will lay or place in the Library the Resolution of the Government of India giving effect to his orders upon the Report of the Tea Garden Labour Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I will see that a copy of the Resolution is placed in the Library.

  Indian Budget.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state the approximate date on which the Indian Budget will be taken.
  1708
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Indian Financial Statement will be presented at Calcutta on the 20th instant, and discussed a week later. It will be presented to Parliament as soon as it is received in this country, i.e., early in May, and the usual discussion will take place as soon thereafter as the state of public business permits, I hope at an early date.

  Indian Imperial Legislative Council
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the reform proposals now under consideration contemplate the nomination of an European non official, in order to represent the European community of Southern India.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the reform proposals now under consideration contemplate the representation of the planting and manufacturing interests of Northern India by the appointment to the Imperial Legislative Council of nominees of the Indian Tea and Behar Planters Associations, and of nominees of the Bengal and Upper India Chambers of Commerce.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I may, perhaps, answer this Question and the one next following it together. The Government of India have not yet submitted their detailed proposals in definite form, and I am not aware what suggestions they may contain. All the points raised by the hon. Member will no doubt receive due consideration.

  Indian Penal Code
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many Indian newspapers, in English and vernacular, have been prosecuted under the sedition clauses of the Indian Penal Code since the beginning of 1907; whether the editors, managers, and printers convicted have been treated as political prisoners; if not, what is the nature of their imprisonment; whether the Government of India has in contemplation the adoption of a more stringent control of native newspapers by means of a proposed emendation of the law relating

  1709
  to registration; and, if so, whether an opportunity will be given to this House to discuss the proposed measure before it is passed into law.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Seventeen newspapers have been prosecuted since the beginning of 1907. Indian law distinguishes only simple imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment, that is, with hard labour. Of the thirteen persons sentenced, twelve were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and one to simple imprisonment. I am not aware that any amendment of the law relating to registration of newspapers is likely to be proposed.

  Indian Native Rulers and Famine Precautions.
  Ms. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, during the present season of scarcity in India, steps are being taken to enforce the liability of ruling chiefs whose territories are affected to give relief to their own subjects; and whether the necessary steps are taken to distinguish between the subjects of such chiefs who take refuge on British relief works, in order that the responsibility for failure may be clearly brought home to the ruling chiefs in such cases, and not be attributed to the British administration.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) From the Reports I have received I have every reason to believe that the ruling chiefs of states affected by the droughts are duly mindful of their obligations towards their subjects and have made the necessary arrangements for their relief. The question of immigration from native states into British territory was fully considered by the Famine Commission of 1901, and suitable rules for the guidance of district officers acting in communication with political officers in native states have been incorporated into the Provincial Famine Relief Codes.

  Indian Relief System.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India what is the percentage of persons in receipt of relief in India, as compared with the last ascertained percentage in the like case for England and Wales; whether a practical system
  1710
  of relieving distress arising from crop failure has been elaborated in India, and whether famine reports or other documents show, or whether any evidence is available to show, that the existing system stands in need of experimental legislation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Struck on the whole population of India the ratio is now about one half of 1 per cent. The ratio of paupers on outdoor relief in England and Wales was stated to be a little over 1 per cent. in 1907. As I explained in the Answer made by me to a similar Question on 18th February, the extent of the relief given in distressed districts where the Famine Relief Code is being applied is much in excess of the above figure. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

  Indian Imperial Cadet Corps.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether any decision has been come to as to the ultimate positions that the members of the Imperial Cadet Corps are to fulfil; are they to be appointed permanently to a regiment; and, if so, what are their prospects.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Government of India have not yet submitted a definite scheme for the employment of officers commissioned from the Imperial Cadet Corps.

  Wolverhampton Telegraphists' Pay.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the maximum wage paid in the Wolverhampton telegraph department is 8s. per week less than prevails in the City of Birmingham, which is only distant 12 miles; and, seeing that the rent and cost of living are so much alike, whether he can see his way clear to raise the Wolverhampton office up to a level with the Birmingham one.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The classification of Wolverhampton is at present in suspense. Its final plan will be decided on the lines recommended

  1711
  by the Select Committee, that is to say, on the volume of work done, and the cost of living as ascertained by the Board of Trade. The units of work at Wolverhampton are only 656 as compared to 7,422 at Birmingham, and the Report 80 far received from the Board of Trade in regard to the cost of living shows that the cost of living at Wolverhampton is low and considerably lower than that of Birmingham. The cost of living is ascertained by the Board of Trade in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, and I receive and accept their results.

  Vaccination of Post Office Officials.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: To ask the Postmaster General whether there is now any need for requesting the employees in his Department, as a condition of service, to be vaccinated; and, seeing that much money is spent in this operation and suffering entailed, he will take the necessary steps to allow each employee to choose for himself equally with others not engaged by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not prepared to make any alteration of the rule in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

  Case of Mrs. Bridget Murphy, of Ardpatrick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Mrs. Bridget Murphy, of Lower Sunville, Ardpatrick, County Limerick, on a Friday about the middle of December last, was arrested without a warrant on the open field by the head constable of the Kilfinane police station, was lodged during that night in the police station, and on the following day, although the ordinary petty sessions court, with four magistrates in attendance, was held in the courthouse, Captain Fitzpatrick, R.M., tried Mrs. Bridget Murphy in camera in the police station, and had her sent on to Cork Gaol on the following day; will be say by whose orders the arrest and trial were carried out; was there any informality in the committal or warrant; why was Bridget Murphy in the gaol obliged
  1712
  to put on the dress of a convict; why, after a few days, was she again given back her own clothes; why, before a week, was she liberated, although her sentence was for a month's imprisonment; and can he say whether Mrs. Bridget Murphy and the other tenants, who up to twenty years ago lived on the untenanted lands of Lower Sunville, will be restored to those untenanted lands, now that the owner, Colonel Lowe, is selling to his tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. Mrs. Murphy was arrested in a field by the police for cattle driving late on the evening of 13th December last. She was taken before the resident magistrate on the following morning, and was by him ordered to find sureties to keep the peace or to be imprisoned for one month. She failed to give the necessary bail and was committed to prison. On 20th December the Lord Lieutenant, in the exercise of his prerogative, ordered the woman's release. It would be contrary to practice to state the reasons which influence His Excellency's action in such cases. The question whether the warrant of committal was informal is one of law, and I must decline to express any opinion in the matter. It is the fact that Mrs. Murphy was required to wear prison clothes upon being lodged in gaol, but, when the facts came to the knowledge of the General Prisons Board two days later, they at once directed that her ordinary clothes should be given to her. The Estates Commissioners inform me that no application for reinstatement has been received from Mrs. Murphy. The Commissioners approached Colonel Lowe as to the sale of his property, and he replied that he was himself negotiating with his tenants with a view to selling to them direct.

  Cavan Evicted Tenants.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether special instructions have been issued to the inspectors dealing with evicted tenants in County Cavan to secure the payment of arrears due at the time of eviction as a condition of reinstatement

  1713
  by the evicted tenants or his representative; and will he say whether any steps have been taken in County Cavan to put The Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Act, 1907, into force, and in how many cases.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no such special instructions as are referred to in the Question have been issued to inspectors, and that the compulsory provisions of the Evicted Tenants Act of 1907 have not been put in force in any case in County Cavan up to the present.

  Royal University, Ireland
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how many students entered for examination in the Royal University in 1907, and how many passed; and if the teachers in the Jesuit College, Stephen's Green, have, as fellows of the Royal University, the privilege of both preparing and examining their own students for passes and degrees.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed that the number of students who entered for the examinations of the Royal University in 1907 was 4,115, and the number that passed was 2,412. The students are examined by the respective boards of examiners in the different subjects. Several of the Professors at University College, Stephen's Green, are amongst the examiners, as are also several of the professors in each of the Queen's Colleges and in Magee College. No examiner has the privilege of examining particular students. The examiners of each division of every subject examine all the candidates in that division, and at honour examinations the marks to be given must be agreed upon by at least two examiners.

  Enniskillen Labourers' Cottage Scheme.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say whether the Enniskillen (No. 2) Rural District Council have yet presented their scheme to the Local Government Board for an inquiry under the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906; if not, will he say what is the cause of the delay; and
  1714
  will he have representation made to the proper authorities, with a view to securing that the Labourers Acts be put into operation without further delay in this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The district council in question have not yet presented their scheme under the Labourers Act. The delay is due to the council and their officers. The Local Government Board have already addressed the council on the subject, and have intimated that, owing to the neglect of the clerk to discharge the duties devolving upon him, he should be required to resign his office.

  Strabane Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. C. MACVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the class of cottages that the No. 2 Division of the Strabane Union, County Tyrone, are trying to force upon the labourers by proposing to build them in blocks of six or nine houses, and none of these on the plots of land selected by the committee of the district council; whether he is aware that labourers refuse to take these cottages on account of their general inconvenience and the difficulty of getting to the place they propose to build them, and that the sanitary arrangements will interfere with the domestic water supply; and whether he will take immediate steps to have inquiry made into the whole matter before the ratepayers' money is squandered.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The plans of the labourers' cottages referred to in the Question were prepared on the lines of the Local Government Board's model plans, and, in the opinion of the Board, are suitable. Each cottage will contain three bedrooms in addition to the kitchen or living room. As regards the erection of the cottages in ranges of six or nine, it was arranged at the inquiry that instead of taking a number of scattered plots, against the wishes of the persons interested in the land, and thereby running the risk of having all or some of the plots rejected, one field or large

  1715
  plot of from four to eight acres should be acquired; and the parties consented to this modification as being less injurious to their interests. The Local Government Board have no information as to the alleged refusal of the labourers to take the cottages, but it is open to them to put ther objections before the rural district council. The Board see no reason for intervening. If Labourers should only be willing to accept sites which they themselves select, the council might consider that they would be justified in not proceeding with the schemes.

  Kingston Estate County Cork.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to an inquiry held by the Estates Commissioners at their offices in Dublin last November, into complaints made by certain tenants on the Kingston estate, County Cork, to the effect that they were compelled to sign purchase agreements under duress, having been served with writs and processes of ejectment by the landlord; whether the Commissioners having fully investigated the matter and heard the evidence on both sides, have, during last week, informed the agent of the estate that they would only sanction the purchase agreements entered into by the remainder of the tenants, but would constitute the holdings of the complaining tenants a separate estate, and would make no advances thereon for a period of four months, and that meanwhile these tenants could move in court to have the agreements set aside, on account of undue influences and exorbitant prices; and if he will explain why it is that the Estates Commissioners, having ample powers to decide the question of duress, have not done so, but would apparently oblige these tenants to seek a decision in a court of law at considerable expense.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners held an inquiry into the allegations of duress made by some of the tenants on the Kingston estate and decided on adopting the course mentioned in the Question. The Commissioners considered that they had not
  1716
  sufficient materials before them to decide the questions raised, which, in their opinion should, if the purchasers desire to test them, be disposed of by the ordinary legal tribunals.

  Army Commission—Eye sight Regulations.
  MR. RAPHAEL: To ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will consider the advisability, considering the dearth of officers, of relaxing the rules and regulations with regard to the refusal to grant commissions in the Army to candidates who are shortsighted or who suffer from astigmatism; and whether this is the only country which deprives itself of the service of eligible candidates by reason of their wearing glasses.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The use of glasses is not prohibited. Candidates who have only one-fourth normal vision in each eye are accepted if the visual defect can be corrected by glasses up to a standard of "fairly good" vision (i.e., normal in one eye and half normal in the other), and, if the vision of one eye is normal, one-sixth of normal vision in the other eye may be accepted, subject to correction by glasses up to one-half of normal. The question of reducing the standard still further has recently been under consideration, and it was decided that it was not expedient to do so.

  Indian Mutiny Medals.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether every Indian Mutiny veteran over seventy years of age and in possession of the medal is in receipt of 1s. a day in respect of that service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Every Indian Mutiny veteran who is over seventy years of age and has been awarded the medal is eligible for a pension of 1s. a day, provided that he is in necessitous circumstances and was not discharged for ignominy or as a worthless and incorrigible character. It is just possible that there may be a few men who are eligible and have not made any application for the pension.

  New Bayonet Tenders
  MR. ABEL SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether an order for the new pattern bayonet has been sent to the Small Arms Factory, Enfleld; when the manufacture of them will begin; and how many of these bayonets will be made at the Small Arms Factory, and how many by private firms.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) An order for the new pattern bayonet has been sent to the Small Arms Factory, Enfield, and manufacture has commenced. Tenders are due from the private firms in a few days, and the orders to be given to them will then be dealt with. The allocation of orders for manufacture during next financial year is under consideration.

  New Attestation Form.
  MR. PIKE PEASE; To ask the Secretary of State for War when the new attestation form for the Territorial Army will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) A copy has been laid on the Table, and copies have been sent to the Vote Office for the convenience of Members. It is hoped that the general supply will be distributed early next week.

  Disbandment of Volunteer Companies.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary of State for War when he will be in a position to make the final announcement as to the disbandment of Volunteer corps or companies under the new Territorial Scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) The announcement of what Volunteer corps are to be disbanded will be contained in a special Army Order which will shortly be issued.

  Netheravon Yeomanry School.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the school for Yeomanry officers at Netheravon has been abolished; and, if so, on what grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) In September, 1907, it was decided to
  1718
  discontinue the attendance of junior Yeomanry officers of the Cavalry School, Netheravon, and to allow them to qualify for promotion by attachment for one month to a regular cavalry regiment where they have opportunities of learning their duty with troops which they could not do at the cavalry school Refresher courses for senior Yeomanry* officers are still held at the cavalry school.

  Training Regulations for the Territorial Army.
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will place in the Vote Office, for the use of Members, copies of the pamphlet containing the training regulations for the Territorial Army, and also copies of the; new attestation form when issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) Copies were sent to the Vote Office yesterday.

  Staff College Students.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been decided to increase the number of students at the Staff College; and, if so, when will this increase take effect.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.); The matter is under consideration.

  4th Battalion West Kent Regiment
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an order has been issued through the Kent County Association to certain companies of Volunteers belonging to the 4th Battalion Royal West Kent Regiment to the effect that no man employed in the Royal Dockyard at Chatham shall belong to the Territorial Army; whether such order was issued with his approval; and, if so, will the order apply to the men employed in all Government Departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) I am not aware of the order referred to. The regulations which are now applicable to Volunteers employed in departments under the Army Council will not

  1719
  in any way be altered in regard to men of the Territorial Force.

  St. Patrick's Day—Army Ordnance Department.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements will be made to have St. Patrick's Day observed as a public holiday in the Army Ordnance Departments, in common with all other public departments in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) St. Patrick's Day is allowed to the Army Ordnance Department in Ireland as a public holiday, on the same conditions as for Admiralty employees, namely, without pay and without the right of making up lost time.

  Army Engineer Surveyors.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the reason for the delay which has occurred in the promulgation of the scheme affecting the staff of surveyors for engineer services in the Army which received the concurrence of the Treasury some six months since; and whether he is aware of the existence of anxiety in the service lest the recommendations of successive committees of inquiry should not have effect given to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) Many administrative details had to be considered after the Treasury's consent to the scheme was received before it could tie promulgated. It is hoped that these can be finally settled in a few days time. The changes introduced by the scheme will be started at the commencement of the next financial year.

  Assam Bengal Railway—Sylhet Connection.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India contemplates the inclusion of a feeder line connecting Sylhet with the Assam Bengal Railway in its railway programme for the forthcoming year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) An estimate for a section of such a line, from Kalaura station to the Kooseara River was sanctioned in 1906, and
  1720
  a sum of Rs. 3,52,000 was allotted to this work for expenditure in 1907–8. The grant that will be allotted for the forthcoming year will be shown in the usual statement of capital expenditure on railways published with the Financial Statement of the Government of India.

  Indian Railway Construction—Bridgesover the Ganges.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the programme of railway construction includes any provision for a bridge across the Ganges at Sara Ghaut or across the Hooghly at Caluctta.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Provision is made in. the programme of railway construction for expenditure on a bridge over the Lower Ganges, but the site has not been definitely settled. No provision is made for a bridge over the Hooghly at Calcutta.

  Bombay Sind Railway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received from the Government of India the memorial of the Cutchi inhabitants of Bombay relative to the proposed Bombay-Sind connection railway; and, if so, will he state whether he has yet arrived at a decision on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Memorial has been received and considered. I have decided that the line, if constructed, shall follow the route north of the Runn of Cutch, which is shorter and less costly than that through the Cutch State.

  Viceroy's Executive Council—Commercial Ministry.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the post of Commercial Minister in the Viceroy's Executive Council in India is now vacant; and, if so, whether in filling up the appointment, he will give effect to the original intention of selecting for the office a practical representative of commerce and industry and railway management.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) There is a vacancy on the Council of the

  1721
  Governor General of India. I am unable at present to make any statement as to my intentions for filling it.

  Irish Estimates.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the grants in aid under Sub head C, Vote 6, Class II., Civil Service Appropriition Accounts, 1906–7, was devoted to Ireland; and if so, how much.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The grant made for the Emigrants' Information Office, to which the hon. Member refers, was applied in acquiring and distributing information for use in the United Kingdom generally, including Ireland. It is impossible to apportion the expenditure.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  SIR ARTHUR BIGNOLD: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, on Wednesday, 5th February, the fishing boat "Benaigen "of Wick, whilst fishing in the Moray Firth, seven miles off the coast of the county of Caithness, had five of her nets carried away, and eight of her nets with fishing ropes destroyed by the trawler "Bangkok" of Gothe burg, value thereof £68 10s.; whether he is aware that several similar losses have been sustained this winter by fishing boats in the Moray Firth having their nets destroyed by foreign trawlers in the Firth, from whom no compensation is obtainable; and whether he will take steps for the protection of fishermen's property and for the vindication of their rights against foreigners.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The usual procedure in cases where damage is inflicted by foreign fishing vessels on British fishing vessels is for the complainers to institute proceedings against the offenders in the Courts of the country to which they belong, but in this particular instance the matter has been referred to the Crown Office who have it under consideration.

  Tuberculosis in Scotland.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many cows were examined in Scotland under Article
  1722
  3 of the Amended Order of 1899 in each of the years 1906 and 1907; how many of these were certified to be affected with, tuberculosis of the udder; and what was done with those cows so affected.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Figures for 1907 are not yet available. From Returns in possession of the Board, approximately 34,253 "inspections" were carried out under Article 3 in the year 1906. It is impossible to give the number of cows examined. In approximately 257 cases the udder was certified to be tubercular. The Local Government Board have no information as to what was done with such cases.

  Board of Inland Revenue—Secretary's Inspection Expenses.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to his reply last session to the hon. Member for Kilkenny City as regards the holiday inspection expenses of the Secretary o the Board of Inland Revenue, that only expenses incurred strictly on official business are charged to the Vote, and that these are of course subject to the scrutiny of the Audit Office, whether he is aware that the claims made out by this official indicated that the expenses were incurred during his autumn holiday; that up to the suspension last year of these so called inspections they have been systematically made in connection with his holiday visits, depending entirely on the situation of the places where he happened to spend his vacation; that in 1906 he stayed at a Yorkshire watering place and visited the various Excise stations in the neighbourhood, receiving in connection with these visits subsistence allowance at the rate of £1 per day; and that, as Secretary to the Inland Revenue Board, he sometimes issues so called Board's orders on his own account; and whether he will direct inquiry to be made into all the circumstances under which this official has been paid expenses during his holiday intervals, together with the total amount since his appointment to his present position.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) It is with the authority of the Board of Inland Revenue that their Excise Secretary

  1723
  has visited from time to time various collections in the United Kingdom; and they propose to continue an arrangement which, in their opinion, conduces, at trifling cost, to the efficiency of the Department. No Board's orders are issued, either by the Excise Secretary or by other officers of the Board, otherwise than by the authority and on the responsibility of the Board.

  Estimated Amount of the Grant and Expenditure on account of Ireland under Sub-heads of the Vote for Treasury, &c. (Class II., Vote 3), 1906–7.

  Sub-head.

  Grant.

  Expenditure.

  £

  £

  A. Salaries

  4,580

  4,500

  B. Travelling

  25

  25

  D. Incidental expenses

  26

  25

  N. Treasury Remembrancer, Ireland, Salaries, &c.

  3,319

  3,316

  O. Treasury Remembrancer, Ireland, Travelling, &c.

  40

  28

  Q. Teachers' Pension Office, Ireland, Salaries

  2,394

  2,398

  R. Teachers' Pension Office, Ireland, Travelling, &c.

  5

  1

  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state under each, sub-head the Irish proportion of the amount granted and the sum expended for the year 1906–7, under Vote 10, Class 1, Civil Service, Appropriation Accounts; and also the estimated and realised amounts from Ireland under Sub-head H.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) £95,500 was provided in the Survey Estimates for 1906–7 in respect of work in Ireland, and £94,170 was expended. The appropriations in aid amounted to

  Class I., Vote 13. 1906–7.

  Amount of Grant estimated for Ireland.

  Amount of Expenditure on Irish Account.

  Subhead A

  £120

  £120 (estimated)

  Sub-head B

  Nil

  Nil

  Estimated receipt from Ireland.

  Actual receipt from Ireland.

  Sub-head I

  £30

  £26 1s. 2d.

  Irish Grants and Expenditure.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the estimated amount of the grant and expenditure on account of Ireland, under each sub head of Vote 3, Class II., Civil Service Appropriation Accounts, 1906–1707.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)—
  £4,060. The net expenditure was therefore £90,110, or 43·85 per cent. of the aggregate net expenditure for the United Kingdom.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the Irish proportion of the amount granted, and the sum expended under Sub heads A. and B., Vote 13, Class I., Civil Service, Appropriation Accounts, 1906–7; and also the estimated and realised amounts from Ireland under Sub head I.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)—
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the amount, or estimated amount, of the grant and expenditure on account of Ireland under each Sub head of Vote 4, Class II., Civil Service Appropriation Accounts, 1906–7, and also the estimated and

  Sub-head.

  Estimated Grant.

  Estimated Expenditure.

  Inspection of factories:

  £

  £

  Salaries and allowances

  2,830

  2,790

  Travelling, &c.

  1,640

  1,570

  Fees to surgeons, &c.

  160

  180

  Costs of prosecutions, &c.

  20

  10

  Incidental expenses

  55

  55

  Inspection of explosives:

  Salaries and allowances

  45

  45

  Travelling

  40

  40

  Inspection of mines and quarries:

  Salaries, &c.

  275

  270

  Travelling

  300

  290

  Workmen's Compensation Act:

  Fees, &c, of medical referees

  30

  20

  Aliens Act:

  Expenses of expulsion orders

  10

  5

  Estimated.

  Realised.

  Receipts:

  Appropriations in Aid

  100

  100

  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the amount or estimated amount of the grant and expenditure n account of Ireland under each subhead Votes 8, 9, and 10, Class II.,
  realised amounts from Ireland under Sub-head II.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following statement shows the estimated amount of the grant and expenditure on account of Ireland during the year 1906–7, and the estimated and realised amounts from Ireland under Sub head II. (Appropriations in Aid)—
  Civil Service Appropriation Accounts 1906–7.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) No separate accounts are kept of the sums voted and expended on account of

  1727
  Ireland under Votes 8 and 9. In the annual Financial Relations Return (House of Commons Paper, No. 245, of 1907) the expenditure under these Votes has always been treated as common to the United Kingdom. Before the next Return is prepared I will ascertain whether it will be possible to give an approximate estimate of the expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services. Expenditure under Vote 10 is for the administration of the Bankruptcy Acts, 1883 and 1890, and the Companies (Winding up) Act, 1890, which do not extend to Ireland.

  Training Colleges for Rural School Work.
  SIR F. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Education, if he will state at how many training colleges provision is now made for the instruction of teachers for rural school work in the teaching of science as applicable to agriculture, and in facilities for practical training in the processes of agriculture, either on land attached to the training colleges, or on farm land adjacent to the colleges and hired temporarily for the purpose; and whether he can give an approximate estimate of the number of teachers now qualified by training to teach nature study and elementary science suited for rural industries, and of the number of teachers now qualifying themselves by attendance on short summer courses, or Saturday lectures, or other facilities provided by county councils or agricultural colleges.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) In all but one of the training colleges, excluding the Universities, nature study is included as part of the ordinary course in general elementary science regularly taken by students. At such short notice it is not possible to say how many of the colleges have special gardens or other lands appropriated for practical teaching. Nor can I, without further inquiry, give precise information as to the relations of agricultural colleges and their teaching staffs with the training colleges or the training departments of university colleges. In considering the extent to which training colleges specialise their courses in this or indeed in any particular direction, it must be remem-
  1728
  bered that practically every training: college is attended by students who have, come to it from all parts of the country, urban and rural, and also that students at training colleges have not, at that stage of their lives, at all decided whether the schools in which they will ultimately seek or obtain employment will be rural or urban; and it would thus hardly be possible, or fair to the students, for colleges to specialise in the directions, referred to in the Question to an extent which would be unsuitable for those who would ultimately take service in urban schools. I may say, however, that the Board of Education have recently formulated an optional course in rural science, of a somewhat elaborate character, leading up to a practical study of vegetable culture, fruit culture, and. flower culture; this is included amongst the possible syllabuses for recognised, training colleges, and is already taken by one college. I may say, further, that the Board of Education have agreed, to approve arrangements by which they will pay a special grant in respect of a. year of special training in rural subjects, at certain horticultural and agricultural colleges, which may be taken by any qualified elementary school teacher. And the Board of Education have occasionally in recent years themselves provided very valuable summer courses at South Kensington for the teaching staff of certain training colleges, dealing in practical fashion with science adapted to rural requirements; and pecuniary assistance is given by the Board of Education to enable selected teachers to take advantage of these courses. As regards the concluding paragraph of the Question, it is not possible to state how many of the 84,000 certificated and 40,000 uncertificated teachers on the teaching staffs of the public elementary schools in England and Wales are qualified by training to teach nature study and elementary science suited for rural industries; but it will be seen from the earlier part of this Answer that a considerable proportion of the students who now leave the training colleges annually have some qualification for this work; while the large number of elementary schools obtaining the Board's special grant for instruction in gardening clearly shows that the number of persons

  1729
  possessing practical qualifications in this respect, whether on the staff of these schools or (as is frequently the case) employed specially from outside, is considerable and is increasing. The point, however, is more particularly dealt with by means of courses arranged by county councils for the existing teaching staff of public elementary schools, in the matter of nature study and rural science. Most of the county councils in England and Wales now make provision for enabling their rural elementary teachers to improve their qualifications for work in rural schools, day and evening; and in a number of instances, more particularly in the case of afternoon and evening courses, the instruction is given at, or in close connection with, a central agricultural institution. A large part of "the work of this character is carried on in continuous courses of two or three weeks during the summer vacation. As application to the Board of Education for recognition of these courses is not necessarily made at the beginning of the session, the Board are unable to state now the total of the courses for the current session. Judging, however, from the experience of last session, the Board anticipate that for the current session the number of such courses will be about forty, neighbouring counties having combined for the purpose in certain cases. It is estimated that some 1,800 elemertary school teachers will this year be improving their professional qualifications by attendance at such courses. It must further be remembered that, apart from attendance at courses specially arranged for the further instruction of rural teachers, many teachers avail themselves of the opportunities presented by the various classes in science conducted in technical schools and elsewhere aided by grants from the Board of Education. The Board are not in a position to state how many teachers are so benefiting, but they know that the number is large.

  H.M.S. "Dreadnought."
  MR. GRETTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, in view of the special stress laid on H.M.S. "Dreadnought" as a reinforcement in war after she was commissioned on 11th December, 1906, it is the intention of the
  1730
  Board to allow this vessel to be tested by the Admiral who has been designated by the First Lord of the Admiralty for the chief command in war.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Admiralty are already satisfied as to the fighting value of this ship, and see no necessity for a special Report on her from any admiral other than the one whose flag she flies.

  Public Trustee Vote.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will consider the desirability of including in the Public Trustee Vote for the ensuing year not only those items of expenditure which are included in the present Supplementary Estimates, but also the estimated rental of the premises in Clement's Inn, the rates of contributions in lieu of rate3 in respect of these premises, and the various other items which would be debited to the Public Trustee Office if it were carried on as an independent business undertaking.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Estimate for the office of the Public Trustee for the ensuing financial year, as issued, contains a statement showing, in accordance with the usual practice, the provision made for the Department in respect of office accommodation (including rent, maintenance, furniture, and fuel and light), stationery, and printing. The rent paid for the premises includes rates, which are payable by the landlord. By Section 9 of the Public Trustee Act, 1906, the fees charged in respect of the duties of that officer are required to be arranged from time to time so as to cover the salaries and expenses incidental to the working of the Act. These expenses include the items referred to in the Question, as well as the Vote for the Public Trustee.

  Volunteer Officers and the Territorial Army
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Volunteer officers who elect to transfer to the Territorial Army

  1731
  will be allowed to retain their honorary rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) The reply is in the affirmative.

  Officers of Cadet Battalions.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what will be the position of officers of cadet battalions after 1st April; will they be given commissions in the Territorial Force and thereby become liable for service away from their units in times of emergency; or will they be given honorary commissions and only be called upon to serve with their cadet battalions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) The question of the position of officers of cadet battalions is now under consideration.

  Cloch Point—National Defence Laws.
  MR. DUNDAS WHITE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any land was purchased for the purposes of national defence about twenty years ago in Renfrewshire, in the neighbourhood of the Cloch Lighthouse; and, if so, in what year, and from whom it was purchased; what was the price paid; and whether it was subsequently sold.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretry Haldane.) Land at Cloch Point in possession of Sir Michael Shaw Stewart was selected in 1899 for the construction of one of the batteries for the defence of the Clyde, and in January, 1905, the negotiations for purchase were completed, at a coat of £13,050. In 1907 it was decided not to construct a battery at Cloch Point, and the land being no longer required was re sold to Sir Hugh Shaw Stewart.

  Waltham Abbey Factory Wages.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how many of the men employed at the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey have had their wages reduced since 1st
  1732
  May, 1906, and the amount of the reduction.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Will the hon. Member kindly refer to my reply on this subject to a Question put., by the hon. and gallant Member for the. Epping Division of Essex on 4th February, which will, I think, give him ample information on the points raised.

  Cordite Destroyed.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary to the? Admiralty what was the estimated value of the cordite which had to be destroyed owing to having been kept long in hot, climates.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). The approximate value is £8,000.

  Range Finders.
  LORD BALCARRES: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what sum is included in the Naval Estimates for range finders, and in what Vote the item, is included.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). The amount provided for the purchase, of range finders is included in the Navy Estimates under Sub head F. of Vote 8, Section 2 (Purchase of Torpedo and Electrical Stores), but it is not in the public interest to state precisely what portion of the total provision under this, sub head has been allocated to the purchase of range finders or any other instruments.

  West Biding Schools
  MR. CARLILE: To ask the President of the Board of Education what is the total number of places provided in the West Riding schools, provided and non provided; and what was the average attendance in these schools for the years 1904–5, 1905–6, and 1906–7.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The following Table gives the accommodation

  1733
  and average attendance in council and voluntary schools in the area of the West

  Year.

  Council Schools.

  Voluntary Schools.

  Total.

  Accommodation.

  Average attendance.

  Accommodation.

  Average attendance.

  Accommodation.

  Average attendance.

  1904–5

  118,896

  85,371

  133,209

  85,469

  252,105

  170,840

  1905–6

  125,419

  92,257

  127,828

  82,292

  253,247

  174,549

  1906–7

  135,890

  97,051

  121,490

  77,011

  257,380

  174,062

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Chatham Dockyard Workmen and the Territorial Force.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether orders have been issued that no employees at Chatham Dockyard may join the Territorial Force.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): No criers have been issued, but the question is being discussed between the Admiralty and the War Office.

    Royal Naval Engineering College, Devonport.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the food supplied to cadets at the Royal Naval Engineering College at Deponport is not sufficiently nourishing to enable these youths to withstand satisfactorily the mental and physical strain which their training involves; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No complaints have been received, but I shall make inquiry, and I hope my hon. friend will supply ire with the information upon which his question is based.

    Royal Naval Reserve.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, having regard to the fact that prior to 1st April, 1906, second class Royal Naval Reserve men
    Riding County Council for the years 1904–5, 1905–6, and 1906–7—
    were allowed to re-enrol for periods of five years up to the age of forty-five, will he consider the expediency of having the new rule so amended as to admit of the re-enrolment, in periods of five years, up to the age of forty-five of all men who were in the second class of the Royal Naval Reserve at the time the new rule came into force.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: My hon. friend refers to the case of second class Royal Naval Reserve men who, on 1st April, 1906, had reached the age of thirty five without qualifying for advancement. The rule excluding such men from re-enrolment has been well considered, and no reason is seen for amending it.

    New Quick Firing Gun.
    SIR A. ACLAND HOOD: In view of the general interest taken in all parts of the House in the converted gun to be issued to the Territorial Army, will the Secretary for War takes steps to exhibit a specimen of this weapon to hon. Members in some part of the precincts of the House—presumably not in the tea room—and without ammunition?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of having a miniature shooting gallery on the Terrace with popguns?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): I believe there is a rule against introducing lethal weapons into this House except with the consent of the House; but

    1735
    already we have, I think, the new bayonet and the new converted rifle in the tea room, and if it is agreeable, I will arrange that on Monday a specimen of the new quick firing gun shall be here after question time and also a specimen of the old gun.
    MR. KILBKIDE: Turn it on the House of Lords.

    Anglo Tibetan Agreement.
    MR.O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the text of the Anglo Tibetan Trade Agreement, arranged between Sir Louis Dane and Mr. Chang, the Chinese Commissioner, will be laid upon the Table of the House at an early date.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): The Agreement has not yet been concluded. It will be laid before the House when completed. It is concerned solely with the Amendment of the Trade Regulations of 1893 provided for by Article III. of the Lhasa Convention, which, with the subsequent Agreement with China, is already in the hands of hon. Members.

    Famine in India.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what are the figures at present of the number of persons in receipt of State relief in India; whether the relief is given in provisions as pauper relief or providing work, and, if the latter, whether wages are paid for such work; whether the areas of distress are extending; whether the Government of India has made any inquiry into the causes of the distress; whether at present any new legislative proposals are before the Viceroy in Council to deal with such causes, or in providing machinery to more effectively cope with the effects; and, if not, whether, having regard to the seriousness of recurring famine, he will consider the matter and suggest proposals to the Indian Government as a basis of experimental legislation dealing with famine.
    MR. MORLEY; The total number of persons in receipt of relief, according to the latest report, is 1,388,000. For
    1736
    the able bodied, relief is provided in the form of work, for which a suitable wage is paid: other classes receive grants of money or food in their homes or in poorhouses. The number on relief, and the area in which distress is acute, must, I am afraid, be expected to increase until the rains in June or July. It is hardly necessary to say that the Government of India have made full inquiry into the causes of the distress. The Famine Relief Codes, in accordance with which relief is being administered, are the result of accumulated experience, and are subject to revision in the light of further experience. I do not think that I could usefully make suggestions to the Government of India for dealing with the question by experimental legislation,
    MR. O'GRADY: Will the result of the inquiries be made public?
    MR. MORLEY: I should not think so, but I will make sure.
    MR. LUPTON: Is it the fact that when there is great poverty in agricultural districts in India the taxes are still collected by cast iron rule without regard to the particular circumstances of the district?
    MR. MORLEY: No, Fir, I do not think so.
    MR. SMEATON: Is it not the c. se that in such circumstances the taxes are suspended?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Conviction of a Bengali Barrister for Assaulting English Railway Officials.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the trial and sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment of a Bengali barrister on the charge of murderously attacking two English railway officials; whether he is aware that the accused was sixty years of age, and in defence stated that he got into a first class carriage by mistake late at night at a wayside station the carriage being occupied by the two railway officials, and because he would

    1737
    not leave was set upon by the prosecutors, and in self defence picked up a Goorka dagger lying on the seat of the carriage; whether he is aware that one Judge tried the case, and that another Judge came along, read the evidence, and gave judgment against the accused, on the grounds that the dagger must have been his property, because it was exactly the length of the accused's carpet bag; and whether, having regard to the whole circumstances of the case, he will cause inquiries to be made, with the view of exercising the prerogative of mercy.
    MR. MORLEY: I have seen a report of the trial, and also a report that on 28th January an appeal was admitted by the Calcutta High Court, who released the accused on bail. Until the result of the appeal is known, I can express no opinion on the case; but I may point out that the Judges who tried the case were both Indians, and that it was at the request of the accused that the Judge who took up the case when the original Judge was taken ill decided not to re hear the whole case. My hon. friend will find the grounds of the judgment reported at length in the Indian newspapers of the time. I have no information as to the dagger or carpet bag.

    The Zakka Khel Settlement.
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will lay upon the Table a translation of the agreement with the Afridi tribes who undertook to punish the Zakka Khel.
    MR. MORLEY: The substance of the undertaking given by the Afridi tribes in respect of the Zakka Khel was stated in the announcement of the close of the operations which I made on 2nd March. There will be no objection to laying the document on the Table when the full text is received by mail.

    British Post Office in China
    MR. NUTTALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that at Tientsin, the second in importance among China treaty ports,
    1738
    the British post office will be closed unless the Chamber of Commerce guarantees the financial deficit, and in view of the fact that the British post offices at Hankow, Chefoo, and Canton are maintained without merchants being required to contribute to the working expenses, His Majesty's Government will undertake the charge, in order to assist our commerce and maintain the same status for England as that established by Germany, France, and Russia at that port.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The question of the maintenance of these postal agencies is now being discussed between the Colonial Office and the Treasury, and the point raised by the hon. Member will receive consideration.

    Cyclone in Mauritius.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER GRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any official news of the recent disastrous cyclone in Mauritius; whether any petition for help has beep, received from that Colony; and, if so, can he hold out any hope of a favourable reply.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Governor of Mauritius has reported that the Island was visited by a cyclone on the 1st of March which caused six deaths, and interrupted railway and telegraphic communications. A certain amount of damage has been done to houses, mostly to those of the poorer classes, and the crops have also suffered to an extent which will depend partly on the weather during the next month or so. The first estimates gave a 15 per cent, reduction on a crop which previously promised to be a very good one. The Answer to the latter part of the Question is in the negative.

    Natives in the Transvaal Mines
    MR. GUINNESS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what number of the natives now employed in the Transvaal mines are British subjects, and what number have come from Portuguese territory.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The detailed territorial analyses are no longer supplied to the Colonial Office since the establishment of responsible Government, but the number of Portuguese natives would probably be not less than half. This appears to be borne out by the statement that of the total number of natives recruited during 1907, according to the Report of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, 47,656 out of 117,991 were Portuguese natives from the East Coast, and the increase in native labour during the year is largely attributed to the fact that an unusual proportion of East Coast natives have renewed their contracts.
    MR. GUINNESS: I beg to ask whether, in view of the objection so freely taken by hon. Members opposite to the importation of indentured labour on the Rand on the ground that it is likely to displace or restrict the employment of British subjects, His Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to repatriate, or, at all events, to prevent further recruiting of this Portuguese labour, which, from that point of view, is objectionable.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is not supplementary, but argumentative.

    Mozambique Labour in the Rand Mines
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether, in the event of any further importation of native labourers from Mozambique for work in the South African mines taking place, the labourers imported will be housed and fed on the higher scale of the Chinese labourers, or on the lower scale of the native labourers.
    MR. CHURCHILL: They will not be subject to the objectionable provisions of the Chinese Ordinance, but will no doubt be treated like their fe.lows, many thousands of whom have worked on the mines. As the Chinese leave the country the new compounds which were built for them under such severe Parliamentary supervision will no doubt become available for native labourers.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONasked whether these natives would be com pulsorily repatriated.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he did not understand that they were compulsorily repatriated now.
    MR. GOULDINGasked whether these natives were, in the time when they were not employed, permitted to go in and out of the compounds freely?
    MR. CHURCHILLreplied in the affirmative. The case as regarded the natives of Portuguese Africa was that the Portuguese Government were very anxious to have them back after their indenture, because they had their wives and families still in Portuguese territory, but they were not repatriated because there was any objection to them on the part of the population of the Transvaal.
    MR. GOULDINGrepeated his Question.—were these natives, while they were not employed, allowed to go in and out of the compounds as free men?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Certainly. They have all the freedom which ordinary natives have.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether, in view of the fact that the agreement was that the natives should be repatriated, the Government would take the same interest in their repatriation as was taken in the repatriation of the Chinese?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Suggested Further Introduction of Chinese Labour.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in, view of the admitted difficulty of obtaining sufficient labour in South Africa for the Transvaal mines, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of sanctioning the importation of more Chinese labourers on, so far as possible, the same terms as the Kaffir labourers, but with due regard to the

    1741
    prevention of their permanent settlement in South Africa, before they sanction the importation of other labourers from outside sources, among whom the mortality is likely to be far higher.
    MR. CHURCHILL: If the importation of Chinese for labour on the mines in South Africa as advocated by the noble Lord were under the same conditions as the natives of that country are employed, no special legislation imposing fresh distinctions between race and race might be required, and the question would not, I presume, fall in the category of Bills specially reserved under the constitution. It is, there-fore, to the Government and people of the Transvaal that the noble Lord should address his missionary efforts on behalf of the free importation of Chinese. In view of the known opinions of the overwhelming majority of the Colonists, both Dutch and British, his exertions will be watched with interest.
    EARL WINTERTON: Will the Government have any objection to sanctioning this importation?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Either an Ordinance proposing special restrictions will be needed, or it will not be needed. If an Ordinance is needed, then I think it will be time to consider that Ordinance when it reaches this House.

    Compounds at the Mines.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any difference (as regards the amount of accommodation allowed per head and the form of building) between the compounds occupied by the Kaffirs and Chinese, respectively, who are at present working in the mines in the Transvaal.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Cd. Paper 2786 will afford the noble Lord very full information on this and many kindred matters connected with the mining industry upon the Witwatersrand.
    EARL WINTERTON: Are we to understand that there is no distinction; between the two classes of compounds, whether occupied by natives or Chinese?
    MR. CHURCHILL: It would be better for the noble Lord to have recourse to the authorities to which I have referred him before putting any further Questions.

    Mortality among Labourers in the Transvaal.
    EARL WINTERTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will grant a Return showing the mortality per month since January 1906, among the following classes of labourers working in the Transvaal mines: South African Kaffir natives, Central African natives, Nyasaland natives, Portuguese Territory natives, and Chinese.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The information, is not in the possession of the Colonial Office, but the Secretary of State will ask the Transvaal Government if they will furnish it for presentation to Parliament
    SIR GILBEET PARKER: May I ask if, in view of the paternal position which this Government has taken up through granting the Transvaal a Constitution, the hon. Gentleman would ask that Government to keep them supplied regularly with facts concerning the position of the natives?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; the constitutional position of this country is very clearly defined and I do not think I can modify it.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Are we to understand that these natives for whom His Majesty's Government have a special responsibility, are to be ignored in this matter?
    MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the conditions under which legislations is reserved in the Transvaal Constitution. Apart from that, there is no power to deal with the internal affairs of the Transvaal.
    MR. LYTTELTON: This is not an internal matter; it is a matter external to the Transvaal Government peculiarly affecting natives under His Majesty's protection.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not see how it affects natives under His Majesty's protection.

    Transvaal Mines and Malagasy Labour.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when the first communication was received by His Majesty's Government from the Transvaal Government as to recruiting labour from Madagascar; when and what reply was given to the communication from the Transvaal Government; whether any communication on the subject has teen made by His Majesty's Government to that of the French Republic; and whether any reply has been received from the French Government.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Governor's despatch on the subject containing Minister's request was received on 18th January. It was answered on 28th January by a request that a missing enclosure should be forwarded, and further communications have since taken place. No communication to the French Government has at present been made.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the correspondence would be laid on the Table of the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: My noble friend has decided not to lay on the Table any correspondence on the matter until it is complete.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to give the House the information?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot say. The Foreign Office is also involved in this matter.
    SIE GILBERT PARKERasked whether they were to conclude, from the fact that negotiations had been entered into for recruiting natives of Madagascar for the Transvaal mines, that the supply of natives from the subcontinent had not been found sufficient by the Transvaal Government?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot govern the inferences that the hon. Gentleman may choose to draw, but I am of opinion, as far as I am able to inform myself, that the supply of natives has proved very much in excess of the demand.
    MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the negotiations between the Home Government and the French Government were still in progress?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Transvaal Government have made a request to us to obtain information from the French Government. We have asked the Transvaal Government certain questions, and upon receipt of the answers to those questions, if we find they are satisfactory, we will make the necessary representations to the French Government.

    Dinizulu.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the telegram sent by the Colonial Office, at the request of Mr. Colenso and on his behalf, on 7th December last, to Dinizulu, whether it was sent at the expense of the Government; and what was the cost of the message.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The message was sent at the expense of the Government, and the cost was £4 5s.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Is the House to understand that in future the Colonial Office intend to send telegrams on behalf of private individuals at the expense of the British taxpayer?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The telegram in question was sent to prevent the effusion of blood in South Africa, and it could not have reached Dirhulu except by State assistance, through which it acquired an official character. It was right that the expense should be borne by the Government.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: But was not the telegram sent on behalf of a private individual?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, and in similar circumstances a similar telegram would be sent.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sending of the telegram met with the approval of some hundreds of Members of this House? Will he send a further telegram to ascertain whether it is true as stated in the Press that the solicitor representing Dinizulu—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I will put the Question down.

    Native v. Chinese Labour Comparison
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, how many natives are required to replace every 100 Chinese repatriated from the Transvaal mines; and is the estimate of 150 natives being required to do the work of 100 Chinese approximately correct.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Sir, I cannot say. A more interesting calculation would be how many white men at high wages and with the best machinery would replace 100 of either natives or Chinese.
    MR. FELL: Is it not the case that it is in the knowledge of the Colonial Office that it takes considerably more natives than Chinamen to do the same work?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have answered the Question. I said I could not give the relative figures.
    EARL WINTERTON: In view of the statements made by his Party at the last election, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must really enter a protest against the practice of introducing a lot of fresh matter in supplementary Questions. A Question was asked of the light hon. Gentleman and he said he did not know. That, surely, is sufficient for the time being.
    MR. STANLEY WILSONrose to put a further Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

    Mortality in the Mines.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies how many natives employed in the Transvaal mines died in the month of December last, and how many Chinese; and what * percentage these numbers bear to the? numbers of each class employed
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have no official information. But from Press telegrams it appears that the number of Chinese employed in December was 37,728, and. the number of deaths 66, giving a death rate of 20·9 per 1,000 per annum, whiles the native death rate for the whole of 1907 is stated to have been 32·42 per 1,000 per annum. I cannot give the native death rate for December separately; and I cannot vouch for the: accuracy of the figures.

    Medical Inspection of the Natives.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if the English medical inspector employed to look after the health of the natives in the Transvaal mines has recently been discharged; if so, what reason is alleged for this; and is another medical man to be appointed in his place.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Dr. Sansom, the officer in question, is to be retrenched, but I know nothing of the reason or of the arrangements which may be contemplated by the Transvaal Government.
    MR. FELL: Does that mean he has. retired?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Do His Majesty's Government absolve themselves from all responsibility for the health of the natives, and do they, in consequence of the grant of self government to the Transvaal, consider they have no longer any power with regard to the protection, of these natives?
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must give notice of that.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is it proposed to appoint another medical man in the place of the one who is being retrenched?.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know the intention of the Transvaal Government, but in view of the right hon. "Gentleman's suggestion that His Majesty's Government takes no responsibility, we have yet to be convinced that the Transvaal Government, which enjoys the support of the great majority of the people in the Transvaal, will not do its duty in the matter.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the Transvaal Government propose to make another appointment?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am here to say distinctly that in the communications which we make from time to time to the Transvaal Government we shall be guided by the practice which the Colonial Office pursues in dealing with other responsible Governments, and shall not at all embark upon a policy of nagging them from day to day.

    Governorship of Macedonia.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to ascertain the feeling of the Austrian and Hungarian Governments with regard to the appointment of a Turkish governor for Macedonia.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD 'GREY,): A despatch has been addressed to the Powers putting forward for their consideration the views of His Majesty's Government as expressed in the House the other day, including the matter referred to in the Question.

    Japanese Infringements of British Trade Marks.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the complaints of British traders as to the wrongful use of British trade marks by Japanese fens; and whether he is taking any steps to ensure protection for British trade marks in the Far East.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to both the hon. Member's Questions is in the affirmative, as was stated in a reply given on behalf of the Board of Trade on the 5th instant.

    Great Britain and Siam
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement with respect to the terms of a new Treaty between Great Britain and Siam.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I regret that I cannot for the present add anything to my reply of the 5th instant to the hon. Member for North West Lanark.

    Indentured Labour at St. Thome and Principe.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Nottingham, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Portuguese Government have promulgated revised rules for the regulation of indentured labour traffic from the mainland for the cultivation of cocoa in the islands of St. Thome and Principe, and have deputed a specially qualified official to supervise their operation; and whether he can lay any Papers on the subject.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am unable to add to the information given to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury in answer to his Question on the 10th ultimo. We have not yet heard that the fresh Regulations which were being drawn up have been promulgated, or that the official who is to superintend the inauguration of the new system has left for his post. I do not propose to lay any Papers on the subject.

    Congo Treaty of Cession and Additional Act.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are in possession of the additional Act to the Treaty of Cession of the Congo approved by the Belgian Government, and are aware that it leaves Article 1 of the treaty unaltered, save for the obligations attaching to the

    1749
    retention by Belgium of the Crown Domain, foundation, and that no fundamental change is proposed in the present system which disregards native rights in the soil or the products of the soil; and whether His Majesty's Government, in view of the assurances given to this House by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, will now make representations to the Belgian Government that terms of cession which do not provide for elementary native rights, and for the re establishment of commercial liberty, cannot be recognised by this Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government have at this moment the additional Act under their consideration with a view to examining what effect it is likely to produce, if accepted in its present form, on the various questions at issue between them and the Congo Government. But the terms of the annexation of the Independent State by Belgium are still the subject of discussion and until the Bill has assumed its final shape I cannot promise a definite statement of what should be said about it.

    Russia and the Aland Islands.
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Aland Islands are now occupied by Russian troops.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information subsequent to that contained in my replies to the Questions asked by the hon. Member for Blackpool on 25th October, 1906, and 30th July last. I have no reason to suppose that anything has occurred since which materially alters the situation.
    LORD BALCARRES: And were the Russians not at that time in occupation?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There were two officers and fifteen men in the islands then.

    British Army in Egypt.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign
    1750
    Affairs whether, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the time has arrived for reducing the army of occupation in Egypt, which was increased to its present proportions in consequence of the Denshawai incident.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There was no increase of the army of occupation in Egypt in consequence of the Denshawai affair. The last decision to increase it was announced two months before that incident occurred. It is not proposed to alter it.

    Egyptian Schools Sports Competition.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Mr. Dunlop, adviser to the Ministry of Education in Egypt, has procured the alteration of the date on which the sports competition for the schools is usually held, so as to fix it this year for Friday, 20th March; whether he is aware that a public announcement had previously been made that a mourning ceremony in commemoration of Moustafa Kamel Pasha would be held on Friday, 20th March; and will he instruct the British agent to advise the Government to hold the sports competition on the usual date, so that it may not clash with the memorial ceremony.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I can, if desired, inquire whether there is such a competition, whether there is a usual date for it, whether the date has been altered, and if so, why, but it is clearly a matter of detail not to be settled in London.

    Carthagena—Estate of John Riddle of Sunderland.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the case of John Riddle, of Sunderland, who died at Carthagena, on the 30th April, 1882, and to the fact that the acting Vice Consul has declined to supply an inventory of the belongings of the deceased, stating that the documents necessary are missing; whether the Vice Consul acted in the matter in his private or public capacity; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take

    1751
    any action in order to compel the production of the necessary Papers.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: This case has formed the subject of correspondence since 1898. The Vice Consul, who is an unsalaried officer, has stated that there is no inventory of the estate among the Consular Papers. His business firm was previously connected with the administration of the estate, and whatever Papers he may possess are held by him in his private capacity. The matter is a purely private one, and I am unable therefore, to take any action in order to compel their production. The Foreign Office has frequently advised that this car. only be done through the Spanish Law Courts.

    Egyptian Students at Moustafa Kamel's Funeral
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Dunlop, the adviser to the Ministry of Education in Egypt, has advised the Government to inflict punishment on the students of the Government schools who attended the funeral of the late Moustafa Kamal Pasha; whether some years ago when a Mr. De Vere, professor of gymnastics, died, the pupils of the Government schools were requested by Mr. Dunlop to attend his funeral; and whether any students have actually been punished for attending the pasha's funeral.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on this subject. If the hon. Member will tell me on what foundation the statement implied in the Question is based, I will inquire into it.
    MR. KETTLE: It is based on accounts in the Egyptian papers.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better convey the information by letter.

    Sir Harry Maclean.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Kaid Maclean has gone to Rabat in a French gunboat; and, if so, can he state if we are now entirely free from any
    1752
    responsibility in regard to him if he is captured again.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am unable to add anything to the Answer which I gave the hon. Member on the 27th. ultimo; but it will be made clear that we cannot accept unconditional responsibility for future contingencies.

    Government Employees and the Territorial Force.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government intend to set an example to other employers of labour by themselves giving opportunity and encouragement to Government employees to join the Territorial Force.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Subject to the requirements of the service both in time of peace and in time of war, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to afford to those employed in public departments every reasonable facility for joining the Territorial Force
    MR. COURTHOPE: Does that apply to the employees at Chatham Dockyard?
    MR. ASQUITH: There is a question to the Admiralty on that subject.

    The Licensing Bill.
    MR. ELLIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state when the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill will be taken.
    MR. ASQUITH: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
    MR. GIBBS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the income tax will be levied upon any sums set on one side for sinking fund purposes, should the Licensing Bill become law.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Income tax Acts do not permit the allowance from the1 assessment upon the profits of a business of any sums set aside for the purpose of a. sinking fund.
    MR. GEORGE FABERasked "whether income tax would have to be paid on the sinking fund which was to take the place of the licence, as well as upon the licence itself.
    MR. ASQUITH: Sums set aside for a sinking fund are not allowed to be deducted from the income tax before it is paid.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: May it be deducted after payment?
    MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member must give me notice.
    MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if surveyors of taxes have been specially instructed from Somerset House not to allow the Compensation Fund under the 1904 Act to be charged against profits for income tax purposes; if so, on what grounds; and how will it be with a time limit.
    MR. ASQUITH: A Compensation Fund charge borne by the person carrying on the business in the licensed house is allowed as a deduction from the profits of that business for purposes of assessment to income tax. A Compensation Fund charge borne by the owner of a licensed house which he lets to a tenant is not, in the opinion of the Board of Inland Revenue, an admissible deduction from the profits of any other business carried on by him. This view has, however, been disputed, and the matter has been made the subject of an appeal to the High Court, which is now pending.

    Hong Kong Mail Contract.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet had under his consideration any proposal for the renewal of the Liverpool and Hong Kong mail contract; and whether, before giving his assent to any renewal of the contract for this service, he will satisfy himself that the terms of the contract are in accordance with the letter and spirit of the declaration made by the Prime Minister in this House on 27th March last.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Question of the renewal of the contract is now under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and the statement made by the Prime Minister on 27th March last is being fully borne in mind.

    Imprisonment for Debt
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Returns for 1907 of debtors imprisoned by orders of county courts have now been received; what was the total number of debtors imprisoned during last year; and whether, in view of the early inquiry by a Select Committee into the subject of imprisonment for debt, he will publish at once in a separate Paper the detailed Returns of committals for each circuit.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): These figures are not yet complete. If the Select Committee which is shortly to be appointed desire to be furnished with them before the annual Return in which they are embodied is ready for publication, I will endeavour to meet their wishes.
    MR. BYLES: Does that include imprisonment for non payment of rates?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say.
    MR. BYLES: I will put the Question down.

    The Children Bill.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the omission to deal with the question of street trading in the Children Bill now before the House is intentional or due to inadvertence; if the former, if he will state his reasons to the House for not legislating upon the subject; and, in the latter case, if he will move Amendments to the Bill in Committee for the protection of children and young female persons in relation to street trading.
    MR. GLADSTONE: After the fullest consideration, it was decided not to deal

    1755
    in the Bill with any of the numerous and often controversial questions which arise in connection with the employment of children. It was undesirable to deal with them piecemeal, and to have dealt with them comprehensively would have involved breaking up the Factory and Mines Acts, and would have altered the Bill's character and imperilled its chances of success. As regards street trading, I may remind the hon. Member that extensive powers of dealing with this form of employment of children are conferred on local authorities by the Employment of Children Act, 1903. These powers, as the Return presented to Parliament last year showed, have been largely exercised; and, according to the representations which reach me, with excellent results.

    The Hamstead Explosion.
    MR. ALBERT STANLEYasked if the Home Secretary could give the House any further information regarding the lamentable Hamstead explosion.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid that, as the House was aware, thirteen bodies were recovered yesterday from the Hamstead Colliery. The only telegram he had since received stated that another body had been recovered. Three sets of men were carrying on the search, and others were employed in securing a more direct route to get the bodies out.
    MR. JOHN WILSONasked if the Home Office intended to send a representative to the inquest to be held on 23rd March on the fourteen men who lost their lives at the Washington Glebe Colliery, in the county of Durham, on 21st February.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Home Office would of course be represented.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: By whom?
    MR. GLADSTONEasked for notice.

    Railway Shunting Accidents.
    MR. MADDISON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the railway shunting accidents for last year exceeded those of 1906 by about 40 per
    1756
    cent., those of 1895 by nearly 95 percent., and those of 1887, the year is which railway companies adopted the shunting pole, by no less than 250 per cent.; whether coupling and uncoupling" accidents have proportionately increased!, by 30 per cent, since 1889, when the Automatic Couplings Bill was withdrawn; and whether he is taking any steps under the Act of 1900 to select, automatic couplings and to enforce their adoption on the railways of the United Kingdom.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The comparison* suggested by my hon. friend are misleading, owing to the fact that the basis, of the Returns of non fatal accidents was altered in 1895 and again in 1906. As regards fatal accidents connected with the coupling and uncoupling of vehicles the figures are: 1887, 26; 1895, 16; 1899, 16; 1906,9; 1907, 18. The question of improved couplings! is at present under the consideration of the Railway Employment Safety Appliances Committee, who have, however, expressed the view that there is good reason to doubt whether the adoption, of an automatic coupling would tend appreciably to reduce the number of accidents.
    MR. GUESTasked on what grounds that decision was arrived at?
    MR. KEARLEY'Sreply was inaudible.

    West Biding Education Loan Payments.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will state what was the amount of the annual payments on account of loans for education purposes in the West Riding of Yorkshire when the West Riding County Council first took over the administration of education within its area.
    THE PRESIDENT OP THE LOCAL. GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this
    Question. The payments referred to in it amounted to £64,853.

    Chinese Mails.
    MR. NUTTALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will endeavour to make the same arrangement with China as that made by France and Germany, by which sealed mails are sent, via Siberia, from Pekin and other parts of China to London and from London to China.
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to the hon. Member's Question. The matter is engaging my attention; but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    Neyland Telephone Exchange.
    MR. OWEN PHILIPPS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a fishing industry is being established at Neyland; and if he can see his way to assist this new industry by establishing a telephone exchange at Neyland.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My attention has been drawn to the proposed establishment of a fishing industry at Neyland and I am ascertaining upon what terms a telephone service in connection with the Pembroke Exchange system can be given there. I am in communication with the Urban District Council on the subject.

    Post Office Contractors and Cruelty to Horses.
    SIR F. BANBURY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the case of a Post Office contractor named Boon, who was convicted at Peterborough, on 4th March, of cruelty to a horse employed to draw three quarters of P ton of electric wires belonging to the Post Office up a hill; whether he is aware that Boon admitted that the horse was a shiverer, and that since he had beeen summoned he had sold it to a man named Peacock, who
    1758
    was convicted on the same day at the same court for cruelty to a worn out horse, for £3; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the use of such horses by Post Office contractors.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Boon was not a Post Office contractor in any ordinary sense of the word. He was employed to cart a load of wire, and gave instructions on the subject to one of his men. This man disregarded Boon's instructions to go by the longer route to avoid the hill and took the shorter and steeper of two routes. The man was fined for cruelty; but the case against Boon was dismissed. If cruelty to horses were proved against a Post Office contractor I should no hesitate to take action in the matter.

    Newcastle Postman's Grievance.
    MR. HUDSONI beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Mr. W. E. Patrick, of Newcastle, on 16th March,. 1907, informed his superior officer that, owing to the number of circulars he had to deliver he would be unable to return in time to perform certain duty; that in consequence of this extra work: he was unable to return, and as the superior officer had made no provision considerable delay occurred; whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick was accused of deliberately delaying his work and was heavily punished, first by extra duty without pay, then by the stoppage of 1s. 6d. a week for a year, and then a further stoppage of Is. a week stripe money for an indefinite period of not less than two years; whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick appealed, pointing out that he drew attention to the large number of circulars he had, and that in reply he was informed not only that his punishment must be maintained, but that it was considered to be too light for his offence; whether he is aware that this addition is likely to have the effect of intimidating men who desire to appeal against punishments; and whether he will inquire into the whole case.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The matter referred to was fully investigated on the postman's own appeal, and the

    1759
    inquiry showed that the delay had been easily avoidable and merited severe punishment. Apart from the case in question the postman's record had been by no means satisfactory. No addition was made to Patrick's punishment on appeal, nor would this be the case. The loss of the yearly increase of pay and the deferment of his good conduct stripe followed necessarily from the fact that the conduct of the officer in question could not be certified to be satisfactory. He was aware of this when he appealed.

    Politics in the Post Office.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether associations among postal servants are permitted which subscribe to political funds.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I stated in reply to a Question the other day that, as far as I am aware, Civil servants have never been prohibited from sub-scribing individually or collectively to such objects as they think fit.
    MR. ALBERT STANLEY: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that statement with the fact that—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Notice must be given.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is an association of post office servants, which is acknowledged by him, which does contribute considerable funds to a political Party, and which is affiliated to that Party?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My Answer covers that.
    EARL WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the great difficulty of understanding what the regulations of the Post Office are, place a copy of them on the Table of the House?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsuggested that an un starred Question should be put down on the subject.
    MR. STANLEY WILSON: Will the light hon. Gentleman now give equal
    1760
    rights in the Post Office to all political organisations?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Equipment of Contracting-Out Schools.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the event of a school contracting-out under the Education Bill, the furniture and equipment will be transferred to the trustees of such school.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): The provisions of the Bill will not affect the ownership of the furniture or equipment of schools not transferred to the local education authority.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: May I ask whether we are to understand that it will be in the power of the local education authority to remove the furniture out of the schools?
    MR. MCKENNA: It would be so if the furniture was the property of the local authority.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: Is it not the property of the local authority?
    MR. MCKENNA: That would depend. I could not say in each case whether it would be so or not, but I think not. As a rule the furniture was in the school before the local authority took the school over.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: Is it not a fact that the local authority has acquired the furniture in many schools?
    MR. MCKENNA: In some cases they have, but my Bill does not touch those cases.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: Then I take it that it will be in the power of the local authority to remove the furniture?
    MR. MCKENNA: No, that is not quite accurate. It would be so in some cases, but not in others.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it not a fact that in most Roman Catholic schools the whole of the furniture before the present Act came into operation was very wretched and dilapidated and poor, and has been replaced under the present Act by proper furniture, which furniture, of course, is the property of the local authorities, and does it not mean that in the case of all these poor schools this furniture will be removed and the burden thrown on the people of finding new furniture?
    MR. MCKENNA: Such a general statement as that I could not reply to by a general answer. It would require examination in each case to see whether, in fact, the furniture had always been supplied by the local authorities.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Speaking generally of these Catholic schools, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that they have been very poor and necessitous schools, and that, in almost all these cases, the furniture was bad, and was replaced by the local authorities.
    MR. MCKENNA: No, I could not say that with my present knowledge. I could inquire into the point.
    LORD EDMUND TALBOT: If the statement of the hon. Member for Waterford is correct, will the right hon. Gentleman insert provisions in his Bill so as to arrange for this?
    MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir; I can give no undertaking.

    Teachers' Parchment Certificates.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state when the parchment certificates which were promised to be issued to the newly certificated teachers last Easter will be issued to them; and what is the reason for the delay that has taken place.
    MR. MCKENNA: No parchment certificates were promised to be issued to newly certificated teachers last Easter. The certificates which became due for issue at or about that time were certifi-
    1762
    cates for teachers who had been originally recognised from 1st August, 1905. These certificates have been issued in all cases in which the necessary conditions were satisfied. In the Code for 1907 the Board announced their intention to issue certificates in future on the recognition of a teacher, instead of after an interval of eighteen months, as has hitherto been the practice. I regret that for various reasons, principally the labour involved in the preparation and printing of the large number of certificates required by the new conditions, it has not been possible to bring this change into operation so soon as had been intended, but it is hoped that certificates will be issued shortly to all teachers qualified to receive them.
    LORD R. CECIL: The matter is exciting great interest. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman announce some date?
    MR. MCKENNA: It is in the printers' hands. It is a matter of some difficulty, and I cannot give a definite date.

    Secondary Schools.
    SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether secondary schools placed on the grant list will be considered as complying with the Regulations, especially as regards Article 20, Chapter III., for receiving grants on the higher scale under Article 36, Chapter VI., provided they admit, without payment of fee, as part of the required proportion of scholars from public elementary schools, children from State aided voluntary schools which under the new Education Bill will cease to be classified as public elementary schools.
    MR. MCKENNA: Yes, Sir.

    Dewsbury Education Bequest.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education it he will state to what purposes the money left by the late Dr. Hinchliffe, of Dewsbury, for the promotion of higher education in Dewsbury, has been put sine the County Council took over the management of education in the West Riding.
    MR. MCKENNA: The funds in question have been applied under Charity Commission Schemes of 24th August, 1900, amended by a Scheme of 3rd July, 1902, for purposes which may briefly be described as: (1) General maintenance of the Wheelwright Grammar Schools (Boys and Girls), and Technical School in Dewsbury; (2) provision of free places at the Technical School Evening Classes; (3) provision of scholarships and exhibitions tenable at or from the Wheelwright Grammar Schools.

    West Biding Schools.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what is the total number of places provided in the West Riding schools, provided and non provided; and what was the average attendance in these schools for the years 1904–5, 1905–6, and 1906–7.
    MR. MCKENNA: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will circulate with the Votes a Table giving the information he requires.
    MR. CARLILE: When?
    MR. MCKENNA: To day.
    MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, what is the difference in cost for the maintenance of a place for a child in a provided and also in a non provided school in the West Riding of Yorkshire this year, in comparison with 1906–7, 1905–6, 1904–5, 1903–4.
    MR. MCKENNA: The financial statements of local education authorities do not show separately the expenditure upon council schools and voluntary schools and it is, therefore, impossible to state the difference in cost between them.
    MR. CARLILE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give some indication? Will he endeavour to get it from the West Riding authorities?
    MR. MCKENNA: They are under no obligation to give it to me. I shall be happy to ask for it, but I have no power to insist.
    MR. CARLILE: Does the right hon. Gentleman doubt that they will furnish it?
    MR. MCKENNA: I have no knowledge on the point, I doubt neither one way nor the other.
    MR. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for it.
    MR. MCKENNA: I have already said I shall be pleased to do so.

    Provided School Grant
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what, approximately, will be the maximum and minimum grant paid in respect of any provided school apart from grants for special subjects under the Education Bill and the explanatory memorandum.
    MR. MCKENNA: Owing to the changes which would result from the operation of the Bill, it is not possible to estimate, even approximately, the effect in any area of the limitation of the grant to 75 per cent, of the local authority's expenditure on the elementary education account. But, ignoring altogether this limitation, which is expected to operate in very few areas, the maximum grant per child would be about 62s. and the mimimum about 38s. 6d. These figures are, however, based on the returns for the year 1906–7, and some small modification may be necessary when the figures for the current year are available. The noble Lord will, however, observe that the grant is not a grant in respect of individual schools, but is a grant in aid of the total expenditure of the local education authority on the elementary education account.
    LORD R. CECILasked whether they were to understand that in the case of the voluntary schools there was to be a uniform grant of 47s. per child, but in the council schools the grant might vary from 62s. to 38s. 6d.
    MR. MCKENNA: The noble Lord has fallen into an error. The grant to the local authorities is not paid in respect of schools. The grant varies in the case

    1765
    of each local authority, partly 'in accordance "with the amount of the total expenditure of the local authority. The noble Lord has correctly stated the amount that is proposed in the Bill in respect of each child in each voluntary school.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOONasked whether the grant would be subject to deductions for fines and other contingent expenses.
    MR. MCKENNA: The 47s. will be subject to fines, as is the case now with the grant paid to the local authorities.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether 47s. was the grant per child in the case of voluntary schools, while the grant per child in the case of other schools might vary between 62s. and 38s. 6d. Was that an accurate summary of the right hon. Gentleman's statement?
    MR. MCKENNA: Not quite, Sir. By working out what each local authority will receive, and by dividing that amount by the number of children, we obtain a figure varying between 38s. 6d. and 62s. But the amount of money which the local authorities will receive will not be the amount per child, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, there is the building grant as well.

    Teachers and the Education Bill
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if any compensation will be paid to teachers who may lose their employment if the Education Bill becomes law, and who will iiot, even with an additional year of recorded service, have reached a pensionable age.
    MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir, bur, I imagine that the large increase of Parliamentary grant under the Bill will result in an increased demand for efficient teachers. There is nothing in the Bill which will restrict the demand for teachers.

    Single School Parishes.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education
    1766
    when he will be able to lay upon the Table the promised information as to the single school parishes.
    MR. MCKENNA: Next week, I hope.

    Swansea Education Dispute
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, whether he has yet received any reply from the Swansea Local Education Authority to the Board's letter of 10th February.
    MR. MCKENNA: No answer has yet been received other than that to which I referred in reply to the noble Lord on Monday.
    LORD R. CECIL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to take any further steps to obtain a reply?.
    MR. MCKENNA: After the lapse of a sufficient interval I shall certainly take further steps, but I have no reason to suppose I shall not receive a reply.
    LORD R. CECIL: Was not the meeting of the local authority held on Monday or Tuesday last?
    MR. MCKENNA: I said it was to be held on Tuesday, and it is only Thursday now.

    Marble Arch Clock.
    MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the clock on the Marble Arch lodge gate, lately demolished, has been of especial convenience to the public owing to the paucity of clocks on the Oxford Street Bayswater Road line of traffic; and whether he will arrange for the erection of a clock with a larger dial, capable of illumination at night, in some prominent position near the site of the old gate lodge.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I am aware of the convenience to the public, and it is intended to re erect the clock on the new lodge in a position where I hope that convenience may be maintained. If

    1767
    I see an opportunity in the future to enable the public to know the time more easily and correctly I shall not fail to take advantage of it.

    Royal Philanthropic Society.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the transference of the Royal Philanthropic Society to the Royal Liver Friendly Society, whether in the cases of the transfer of engagements and liabilities of the Swansea Royal Friendly Society to the London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow Assurance Company, Limited, of the Royal Oak Friendly Society to another assurance company, and of the case of the Protective Friendly Society to the Victoria Legal Society, any sums of money were paid to the officials of the said societies for compensation for disturbance in office; whether the fact of such payments, if made, was made known to the members of the said societies before the said transfers were authorised; whether there is anything in the Friendly Societies Act prohibiting such compensation being so paid; can any instance be given, or can the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies name any society transferred as a going concern, where there was no payment made for compensation for disturbance or loss of office; whether he is aware that in the case of the transfer of engagements and liabilities of the Swansea Royal Friendly Society to the London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow Assurance Company, Limited, of the Royal Oak Friendly Society to another industrial assurance company, and of the like transfer by the Liverpool Protective Friendly Society to the Victoria Legal Friendly Society sums of money were paid by the transferees by way of compensation to officials for disturbance or loss of employment, and that the assent of the members of the societies so transferred to such compensation being paid was apparently not deemed necessary under the Friendly Societies Act by the Chief Registrar, before giving his official sanction to such transfers; and will he explain why more stringent regulations should be enforced in regard to a similar transfer by the Royal Philanthropic Friendly Society to the Royal Liver Friendly Society.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,): In cases of transfer of engagements by one society to another the Chief Registrar is not necessarily informed, and in the instances quoted was not informed, so far as can be ascertained, of the terms of the transfer, which are a matter of arrangement between the societies concerned. It is not the fact that more stringent regulations have been enforced in the present case than were enforced in other similar cases. In every case the requirements of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, have to be complied with, which provide, among other things, that the assent of five sixths in value of the members shall be obtained. In the present instance opposition has arisen among the members to the transfer on the ground partly of the compensation to be paid to the officers of the transferring society, and on this account the Chief Registrar has felt it his duty to satisfy himself that the necessary assents have been given with full knowledge of the transaction. There is nothing in the Act to prohibit compensation being paid to officials for disturbance in office.

    Chicago Beef Trust.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South, Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the correspondence which passed in 1903 between the Board of Agriculture and Mr. Herbert Swift, Mr. Ogden Armour, and other representatives of the Chicago meat packers, commonly known as the Beef Trust.
    MR. J. A. PEASE (for Sir B. STRACHEY): The Board have no knowledge of the correspondence to which my hon. friend refers.
    "The Times" and the Correspondence Between the German Emperor and. Lord Tweedmouth
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, having regard to the fact that the spreading of false news for the purpose of making discord or concerning very great officials of the realm is a misdemeanour punishable by common law

    1769
    or under certain statutes with fines and imprisonment, he has considered the advisability of putting the Public Prosecutor in motion against The Times newspaper, with reference to the statements in that newspaper concerning the correspondence between the German Emperor and Lord Tweedmouth.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir SAMUEL EVANS,): My hon. and learned friend has asked me to reply to this Question, and I propose to give it in his own words: "I think any ground of complaint against The Times newspaper in relation to the statement mentioned by the hon. Member may well be left to the judgment of the public, and I do not think it would be advisable to make the statement referred to the subject of legal proceedings."
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether we may take it for granted that the law officers do not regard The Times as of sufficient political importance?
    SIR SAMUEL EVANS: That is a question which has not come before the law officers.

    Nith Fishery.
    MR. GULLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, if he can now say whether he will accede to the petition from the Nith Fishery Board to extend for a fortnight the fishing in the Nith.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Nith is already one of the latest in respect of the date of the termination of rod fishing, and I am advised that to extend the rod fishing to 30th November would not be in the best interests of the river.
    MR. GULLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very largely signed petition, endorsed by the Fishery Board has been sent in, and that there has been no expression of opinion against it?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I was aware of that. But after investigation into the circumstances my experts came to the conclusion I have announced.

    Whaling Stations on the Scottish Coast.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the establishment of a whaling station on the coast of Ireland was recently refused on account of the injury inflicted by whaling on the herring fishing, will he state why he allows whaling to be prosecuted at stations on the West Coast of Scotland; and will he reconsider his decision in regard to the appeal of the Crofters and Cottars Association, Carloway, Island of Lewis, on this question.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The general considerations bearing upon the subject were before Parliament last session when the Whale Fisheries (Scotland) Act was passed into law. It is hoped that the Act will be found to safeguard all interests; but time and experience of its working are required before any amendment can be properly considered.
    MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
    MR. SINCLAIR: Parliament, in the Act it passed last session, laid down the conditions under which the industry shall be carried on.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Would it be of any service to break the right hon. Gentleman's windows?

    Flooding of the Valley of the Inny.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), if he can say whether the Conservators of Fisheries in Limerick are taking steps to erect a grating in the mill race at Pollereagh, in the valley of the Inny; and, in view of the fact that this obstruction would cause serious flooding and consequent damage to crop land in the district affected, and that the people of the district at a large meeting protested against the proposal, alleging that their houses would be flooded, will he make inquiries with a view to securing the abandonment of the proposal to erect this grating.

    1771
    I beg also to ask Mr. Attorney 'General for Ireland if he can say whether the Commissioners of Fisheries are about having a strong grating erected in the passage of the Inny River; will this grating interfere with the free flow of the river, and an there any mill races in this river; and, an view of the anxiety of the people who live along the valley of the Inny River lest the proposed erection may cause serious flooding and damage to their property, will he make representations to the Commissioners with a view to safeguarding their interests.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): My hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question, and the answer includes a reply to the next Question which, the hon. Member has addressed "to myself. The Limerick Board of Conservators are not taking steps to erect a grating in the mill race referred to. They have, however, taken proceedings against the owner of a mill at Pollereagh to compel him to comply with the statute law which requires the erection of gratings at mill races for the protection of salmon. The Department possess the power to exempt, in whole, or in part, owners or occupiers of mills from the necessity to erect such gratings. If any person considers he is entitled to such an exemption he should make application to the Department, and the case will be investigated. The owner of the mill referred to has not made such an application to the Department. As regards the allegation that flooding may tie caused, the Department have re quested the local Board of Conservators to suspend proceedings pending further inquiry by the Department.

    Bevan Estate, Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the owner of the Bevan estate at South Camas, Bruff, County Limerick, and his agent, or rather the Receiver under the Court of Chancery, Mr. Poe Hosford, of Limerick, have arranged with the tenants for the sale of the lands to them; can he say whether an inspector from the Estates Commissioners, a Mr.
    1772
    Coughlan, visited James Mulcahy and James Butler, who claim to be evicted tenants on that estate, in December, 1906, and, if so, with what result; is he aware that the parents of Mulcahy and Butler offered for the lands a higher rent than the planter, John Van Bevan, who is not a bona fide farmer; and will the Estates Commissioners use their endeavours to have Mulcahy and Butler reinstated and included in the sale.
    MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the claims of the two evicted tenants mentioned in the Question, and have issued a request to the Land Judge, under Section 7 of the Act of 1903, with a view to making an offer for the purchase of the estate. In the event of the Commissioners acquiring the property the claims of both applicants will be considered. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question.

    Irish School Teachers' Salaries.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private notice, which is of an urgent character, in order to prevent misapprehension arising in a matter which has excited great public interest in Ireland. I notice that in the Irish Education Estimate for the year, published this morning, there is an item down of an increpse of £26,000 in respect of principals, assistants, and so forth in Irish national and model schools Is that not merely a normal increase and entry, is there no provision in the Estimates for the substantial increase in the salaries of teachers in national schools winch has been more than once promised during the last year.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, the hon. Member is quite right in assuming that the £26,000 is the normal increase for the year. The exact figures for the increase in the teachers' salaries were not agreed upon at the time we had to go to Press with the Estimates. We shall provide for a very substantial increase, very much more than the £26,000 referred to, and we shall take measures during the session, by a Supplementary Estimate or otherwise, to provide funds for the purpose.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Then I understand you will introduce a Supplementary Estimate. May I ask the hon. Gentleman will he introduce it at an early portion of the session in order to make sure that the increment in the salaries will take effect this year.
    MR. EUNCIMAN: If a Supplementary Estimate is necessary we will bring it in early, as we are anxious that the increase shall take effect as soon as possible.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is it possible to make this increase without an Estimate passed by this House?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The substantial increase will be made, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman right off the method. He may rest assured that we do intend that the increase shall take place at the earliest possible moment.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: In a fortnight's time I shall ask the hon. Gentleman a Question as to the amount.

    THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLgave notice of a Motion: "That the House of Peers in Parliament is useless, dangerous, and ought to be abolished."
    LORD R. CECIL: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to give a day for the discussion of this Motion?
    MR. ASQUITH: I want notice of that Question.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not satisfied that nine tenths of the House approve this Motion?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    MR A. J. BALFOURasked as to the course of business next week, and when the Second Reading debates were likely to come on?
    MR. ASQUITH: I should prefer not to answer the last Question yet. On Monday the Civil Service Vote on Account in Committee, and afterwards the House will go into Committee of Ways and Means; on Tuesdaj, Report of the Supplementary and other Votes; on Wednesday, the Report of the Vote on Account; and on Thursday, Report of all remaining Votes and the introduction of the Consolidated Fund Bill and Report of Ways and Means.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In what order will the Report of Supply be taken on Tuesday?
    MR. ASQUITH: According to the days in which the Resolutions were passed in Committee.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITEES).
WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Charles Craig; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Thomas Lorimer Corbett.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Thirteen Members (in respect of the Polling Districts (County Councils) Bill): Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Glover, Mr. Guy Wilson, Sir Edwin Cornwall, Mr. Newnes, Mr. Mc Kinnon Wood, Mr. Wiles, Mr. Carr Gomm, Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Guinness, Viscount Morpeth, Sir William Bull, and Mr. Goulding.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill): Mr. Secretary Gladstone and Mr. Herbert Samuel; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. McKenna and Mr. Lough.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDOIT further reported from the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Thirteen Members

1775
(in respect of the Education (Local Authorities) Bill): Mr. Walker, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Adkins, Mr. Gordon Harvey, Mr. Massie, Mr. Verney, Mr. Winfrey, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Staveley Hill, Sir Francis Powell, Viscount Morpeth, and Sir Philip Magnus.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Thirteen Members (in respect of the Incest Bill): Colonel Lockwood, Sir John Kennaway, Colonel Sandys, Colonel Ward, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Maclean, Mr. George Hardy, Mr. Henry Wilson, Mr. Weir, Mr. Hedges, Mr. Robert Pearce Mr. John Wilson, and Mr. Clynes.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.

  PAROCHIAL MEDICAL OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the tenure of office of Parochial Medical Officers in Scotland, presented by Mr. Cathcart Wason; supported by Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth,
  Sir John Dawar, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Gulland, Sir Henry Craik, Viscount Dalrymple, Major Anstruther Gray, Mr. Younger, Mr. Cross, and Mr. Mitchell Thomson; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

  EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL.
  "To regulate the Exportation of Horses, and to prevent cruelty in connection therewith," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported bT Sir Brampton Gurdon, Sir Frederick Banbury and Mr. Nield; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 277; Noes, 79. (Division List No. 39.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Duckworth, James

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Duffy, William J.

  Agnew, George William

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Alden, Percy

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Elibank, Master of

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Clough, William

  Erskine, David C.

  Beale, W. P.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Bellairs, Cariyon

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bennett, E. N.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Fenwick, Charles

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

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E Grinst'd)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex. Maldon)

  Cox, Harold

  Ffrench, Peter

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Crean, Eugene

  Findlay, Alexander

  Boland, John

  Crooks, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Crossley, William J.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Brace, William

  Cullinan, J.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Curran, Peter Francis

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Branch, James

  Davies,David (Montgomery Co.

  Gill, A. H.

  Brigg, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Gladstone,Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Delany, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Bryce, J. Annan

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

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Grey, Bt. Hon. Sir Edward]

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Richardson, A.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Gulland, John W.

  VlacVeagh,Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  MacVeigh,Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Halpin, J.

  M'Crae, George

  Robinson, S.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Harrington, Timothy

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Hart-Davies, T.

  H'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

  Runciman, Walter

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Seely, Colonel

  Hazelton, Richard

  Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

  Shackleton, David James

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Marnham, F. J.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Sheehy, David

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Massie, J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Meagher, Michael

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Meehan, Francis E.(Leitrim,N.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Menzies, Walter

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Hogan, Michael

  Middlebrook, William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Montagu, E. S.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Summerbell, T.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hudson, Walter

  Morse, L. L.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Murray. James

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Myer, Horatio

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Jackson, R. S

  Napier, T. B.

  Thompson, J.W.H(Somerset, E

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nicholls, George

  Tomkinson, James

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Nicholson,Charles N(Doncast'r

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Johnson, W. (Nunenton)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kavanagh, Walter M.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wadsworth, J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Walton, Joseph

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  O'Grady, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N

  Waring, Walter

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  O'Shee. James John

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Lambert, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitbread, Howard

  Lamont, Norman

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Lehmann, R. C.

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

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

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

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

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Lupton, Arnold

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease

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

  Riehards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  NOES.

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Balcarres, Lord

  Baring,Capt.Hn.G (Winchester

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  1778

  1779

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Guinness, Walter Edward

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haddock, George B.

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Chaplin, Rt Hon. Henry

  Jenkins, J.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Seddon, J.

  Clive, Percy Archer

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Collings, Rt. Hn. (Birmingh'm)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton>

  Doughty, Sir George

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Winterton, Earl

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt Hon. George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Moore, William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Glover, Thomas

  Nield, Herbert

  Viscount Valentia

  Gordon, J.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  SUPPLY [SECOND ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1908–9.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,422,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909."
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he had no intention of detaining the Committee at any great length, but there were one or two points on which he would like to raise the general question of the Army, as he understood it had been arranged that a general discussion should take place on this Vote. They all knew the great enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman for his scheme, and he had given them in that House many most admirable speeches. But when the right hon. Gentleman began to think aloud—and there were occasions when he thought aloud at considerable length—he was perfectly confident that hon. Members were always delighted to listen to him. They would give him the greatest credit for the work he had
  1780
  done during the recess, when he addressed meeting after meeting at very great length in expounding the scheme which he had brought before the country. He had told the country in those speeches that his scheme would have the effect of strengthening the Army. If to reduce was to strengthen then he must agree with him that the Army was going to be strengthened, but if they were to carry that to the reductio ad absurdum and to a final conclusion, then when the country had no Army at all it would be in the strongest position. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that at all. He meant that he was strengthening the Army in the way of greater efficiency. He would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that during the recess he had done his utmost to give him his humble assistance in endeavouring to persuade all members of the Volunteers and Yeomanry to re-engage, and to give the right hon. Gentleman's scheme a fair and proper trial. He had told them that they could be engaged for one year, and that they would, in his opinion, find that there would be very little alteration brought about by the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. He had heard a great deal of talk as to what was going to be the effect of the scheme. They knew that the Government had told the country, when they came into office, that they had found a Napoleon who was going to succeed where so many others had failed

  1781
  in the past. But as a matter of fact, as the right hon. Gentleman's scheme gradually matured, they began to realise, and he believed the country began to realise, that less and less was going to be done. As far as he could see the ultimate result of the scheme would be that it would have brought in a new name, the "Territorial Army," and the right hon. Gentleman would have reduced the Army by a very large number of men. Except with regard to a certain number of details which, in his view, it was entirely unnecessary to have brought forward in that large and important Bill of last session, he was afraid they would find that very little had been done. The Secretary for War told them last year that his scheme was of an economical nature. They were all aware that the Government got into office on the pledge to the electors that they were going to be a Government of economy; and "the Secretary for War had said that his scheme would mean a reduction of Army Estimates. He ventured to say that in the course of the past week they had seen that idea, at any rate, exploded. The Committee must realise that this idea of the right hon. Gentleman was not going to be carried out. It was unquestionable, from what the right hon. Gentleman had himself said, that if his scheme was to be carried out properly and in its entirety, it would lead, not to a reduction of the Army Estimates, but to a considerable increase of expenditure. When he first introduced these County Associations the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that through them he would be able to raise considerable sums which would be used for carrying on the Yeomanry and Volunteers in their particular districts. He ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman was not going to accomplish that object with the County Associations. The country districts were not going to supply these funds for which the right hon. Gentleman had hoped. It was absolute common sense that the people in the country districts were not going to subscribe funds to the County Associations in order to carry out work which should be done by the National Exchequer itself. A week ago the Secretary for War told them that he
  1782
  had a considerable difficulty to face, and that was the putting together of an efficient reserve of officers. Everybody must acknowledge that this was a most important point, and it was absolutely essential that there should be a large and efficient Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman had evolved a wonderful new idea to carry out this much desired, object. He was going, he said, to train, boys in the cadet corps of public schools, and afterwards train them as men of the Volunteer corps of their universities After that they would be sent through a month's course of training at some Army school or in some regiment, and they would be then efficient and good enough to take the position of captain, in the Army Reserve. Would such a training as that possibly bring forward, an efficient Reserve of Officers such as everybody so much desired to see brought about? They maintained that, it was absolutely essential that that Reserve of Officers should have full knowledge of the duties which they would have to take up. They though that those officers should be ready at any moment, to take their place in the ranks which they held in the Reserve, and he thought that nobody who had studied this question could possibly believe that, by the training which the right hon. Gentleman himself suggested, such a Reserve as was desired could be established. He should like to refer for a moment to a branch of the service in which he had the honour to hold a commission, and that was the Yeomanry. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had told them very little with regard to the Yeomanry. He had told them he had been unable to raise the fourteen squadrons which should he ready to go abroad if called upon, but anybody who knew anything with regard to the Yeomanry would have been able to tell him that that part of his scheme was impossible. They in the Yeomanry wished to know what exactly their position was; he did not think there were any Yeomanry officers who quite realised where they were. The right hon. Gentleman had told them last year that there were going to be considerable alterations made and that it was the intention to train the

  1783
  Territorial Army by combined training. All officers in the Volunteers and Yeomanry welcomed that statement, believing it was bound to lead to the greater efficiency of all arms. But they no longer heard anything with regard to these combined trainings, and he would like to know whether that was one of the ideas that the Secretary of State had abandoned, and, if so, why he had abandoned it. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had laid it down that leave for training would not be granted to any member of the Yeomanry, unless he applied to the General Officer Commanding the district, who, it appeared, would have to go to the commanding officer and then to the squadron leader to ascertain whether the man ought to be granted leave. Surely the present system had worked well, by which the man asked permission from his squadron leader, who, after all, knew more about the training of his particular men and whether the application was one that ought to be granted. Then the squadron leader could make the application to his own commanding officer. He had very few applications in his squadron for leave, perhaps one or two during training, and these had only been made in cases which were undesirable.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It was right and important that we should lay down clearly that the General Officer Commanding has general control over these matters. He will give general instructions, and subject to those instructions things will go on in the future as in the past.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he was exceedingly glad to get that, but he rather thought there had been a false impression with regard to what had been said previously. The right hon. Gentleman had issued a leaflet, a great deal of which was admirable, but on the first page he read—
  "No non commissioned officer or man who has not signed his attestation paper will be permitted to attend the annual training."
  He thought that was rather a mistake. If a man was already enrolled for a
  1784
  period of service in the Yeomanry he could not see what was the object of signing the attestation paper, which eilistel him under absolutely dissimilar conditions from the piese.it. He thought it advisable that that particular point should be reconsidered. He welcomed the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not interfered very greatly with the existing constitution of the Yeomanry, because everybody who had had any connection with the Yeomanry, must acknowledge that since its reconstitution it had worked extremely well. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have reduced the pay of the Yeomanry, and it was a pity that he had not laid down the exact amount a man was going to receive, because it took a very considerable amount of consideration of the various allowances that were made before a man could quite realise what pay he was going to receive. There was since the issue of the leaflet a very great deal of unrest amongst the Yeomanry, and it would be well if some strong statement came from the Secretary of Stats as to the exact position they would serve in, and the exact amount of pay they would receive. With regard to Volunteers, he would like to ask whether it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention to do away with the honorary rank of lance corporal. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, and he concluded that they were to be allowed to continue. It would have been a mistake to do away with the rank. He very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to grant the separation allowance to the rank and file. He had had in the past few days letters from one or two Volunteer officers who had asked him to raise the question. They told him that their best men, the backbone of their battalions, were the married men, and that if they did not get the allowance they would inevitably be lost to their country's service, which would be the greatest pity for the sake of the Volunteers and of the country. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had found out that his scheme was going to cost him a very great deal more than he had expected, and that it was from an idea of economy

  1785
  that he had not seen his way to grant this allowance to the rank and file. He was extremely pleased that the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to withdrawing that unfortunate attestation paper. It really seemed that under their new Napoleon at the War Office very great blunders could be committed. The new attestation paper he was sorry to see included the same penalties although they were not put quite as prominently before the eyes of the men who read it as in the original. Still, the man came under Section 99 of the Army Act, which involved the possible consequence of two or three months hard labour, and he did not think that that would add to the popularity of the scheme. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to introduce some Amendment into the Army Act.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. and gallant Member would not wish anybody who wilfully gave a false answer to be exempt from severe punishment? The Volunteers would not ask for that.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONagreed to it on a different point, but he did not quite like the three months hard labour, and their coming under Section 99. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman had considered the question of granting decorations to the Territorial Army, and that they would be granted as they had been in the past to the Volunteers and Yeomanry. He had received a letter from a Volunteer who would next June, under ordinary circumstances, be qualified for the decoration, and would feel it a hardship if he was deprived of the honour which he had looked forward to. With regard to the new Field Artillery of the Territorial Army, he was extremely sceptical as to whether that portion of the scheme could possibly prove a success. He would like to ask how it was intended to supply the necessary number of horses. Considerable difficulty had been experienced in his own district in getting fit and proper horses for the Yeomanry, and under the new scheme a large additional number would be required. Then how was it intended to supply the drivers? He was informed by an artillery officer that it
  1786
  took two years of continual training before a man could become an efficient driver. Was it contemplated that the Volunteer Field Artillery were going to be trained in such a manner as that? His own opinion was that this scheme was not going to be that very great revolution that they had expected or feared, and that it would prove a great deal more expensive than the right hon. Gentleman ever contemplated. He would find that beyond reducing the Army largely in its numbers he would accomplish very little else. He sincerely trusted that his somewhat gloomy forebodings would prove to be wrong.
  SIR IVOR HERBERTsaid the concluding words of the hon. Member who had just sat down led him to think that he did not look upon the scheme launched last year as a revolution. Personally he preferred the smooth force of evolution to the more drastic one of revolution, and he looked to the Secretary of State for War to make the way easier, thus facilitating the efforts being made by persons all over the country and by a very large number of the hon. Members of this House in connection with the various County Associations who were anxious to make the scheme a success. In rising to move the reduction which stood in his name, he did not wish to divert the course of the debate from the very many useful points which had been raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down, but there was a duty incumbent upon him in regard to his own particular district, and to the Principality of which he was proud to be a Member, of bringing forward what was felt to be a very serious grievance. He was not going to put forward any exaggerated claim on behalf of Welsh nationalise, but the grievance of which he complained arose from their peculiar geographical position, a grievance which was felt in a different degree and manner by those in various parts of the kingdom. What he felt—and he was stating the Welsh view purely, and probably other hon. Members would apply what he was going to say to the circumstances of their own district—was that they had not been encouraged to come into the

  1787
  general scheme of the military administration of the country. The Principality had been treated as though it were a fortuitous aggregation of English counties. What was the effect of that? By ignoring geographical, racial, lingual and other considerations, which went to make up a distinct nationality, they had shut out from the service of His Majesty very many valuable elements which otherwise would contribute greatly to its strength. They were encouraged last year by some of the words of his right hon. friend in the very interesting and able Circular which he caused to be issued, with regard to his own scheme recently adopted by Parliament—
  "Local sentiment and susceptibilities can be better provided for by a system which appeals to local patriotism than is possible in a system of centralised control."
  Those words and other utterances which the right hon. Gentleman made in numerous speeches were hailed with a great feeling of hope everywhere through out the country, but nowhere more strongly than in Wales. They felt then that there was going to be a chance for them; that they had got somebody at the War Office who really under stood the feelings of the Welsh people, I and so they approached the right hon. Gentleman and asked him for that which he proposed to ask for again to day; namely, that he should consider the advisability of making the Principality—that is, the geographical entity consisting of the thirteen counties of! Wales—into a distinct administrative military district. He said "district" because he wanted to avoid the confusion which might otherwise arise from that unusual use of the word "command," which had been adopted in official quarters. A command he understood to be one of those larger divisions which had been made in the area of the Kingdom, and a district he understood to be a lesser area over which jurisdiction was exercised by an inferior officer. Therefore they did not come forward asking for a "command" with all the great expense and all the surroundings and glamour which attached to it; they were not asking that such a command should be set up in their little country, but merely that Wales should be made a dis-
  1788
  tinct administrative district within the area of one of those greater commands. It might facilitate the Committee in understanding the scope of the suggestions they were making if he recalled for a moment what was the administrative scheme which existed at present in the United Kingdom. Under a special Army Order, issued about three years ago, in the early part of 1905, the United Kingdom was divided into certain commands. It was then understood that this term "command" was adopted to express what had hitherto been known as a district. There were seven commands: Scotland and Ireland had one command each and the rest of the United Kingdom was divided up into four large territorial areas, the Northern, the Southern, the Eastern, and the Western. And then there were two exceptional commands, one at Aldershot for a very small area, but a very important one in its personnel, and the other was the London military district, which was an administrative district within the larger area of the Eastern command. It was an independent command, but he thought he was correct in saying that it was a district within and subject to the control to a certain extent of the Eastern commander. Although that arrangement was only made three years ago it had already been subjected to some very large modifications. There remained, however, seven commands and one military district. The only clear principle that seemed to emerge from a consideration of the. distribution which had been made of the area of the United Kingdom was that the national principle had been applied in the first instance in the arrangement of those commands. Ireland was made a separate command, Scotland was a separate command and the rest of the kingdom had by some extraordinary ignorance on the part of the General Staff been regarded entirely as England. He denied that as a geographical fact, and he claimed that there was a neighbouring country named Wales, which although its area was less, it was certainly not less in importance than England in the estimation of its inhabitants. He claimed that some consideration should be given to the very marked characteristics which

  1789
  that country possessed. Having been encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman last year they approached him and asked him to make this little concession to Wales. Of course, he was very sympathetic, he always was sympathetic, and he hoped he was going to be sympathetic to day. The right hon. Gentleman told him that what they asked for was not in his power to give, but he was prepared to give them a great deal, and something which they never thought of, namely, a whole division to themselves. At the time that promise was made he (Sir Ivor Herbert) had his doubts as to its feasibility, but he thought it prudent to hold his tongue, and the sequel had confirmed those suspicions. It was impossible to have a whole Welsh division, because they were only a humble people, and could not possibly raise the number of men to make up a whole division. Consequently, the scheme sketched out by the right hon. Gentleman was not practicable, and it was now suggested that Wales should invade the neighbouring districts, and Wales had been requested to annex the county of Shropshire, which claimed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and Cheshire, which claimed the Member for Dover. Of course, they were ready to welcome those right hon. Gentlemen, more particularly if they would address them in Welsh. At the same time he quite recognised that this arrangement was inflicting upon the invaded districts the very injury from which Wales desired to escape, namely, an interference with local patriotism. If Shropshire was to be brought into Wales, naturally all good Salopians would say that they were not Welshmen, and they did rot wish to have their local patriotism interfered with. He did not wish to put forward any claim that would in any way interfere or clash with the local feeling in any English district. What he complained of himself was the interference with local patriotism, which was the essence, in his opinion, of the whole of this scheme. It was in order to enlist that feeling which was very strong in Wales that he said: Set up Wales as one administrative district. Let them have a general officer commanding. He need not be a lieutenant
  1790
  general; a major general would do as well, or even they might put up with a brigadier general. If they had one who would be able to assist the local Associations, who would make himself acquainted with the different conditions which existed in Wales, he was sure that would assist greatly in making this scheme workable. There was a point he would make on this, which was after all the raison d'etre for his giving notice of Motion to reduce the Vote. He would suggest that it would possibly lead to the four commands being reduced to three, and the formation of one smaller district. He did not wish to press the point, but it was a fact that for the staff of one of these large commands the annual cost to the country was £10,000, and he thought it was very difficult to prove that the country got full value for that in military efficiency. The work could be done by a smaller staff in the smaller area he proposed at a cost of probably under £5,000. The cost of the London district was, he thought, £5,050 a year. The gain in efficiency, and the gain especially in the way of bringing into the service of the country that which never yet had come into the service, would be very great indeed. The reason why Wales had never done very much in the way of supporting the military forces of the country was this. The Welsh were essentially a people of ideals, and they wanted some ideal to awaken their enthusiasm. There had been nothing in connection with military service that had awakened the enthusiasm of Welshmen since the great Parliamentary Wars of the seventeenth century. Before that there were various times when Welshmen did go into the Army in large numbers, especially under the Plantagenet Kings, and their history, traditions and poems, were full of the traditional fighting feeling of the race. But that had died down, and it had never come into the service of the British Army. Wales had never poured her manhood into the ranks of the British Army in the way Scotland did at the end of the eighteenth century, or in the way Ireland did at the beginning of last century. Wales had never furnished any great number of officers to the British Army, and he was afraid that he

  1791
  must acknowledge that Welsh names were conspicuously absent among the great commanders of the Army. That all sprang from the same cause, namely, that the spirit of the people was not touched. It was that spirit they wanted to get at, and unless they got at it the Territorial Army would be a dead letter to the Celtic race in Wales. He could assure hon. Members that there were parts of Wales which had never yet provided a recruit for Great Britain, and it was not because the Welsh were not a fighting race. What did they do in the South African War? Although there was no enthusiasm about that war, a very large number of Welshmen took part in the fighting, and on the memorial which was now being set up at Cardiff, there would be the names of 886 Welshmen who laid down their lives in South Africa. But in how many units were these men serving? They were serving in 126 different units, which showed that there was no movement which carried them into any particular regiment or part of the Army. That showed that the spirit of the people had never been with military service, and yet the national spirit was undoubtedly a fighting one. The figure he had given meant that a very considerable number of men from Wales must have been serving unknown to anybody in the British ranks, and unknown especially to the War Office. He and others had had to carry out the inquiries to obtain the verification of all those names, and they got very little information from the War Office. The proportion of the killed to those serving would be high indeed if it reached 25 per cent. In the tightest place he ever was in there were 25 per cent, killed and wounded, but that was very unusual. Taking that proportion, they must reckon that there were about 4,000 from Wales serving during the last war. They wanted a stronger enthusiasm than that, and they could produce something more. He would like to refer to the scheme of the divisional organisation because it was a point which affected the whole future of the Territorial Army. In his opinion they were sacrificing to an imaginary symmetry the real strength of the whole scheme. They were setting up a fictitious standard, and they were forcing
  1792
  the Territorial Army into it, whether it suited it or not. He thought it would be far better if this somewhat Teutonic arrangement were abandoned, and if the organisation of the greater units were allowed to grow up and adapt itself gradually to the force which we found we could produce. He had been told that there were persons in high office who believed that we would never get anything under the voluntary principle. He had never held that view himself, but the opinion was growing very largely throughout the country that it was the fixed intention and desire of some of those persons to make the present scheme a failure in order that they might bring in their scheme for compulsory service. He could imagine nothing more unpatriotic—nothing that would be more regrettable. But it was not wonderful that these reports should get about regarding high officers at the War Office, because the War Office had always shown itself to be without any beliefs at all. [An HON. MEMBER: Always without knowledge.] He would not venture to criticise their knowledge, but he knew about their beliefs. Was not that the case in the early part of the South African War? It was strong belief that made the Yeomanry a success. But was it found among those who would now be described as members of the Army Council? He ventured to say that it was the noble Viscount opposite and the late Lord Chesham who were the real apostles and believers in that movement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, then in office, was sympathetic and assisted in what was afterwards a great and valuable reinforcement in South Africa. He would like to recall to the right hon. Gentleman some words which he used when he brought forward his great scheme last year. He then stated that it was by appealing to the public and to the nation that they hoped to secure a change for the better. Then the right hon. Gentleman asserted his confidence in public opinion and in national feeling. He gave the Secretary of State credit for good intentions, but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not allow his good intentions to go to that limbo where all hope must be relinquished.

  1793
  He asked the right hon. Gentleman to trust national feeling a little bit more and to see whether he could not meet the humble request now put forward on behalf of Wales. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,421,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Ivor Herbert.)
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised a specific question which I think I should at once deal with. He spoke eloquently and truly on the necessity of taking locality into consideration and appealing to local patriotism. I entirely agree with him. That is what we are endeavouring to do. But what is it that he asks? He wants the status and the ceremony and the gold lace of the staff of a general and the administrative arrangements which are associated with a full command. Well, I venture to say that that has really nothing to do with local patriotism. Local patriotism means the appeal to the people to render service and the recognition of the people as rendering their service in a national capacity. Last summer I went down to Rhyl and addressed a meeting there. In the course of my speech I gave a pledge which is more close to the point than anything which the hon. and gallant Member discussed. I said—
  "The different parts of a nation should be treated according to their temperament and the necessities of their people. We do not desire to rule Great Britain on a east iron pattern. Even in the Army that was always the case; and the Government had now decided definitely and finally to offer Wales a division commanded by a general of their own."
  That was accepted with a good deal of applause, and I now think that we have come to what the people want—their regiment, their brigades, their units, their staff, their commanding officer, and their commanding general of their, own and a division of their own. The division is the real thing, and that is what contains the distinctively Welsh fighting element. I thought we had come to an understanding upon that, and I went back to the War Office, and within a very short time we had organised and given
  1794
  them a Welsh Division. There is no difficulty made about the Border. Neither did the Border counties demur to working in Wales nor Wales in the Border counties. Wales and the Border counties now work together and nobody wishes to disturb the arrangement under which the Border counties come into the division. Indeed, without them we cannot have a complete Welsh Division with the troops as they now stand. I thought all this matter was settled, and my hon. and gallant friend astonished me to day by coming and raising a new question altogether—that Wales should not have a division but a command, and, an extraordinary thing, a command with an area smaller than the area of the division. He wanted this command to be distinctively Welsh. That is a remarkable proposition. The organisation of this country for military purposes is one in which, very happily and fortunately for the present plan, the old Auxiliary Forces and the Regular Forces were organised in the same area. The commands were divided into grouped regimental districts and the command of the Auxiliary Forces and of the Regular Forces went to a large extent together. The brigadier commanding the regimental district was in command of the organisation of the Auxiliary Forces. Now the general commanding the regimental district commands the Territorial Force and the divisions of his district are included in the larger great in the command of the general officer commanding. The general officer commanding commands the Auxiliary Forces and the Regular Forces. Therefore, we have kept the same area precisely for the Territorial Forces and the Regular Forces for the future; and we thought it of the greatest importance to do that. Now comes my hon. and gallant friend and asks that we should break up the organisation which Was created by the late Government and which was worked out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite according to the provisions of the Esher Report, which divided this country into commands according to the amount of the military enclosed in each command, and sub divided these commands into grouped regimental districts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman now asks that the area of a grouped regimental district instead of being within

  1795
  the area of the command should overlap the command and contain within itself a command. That is wholly and absolutely incompatible with the policy and arrangement—a very good policy and a very good arrangement—initiated by the late Government and continued by the present Government. That could never be done without causing vast confusion and embarrassment. I come to the second part of my hon. and gallant friend's proposal. My hon. and gallant friend whispered the word "economy," but you cannot have the costly machinery of a new command without a staff and various expenses which are not justified when you are trying to organise on a small scale. There are eight commands, taking them from north to south: The Scottish Command, the Irish Command, the Northern Command, the Western Command, the Eastern Command, the Southern Command, the London District Command and the Aldershot Command. These eight commands are all based on this, that a large number of troops are included in each—sometimes the number is largest on the Regular side and sometimes on the Auxiliary side. The Alder shot Command contains no great amount of Auxiliary troops. The Scottish Command has an enormously large number of Auxiliary Forces and a very small number of Regulars. Ireland has a large number of Regulars and a considerable Auxiliary Force; but every one contains within itself a vast amount of material. If I were to adopt the suggestion of my hon. and gallant friend I would be splitting up the Western Command and creating a new command with so little military material as to render it absolutely unjustifiable to put on the Estimates. But the matter does not stop there. The reason for a command is not merely for the command of the troops.
  MR. GUEST: What we ask for is not a Regular command, but a Territorial Army command.
  MR. HALDANE: Does that mean that we are to break up the very principle on which our plan is founded, and to have a Territorial command different from the Regular command? If so, that is excluded by the very essence of our plan, which is to organise the Territorial Army
  1796
  as much as possible on the same basis as the Regular Army. We want them to train and work together as much as they can. My hon. and gallant friend is wanting me to go back on the root principle of our plan by what he proposes. Moreover, the division has, I think, this great advantage—that it is not tied down like the German Army Corps or like the Indian division. That is to say, arrangements are made on a large scale so that when it comes into action it can take what it needs in the way of supplies. That has enabled us to make a much more complete and effective administrative arrangement for each unit of the Army and each division than if we had a separate command and administrative staff for each division. The problem was again carefully worked out by the Esher Committee, with the result that the fixed administrative services have been organised on an enlarged scale and the division has been left free and relieved from the conditions to which it was attached in the past. The result is that the one thing that we could do for Wales effectively and which would make Wales feel that it had got a real division within itself is to take the divisional area and to carry out what I undertook to do at Ryhl, and what we have carried out to the letter. It is an entirely new suggestion that you should set up a new command—a very small one—in Wales, and that it should exist only for the Territorial Force.
  SIR IVOR HERBERT: That is not my suggestion. It is that it should be a complete command.
  MR. HALDANE: Well, I am afraid that Wales is divided against itself.
  MR. GUEST: We would take half a loaf rather than no bread.
  MR. HALDANE: What is a poor, stupid representative of the War Office to do between these contending factions? How am I to divine the mind of Wales if Wales cannot state its own mind? The position really is that in Wales there are not enough troops to justify a separate command.
  SIR IVOR HERBERT: Would the right hon. Gentleman state the number of troops in the whole of the Western district, and how many of them are actually in Wales?
  MR. HALDANE: Speaking from memory, Lancashire and the other parts of the country included in the Western Command furnish the larger part of the troops in the whole command. And what would Lancashire say? It would demand a separate command also. And York would come on the scene likewise.
  SIR IVOR HERBERT: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman again, but it would be just as well to be quite accurate. I can state from documentary evidence that there is one infantry battalion, two batteries of Royal Field Artillery, one heavy battery of Royal Garrison Artillery, and one company of Royal Engineers; and out of that force, that large Army, which is in the Western district, only one field battery of Royal Artillery is outside Wales, and that does not belong to the Western district, and is only lent to it by the Northern district.
  MR. HALDANE: My hon. and gallant friend is forgetting the Lancashire Infantry regiments.
  SIR IVOR HERBERT: They are not there.
  MR. HALDANE: They come and go in various places, but the command is measured by the number of troops in it, whether Auxiliary or Regular, and Lancashire raises two divisions of the Territorial Force, while Wales, including the four border counties, only raises one division. My hon. and gallant friend is asking me to create something which, from a financial point of view, from a military point of view, from an administrative point of view, and from the point of view of analogy, is totally unjustified. London is an independent command apart from the Eastern district. The London district has 7,000,000 of people to draw upon. The London Command has some 7,000,000 of people in its district, and has, therefore, a very much larger number of
  1798
  troops as compared with the other commands, and it offers no analogy to the other districts. On the whole case I really must say that I thought I had deserved the gratitude of the Welsh nation by having recognised their great qualities in so speedily and rapidly constituting a Welsh division, but I now realise that I cannot any longer put any faith in such expressions as came to me at the meeting at Rhyl.
  MR. GUESTinquired if the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee the constitution of the Welsh Division.
  MR. HALDANE: The Welsh Division consists of infantry, artillery and Yeomanry. It includes the border counties by general desire.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: No.
  MR. HALDANE: Oh, yes; by general desire. I beg my right hon. friend's pardon. No objection was made in the Welsh interest.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: But Herefordshire, the adjoining county, objected very strongly to be attached to Wales.
  MR. HALDANE: They may object to going to Wales, but Wales does not object to her coming. That is the point.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Hear, hear!
  MR. HALDANE: Wales has a division of the old grouped regimental districts. In the old Western Command there were two grouped regimental districts, and Wales was one of them, and that district included the four border counties. We have adhered to the condition of things laid down by the old Order in Council, and Wales is not put in any new area, but on the ordinary area of the grouped regimental district. It is called the Welsh grouped regimental district or division, and it will be under a commanding officer who will be distinctly Welsh.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid that after the ruling of the Chairman overnight he thought it was not

  1799
  necessary for him to confine his remarks to the Amendment which had been moved, and he desired to revert to the general discussion of the Vote which was now before the House. He would only do so for a very few minutes in order that he might get a little information from the right hon. Gentleman, because he had repeatedly told them in the course of last session and this, that the Yeomanry who were still serving and who had not fulfilled their engagements would not have the conditions of their service or pay altered until their service was completed. But a leaflet had been lately issued which had not only mystified the men but mystified their colonels. In this the men were told that they must sign an application paper and make a second attestation in regard to the Territorial Force, but it seemed absurd to give a man who enlisted last year for three years this pamphlet to read, and convey to him the information that he was obliged to sign an attestation form, although he had still to serve for two years.
  MR. HALDANE: Of course, he is a member of the old force, but without the attestation form he cannot, under the Act, come into the Territorial Force. This is a new force and without his signing an attestation form you cannot bring him into the new force.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid he quite agreed; but the very fact of the form coming into use at an early date made the soldier fear that he might unexpectedly become a member of the Territorial Force.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that a man could not become unexpectedly a member of the Territorial Force and until he had applied.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIArepeated that the leaflet had mystified the ordinary yeoman. It told him that it was open to him to join the Territorial Force and that he was to retain his old engagement. If he signed the form he became, as it were, in two forces at once.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that that would not be so, as the new force would take the place of the old.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid he quite understood what the right hon. Gentleman meant, but he did not think he would make the yeoman understand it, and he thought that it was natural that a leaflet such as this should mystify the yeoman. One officer had written to him on the subject stating that he understood shortly after the Act was passed that the conditions of service of the Yeomanry would not be affected until their term of engagement had expired, but the new attestation, form had given the men the impression that they would not be able to attend at the next annual training. If they thought that and did not attend, that, said the officer would make his regiment inefficient. They told the yeoman on the one hand that he became a member of the Territorial Force, and then they told him on the other hand that he was not to come out and serve with his regiment unless he signed a new attestation form. It seemed absurd to make a man attest twice over while he was serving in the same force.
  MR. HALDANE: A new force.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid that even if it was a new force it still seemed, absurd to make him attest twice over. He thought that this mystification would have a serious effect and men would not come out. They did not read these documents very carefully and had not, like the Members of the House, the advantage of the attendance and explanations of the right hon. Gentleman Then, again, the conditions of pay were altered, and the man did not get the is a day which he expected to get. If the hon. Gentleman added up the figures of the allowances he would see that the men would not get 4s. They were told, however, that they were only going to lose 1s. 6d. out of the 5s. 6d., but although it was only a few pence it would be more.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the hon. Member was referring to the figures in regard to the recruit. The yeoman would be in a better position, as he would get the benefit of the equitation fund.
  VISCOUNT VALENTIAsaid that the idea in the men's minds was that their pay

  1801
  and conditions of service were not what they expected, and the whole argument of the officers of the Yeomanry and the officers of the County Associations to encourage the men to join the force was that although the pay had been very little altered the conditions of service had not been interfered with. He contended, however, that the pay had been altered. Another small point upon which he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman was his declaration that no compensation would be paid by the Government in respect of loss or damage by accident to a horse used in the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the compensation of £50 at present granted to a Yeoman losing his horse would not be maintained, but this was a very material change and seemed a very decided alteration in the conditions of service. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if a yeoman joined the Territorial Force he could insure his horse as he had £5 horse allowance, but that was, he contended, part of the yeoman's pay, which ought to go into the pocket of the yeoman or that of the commanding officer for his use or benefit. Nothing, therefore, should be taken out of it. His sole object in raising this point was to see that the yeoman was not treated differently, and that he was going to get what was promised him and what they, as officers, had promised him, on the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped the Secretary for War would make it clear that the yeoman would suffer no change in the conditions of his service.
  MR. GUESTsaid he must refer for one moment to the Welsh question which the right hon. Gentleman regarded as rather a nuisance. He was not at all surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement that with all the best intentions in the world it was impossible to meet the wishes of the Welsh people. It was quite easy to give official reasons why this or that could not be done, such as inconvenience and want of symmetry if such and such a regulation was introduced into such an organisation, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the extent to which Welsh feeling
  1802
  had been stirred by Wales being lumped in with English counties, and the feeling of the people of the Principality ignored. That feeling had been strengthened by the fact that the headquarters of the division was not to be on Welsh soil.
  MR.HALDANEsaid that North Wales had refused to agree with South Wales that the headquarters should be at Cardiff, and, therefore, as they could not agree to a place in Wales, an arrangement was made that Shrewsbury, the existing place, was the most convenient spot.
  MR. GUESTsaid the right hon. Gentleman should not lay too much stress on family differences of opinion with regard to the place to be fixed upon, and he thought his right hon. friend had made a mistake in placing the Welsh head quarters outside Welsh soil, against the desires of most of the Welsh people. He would recall to the right hon. Gentleman the fact that the whole essence of his Army scheme was an appeal to local sentiment and emulation, one county seeking to outvie another. Yet he had deliberately ignored one of the strongest local feelings existing within the British Isles, namely, the Welsh national sentiment. Some might think that this Welsh feeling was rather antiquated. But at any rate it was a great asset, and it was one which the right hon. Gentleman, ought to appraise at its true value. There was a tremendous Welsh national feeling, and if they appealed to it they would get a response. If they ignored it, if they included the Welsh with the English countries, and put the Welsh headquarters outside Welsh soil, they would fail in appealing to the one thing, Welsh national feeling, on which they could count for the success of the territorial scheme. He had no wish to make himself a nuisance to the right hon. Gentleman. He quite saw the difficulty he was in, but he was obviously ignoring the more essential condition for the less. If the right hon. Gentleman had paid a visit to Wales recently, he would know how strong the Welsh feeling was on this subject. If his right hon. friend could not see his way to meet the deep seated desire of the Welsh people, he must expect disappointment so far as

  1803
  the working of the territorial scheme was concerned. Scores of people had told him that if the Secretary for War did not satisfy the Welsh sentiment they would take no trouble to make the scheme a success, because it would be of no use to appeal for recruits, for they would not get them. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter, and see if some arrangement could be made to meet the national sentiment of Wales; otherwise he feared that his right hon. friend would be disappointed with the result of his scheme in that part of the country.
  COLONEL SANDYSsaid he desired to bring forward two points. In the first place, he might say that in reading the newspaper extracts of what the right hon. Gentleman himself had said he gathered that the Secretary for War had allowed himself to some extent to be a follower of Lord Cardwell's scheme for the Army. The point to which that scheme especially applied was that of linked battalions; and lie might say that since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, and of speaking frequently upon matters affecting the well being and organisation of the Army, he had always opposed the principle of linked battalions, because he believed it to be thoroughly inefficient, and to his mind the severing of the link between battalions, in any way that they might please to effect it, would add to the efficiency, flexibility, and mobility of the Army. The alternative to the linked battalion system was a system of depots. By depots he meant real depots. He did not mean that taking the system and putting it into a brand new organisation, and calling it a Special Reserve, filling the depots with the Militia Force, would in any way meet what he called the real depot needs of the Army. The first thing that struck his mind in reference to this question was the inadvisability of continually reopening the conditions of service in our Army—unsettling and constantly altering the main principles of its organisation. Each Secretary for War, from whichever side of the House he came, appeared to think it incumbent upon him entirely to reverse, or to a very large extent reverse,
  1804
  the well known organisation of the Army; with a view to introducing something which, to his mind no doubt, had advantages, but which to the mind of the practical soldier and more especially to the soldier in the ranks, were very doubtful advantages, and made him hesitate as to accepting the conditions under which he was to serve. He confessed he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the well under toad system of the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers, as the fixed foundation for our military forces, upon which our present organisation should be firmly based, and which, like the rails upon a railway line, could not be altered without risk of serious accident. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, in speaking yesterday, had touched upon the fact that by taking away the Militia Force there was a hiatus left between the Regular Army and the Volunteers. That was an idea which he could not press too strongly upon the right hon. Gentleman as being indeed most important; for it was an accepted fact by all generals and commanders in the field, in the present day, that the fighting force must be divided into three lines. They must have their line in immediate contact with the enemy; they must have the supporting line behind it; and they must have a Reserve behind that. He would not trouble the House with, technical details as to the way in which the principle of the three lines was applied in practice, but, if they would accept the statement from him, this was the unvarying plan of manœuvring troops in the field in contact with an enemy, and he maintained that the principles were identical whether they were manœuvring a company, battalion, brigade, division, or the British Army. These three main lines into which our Army must be divided were understood in the country, and certainly thoroughly well understood among all ranks of the Army. When they took away the second of the two supporting lines of the Army, he maintained that they left a great gap in our military organisation which they could not fill, and that it was dangerous at the present time, in the unsettled condition of matters abroad to take away that one well understood branch of our military organisation,

  1805
  and to unsteady the organisation by I leaving it incomplete. President Lincoln used the homely phrase that it was dangerous to swop horses while crossing a stream, and, in the condition of foreign politics at the present time, he ventured to think that it was rather unwise to change our military organisation and try any untested plan involving serious alteration in our forces. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken our existing military organisation as it stood, and endeavoured to improve it, making the best of it, taking out its weak parts and converting them into strong parts, instead of applying himself to an almost brand new scheme. One other point he wished to allude to was that the artillery of all branches of the Service was the one that should be altered with the very greatest care. It took longer to train an artillery soldier than the soldier of any other unit of the Army. The artillery must always be kept up to full training in peace as well as in war, if they wished them to be ready for work when called upon. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with a light heart of his intended expeditionary force of 160,000 men. He did not think these islands had ever sent 160,000 British soldiers abroad yet. Wellington at Waterloo only had 35,000, and he had always laid it down, as the result of his observation and experience, that if we could ever put 100,000 men in the field, and maintain them complete in all points for two years, it would be a feat as great as we could possibly be called upon to perform. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of sending away 160,000 men into the field it appeared to him to be an impossibility. We never could attempt such a thing. But if the expeditionary force could ever be got out of the country, what had they left? The Territorial Army was practically Volunteers under another name. He spoke with all respect of the Volunteers—he was himself an honorary colonel. The force was a very good force as far as it went, but they must not expect too much from it, and if it was contemplated to leave the safety of the country mainly in the hands of the Volunteer Force, the safety of the country was being im-
  1806
  perilled to a very dangerous extent. They were taking away the Militia, which was a tried force, had always come forward, and was ready to be embodied for any length of time and to serve at home or abroad as long as it was wanted if it was only given the chance. It had been the backbone of the military force of this country from the time of King Alfred to the present time. This fine old force was all to be put into the melting pot and. thrown on one side, while the safety of these islands was left to the Territorial Force. He would not venture to put such a scheme before the country under any circumstances whatever, and he pleaded with the right hon. Gentleman before he took this fatal plunge of extinguishing the Militia Force once more to give them a chance, to stand in their proper place as the supporting line of the Army. The British Army was expected first and foremost to garrison our possessions abroad. The garrison of India was 75,000 men as a minimum, and circumstances might easily arise in which it might be necessary to increase it. If the expeditonary force were by any possibility got into any foreign country, how would the garrison in India be reinforced? Then also we had to maintain the garrison in the Mediterranean, which might also need reinforcing. The second duty of the British Army was to defend these islands in conjunction with the Territorial Force, and the third was that it must be capable of sending abroad a force to be landed at any tactical point that might be necessary. Unless they had a backbone of Regular troops, or a tried force like the Militia to support them, they could not rely on the Volunteers. During the South African War a request was sent to the Volunteer Force as a whole to ask them to give two months continuous service, and the reply was that they were unable to do so. He could, of course, quite understand that they could not do so, but if we were seriously attacked by a European Power it would be a question of continuous service, not for two months, but for two years. He would like to lay before the right hon. Gentleman privately various additional points that he might consider worthy of his attention. What we

  1807
  wanted for our Army, in addition to the points he had laid down, was flexibility, mobility, and great powers of expansion. The three main duties of the British Army must be supplemented by those qualifications, and any scheme for its reorganisation must be tested by these main facts. Anything which would not stand these tests, though it might be made to run during times of peace, would inevitably break down in time of war. He recollected hearing the Secretary for War, when he first came into the House, state that the Army was constituted for the purpose of carrying on the military duties of the country in peace time. It made such an effect on his mind that he had never forgotten it, but he trusted that that idea might come to an end, and that the right hon. Gentleman, and those who might succeed him in his office, would recollect that we did not want the British Army to fulfil the duties of the country in peace time, but that we wanted an Army which was capable of expansion to meet the requirements of the country in time of war. With regard to the reorganisation of the Army itself, our present system in the infantry was that the companies were small. They were nominally 100 men, but they varied. They were seldom much more than fifty, and were never more than seventy five. He had come to the conclusion that the proper strength for a company in the infantry should be on arrival from abroad, nominally 100 privates; in its second strength, 150; and in its war strength, 200. There would thus be instead of eight companies as now, four companies in a battalion, and one company at the depot. Another point in the Regular Army that needed correcting was the superfluity of majors. There were at present four majors to a battalion, and he had never seen what in the world was the use of four majors in a battalion. Why should they not revert to the old system of two majors to a battalion, which was quite enough? The only use of majors on parade was to take certain well recognised places, and they could not use four majors. Therefore the only thing to be done with them was to let them command companies, which was quite out of their sphere and derogatory to their rank, and he would have
  1808
  very great pleasure in seeing the two superfluous majors done away with, and captains allowed to command the companies, which was their proper duty.
  MR. ACLANDsaid it would perhaps be to the convenience of the House that he should answer the questions that had been put as to the Yeomanry. It was true that Yeomen transferred to the Territorial Army must sign the new attestation paper accepting the terms and conditions of service applicable to the Territorial Force. It was not an unnatural thing when a force was disbanded and another force came into being that a man should be, asked to enlist into the new force, and it was no hardship to ask that the man should do so. The paper made it perfectly clear that in accepting the terms of service of the new force the exact guarantee as to pay which had been given in that House would still be kept as an absolute guarantee, because in the forefront of the statement on pay and allowances they found that "Men would be permitted to retain the existing Imperial Yeomanry rates and conditions of pay until the expiration of their current engagement," that was, for the period for which they signed the new attestation.
  COLONEL SEELY: For how long a period may they sign this new attestation? It is very obscure.
  MR. ACLANDsaid he believed it was for one, two, or three years. Then there was the question as to the 4s. a day, which was guaranteed to be expended on the new recruit. It was asked how that 4s. a day worked out. It worked out in the following way: Pay, 1s. 2d.; equitation allowance, 1s. 4d.; camp allowance, 1s.; to be paid to the commanding officer for expenditure on the men, and the ration in kind, or 6d. in lieu of the ration.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will the hon. Member show where the figures are set out?
  MR. ACLANDsaid it was perfectly clear in the new leaflets.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: Will the hon. Member show me where the camp allowance is shown in the leaflet? I cannot see it.
  MR. ACLANDsaid that neither could he in the particular leaflet re erred to, but he did not think for that reason anyone would disbelieve that it was a guarantee. There was no doubt whatever that it was a perfect guarantee. The allowance was £5 for a period of sixteen days, which worked at 6s. 3d. per day. Under the new conditions they would receive £5 for fifteen days, which worked out at 6s. 8d. per day. If the horse was wanted for a further period than fifteen days the sum of 6s. 8d. would be paid for each additional day for which the horse was retained. Compensation would also be given if the horse was fatally injured or killed during the training. He thought that made the allowance for horses quite as generous as if not more generous than it was before. Leaflet No. 3, relating to services in the Territorial Yeomanry, laid down that Army rations would be issued free to all non commissioned officers and men, and this would be supplemented by the payment of Is. per day. The reason the terms of service were not in the leaflet was that it was made perfectly clear in the previous leaflet issued to each individual yeoman. He hoped this explanation would make it clear that 4s. per day given to the man or spent upon him was guaranteed to the new Yeomanry, the old rates were guaranteed to the old Yeomanry for the remaining time they might re enlist for, and the horse allowance was really a little more generous than it had been in the past.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In regard to the old Yeomanry I should like to know why it is necessary to make them sign again. By asking the yeoman to sign again he naturally supposes you are altering the conditions. I understand that the old yeoman is to get the same pay and allowances which he got before, including the horse allowance of £5, and I also understand that if he does more days than are provided for by the £5 he will get a proportionate part of extra payment in addition. I also take it that
  1810
  if the yeoman's horse is destroyed—and this is not in the leaflet—he is to receive compensation and he has not to insure himself against the loss of that horse.
  COLONEL SEELYsaid he understood the yeoman was to receive the same rate of pay for the period of enlistment in the new form. That would of course enable him to enlist under the old rate of pay for another four years. If that was the meaning of the leaflet it was highly advantageous to the Yeomanry. He wished to put that before the Committee because the time was very short and they must have the answer very soon. He suggested that it was rather ridiculous to insist upon the yeomen taking a fresh oath of allegiance, because, although the duties would be different, they would be under the same Sovereign, and why should they take a fresh oath?
  MR. HALDANE: The Answer will he found on page 3 of the leaflet. The yeoman will be permitted to retain the existing rate of pay and allowances. The new attestation is only necessary for the balance of the period for which the yeoman is signing.
  MR. WYNDHAM: But the leaflet does not say that the yeoman is to get £5 horse allowance, or that he is to have compensation for the horse if it is destroyed in addition to his £5.
  MB. BRIGHTsaid he approached this subject from the point of view of a humble economist and a lover of peace. He was also a lover of economy in regard to warlike preparations. He had no wish to make himself a nuisance to the Minister for War, but he hoped to be able to extract from him a little comfort for his soul on the question of the very large preparations which it appeared to him the Government were making for the military defence of the country. If there was one thing which he spoke about more than another at the general election it was what he conceived to be the very gross wastefulness of the late Government, and he believed almost all hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side joined in that chorus upon a thousand platforms. He thought it was extremely probable that nearly

  1811
  all the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench uttered similar sentiments. If there had been a very gross wastefulness in what the last Government did, that pre supposed that a new Government ought to make a very great reduction. If they had to go back to their constituencies and after all the statements they made as to the enormous expenditure of the last Government they had to confess that the present Government could not carry on with very much less, then he thought they owed an apology to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side. He, however, was not going to make any apology for having said that, for he was going to stick to it. They expected something more in the way of reduction from the Liberal Government. He understood that the Secretary for War had arranged for what he called a striking force of 160,000 men. He had been told that that was a great deal larger than had ever been provided before, and he wished the right hon. Gentleman to explain why, when the circumstances of the Empire were such that everything appeared to be perfectly calm and hopeful, they were required to provide such an enormous force. Then there was the question of the troops in the regimental stations in various parts of the world. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if any reductions were made in the Army it would have to be in the forces abroad. There was also the question of the Army in India, where he thought the Government would be quite justified in reducing the number. During the South African war a very considerable number of men were brought away from India. At that time if a certain Empire had wished to attack them that was the moment to do it. But obviously that Empire did not wish to attack them and, therefore, they were not in fear of any such danger. That danger had now been practically removed, and it would be a very reasonable thing under the circumstances to make a considerable reduction in the forces of India, and that would be an immense advantage to the very poor people of India. There was another quarter in which they were keeping a large number of troops for apparently no reason whatever, and that was South
  1812
  Africa. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman intended bringing back some troops from South Africa, but he understood they were not to be disbanded, but retained in England. It appeared to him that the 14,000 now being retained in South Africa were not wanted there. As to the Mediterranean stations he thought a large number of troops both at Malta and Gibraltar might be withdrawn, because they had now fewer men of war in the Mediterranean, and consequently it was not necessary to keep up such a large establishment of troops there. He appealed to the Minister for War to make considerable reductions in those various quarters. The present Government, he knew, did not wish to go to war with other countries, but they could not expect to remain in office eternally, and if they left behind a tremendous striking force, a Party might come into power with predatory instincts, and then they would have ready to hand an instrument to use in a way which might be very injurious and disastrous to this country. He had only risen to clear his conscience and try to get a little comfort as a sincere lover of peace and an economist, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say something as to the future prospects of such reductions as he had in his mind and which would give a great deal of pleasure to a great many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House.
  MR. WYNDHAMasked whether it would not be advantageous at this stage that the right hon. Gentleman should answer the question as to the position of the Yeomanry. The right hon. Gentleman last year said that the Yeomanry were to have precisely the same conditions and emoluments as they then enjoyed. Was that to be so?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that the £5 horse allowance would be paid to the Association, but if a man rode his own horse the Association would have to pass on to him the £5. As to the horse that had to be destroyed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer authorised him to say that the old rule would be the rule of the future. The State would bear the charge up to £40.
  MR. SEDDONexpressed his sympathy with the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite who had pleaded for economy. It was as: an economist that he himself supported the Territorial Army scheme. He looked upon that as the only buffer between this country and conscription. Those who wanted to avoid conscription ought to give all the support they could to making the Territorial a real scheme. Those who listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Monmouthshire would have much sympathy with the appeal he made on behalf of Wales. Whether it was owing to the conditions laid down he did not know, but he had a strong feeling that Welshmen were not satisfied and that the response would not be in accordance with the requirements of the right hon. Gentleman. He would warn the right hon. Gentleman that he had to be very careful, so far as Lancashire was concerned. They might differ among themselves as to religious education and other questions; they might differ about the supremacy of Liverpool and Manchester; but their county pride was, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. The people of Lancashire would not tolerate anything to the detriment of that particular county. The hon. Member for Woodstock had said that he did not think promotion from the ranks would be regarded with favour by the rank and file. Since he himself called attention to this matter last week he I had had considerable correspondence with non commissioned officers, from which it appeared that there was a strong feeling that the men in the ranks should have greater opportunity of rising to the commissioned ranks than they had at present. The Minister for War had stated that it was part of the policy of the Army Council to encourage promotion from the ranks, and he took it that that was the right hon. Gentleman's own sentiment. In the Military Mail of Friday, 6th March, he found the following statement—
  "An extraordinary letter, it is stated, has been sent to the general officers commanding the territorial divisions pointing out that no one is to be recommended for commission in the new force unless he is a gentleman by birth and socially fitted to be received in the officers' mess of the Regular Army."
  1814
  It was because it had been stated that the letter had been sent from the War Office that he rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that was correct. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that the old idea of the aristocracy of birth—
  MR. HALDANE: I know nothing of any such letter.
  MR. SEDDONsaid he took the right hon. Gentleman's word, of course. He hoped it would be verified when the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries at the War Office. He thought there was something more in this than the right hon. Gentleman was aware of, and he would be glad if that was not so. The old idea of "gentleman by birth" had passed away, and it was the aristocracy of brains that was wanted in the Army.
  MR. HALDANE: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that the War Office is no party to the sentiment contained in that letter. We will give every man a chance according to his capacity, and there is nothing further from our mind than the restriction indicated in the speech of the hon. Member.
  MR. SEDDONsaid it was not his statement. It was a statement circulated in a military journal. He was trying to popularise the Territorial Army scheme, believing it was a bulwark against conscription. It needed no argument to show the need of having all ranks, both commissioned and non commissioned, open to men in every walk of life. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he wanted the Territorial Army to be a replica of the Regular Army; he wanted to have in it artillery, engineers, infantry and Yeomanry. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would get many skilled artisans who, from the engineering point of view, would be able to give much valuable help which many of those who were called gentlemen by birth would not be able to render. He was preferring no charge against those who were making that distinction; he knew that they were not snobs. There were many young men who were ambitious and anxious to get on, and if they were willing to give their knowledge in building up the Territorial

  1815
  Army, the right hon. Gentleman should do everything he could to popularise the Force and to remove the suspicion that it was going to be a class preserve for gentlemen of birth so far as the commissioned ranks were concerned. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman to get somebody to sub edit War Office Advertisements. The attestation form sent out was no credit to anyone at the War Office, but he exonerated the right hon. Gentleman from blame. He wanted the existing suspicion removed so that the Territorial Army scheme would realise the right hon. Gentleman's intentions and save the country from the blight of conscription
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he began his military career under a very distinguished officer who joined a Highland regiment as a boy, served in various ranks, got the Victoria Cross, and eventually became commanding officer of the regiment. That was an example of what a British soldier had been able to do in the past.
  MR. SEDDONsaid he had simply referred to a statement which had been circulated, and with respect to which he had received a great number of letters.
  MR. COCHRANEexpressed the hope that the ventilation of the subject would sweep away the cobwebs. He could speak in the warmest terms of his first commanding officer; he was a gentleman in every sense of the word. He rose from a humble position among the crofters of Scotland and was an exceedingly gallant soldier. There were many such in the Army, and everyone was received by his brother officers on terms of equality. Capable, zealous, and efficient young men should have a chance of rising to the commissioned ranks; still he believed it was not every soldier who was qualified for the post of officer. The hon. Member for Oldham was somewhat disquieted at the Army Estimates; he would like to see a reduction in the garrisons all over the country, and also a reduction in the troops in India, and in the garrisons abroad. [AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] The hon. Gentleman cheered that. He himself
  1816
  would like to see the day when it would be no longer necessary to maintain armies and garrisons at all, but that day was far distant. Being a sane Imperialist who recognised the responsibilities and duties falling upon us, he felt that there was an obligation on every citizen of this country to contribute in some manner to the fulfillment of those responsibilities and duties. He had listened to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made in July, 1906—and a very generous speech it was—in which he said that he had found the Army in a more satisfactory condition, both in point of quality and quantity, than in his recollection. Well, was the Army in a satisfactory condition now? what did the man in the street—who, after all, was the man to be consulted—say was the result of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme? The right hon. Gentleman in 1906 described the Army then as thoroughly effective and efficient and it was now reduced—
  MR. HALDANE: I said, on the contrary, that it was perfectly inefficient.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that the words the right hon. Gentleman used in March, 1906 were that the Army had never been in a more efficient condition. He thought at the time that it was very generous for the right hon. Gentleman to say so.
  MR. HALDANE: I said that the Army as a whole was in a very highly unsatisfactory condition.
  MR. COCHRANEthought he would be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that he was more generous then than now. The man in the street said that the Army had been reduced by thirteen battalions of infantry, and that two battalions of the Guards had been reduced.
  MR. HALDANE: Eight battalions of infantry and one battalion of Guards.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that as a Scotsman he deplored particularly the reduction of one battalion of the Scots Guards. The Army as a whole had been reduced by 20,000 men; and as the right hon. Gentleman reduced the

  1817
  Regular Army, he had increased pari passu the length of service.
  MR. HALDANE: The terms of service under the late Government were nine with the colours and three in the Reserve. That had been altered to three and nine. I changed it to seven and five.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that the changes were somewhat puzzling; they altered like a kaleidoscope. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman, not content with reducing the numbers of the Regular Army, had pari passu reduced the Reserve. Everyone who saw the Reserves who went out to South Africa knew that these men had served in the Regulars for a number of years, and had then gone back into civil life. They returned to the ranks with a good knowledge of discipline, and with physical strength which made them capable of taking the field at once. He feared that in the future there would not be that class or number of men to be counted upon. Did the right hon. Gentleman realise the great extent of the dislike to the Territorial Force? Recently during a visit to Scotland he asked how the Territorial Force was getting on, and the answer was not at all, what with the fine of £5 in case a man failed to give due notice if he wanted to leave, and what with the attestation form which in almost every line had the word "punishment," which was a euphemism for imprisonment. He ventured to say that, so far as his fellow countrymen were concerned, these were not conditions which would prove sufficiently attractive to induce them to join the Territorial Force. He did not want to join in the battle of the nations which had taken place; but one hon. Member had spoken of the disabilities which Wales had been put under, and he would speak for a moment of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman had deprived Scotland of its only cavalry regiment on very insufficient grounds. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that that was because of the insanitary condition of the barracks at Piershill; but he replaced the cavalry with a battery of field artillery not much less in numerical strength than the cavalry regiment. Then the garrison artillery had been
  1818
  reduced by 1,000 men, and how did that affect Scotland? He would compare Scotland with gallant little Wales. The number of garrison artillery in Scotland had been reduced nominally to 253 rank and file, but actually to only 150 men and those 150 men had to garrison Leith Fort, Inchkeith, Kinghorn, Aberdeen, the Forth Bridges, and three stations on the Clyde. It was no wonder that he was told that at a recent grand parade at Leith Fort there was one non commissioned officer and nine men in garrison of the Fort which was meant to protect Edinburgh against attack.
  MR. HALDANE: There is Inchkeith.
  MR. COCHRANE: But the 150 men have to garrison Leith Fort, Kinghorn, Aberdeen, three stations on the Clyde for the defenoe of Glasgow, as well as Inchkeith.
  MR. HALDANE: There is a large number of Volunteer garrison artillery.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he was talking about Regular artillery. The right hon. Gentleman must have often enjoyed hospitality in different parts of Scotland, and he must have heard complaints that there were nominally only 253—actually 150—girrison artillery for the defence of Scotland, from the Orkneys to Berwick on Tweed and the Clyde, while Wales made a loud complaint that she had only 340 garrison artillery and Ireland 741.
  MR. HALDANE: Ireland has no Volunteers.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he was glad the right hon. Gentleman held so much trust in the Volunteers, but he asked if it was not the truth that the men in Scotland were resigning and flocking out of the Volunteers and not enrolling in the new Territorial Force? That was the information he had received. As he had said, they had no Regular cavalry in Scotland, and he would press on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of that to Scotland and to the nation generally. Scotland had proved a very good training ground for cavalry and mounted infantry as had been shown

  1819
  during the manœast autumn of Lord Tullibardine's Lovat's Scouts and the Fife Light Horse. After all, Scotsmen made exceedingly good cavalry soldiers. As to guns, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken about arming the Territorial Force with guns which appeared to be the old 15 pounders with an altered carriage. But had they the same trajectory and muzzle velocity, and the same effective range as the German gun? The right hon. Gentleman said that it had a range of 5,800 yards, but that did not correspond with the Answer which he had given to a Question that session. The right hon. Gentleman was asked what was the effective range of the gun, and he stated that the mere distance the shells travelled was about the fame, but the lighter projectile had a les effective range than the heavier one, the resistance of the air operating more rapidly, and consequently there was a difference of 1,000 yards in the effective range, the shrapnel bullets giving a higher degree of momentum. There was a difference of 1,000 yards in effective range. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that this gun was effective at a range of nearly 6,000 yards.
  MR. HALDANE: You mean the 18 pounders.
  MR. COCHRANE: Then why did not the right hon. Gentleman arm the Territorial Force with the more effective weapon? If he sent out the Territorial Force to fight with a weapon which was outranged it would prove a very expensive target for the enemy's guns.
  MR. HALDANE: The range is more than that of the German gun.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that the trajectory of the German gun was far flatter than that of our gun, and it was a more effective weapon altogether.
  MR. HALDANE: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing the rifling with the trajectory.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman would not dispute that whereas the altered gun was only capable of firing six aimed rounds and twelve
  1820
  unaimed rounds per minute, the more modern guns could fire twenty unaimed and twelve aimed rounds per minute, thus giving much more efficiency to the 18 pounder than to the converted 15 pounder gun. All he could say was that if the right hon. Gentleman found a difficulty in getting skilled artisans—the very class of men most to be desired—who were willing to give up time to learn artillery shooting he should give them an efficient weapon with which to go to war. With regard to the supply of officers, he did not know how short they were at the present moment as it was difficult to make out, but that there was a considerable shortage and always had been was an established fact. How did the right hon. Gentleman propose to make it up? By taking young men from the schools and universities and putting them in command of men. The fact, however, that a man was in uniform, was well conducted and intelligent, did not make him a good officer. He must have a knowledge of men and have been with them in their games and in the field, slept out in the open with them, and watched Tommy Atkins in every condition of his life, and not only have watched him, but know when not to see him, which was a great thing in a British officer. That was what made an officer—not the fact that he was a pedant or a scholar, but that he was a man. They would' not get that class of man by taking young men from the universities and putting them through a few months' classes. Why did not the War Office do as they did in the Navy, and take young men as at Osborne and Portsmouth and train them into efficient officers by a long course of training in their earliest years? They would not get officers by suddenly bringing them out into the field in an inexperienced condition and not knowing how to handle men in camp or field. These young men, moreover, would be liable to enteric or fever, and it was cruel to take them in case of an emergency and put them in command of men. He would also like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the shortage of horses in the Army, and to ask him how he proposed to deal with it now that the 'bus horses which formed the nucleus of our supply

  1821
  and the greatest strength of our artillery in South Africa would be no longer available in the numbers that they were before. Where did he propose to get his reserve of horses, a matter which was of great importance to the artillery and cavalry? The right hon. Gentleman had promised to deal with this question several times, but he had never done so. Every foreign Army had a reserve of horses, sometimes on a very large scale. Of course, they could not ask the right hon. Gentleman to go into such a wide scheme as they had, but the tenant farmers in England, Scotland, and Ireland were always available and. ready to faring up and train young horses if they were given something towards their keep, and then they could be registered for use in time of war. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether he could not make use of that material. The right hon. Gentleman "was starving the Army in regard to men, guns, and horses for the artillery and the cavalry, and was apparently looking forward to the day when the burden of these things would fall, not upon himself, but upon hon. and right hon. Gentlemen at present on the Opposition side of the House.
  MR. BYLESsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down began his speech by saying that the Army for which they were going to vote that night an enormous sum of money was not big enough, and he finished his speech by telling them that the right hon. Gentleman was starving the Army in the matter of men, horses, and guns. That was a characteristic remark to come from those benches. The typical Tory always "wanted the Army and Navy bigger and bigger and bigger, and if both of them were doubled to morrow hon. Gentlemen opposite would criticise the Government for not increasing them. He was sure they would, and not one of them had ever confessed that it was possible to have too big an Army or Navy. Happily the Party to which the hon. Gentleman belonged was now a miserable minority and could hardly rake together a three figure minority for any division at all, and he congratulated the country that another Party animated by totally different ideas and desires had now an
  1822
  enormous majority in this House and in the country. He would bring back the discussion for a moment if he were allowed to the position in which it was put by his hon. friend the Member for Oldham, who asked why this huge force should be supplied? He would not have intervened in this debate, but that last night when he was trying to put this point the clock arrived at a quarter past eight and the right hon. Gentleman felt it his duty to move the closure upon him. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Yes, he was always glad when his Tory friends wanted to see him closured.
  SIR F. BANBURY: We were expressing our sympathy with you.
  MR. BYLES: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. I am always glad of sympathy. It seemed to us that it was rather a harsh measure. [Cries of "No," and of "This is not the House of Lords."]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. It is not desirable to make reflections upon the closure which has been adopted by this House
  MR. BYLESregretted that he had said something that was not wise, but he was simply excusing himself for troubling the House again so soon on the same subject. He would not complain of the right hon. Gentleman at all, and the Government which he adorned had no stronger well wisher he could assure him than himself, and nobody recognised more than he did the great and laborious industry and the conscientiousness that the right hon. Gentleman had shown in the conduct of his Department. They all wished him success, but his hon. friend had brought back the discussion to this question, which, he maintained, was the important question in discussing the Army. Why had this Regular Army to be so large, and what was it for? They had never yet had any explanation of why the country wanted 160,000 men. He thought the right hon. Gentleman himself said two years ago that he could give no reason for its being so big. He took it as he found it. He also said he depended upon policy, and was determined by the demands of his colleagues,

  1823
  the Secretary for India, the Secretary for the Colonies, and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But he was a Cabinet Minister, and he ought to be able to tell them what 160,000 men were wanted for. Whom did we want to kill, whose houses did we want to burn, whose crops to destroy? That was the question. He maintained, as he had said before, that the pledges which the Government gave before they came into power, he would not say were being violated, but they were not being kept. It was these pledges perhaps more than anything else which brought them over from the benches opposite to that side of the House and put the right hon. Gentlemen into his position. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues now enjoyed the luxury of power and the sweets of office, and he thought that the pledges which were quoted last night by his hon. friend who moved the reduction, and which had been frequently quoted by himself and others, ought to be justified by the Estimates which were put before the House of Commons, in regard to both the Army and the Navy. They wanted the whole military scale to be lowered, and +hose were the words of the Prime Minister himself. He said when he was in opposition that they must have a lower scale of military expenditure. That was what the House of Commons wanted and must impress upon any Government, and that was what he was now trying to impress upon this Government. There was one further point that lit, desired to make, and that was by this vast expenditure of naval and military expenditure they were really straining the taxable resources of the country. He could never forget where this money came from, and he was afraid too many of them were too ready to forget that there was no treasure chest inherited from a distant past, there was no reservoir built by a kind fairy out of which this money was obtained, but it came out of the pockets, and out of the earnings of the poor, and the very poor, of this country. He did not put it so high as to say that the country could not afford this expenditure, because after the experience of the Boer War it would be rash for anyone to say that there was anything which this country could not
  1824
  bear, but they were burdens which the poor had to bear, and which they ought not to bear. They were burdens which they need not bear, and which were imposed upon them for other people's benefit and not for their own, because all this insurance money as it was called, and all these munitions of war were for the defence of property. They had no property. [A LABOUR MEMBER: Workhouses.] His hon. friends said that they had the workhouses, and he agreed that that was all the property they had, and therefore, in the interest of the poor taxpayer he maintained: that it was the bounden duty of a Liberal Government to reduce the scale of expenditure upon military matters. As. the money was to a large extent raised: by a system of indirect taxation, we took taxes from the poor without their knowing it or feeling that they were paying. That was a most mischievous method, and if the poor knew that a part of the money they were spending: on sugar, tea, tobacco, and beer was really being spent in maintaining barracks, full of soldiers whom they did not want, and of whom they did not feel the need, and upon the disbandment of whom they would not feel one qualm of fear, they would not suffer the system to goon. He said that in taking the money from the poor in that way they were taking it, he would not say dishonestly, but we were supporting our Army by means, which were not justified. In his view on this subject he had the support of a very large number of Members of this House
  AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy five.
  MR. BYLES: No, not seventy five, but 175. They did not always consider themselves entitled to try to destroy their Government. They had some hopes of its reform, and they knew that if they got out of the frying pan they would] fall into the fire. But it was not only a large number of Members of that. House who held these views; if they went to the country they would find that these views were extensively held. He now appealed to the leaders of the Liberal Party, and to the Government supported by the Liberal Members. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that only a week or two ago the

  1825
  organised forces of Liberalism, drawn from every quarter of the country, namely, the National Liberal Federation, had passed a strong resolution in support of these views. The great Liberal newspapers of the country, daily, weekly, country and, Metropolitan, day by day, and week by week, were maintaining that the Army should be reduced. But even that was not all he might appeal to. If they went back to the names of past statesmen who had made speeches on this subject, they would find these views abundantly supported. From the days of Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, through the days of Gladstone and Sir William Harcourt on one side, and of Mr. Disraeli and Lord Randolph on the other, they found that the utterances of these eminent and experienced statesmen might be quoted in support of the views he now advanced. Therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not only to Remember his own Party, the newspapers which supported him, and the National Liberal Federation, but to realise that all the moral and intellectual leaders of the country, or very many of them at any rate, were in favour of the position which he and others in that House took up. Would they be in great peril, said an eminent Member of the other House a few days ago, if they reverted to the scale of expenditure which they indulged in ten years ago? Was there anybody "who believed that we should be risking our freedom if we reduced our expenditure to what it was when Mr. Gladstone "was in power and when the last Liberal Government was in office?
  AN HON. MEMBER: Name?
  MR. BYLES: Lord Courtney, a man than whom none was more entitled to the respect of his fellow countrymen. If the Liberal Party was to live, it would hive to return to its earlier and better traditions; it must keep its pledges; it must husband its resources; it must lighten the burdens of the poor; it must show an example, not of international jealousies, but of international friendship. He had spoken strongly, he hoped not too strongly, but he could assure his right hon. friend that he had spoken more in sorrow than in anger. He was a staunch and stalwart
  1826
  friend of the Liberal Government, and he was deeply attached to the ancient principles of the party to which he belonged—the principles of peace, retrenchment, and reform.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid he would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a speech of his made in 1906, when he used these words, reported in Hansard on 8th March of that year—
  "Our Army was never more efficient than at the present time. Our Army is now on a better foundation as regards organisation, and a better foundation as regards the knowledge of officers—and I include cavalry and infantry officers just as much as engineers and artillery—than it has been at any previous period."
  MR. HALDANE: I said that it was in a more satisfactory position than it had been before, but that I hoped that it would be still mare efficient.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid he would not pursue that argument, but he took the opportunity of drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the words he had used on a former occasion. He wanted, for a moment, to criticise what he called the musketry policy of the War Office at the present time. When he said musketry policy, he meant the training of the Regular soldier and the Auxiliary soldier to shoot, and the means with which he was supplied to shoot, namely, the rifle and ammunition. He wanted to confine himself to that policy because it was the policy which the present Government pursued. He ventured to say that they were getting dangerously behind the times, in the whole matter of the musketry of the soldier. They were failing to make the best u e of the material at their disposal, namely, the hands and eyes of the troops they had to train. They were not supplying such weapons and ammunition as would enable those hands and eyes to be used to the best advantage. It seemed, as far as one could judge from the statements which the right hon. Gentleman made, and from the Army Orders which had been issued as to musketry regulations, and so on, that extreme accuracy of fire was not desired at all by the

  1827
  the right hon. Gentleman and his present advisers, but that it was sufficient if the fire of the soldier was kept within a sufficient "angle of error" to use the technical expression. He really thought that was quite wrong. It might be right to say that a soldier was a tolerably good shot if he fired within a certain distance of the object, but he should be able to shoot nearer and so become a better shot. It might be good shooting for a man to hit a battery of artillery at a distance of 1,000 yards, but it would be better if he could hit a single horseman at the same range. It was simply a question of degree, and it was not, in the least, for any party to say that we should be satisfied with a certain degree of musketry efficiency. The whole tendency of modern warfare—and it should convince the right hon. Gentleman—was that extreme accuracy of fire was extremely necessary. In Germany they insisted on special musketry training under special conditions for 10 per cent, of their infantry, and the importance of this training was recognised by other Continental nations—it was realised in Japan, and by all the leading Powers of the world. It was realised in a very marked degree in the United States of America; and he might quote one instance to show the great importance, of at all events, a certain number of the troops being trained to extreme skill with the rifle. In the Spanish American War in Cuba they had a very remarkable example of the value of accurate shooting. A large portion of the Spanish Army, he believed approximately a division, were moving from one position to another on one side of a ravine which for a number of miles could not be crossed. It happened, he believed by chance, that a single American scout was on the rocky ground on the other side of the ravine overlooking the road. That single man happened to be a very fine rifle shot. He was at a considerable range, but by his skill with the rifle he succeeded in stopping the progress of the whole division. Now a man who was an ordinary shot would have used all the ammunition he could and done very little damage; at all events, it was absurd to suggest that he would have stopped the progress of a division. But this one American scout
  1828
  killed or wounded over forty officers, and never touched anybody else. He cited this example to show the importance that should be attached to extreme accuracy of fire in certain portions of the Army. In any case, if they could not get a large number of men to attain a degree of extreme efficiency, at all events they ought to train some to attain the highest degree of efficiency of which they were capable, and for that reason they must provide them with plenty of opportunities for practice; they must encourage them to the best of their powers to become efficient with the rifle; they must give them good, weapons and good ammunition. But the Government were not doing any of those things. He did not wish to say that their modern rifle and ammunition, were really bad, but they were not improving with the times. The right, hon. Gentleman knew what other countries were doing; he had seen the comparison between experts with various, rifles in the Pal ma match, in which picked men were engaged. The difference of rifle and ammunition was so great that our men had no chance at all against the experts, who not only shot, with much greater accuracy, but shot very much faster, because their Governments, advancing with the times, had provided them with the best rifle, the sights of which could be focussed quickly We had sights on our rifles which could not be focussed quickly, and which many eyes could not focus at all. The fact remained that we did not do the best we could to provide our troops with a good rifle. The right hon. Gentleman was an expert in the question, of ammunition and he knew very well that our service cartridge was. thoroughly out of date, owing to the? improvements which had taken place since our service cartridges were stocked. It was now possible to have greater range and increased striking velocity. This involved higher pressure at the breech. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the advisability of arranging the block part of the breech in connection with the loading breech of the rifle in such a way as would give the extra resistance to the pressure, which was required for high velocity powders. He asked the right hon.

  1829
  Gentleman to ask his advisers whether something could not be done mechanically and cheaply which would adapt our rifles to the extra pressure required for modern powders. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that in the matters of training, musketry, and ammunition we should march with the times. At present we were behind our Colonies as well as other countries. We should always try to keep ahead of them in these matters as in others.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the Labour Benches in praise of the Territorial Army as a bulwark against conscription in this country. He wished to ask a question with regard to the position of lords lieutenant under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. They were now the presidents of the County Associations as well as lieutenants of the King. Would it not be right that an indication should be given them as to the inadvisability of taking part in party politics in their own counties? They were high officials appointed for great public purposes, some military and some judicial. It was their business to recommend gentlemen for appointments to the magisterial bench, and they were now the supreme officials for the purpose of managing, organising and recruiting for the Territorial Army. Was it not advisable on grounds of public policy and of the success of the Territorial Army that they should in future abstain from publicly identifying themselves with party politics in their own counties? He believed it would now be in the jurisdiction of the War Office to give some directions as to the position which they should take up in this matter. He had in his own county a lord lieutenant, who plunged publicly into party politics who happened to share the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but his (Mr. Mac karness's) feelings would be the same if he happened to be a Liberal. These high officials were not placed in the position of representatives of the Crown to use it for the purpose of identifying themselves with either side of party politics. He would like to ask, and he thought he ought to have the
  1830
  support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, why there was such a vast difference between the total Estimate for the Army and the total number of men voted now and the Estimates which were thought sufficient by hon. Gentlemen opposite a few years ago. He found that in 1895–1896 the Party opposite thought it sufficient to spend under £18,500,000 on the Army, and in the following year they spent only £18,269,000. In the year before the war, although there was a slight increase, the Estimates were only just over £19,000,000, and in the year the war broke out they were under £20,000,000. They, in that year of profound peace were spending £7,500,000 more than that, and it was a peace which was secured by friendly treaties with other great Powers such as had never been the case before. Only a week or two ago such a great authority as Lord St. Aldwyn had said he never remembered in the whole course of his experience a time when there was such hope of sustained peace as they enjoyed at present. From 1886 to 1896 the number of men thought sufficient for the Army was about 140,000, taking the mean number for the period. In 1897–8 when the Party opposite had been in office a couple of years, they were then satisfied with 156,000. There was, of course, a great increase during the war, but although the war had been over now for nearly five years, they had got nowhere near back to the numbers thought sufficient before the war. The Party opposite had always claimed to be the special custodians of the armaments and defences of the country. He put it to his right hon. friend that it lay upon the present Government to show what causes there were to justify the Estimate's they were asked to vote, amounting to 185,000 men and £27,500,000. That was about 25,000 men and £7,500,000 more than the Party opposite thought necessary before the war. That was a matter which appealed to Liberals not merely on the grounds of the needs of the taxpayers, but because they were pledged to great social reforms for the masses of the people which could only be carried out by the expenditure of money. There were only two ways of finding that money. One was by reducing taxation and

  1831
  saving money on the expenditure on armaments, and the other was by increasing taxation in the way proposed by the Tariff Reform scheme of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that they meant, so far as they could, to carry out not only a scheme of old age pensions, but the reduction of the sugar tax, one of which pressed heavily on the mass of the people, while the other was a reform eagerly demanded by aged people in great distress throughout the country. He did not see any way in which these reforms could be carried out unless some large reduction could be made in the expenditure upon armaments, and it was on that ground that he begged the right hon. Gentleman to tell them what were the special grounds upon which he justified this much larger expenditure than was required a few years ago.
  MR. HUNTsaid the hon. Member opposite had stated that in regard to the affairs of this country there never was such a peaceful outlook as at present. He would remind the hon. Member that that was what the Prime Minister said just before the Franco German War.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid he was quoting Lord St. Aldwyn.
  MR. HUNTsaid that did not make any difference. They did not intend to increase taxation upon the poor of this country. Apparently a great many hon. Members opposite wanted still further reductions in the Army, but the Regular Army had already been reduced by 21,000 men. Another hon. Member said he wanted peace, and not war. So did everybody in the House, but if they wanted peace they must be prepared for war. There was another great nation which possessed a comparatively small part of the civilised world, and her increasing population compelled her to find some more land. Therefore this country had to take great care to preserve what it had got. They had already reduced the Regular Army, and he did not see what they had got in its place. There was no doubt that the Territorial
  1832
  Army would not afford any more military training than the old Volunteers, and the numbers would be less. The Duke of Norfolk's Committee said that the Volunteers and the Militia were not good enough in musketry to face a serious foreign invasion; at any rate, not successfully. The Territorial Force would be utterly useless for some time, and it was going to be very expensive as well. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had said that the artillery force of the Terroritial Army would not be of any use, and he agreed with him, because it would take quite three years to make a skilled artilleryman. The scheme of training was not only useless, but it was not fair either to the employers of labour or to the men. Employers who allowed their men to go to camp for a fortnight would be placed at a great disadvantage with their trade competitors who did not allow their men to go to camp at all. The right hon. Gentleman was asking 300,000 men to take upon themselves the whole duty of defending their country, and he was going to leave the rest of the able bodied men to do nothing but shirk their first duty to their native land. They were asking those 300,000 men not only to become the sole defenders of their country, but to give up their only holiday in the year. There were hundreds and thousands of able bodied men with plenty of leisure and money, who were not going to do anything for the defence of their country. The plan was absolutely unfair, and it would never work. The number of men was not anything like enough, and the right hon. Gentleman could not pretend that they would be sufficiently trained they would be quite useless to repel an invasion of this country. They had had sufficient warning from past and present military authorities as to the risk they ran of invasion. The whole scheme was an absolute farce, and if national disaster came upon them the Minister for War would be criminally responsible.
  MR. BELLAIRSsaid he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for Oldham and the hon. Member for Salfoid in their disquisition about economy. They posed as lovers of

  1833
  economy and peace, and claimed a monopoly of it, and like all lovers they protested too much. He had the charity to ascribe to all the Members of this Hour e a love for economy and peace. The questions put by the hon. Member for the Newbury Division were answered in the Memorandum, which he suspected the hon. Member, had not read. He proposed to deal with one or two questions which involved an increase in the expenditure. To the scientific mind of the Secretary for War the question must have occurred whether in the near future the Army should not be re armed. He understood that the short rifle with breech action would only stand a pressure of about 19 tons, whereas the Continental and American rifles would stand pressures up to about 23 or 24 tons, and were therefore capable of being adapted to high velocities. If adapted they could be used with a fixed sight up to 1,000 yards instead of 500 yards as in the case of our rifle. That was an enormous advantage in action. The cost of re arming our infantry, he believed, would be £1,000,000. He called attention to the Memorandum of the Army Council, urging the necessity of practice in rapid firing under service conditions. He was informed, however, that the number of rounds of ammunition per man for all purposes had been reduced by about 17 per cent, from 300 rounds to 250. How was this consistent with the Memorandum? He hoped he had been misinformed on this point. He wished to put another question in regard to the large quantity of Kynoch's cordite, which was rejected because it had been treated with mercuric chloride. He wished to know whether that cordite had been destroyed. He was told that during the last seven years the amount of Kynoch's cordite supplied to the Army and Navy was 2,450 tons. He did not know when the firm commenced to mask the heat test with mercuric chloride, but the Navy had found this cordite so dangerous that all which had been dostorel with mercuric chloride had been destroyed. Supposing that all of it had been so treated, and only 40 per cent, had been fired, there would be 60 per cent, left on their hands which had to be destroyed. This, at £170 per ton, meant a loss to the two Services of £250,000, but he did not
  1834
  suggest that all the cordite had been so treated with mercuric chloride. Had any claim been made against Messrs. Kynoch for the immense loss to the taxpayers involved by this destruction of cordite? He wished to know whether the reserves of ammunition had been brought up to replace the cordite which had been destroyed. A 12-inch cartridge of cordite took three months to dry, and, therefore, at the very earliest they would only get their first batch of cartridges three months after the first order. The provision of reserves could not be deferred until war broke out. He hoped that the cordite which had been destroyed had been replaced by fresh.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he was glad that the question of cordite had been raised, and he would like to hear the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. There was no greater well wisher of the Territorial Army than himself, and he thought that so far the scheme had been progressing satisfactorily. He wished to know what was going to happen where existing regiments overlapped and were in the areas of two different Count)' Associations. He instanced the case of a regiment with two squadrons under one County Association, and two squadrons under another County Association, and asked whether he was right in coming to the conclusion from the Memorandum he had seen that the four squadrons would be administered by the County Association in whose district the headquarters were situated.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to state that each County Association would administer the squadrons in its own area.
  VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he was glad to hear that explanation. That raised the question how they were going to get uniformity of equipment, and so on, if a regiment was to be run by two different bodies. He had seen nothing in the Memorandum on that point. Were there to be Joint Committees, and, if so, what regulations were to govern the appointment of the Committees? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give attention to this matter, as there

  1835
  appeared to be some difficulty in connection with it. He had been informed in answer to a Question to the right hon. Gentleman that the school for Yeomanry officers at Netheravon had been abolished for junior officers. He thought it was a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman had abolished that school for officers of all grades. The institution was very much appreciated by Yeomanry officers. The right hon. Gentleman did not say in his answer what rank of officer was still to be allowed to go there. He supposed it was abolished for every junior officer below the rank of captain. It was supposed that these officers would be able to get as good instruction with a cavalry regiment. That had been tried, and it had never been half so popular as the Yeomanry school. It stood to reason that officers of the regular cavalry had something else to do than to train Yeomanry officers; they were busy training their own junior officers and men, and they were not in a position to give the individual time and attention to junior Yeomanry officers which they were entitled to expect if they desired to become efficient. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that junior Yeomanry officers could go to the school at Netheravon for a refresher course. Would officers taking that refresher course be able to qualify themselves for promotion by obtaining a field officer's certificate? He wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the question of training manuals in connection with the different branches of the Territorial Army. In recent years the position had been very unsatisfactory. A sergeant or non commissioned officer who wished to qualify and make himself thoroughly acquainted with his work had to find the information he required in four or five different books. It was difficult for him to learn what was really necessary to be efficient. The right hon. Gentleman would confer a great boon if he would bring out a simple manual containing the rudiments of every branch the man was supposed to know. That would remove what non commissioned officers felt was a great handicap in their work.
  MR. EVEEETTsaid he wondered why the right hon.
  1836
  Gentleman when consolidating and unifying all the fighting forces in the country had not availed himself of the police a fine, numerous and well trained body of men, by placing them in the Territorial Army. In case of invasion there should surely be some place for them in the defence of the country. He rose, however, chiefly to protest in the name of his constituency against the continuous and enormous military and naval expenditure of this country. One of the most conspicuous of the many faults of the late Government was their reckless prodigality and extravagance in military and naval matters. Before the last general election Mr. Gibson Bowles wrote an interesting pamphlet on national finance in which he showed that in the previous ten years the cost of the Army and Navy in this country had been actually doubled. An interesting article had also been written by Lord Avebury in the Nineteenth Century Magagine of November 1905, in which he showed that the annual expenditure of this country on armaments in the previous ten years had increased by the enormous amount of £50,000,000. He showed further that we were not obliged to do this by the expenditure of other nations, but that it was we who had compelled other nations to increase their expenditure. It was we who had forced the pace. Lord Avebury set forth the startling fact that the increase in our expenditure on the Army and Navy in those ten years had exceeded that of Italy, France, Germany, and Russia, all put together. Therefore we were not only putting an enormous additional burden on the shoulders of our own industrious folks at home, but driving the Governments of Europe to lay heavier burdens on the shoulders of their people. He had hoped that, when a Liberal Government came into power there would soon be a reduction in the bloated armaments of the last ten years. He could not express the bitterness of disappointment he felt that in the third year of the present Government, supported by the largest majority that had ever sat within those walls, no very substantial reduction in expenditure had yet been made. He earnestly entreated the right hon. Gentleman to do his level best to ensure that) before this Parliament

  1837
  separated and they had to go back to their constituents, they would be able to report very considerable reductions in the expenditure on the fighting services. The great strength of this country lay in its industries, not in its armaments;—not in its fighting people, but in its producing people, on whom lay the additional burden of taxation. We had an income tax of 1s. in the £ in a time of peace. He could remember when the income tax in a time of peace was only 4d. When the last Liberal Government was in power and he had the honour of a seat in Parliament, the income tax had got up to 8d., and now we saw it in a time of profound peace at 1s. When he was last in Parliament, sugar, which was one of the greatest necessities and comforts of the people, was entirely free from taxation, but now £6,000,000 of taxation was put on the poor people's sugar basins, and a considerable addition made to the cost of their tea. They wanted to have their sugar as free as before, and the tea duties reduced to the level at which they were before their friends opposite started on their career of prodigality and extravagance. It seemed to him that the Tories loved taxes, not in the concrete; but they took a pleasure in swelling the expenditure of the country, especially that on the Army and Navy, from which no profit whatever came to the people, and thus made heavy taxes necessary. It was true that comfortable billets were found for some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends in the Army and Navy, out of the pockets of the taxpayers. He represented a constituency mostly of poor people who lived in cottages, and who had to fight hard for their daily bread, and in their name he urgently appealed to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to use their utmost endeavours to make substantial reductions in the enormous expenditure on armaments which now prevailed in this country; an expenditure which they had never seen anything like before. We were safe enough formerly relative to other nations, and we were no safer now. We had advanced in civilisation, there was an increasing spirit of friendliness of
  1838
  one nation towards another, communication between nation and nation was easier than before, and we were blessed with a. Sovereign who was the best friend of peace of any Monarch in Europe. We believed, however, that our Gracious Sovereign's efforts were heartily reciprocated by the other rulers. And as we as a nation had set the example of vast in crease in armaments, so we should set the example of a substantial reduction of armaments. He urged upon the Ministry to set their whole strength, to doing this. They wanted this money" for the use of the people, and for old age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman was spending £40,000,000 on the fighting: services more than was spent ten or twelve years ago. This huge sum would give a pension of 5s. a. week twice over to every old mart, and woman in the country. We were none the better for the enormous: increase of armaments, and the money spent on them should be used for increasing the comfort of the people, and to the advancement of social reform. He felt he owed it to his constituents to make this earnest entreaty for reduction. He besought the Minister for War to grant hum the assurance with which he could go back to his constituents that very substantial reductions would soon, be made in the cost of the fighting services, and very large additions made to the comfort of the people with the money thus saved.
  SIR IVOR HERBERTsaid he did not know whether it was the intention to take the vote for Vote 1 before the interruption of business, but with a view to facilitate the right hon. Gentleman's arrangements, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. H. C. LEAsaid be objected to the withdrawal of the Amendment. If it were withdrawn he would, move a reduction on his own account.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk seemed, to be rather anxious about meeting his constituents since he implored the Government to take such steps as would

  1839
  justify him and his friends in meeting their constituents, and in saying that their pledges of economy and reduction in expenditure had been redeemed. The Estimates had been reduced, but it was quite true that this year the reductions effected by the right hon. Gentleman were solely owing to the fact that the undertaking of the late Government, as to the provision of artillery, had been fulfilled. There was, however, no net reduction in the present Estimates. What was more, so far from any reduction being possible in the next few years, the Army Estimates were going to rise again. The right Ion. Gentleman could reduce the Army by a few thousand men, but he knew that the expenses connected with the disbandment of the regiments were very high; and the right hon. Gentleman also knew that on account of the policy of Works Loans being dropped, progress with national works was falling into arrear. Next year and the year after, enormous sums of money would have to be found for public works such as barracks. Existing barracks had been neglected and more of them would have to be built, and the money found by the successors of the present Government. Then they must have a new rifle, which meant a million of money. Again, the Territorial Army, if conforming to the expectations and hopes of the Secretary for War, was going to cost far more money than was at present supplied by the Army Votes. It was just the same "with the Navy. There was a small saving this year, but next year it appeared that they were to have five new battleships, so that no saving was possible or probable on the Navy expenditure. The same system was being pursued throughout the whole of the departments of Government—a system of mortgaging the future, and of living on post obits. So far from the reductions which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends tad promised coming to pass, there would be in the near future a gigantic increase in the National expenditure, and the Army wsa going to take more than its share in that increase. At the present moment and under its present organisation, the equipment of the Territorial Army was not fit for war. They pre-
  1840
  tended that it was, but it was not. They were anxious, or ought to be anxious, to encourage as far as possible the Volunteer movement of this country, and in order to do so they paid compliments which were not justified by the efficiency of the Territorial Force. The right hon. Gentleman had assured them time after time, and it was on that assurance that legislation was accepted last year, that the Territorial Army would have a grave responsibility placed upon it. Let them look at it from the equipment point of view. The right hon. Gentleman had uttered the truism that no artillery was of any use except the best; that that was the arm in which of all others they could not afford to be second best. There had been no war during the past hundred years, since artillery was still in its infancy, in which the preponderance and superiority of the gun had not shown its influence throughout the campaign; and any Army which had an inferior gun was placed in a position of intolerable inferiority. The gun with which the Territorial Army was armed was a second class gun, not even a quick firing gun. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as if it were; it was nothing of the sort. It was out ranged. It was no good telling them how far a shot would go; the real thing was how far a shot would tell. The Territorial Army gun was effectively out ranged by the gun with which in all probability that Army would be faced in the event of war. Then what about the training and efficiency of the men? They had to undergo an annual training of twenty drills, of which ten must be out of doors. A drill was defined as one hour's actual training, and the men might perform three drills in the day. That meant that an afternoon's work would count three drills, so that in seven days they could get under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme all the drill that was necessary apart from camp or artillery training.
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down, by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HOLTsaid he had felt it his duty to take exception to Clause 56, but he was glad to say that he had had a conference with the promoters, and they had undertaken to substitute the following clause—
  "The City Council may appoint out of their own number so many persons as they may think fit for the execution of any of the purposes of any local Act or Order for the time being in force within the city, which, in the opinion of such authority, would be better regulated and managed by means of a Committee; provided that a Committee so appointed shall in no case be entitled to borrow money or to make or levy any rate, or order any rate to be made or levied, or to enter into any contract, and shall be subject to any regulations and restrictions which may be imposed by the City Council."
  If his hon. friend the Member for the Everton Division, who he understood represented the promoters, would confirm this undertaking he would be pleased to support the Bill instead of opposing it.
  MR. HARMOOD BANNERthought there was an undue nervousness as regards the effect of this clause. But the Corporation were perfectly ready to meet the objections that had been taken, and to accept the clause in the amended form. With regard to the objection taken by War rington to Clause 16, he thought it was more a matter for Committee than for discussion on the Second Reading. Warrington had had the right to call upon Liverpool to supply water for twenty years, and had not exercised that right. Now it was suggested that that term should be extended for three years, when the right should end. He thought that was giving Warrington as much as it was entitled to. But whether it was right or wrong, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Warrington not to raise it now, but to permit it to be dealt with in Committee. Objection was also raised to the Bill by Prescot, which felt strongly on the subject of the water clauses. But in this case also Committee was the proper place to deal with the question, and he therefore hoped the objection
  1842
  on behalf of Prescot would not be pressed now.
  MR. CROSFIELDsaid: he had been desired by the Corporation of Warrington to call the attention of the House to the provisions contained in Clause 16 of the Bill. Under this clause it was proposed that the agreement which was entered into between the Corporations of Liverpool and Warrington in 1887, and duly confirmed by Parliament, should be determined without the consent of the Corporation of Warrington. The Corporation of Warrington protested against this action on the part of the; Corporation of Liverpool. They urged that when an agreement had been arrived, at between important public authorities, and sanctioned by Parliament, it should not be open to one of these authorities, to ask for its recision. As to what the hon. Member for Everton had said as to this being a matter for Committee, he felt that it was of such very deep and vital importance to Warrington that he ought to enter a protest on the Second Reading. But an appeal had been made by the Chairman of Ways and Means that he should not press the matter further at present, but should agree to its being considered upstairs in Committee. He was very happy to agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Everton without in any way withdrawing the protest he was bound to make as a matter of principle on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. SEDDONwho had given notice of Motion for the rejection of the Bill, Slid he did not propose to take a division, but he desired to state the objections of Prescot to Clauses 16, 17, and 18. These clauses, dealt with a matter that had been in dispute for forty years between the small township of Prescot and the municipality of Liverpool. During; that time there had been various debates in Parliament, many convictions before the magistrates, decisions of quarter sessions, judgments of the; High Courts, and proceedings before Parliamentary Committees which justified him in presenting the case of Prescot to the House. Prescot's position was somewhat different from that of Warrington.

  1843
  It was under a statutory obligation to take water from the Corporation of Liverpool. The Act of 1866 placed upon the 'Corporation the obligation to supply water for domestic purposes at sufficient pressure to supply the highest house in the town. Now they sought to evade that responsibility. The history of this matter disclosed unfair dealing on the part of the Corporation towards Prescot. In 1897 there was a police court action that went against the Corporation. It was heard on appeal before the Master of the Rolls, and. they were defeated. In 1898 they were again defeated, and eventually, in a test case in the Queen's Bench Division, they agreed to pay the amount sued for in the county court with costs, and to abandon all their pending appeals, the right of the complainants to commence new proceedings being expressly reserved. After all these unsuccessful attempts to cripple Prescot in regard to its water supply, this wealthy 'Corporation, having been obliged to erect a pumping station because the water could not reach the highest houses by gravitation, were now seeking, by a clause in the Bill, to throw the burden of the pumping station on Prescot. It was said, as a reason for this proposal, that Prescot might erect "sky scrapers" at the highest part of the township, and that if that were done, the Corporation would be put to very great expense in putting in new pumping apparatus. That time might come, but he thought the House could rely on the Liverpool Corporation, with its love of litigation, to take proceedings if Prescot broke any of the conditions into which it had entered. So far as the pumping arrangements were concerned, it had been said by some members of the City Council that there was only one house in the town that had not an adequate supply by gravitation. He denied that. The inadequate supply affected many houses, and the Liverpool Corporation in this Bill—a very good Bill, which he would like to see passed, except for these two vicious clauses—were trying to throw this great burden upon Prescot. At the present time water in Liverpool cost the consumer 1s½d. in the £, and in Prescot it cost 10½d., or 3d. in favour of Prescot, and Liverpool Corporation thought it unjust that Prescot would get the water at a
  1844
  cheaper rate than the citizens of Liverpool, who had sunk their money in providing one of the best water supplies in the country. But Liverpool had many advantages in regard to water supply that were not possessed by Prescot. When Liverpool had liquidated the sinking fund he believed that the fixed water rent now charged would practically cease. A Committee of the House of Commons in 1887, when the Corporation sought some unfair advantages, laid it down: (1) That the people of Prescot were merely consumers of the Corporation, and not partners in the undertaking; (2) that they had no right to any portion of the sinking fund provided under the Liverpool Waterworks Act; and (3) that the water charges fixed by the Act were fair and equitable, and ought not to be increased. Yet in face of that decision they sought by the Bill to inflict a burden on this small community. So far as Prescot was concerned, they had all along been willing to carry out their obligations under the Act of 1866. He did not want to say hard things of Liverpool. It was a city he had a very great pride in, for he had been connected with it to some extent practically throughout the whole of his life. But he thought in this case the corporation had displayed a selfishness that was untrue to the true character of Liverpool. They appeared in this Bill like a colossal vulture, overshadowing and all powerful, and thought they could by frequent litigation deplete the reserves of this small community, and compel them by force to submit to unreasonable demands. He would not press his Motion now. He relied upon the Committee to do their duty, and if they did not he would reserve to himself the right to take action upon the Report stage and Third Reading. He thought it fair to say that Committees had always looked at this question with an unbiassed view. He was not unmindful that in the Committee upstairs a long array of counsel heavily briefed would press the claim of this rich corporation over this small community, who would be practically at the mercy of these lawyers. He quite admitted that Prescott had joined with other urban district councils to protect themselves. But their voice would be lost

  1845
  among the many, and this small community in the Committee might be robbed of their rights and have imposed upon them a grievous burden. He thought it only fair to say that so far as concerned the existing Act of Parliament, Presoott was willing to carry out its obligations. He was fortified in saying that by the fact that these obligations were the just and equitable findings of a Committee of that House. They had stated definitely and emphatically that the charges already in existence were fair and just, and because of that statement, and because of the feebleness of Prescott, he now made his protest. Unless consideration was shown to this small community he must reserve to himself the right, though lie did not wish to do any injury to other parts of the Bill, of opposing the Third Reading. But he sincerely hoped that hon. Members representing Liverpool would act kindly to a small community, instead of like a bully to a small boy, and if they did that the inhabitants of Prescott would be the first to congratulate them on their magnanimity.
  MR. BRUNNERwho had on the Paper the following: "That it be an instruction to the Committee to insert a clause providing that an alderman shall not, as such, vote in the election of an alderman," said he understood that the instruction would not be in order or he would have liked to have raised this question with regard to Liverpool. He understood that the reason why this clause had not been put in was that it was unusual to pass a general law in a private Bill; in fact, the Local Government Board would object. He had put the instruction down because the Liverpool Corporation had petitioned that the law might be altered in this respect. He found, from the reports of public petitions, that a petition was presented by Mr. Royden asking that an alteration should be made in the law so that aldermen as such should not vote in the election of aldermen. But he understood that the President of the Local Government Board intended to propose a general Bill which would have the effect that aldermen should never be permitted in future to
  1846
  vote for aldermen; therefore, his instruction would in any case be unnecessary.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is unnecessary to deal with the instruction after what the hon. Member has said.

  SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES.)
  Postponed Proceeding on Motion made on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,422,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come is course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1909,"
  Which Motion was, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,421,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Sir Ivor Herbert.)—resumed.
  Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,421,000, be granted for the said Service."
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he saw the Financial Secretary to the War Office present and he proposed to ask him a few questions. But he would first like to deal with the observations of the hon. Member of the Newbury Division of Berkshire and of the hon. Member for Salford, imploring the Government to effect still further economies in regard to the Army. One of the reasons which the hon. Member had given was that Lord St. Aldwyn, speaking in the City a few days ago, stated that Europe and the world at large were never in a more profound state of peace than at present. On that statement, which he said he felt sure would appeal to hon. Members on that side of the House, the hon. Member advocated a reduction is the strength of the Army. He submitted that this was, he had been going to say an extremely vicious, but at all events an extremely erroneous, conclusion to form. He did not apply that remark

  1847
  to Lord St. Aldwyn's statement, which he had no doubt was quite correct. In the year just before the Franco German War exactly the same remark was made either by the Prime Minister in England or by the Foreign Secretary; yet within two or three months of that statement the whole of Europe was in a blaze. It was fatal, because they were for the moment in a calm, to relax precautions. On board ship they did not, because they happened to be in a calm, throw away all the preparations against a storm, which might arise at any moment. But the policy of the hon. Member for Newbury was apparently that in fair weather they were to throw overboard all precautionary measures taken against a storm. Why? Because he thought a storm would never arise again, or because he thought that they would be able, should a storm arise, to make due preparations against it. There was no greater economist in the House than himself. That statement might not be received with the sympathy with which he hoped it would be received by everybody, but it was a fact, nevertheless. But his idea of economy was not to save money by knocking off expenditure during prosperous times if they had to increase the expenditure tenfold in times of stress. There was no greater lesson as to this than that afforded by the Boer War. In the case of for that war, instead of spending £230,000,000, we should, if we had been prepared in time of peace for emergencies, probably have saved a great many lives and not spent more than perhaps a £100,000,000. Nothing had been more popular at one time than to get up in meetings and say that the lessons of the war should not be forgotten, and that we should provide against the recurrence of any such events by having an efficient Army. He was sorry to say that the pernicious doctrine of the hon. Members below the gangway seemed to prevail, and that there was a considerable section in the House which desired that we should go back to the old days of false economy when, in order to save one or two millions, we laid up an expenditure of a £100,000,000, if not more, in a time of stress. The hon. Member for Salford had addressed his remarks to the Secretary
  1848
  of State for War more in sorrow than anger. He had said that their pledges should not be broken, and he had recited those pledges which were made when the Liberal Party came into power. He thought he went so far as to say that it was in consequence of their pledges for reductions on armaments that the balance of power was transferred. He had gone on to say that he did not wish to put any force upon the right hon. Gentle man, and that he hoped he would re form. He would point out to the hon. Member that appeals of that sort made to any Government were not usually successful. If hon. Members desired to be successful, they must exercise their force in the lobby. That was the only way in which pressure could be put upon any Government; and he hoped, if the hon. Gentleman was genuine in his desire that the pledges of his Party should not be broken and that the promised diminution of expenditure should be made, he would take his courage in both hands and by challenging a division show to the Front Bench what their power in the lobby was. He wanted to refer to one or two questions. First of all, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any truth in the statement that some change was to be made in the City regiments. He was told that their names were to be changed. The question appealed considerably to him. The old trained bands of the City of London had been the foundation, first of all, he thought, of the first battalion of the Grenadier Guards, who still had the. privilege of marching through the City with fixed bayonets. They had also been the foundation of many other illustrious regiments. He would, ask whether young men who had served in the public school cadet corps received any abatement in regard to drills or joining the Militia. He thought, possibly, some advantage would be gained if that were done. He did not pretend to be a great military authority and he hoped it would not be thought impertinent if he said this scheme for the Reserve of Officers, under which those who had served in Volunteer corps at Eton would be made lieutnants in the Reserve of Officers, or if they had been in a University corps would be made, captains—
  MR. HALDANE: What I said was that if you have been two years in the cadet corps of a public school you get certificate A., which is not up really to the qualification of lieutenant, but is something towards it. When you have been two years more through a University corps you get Certificate B., which is a very much higher qualification. The first, A., lets you off four months of your twelve. B. lets you off four more, and leaves you with only four months to give. In each case you have to be approved.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that that, of course, altered matters considerably, and it was an encouragement to these young men to come forward. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the request of the hon. Member for Oldham, who was most anxious that the Indian Army should be reduced, giving as his reason the Convention entered into with Russia. It was absolutely necessary that the strength of our Army in India should be maintained. It was fixed not upon any consideration of war with Russia or any other country, but on internal considerations. It was fixed at the time of the Mutiny and it was no larger now than in 1859. Another argument was that India afforded a field for military training which no other part of the Empire afforded. The Army in India was kept up at war strength. It was the most efficient part of our Army, and the fact of the opportunity of going to India and being trained with regiments at a war strength was a very strong argument in favour of maintaining the Indian Army at its present strength. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that our Army was a machine, the parts of which were interdependent, and that they could not take from it a bit here and a bit there without diminishing the strength of the whole out of all proportion to the pecuniary saving effected, and without running the risk of throwing additional burdens on countries such as India, which we had constantly striven in the past to help. He could not conceive a better expression of the sentiments of Members on that side of the House than that, but had not the right hon. Gentleman rather violated his own principle? He had diminished the Army by 21,000 men.
  MR. HALDANE: Scientifically and systematically like a trainer for a race.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid there was a great art in training, and if the horse was overstrained, he did not win the race. He gathered that for the present there was no reduction in the Artillery, though some part of it was in a state of suspended animation, awaiting the creation of that branch of the Army in the Territorial Force. Though he was not a professional soldier, that made him extremely nervous, because he believed the one part of the Army which could not be manufactured quickly and which required two or three years training, was the Artillery. Artillery driving was one of the greatest arts, requiring a very courageous man, with a very cool head to drive a team of six horses at a gallop over rough and uneven ground. He wanted to be a good horseman, and to know his horses. That could not all be learned in a short time, for however excellent the Territorial Force might be they could not expect a man to get that practice which was absolutely necessary in time of war. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, who was a very great authority on the Army, though he was not quite certain whether the Secretary of state regarded him as a very great authority, was very strongly against a reduction in any way of the Artillery. With all humility, he did not consider it efficient to reduce the best branch of the Army, and that which took a longer time than any other to get into an efficient state. If we had, as he believed we had, the finest artillery in the world—
  MR. HALDANE: Splendid men, but not enough of them.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had given his case away, surely. He was not at all sure if he went on like that that he would not be found sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman if he would have him. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give him some comforting assurance with regard to the Artillery.
  SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid that Members who had identified

  1851
  themselves with economy and retrenchment had done well to raise this question again on this branch of the Service, though he thought they had not given due weight to two very important considerations. One was that considerable reductions had already been effected by the right hon. Gentleman, for which he had received criticisms from hon. Gentlemen opposite; and the other was the party of economy and retrenchment had not done themselves justice, because he thought some good had been attendant upon the representations which were made early in February. He thought the inference might be drawn from questions answered and unanswered in the House that those representations were not without effect upon the Estimates of this year. Allusion had been repeatedly made to pledges given by the Party now in power at the time of the general election and repeated on the floor of the House. They deplored the absence of the Prime Minister, who would, no doubt, have influenced the House in the direction of peace, retrenchment, and reform, which he had advocated when in opposition as well as at the Albert Hall meeting. He was reminded specially of a remark made on 15th March, 1906, in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division, in which the Prime Minister had spoken of this as a Government which would "strain every nerve to cause great reductions in military expenditure," and stated that "its honour and good faith were bound up with doing it." Also the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a debate on old age pensions on 14th March, 1906, pointed to the close association between social reform and the reduction of expenditure, and used these words—
  "There are only two ways in which you can reduce expenditure upon the Army and Navy; in the case of the Army by reducing the numbers of your permanent lighting force, and in the case of the Navy by contracting your shipbuilding programme."
  Having read the Memorandum of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War accompanying the Estimates for the Army, and the Memorandum of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he thought it was still possible, with perfect loyalty to the two Power standard and to the Card-
  1852
  wellian system, to encourage further reductions, and to express the hope that the policy of the last two years flight not be arrested or reversed, but continued He rather gathered from the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War that he himself saw a way of continuing that policy with perfect loyalty to the Cardwellian system, by reducing battalions abroad and corresponding reduction at home, and also by encouraging self defence of the Colonies.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he wished to refer to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme wherein last year he said he was going to provide divisional cavalry for the Regular Army from the Yeomanry and Territorial Forces.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he had abandoned that part of the scheme with regret.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he did not need to remind the right hon. Gentleman that his abandonment of that part of the scheme was no surprise to them, and he was surprised to hear him say that he abandoned it with much regret. He remembered that towards the end of their discussions last year he himself announced that he had experienced much criticism from cavalry officers in the Regular Army. It was no surprise to him to hear that that portion of his scheme had to be abandoned. What he wanted to know was what was going to take its place? He was told that the right hon. Gentleman did make some remarks in reference to what was going to take its place, but it was not at all clear. Last year the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave for the divisional cavalry being found by the Yeomanry was that in his scheme he had used up all the Regular cavalry he possessed. This question of divisional cavalry was of extreme importance. It was not a question which could be dealt with lightly at all. A very distinguished cavalry leader of the German Army whose name began with "G."—the right hon. Gentleman probably remembered that distinguished officer—had laid down, clearly and strongly the need for thoroughly well trained divisional cavalry. He hoped when the right hon. Gentleman replied he would, if possible, go

  1853
  into more detail as to how he was going to find this divisional cavalry. If it was largely to be found by the mounted infantry, he hoped he would tell them what training for the purpose this mounted infantry was going to have, because if the mounted infantry were to be formed from so many men chosen from various regiments of infantry and trained periodically as mounted infantry, then he must humbly and respectfully beg to assure him he did not think it would be found sufficient. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them in real detail what this divisional cavalry and the Regular Army was going to be composed of, and what training the divisional cavalry was going to get.
  MR. LEAsaid that this was the third occasion upon which he had risen to take part in the debates on the Army Estimates, but this occasion had been the most bitter disappointment of all. It seemed to him that there was a kind of compact between the official Liberal Party as it existed above the gangway and the Conservative Party to talk in an academic manner about whether the carbine or the gun was up to date, whether the 15 pounder was suitable for the Territorial Army, whether the cavalry were all right, or whether three years was a sufficient training for an artilleryman. But those were not the points at issue. What the democracy of this country wanted was a great reduction in Army expenditure, and the only four speeches which had dealt with that point were those of the hon. Members for Oldham, Salford, and Newbury, and his brilliant colleague the hon. Member for West St. Pancras. The present needs of our Army were a great deal over estimated. Moreover, he had to voice, and he recognised the very great responsibility, the wishes and views of some 60,000 men, women and children in this matter, who demanded a reduction in Army expenditure. They all realised that five years after the war in South Africa was over the war taxes were still on. Every member of the Government was pledged to retrenchment, and yet the war taxes were still on. The Civil Service could not be cut down, and
  1854
  the supremacy of the Navy must be maintained. It was part of the free trade doctrine to ensure not only open ports but open trade routes. But our military expenditure was to a large extent waste. Next to the Licensing Bill, he regarded the Secretary for War as the greatest danger of the present Government. The latter would ruin the public and the former would ruin the publican. What was wanted was a reduction of £12,000,000 and 40,000 men in the Army Estimates. The only thing which the right hon. Gentleman had done was in the spring of last year when he introduced the Territorial Force Bill with an avalanche of eloquence. If that Force was to be anything at all, it would involve this country in greater expenditure than anything it had been subjected to when the Volunteers and Militia were in force. He wanted to indicate one or two directions in which money could be saved. It would be well within the recollection of the Committee that two years ago the right hon. Gentleman promised the abolition of the Scots Guards and the 3rd Battalion of the Coldstream Guards. The abolition of the Scots Guards, had been carried out, but what about the 3rd Battalion of the Coldstreams The battalion had been sent to Egypt in order to evade that promise. He would like to know at whose instigation it was sent to Cairo. It was of no use there at all, except as an expense to the British taxpayer. Who was responsible for that? He presumed it was the same authority who was responsible for the creation of the military command in the Mediterranean, and for the Duke of Connaught being appointed to the command at great expense to the British taxpayer. [Cries of "Order."] Why order? He was there to voice the views of his constituents, and they objected, to pay for that sort of thing. That command was useless, unnecessary, and superfluous, and it was an insult to the intelligence of the public. In his opinion it was nothing more nor less than a job. It had one great disadvantage on account of the command being centred at Malta. It meant that one of the warships of the Mediterranean Fleet would have to be detached to cart the Duke of Con naught to and from his command.

  1855
  The three regiments of Household Cavalry were of no use for war purposes; and their present duties would be discharged as well by the Metropolitan Police. The view of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway was that the Army should be cut down by 30,000 or 40,000 men. The present Army expenditure militated against social reform in every ramification of life. It was idle to talk of old age pensions when money was being wasted in that direction. The Party in power at present made promises about cutting down expenditure, on which they gained votes at the election, and if the Government went out of office without fulfilling these promises they would have obtained their position under false pretences.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not propose to go over the points raised in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I think he was at one time associated with the Army.
  MR. LEA: I was.
  MR. HALDANE: As he appears to have devoted more attention to the affairs of the licensed victuallers lately, and less and less to the affairs of those with whom he was originally associated, I will pass from the hon. Member to the speakers who preceded him. It is quite true that we have not been able to obtain from the Yeomanry the fourteen squadrons which we once hoped for, but it is not difficult for us to re arrange the cavalry organisation. By the autumn we hope to hive another regiment of cavalry home from South Africa. That will give us fourteen at home. With that we shall have enough to provide the strategical cavalry—the cavalry that operates far out on the flanks of the enemy. This will consist of twelve regiments of Regular cavalry and a four battalion battery of horse artillery. The next element is the protective screen, which will be a couple of regiments of Regular cavalry and two mounted infantry battalions. As that releases two battalions of mounted infantry which, before, we proposed to add to that force, we s hall be left with divisional mounted troops, consisting mainly of mounted infantry, of which we shall have suffi-
  1856
  cient, and a certain amount of Yeomanry. There will be, at any rate, two regiments of Yeomanry, the Irish Yeomanry, who will be trained, as at present, with the Special Reserve, and who take the obligation to go abroad, but the bulk of the divisional cavalry will be mounted infantry, specially trained for that purpose. The hon. Baronet, who represents the City asked me what was going to be the organisation of the City corps. What we have decided on, after a good deal of consideration, is this. We feel that the London Command, which is neither the City nor the county, but a unit including both, gives us an area on which to fix the name "London." London battalions will be the battalions belonging to the corps in the London Command. We respect the feeling of the City and of the county, and, taking the twenty four battalions of infantry as an illustration, they will be labelled one to eight "City of London," and nine to twenty four, "County of London."
  SIR F. BANBURYasked whether the City regiments would be put under the county administration for the whole of London.
  MR. HALDANE: No. There are two counties—the county of the City and the county of London. The eight City regiments will be put under the county of the City. The hon. Baronet may take comfort—I have a great respect for the traditions of the City. The noble Lord who sits for one of the divisions of Yorkshire asked me about a regiment in two counties. Our idea in such a case, as in the case put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, is to treat, as the very foundation of this plan, the county, but though we do not impose upon them the obligation to do so, an arrangement may be made between two counties. The noble Lord also spoke of the school at Nether avon. I am glad to say that the reason why it is difficult to get Yeomanry officers in there is because it is so great a success and the demands upon it are so great. But we hope to bring about an organisation which will provide half a dozen cavalry depots around which the Yeomanry may group, and to provide local classes in which the combined instruction

  1857
  may be effective. I pass to the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Sussex and by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. As regards the ride, it is still a question whether the light, sharp pointed bullet is a better weapon for our purpose than the heavier bullet which we use. With the heavier bullet, less pressure is required on the breech mechanism, but it is premature to come to a final conclusion on the question until we know what is really going to be the rifle. It is an open question whether, despite its lower muzzle velocity, and taking into consideration its greater range, owing to the heavier bullet, the rifle we have to day is not for our purposes the better weapon. But I do not dogmatise upon it. It is a question which will want consideration in the light of the larger and greater questions which loom ahead. With regard to the question of Kynoch cordite, which was raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, there were seven lots, weighing about 35 tons, which were accepted and passed. Wherever we found that mercuric chloride had been used, we rejected the cordite, the reason being that we knew that the heat test had been masked, and that we thought it better to err on the side of caution than to run any risk. It is only in oases where we are satisfied that no chloride is used that we take any cordite that has come from that source. As regards the reduction of the ammunition from 300 to 250 rounds, we found that the men could not use that amount. It is a larger amount of ammunition than is served out to any Army in the world, except the Americans, much larger than Prance and larger than Germany. It stands in this way: we thought it better to offer the general commanding the choice between that and certain other ammunition; most of them thought it better to take extra ammunition of another kind in place of that which I thought was an excessive measure. I pass to the second class of questions, which are of a very general kind indeed. The right hon. Member for Dover referred to the artillery, and said, as I understood him, that we have been very rash in converting thirty three batteries out of ninety nine into training brigades. The right hon. Gentleman said sixty six is not nearly so good as 150, and that
  1858
  we ought to have 150, and he referred to South Africa. In the case of South Africa it is perfectly true that we had there and at home a considerable number of batteries, but only thirty nine batteries went out from home to South Africa, and a larger number remained at home training and producing the men. It is vital not only to have guns and men, but to replace the wastage of war, and to provide in addition ammunition columns and other services requisite to keep the artillery effective. To do that we must have some mode of training to make up the wastage of war, and therefore we took thirty three out of the ninety nine batteries, and converted them into training batteries. To my mind it was essential that, before we saw what artillery we would have, we should consider what we ought to have. We have a General Staff, which is now becoming a very efficient one. That General Staff computed the amount of artillery that we ought to have in proportion to the other arms, and the computation with which they furnished us was that we should have five guns to every 1,000 bayonets and sabres. Under the present establishment we have only 3·5 per 1,000, the Japanese have 4·5, and the Germans 5·5. That means sixty six batteries of field artillery, and half a dozen other batteries besides. That is the true proportion of artillery, and that gives us seventy two batteries, which is on the basis of five guns to every 1,000 bayonets and sabres. I put another proposition to the House. Nothing is more wasteful and mischievous in military organisation than to have too much. It throws everything out of gear, and it inevitably leads to gaps in the rest of the organisition. Suppose I had done what the right hon. Gentleman urged and had 150 batteries. We should have had to go short of transport, in the Army Service Corps, and in the Army medical service, and in certain other units of the Army. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the Army Estimates would have risen to such an amount that there would have been an inevitable reduction and our Army would have been swept away. I stand to day midway between too much and too little. In the discussion to night it has been emphatically insisted upon on side that there is

  1859
  still too much, and on the other side that there is too little, but for my own part, and taking into consideration the fact that the Army has been reduced by 21,000 men and the cost by £4,500,000, I think upon the whole that I am in a position which, because it leans too much neither to one side nor to the other, probably represents the true mean. But I say emphatically that there is nothing worse than to have our arms out of proportion. These training brigades provide machinery of a scientific and systematic kind for replacing the wastage of war. Until to day that sort of thing was absolutely absent from our Army organisation. These training brigades will also create the ammunition columns that are necessary. We should have a proper proportion of all arms, an organisation not only in brigades but also in divisions, and an Army so proportioned that we are able to see what is in excess or is not in excess. That is a plan that enables us to economise in the right direction and not strike with an axe at the centre of the whole machine. Therefore, despite reductions, we have a more efficient Army than it has ever been before, and it is fashioned on a plan and pattern very different from the plan and pattern of other days. I do not stand before the House as an expert in military affairs. I am a plain man of business. I picked out and listened to the best soldiers I could find in the British Army in working out this organisation. It is an organisation on which many voi es have converged and have given me a single opinion, and in regard to which there is not, so far as I am aware, a single dissentient voice in the whole War Office at the present time. It is the unanimous resolution of the best brains in the British Army. We have got at the War Office a General Staff that we really did not possess before. It is wholly different from the Intelligence Department; it is in process of evolution, and it is producing a revolution in Army administration, not only in organisation but in money, because it lops off all that is in excess and all that is costly, and because a scientific organisation is the cheapest in the end. It has been urged by the hon. Member for Derby that the Government have made a mistake in abolishing loans, and I think the
  1860
  hon. Member for Fareham shared that view.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I did not say that. My contention was that under loans we had got barracks and necessary works, and now we do not get them at all.
  MR. HALDANE: That is just what we have not got. Here we are to day with just the wrong things and lacking the right things. If we want to get the right things, there is nothing so good as to have a great deal of trouble to get them. The curse of the loan system is that there is money into which anybody can dip his hands. When I think of the fortifications at St. Lucia, of what was done in the West Indies and elsewhere, and of the money that has been wasted at Gibraltar and Malta—I am not given to emotion, but it makes me almost weep. If I had that money to day I could make better barracks, I could do better for the ordinary soldier, I could build schools for the training of officers, and I could do a multitude of other things all of which would have been done if only the loan system had not existed. But because we had a loan system everybody has been able to spend as much money as he wanted, and now the nation, in the person of my hon. friend, has risen up against us and said we must justify the expenditure of every penny we ask for. There are a few fragments of the loans remaining, and out of that source we are doing a good deal of building. I could conceive a loan system that would be justified when there was a very clear military programme that had to be accomplished once for all. But we have never had a barracks policy. Such a thing absolutely did not exist in the days of the light hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. We could not have a barracks policy until we had a settled organisation of the Army, and the hon. Gentle msn opposite never had a settled organisation of the Army. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh."] They had Army Corps which existed only on paper, and then they proceeded to lavish money on barracks out of loans. I would not like to say what the soldiers of to day said of the policy of other days. Unless we have thought out the organisation of the Army

  1861
  we are not entitled to a loan system at all.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Has the right hon. Gentleman sold any of the empty barracks built under the old system?
  MR. HALDANE: On the contrary, I am trying to use them. But the point is not whether they are now being used, but whether the expenditure upon them has been justified and whether it is the best of expenditure for the nation, and I hold it is not. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash raised the question of horses. Upon this very important question, I am in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, to see whether we cannot treat this matter of the supply of Army horses as a branch of a much larger question. Whether we shall succeed or not I cannot say, but I am willing so to treat it because I believe in that way and that way alone shall we succeed. Then some concern has been expressed about the largeness of the deficiency in "the Reserve of Officers. The figures which I gave the other day included not only the deficiency on mobilisation but the wastage for six months after. Somehow or other that wastage has got to be made up. It has been said to night that after all, the public schools and the Universities are not the best sources. I listened to that criticism readily, but I want to know what other sources are available? That source is at hand and seems the best, and certainly we get the most loyal co operation from all those concerned. The hon. Member for Woolwich, whom we are all delighted to see back in his place, has raised a question in reference to the discharges at Woolwich Arsenal, and said it is unfair to charge as against the work which the reduced staff turned out the whole of the ordinary establishment charges. While I entertain great sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member, I may say that a Committee has been sitting for some weeks inquiring into the whole matter, and it is engaging the close attention of the War Office. The hon. Member knows what the problem we have to deal with is, and that we have got to provide not only for the production of the goods but for maintaining the reserve for war.
  1862
  The state of Woolwich will not be satisfactory until the material can be produced at prices equivalent to those at which the goods can be obtained outside. Then, a question has been raised of the short training of the Special Reserve. If the Government were going to put whole battalions of these Special Reserves in the field, the training would be too short, but in the recent war the Japanese showed successfully that very short trained men can be put into the fighting line provided they are put in one by one aid not as units. The Japanese were able to use men with only four weeks training. Our Special Reservists will supply substitutes for a good deal of the wastage in war, and will supply in a large measure individual drafts for their own regiments. The Japanese war taught that six months trained men can be well relied upon for these purposes, and their further training they obtained in the progress of the campaign.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Did the Japanese take these men at the age of seventeen?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not know, I cannot answer for that, but I should be surprised if they did not. They took them where they could, and seventeen is an age at which everything turns upon the material upon which you are working. A question was raised by my hon. friend the Member for Berkshire about Lords Lieutenant and I enter with a little trepidation upon that difficult subject. The Lord Lieutenant is no doubt in a very responsible position, and it is not expedient that a man in that position should introduce party politics. At the same time I should be extremely unwilling to debar anyone in that high position who has talents in reserve; but I maintain that they should not unduly put forth the party view, and I trust that none of them will. Much criticism has been levelled against many of the things done in the course of the year. I am aware that the Department has made many mistakes. But I can only say that the mass of work which the Department had to undertake since last year has been beyond anything that can be realised. Personally I have not had a day off, neither has any member of my staff. More magnificent service

  1863
  than has been rendered by the staff of the War Office no man can wish to see. The staff have given up their holidays, they have worked over night, many have m de themselves ill through overwork; and I should be extremely ungrateful did I not acknowledge the extraordinary amount of assistance which I have received from my colleagues, and the devoted service which I have received from them.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not intend to say much on the question of Lords Lieutenant, but we did not understand when the right hon. Gentleman invited the Lords Lieutenant to assist him in this scheme, to which request they have generously responded, that one thing incidental to their responsibility would be that the right hon. Gentleman would put them in balk on the political billiard table.
  MR. HALDANE: Nothing of the kind. They have always been under that restriction.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Then I am at a loss to discover why in reply to a specific question as to whether they were or were not to take part in political questions we are told that they are not to take part "unduly." The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by answering my noble friend the Member for the Chichester Division of Sussex about divisional cavalry, and I should like to know how near the right hon. Gentleman has approached that precision of view as to organisation which he claims as the result of his efforts. The right hon. Gentleman has increased the size of a division in the Army. In old days there was a squadron at the head of each division, and now that six divisions are to be equivalent to nine divisions is that to be continued? The right hon. Gentleman has done a great injustice to his predecessors and their military advisers, because the impression left by his speech is that the soldiers at the War Office five or ten years ago had not a plan for organising the Regular Army at home. That was the impression left upon the Committee, and it was the impression which the right
  1864
  hon. Gentleman meant to leave on it. He used such words as to lead one to suppose that his notions differed toto cœlo—by a whole sky—from the notions of persons like myself, who only had the advice of the predecessors of the military advisers of the right hon. Gentleman. He said the General Staff had made a computation, apparently for the first time, that there ought to be five guns to 1,000 bayonets and sabres. I remember the computation at the War Office years ago. The ratio then was four guns to 1,000 sabres, and it was changed to five in 1898. The right hon. Gentleman, whether designedly or not, conveyed the impression that he was announcing a new plan for organising the part of the Regular Army which is at home, and that he had derived immense benefit from the advice given him by the head at the War Office—that he had listened to the soldiers, and that his plan of organisation was something totally distinct from ours. What is the difference? The difference is one entirely of name, and. it is not one of fact. We used to call it a Field Army. He calls it an expeditionary force. We used, in order to get the right proportion between the three arms, to divide it up on paper into three Army Corps. He divides it up on paper and speaks of six divisions with proper proportions of cavalry and guns. Will the House believe it? The plan of nine years ago and the plan which the right hon. Gentleman has announced as a new discovery are almost identical? The right hon. Gentleman laughs in derision. I want to be quite scrupulous, but does it matter what you call it? We said "There are seventy five battalions in England. It is right to organise them, and we will organise them into Army Corps made up into nine divisions." The right hon. Gentleman says, "I will have seventy four battalions. He gets rid of one, and one only, by an alteration of nomenclature. That is all. Did not the right hon. Gentleman say yesterday that his expeditionary force was to have seventy four battalions of infantry?
  MR. HALDANE: Certainly not, I said seventy four battalions at home to correspond with the seventy four battalions abroad, and out of that sixty six

  1865
  Infantry and six of Guards formed the expeditionary force.
  MR. WYNDHAM: That is seventy two. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The difference is seventy two in his plan and seventy five in our plan, three more. It is explained by the fact that he talks of six divisions, and we talk of three Army Corps. That accounts for the three extra battalions. We talked of four cavalry brigades, twelve regiments. So does he. We said in that addition to them you needed six more. He says that in addition to his four cavalry brigades he requires four cavalry regiments and two regiments of Mounted Infantry, or eighteen in all. Thus you have seventy five and seventy two in the case of the Infantry and eighteen and eighteen in the case of the Cavalry. We said: "Then you ought to have fifty four batteries of regularly trained Field Artillery." These are the same in the right hon. Gentleman's plan. They are the same plans. Our plan broke down because we had only fifty four battalions of trained Field Artillery. When it was announced, the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean assured us we were wrong. He stated that if fifty four batteries was right for the Regular Army, you ought to have Regular Field Artillery for Militia and Volunteers as well.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: That is perfectly true, but I had advocated trying experiments of mixed Field Artillery to replace your Regular Field Artillery in proportion to your Volunteers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Anybody is prepared to consider and even to try those experiments. The predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman tried them and others. They tried having a certain number of short service men in the Artillery in order to create an Army. Plan and plan they are the same. Our plan failed, perhaps more conspicuously in the case of the Artillery than in any other part, and it failed because we had not enough trained Artillery. The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to divert thirty three of these trained batteries which do exist in order to make men for ammunition columns. The need for great ammunition columns is a
  1866
  somewhat new factor. Rapidity of firing has been developed since the period of which I am speaking. The necessity for howitzer batteries as well as field batteries is also in a measure a new factor. It was the plan of the period before the war to have fifty four batteries of regularly trained Artillery. We were raising them; they were not complete when the war broke out. I am not saying we had completed our plan, and. the right hon. Gentleman is the last to say he has completed his plan. I say there is no new light or vision in his plan. I say we failed in artillery because our plan did not provide enough. There was a debate during the darkest period of the war, and I said you ought not to charge soldiers at the War Office with defects which could be attributed to the settled scheme of the Government. Our scheme was for fifty four batteries. That is the settled scheme of the right, hon. Gentleman, I hope he will abandon it before it is put to the test as our scheme was. He proposes to withdraw thirty three batteries to make the ammunition columns. Is that a wise way of bringing in the Militia element in your service? That brings me to the question of the Special Reserve of Artillery and Infantry. We know what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of depots and provisional battalions, because he described them when speaking; last week—
  "The costly machinery of provisional battalions and depots to my mind is a most wasteful way of training soldiers and providing for drafts."
  Why is it wasteful to train soldiers and provide for drafts in the normal course by that method, and wise and economic when they are to be exposed to the far more terrible ordeal of going straight into the line without ever having been drilled in units by officers whom they know, and beside comrades whom they trust? The right hon. Gentleman dismisses and justly dismisses the system of depots and provisional battalions as a. means for finding drafts for the Regular Army in time of peace. But, supposing he used for that purpose men who came out; of these depots and provisional battalions, who would go into the unit, would remain in it for seven years, would then pass to the Reserve, and if called out in

  1867
  time of war would be a tried article. If he did that, you may say the tried article would be an expensive article. Yes; but it would be one upon which you could put your trust. The right hon. Gentleman is going to set up 101 depots, which are more or less provisional battalions, in order to supply the wastage of war. He says it is of no consequence and we need not trouble our minds over the fact that hose who enter these depots and provisional battalions are only to be seventeen years old. He says the value of a soldier in terms of age depends on the climate in which he has to serve. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to arrange where the next war is going to be—because if he cannot settle that it shall not be in a tropical country or in a country exposed to the hardships of a Northern winter, the whole of that argument falls to the ground. We want the Committee to understand that at the moment the right hon. Gentleman is holding up and raising the standard of recruiting for the Army he is opening 101 back doors through which he will admit any boy of seventeen who is short of a job. He is going to teach him for six months in the winter, rot in a battalion at all, but with some pro p c of having a battalion n the summer, if the English summer does not set in with its usual severity, and these men he looks towards in order to make good the wastage of war. Of course he docs not look toward them in order to have a mobile unit. He has disclaimed that intention. But was it worth while to scrap 123 battalions of Militia in order to open 101 cheap recruiting shops? I do not wish to press the matter, but those who heard the right hon. Gentleman suggest that he and his military advisers, and they alone, had taken a scientific view of the best way to organise the regular Army at home, will excuse me if I point out that our plan broke down because it was not big enough, and his will break down for the same reason, and that at the other end, the citizen end of our forces, his Territorial Force is the Volunteers and Yeomanry re named, and that in the middle he has scrapped the Militia in order to make the very kind of military organisation which he most detests and holds up to the contumely of the nation.
  MR LUPTONsaid he had listened humbly and with the utmost respect, and he hoped with some profit, to the speeches of the Secretary of state and others. He would like to put in a few remarks from the point of view of a man who did not pretend to be an expert, but an ordinary taxpayer who wanted to see what he got for his money. The King had under his orders altogether about 1,300,000 men trained for war, who were available in one part or another of the Empire for its defence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover said we were short of men. He wondered how many men we ought to have if 1,300,000 was not enough. It struck him as being a very great number. As to the statement made by the Secretary of State, he had listened with the utmost pleasure to his very eloquent explanation of the evil results following from borrowing money. But he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had intimated that where a large outlay was required for some new development it might be wise to borrow money. He, as a plain business man, would suggest that when they had the money themselves it was never wise to borrow from anyone else. It was always bad finance. It was only good finance to borrow when they did not intend to, or knew they could never, repay. Then the more they borrowed the better. If they were going to repay eventually it was shocking bad finance. We were now paying nearly £28,000,000 a year because our ancestors had not the courage to put on a 3s. 6d. income tax and pay their way as they went along. He hoped a 3s. 6d. income tax would be put on the next time we went to war, and would come down to the lowest wage earner in the Kingdom, and the war would not last very long. They knew that as a striking force the Army was absolutely useless for any Continental war. For what purpose did we keep it? If we kept it for the purpose of taking part in any Continental war we must at once proceed to organise an Army of at least 2,000,000 men. The tendency now a days was to increase the size of armies. Japan sent 1,000,000 men into Manchuria, and if we were going to place ourselves on the Continent against any armies of France or Germany

  1869
  or Russia it would be absurd to think of sending a single man until we knew we had 2,000,000 men trained, and supplied with corresponding armament. He had always understood that our Fleet would save our shores, and save us from destruction while we were preparing a suitable Army to do the work we had made up our minds to do. If that point was admitted, what was our Army for? Whom did hon. Members want to fight? Let them mike up their minds; was it France, Germany or Russia? When they had decided they could then proceed, in a businesslike way to prepare a suitable Army. In the meantime let them save the nations money. He took it that our Army was wanted to send to the Colonies and to India, and for similar purposes. His view was that 100,000 men thoroughly well trained would be ample for any purposes of defence which this country might require. He was quite willing to pay for that number. He would like to know why they required a bigger force now than the Conservative Government provided before the late Boer War. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked the question why the Government wanted more men than were considered necessary ten years ago. At the present time no scare monger was clever enough to make the country believe that Russia could endanger India unless she constructed a double line of railway through the mountains, and all the time Russia was doing that this country could prepare and arm 1,000,000 men ready to meet and destroy an invading force on the plains of India. Russia having been disposed of, principally by treaties, to maintain a great force to fight this imaginary danger on the North West frontier of India was a great waste of money. The hon. Member for the City of London suggested that perhaps he had not read the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for War, but he had read that document. Why was it necessary to keep such a large Army in India. When the Indian railways were first made one of the bargains entered into was that they would be able to reduce the number of troops in India. Those railways had now been constructed and in the course of a day or two a large Army could be concentrated in any part of
  1870
  India. At the time of the Mutiny a Hindu gunsmith, or brass founder could make muskets and cannons as good as ours, but now our troops were armed with weapons four times as deadly as any that the natives could produce. On that ground alone our Indian Army might safely be reduced to 30,000 men, as far as our white Army was concerned. Nevertheless we continued to keep in India the same number of troops. It should not be overlooked that we also possessed much more rapid steamers today by which we could convey troops to India very quickly through the Suez Canal. Another reason for reducing the number of the Indian Army was that millions of poor Hindus were being starved to death in order to keep up this vast Army. [Cries of "No, no."] He repeated starved to death. It had been said by one of the hon. members for one of the Divisions of Leicester, that we could easily reduce our Colonial Forces, and the Secretary of State for War had said the same thing. By reducing the Forces maintained at the present time in South Africa they could get a reduction of 10,000 men from those Colonies alone. The 16,000 men at present kept in South Africa were really in danger of being taken prisoners of war because they were not sufficient to cause a moment's fear to those brave men who fought against us in the South African War. Therefore the fewer troops they had in South Africa the fewer hostages they would risk leaving in the hands of a possible enemy. A great many criticisms had been passed upon the right hon. Gentleman, but however much they complained, they could not get a sufficient reduction. [OPPOSITION cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they came into power, would re gathered from the speeches from the front bench add £5,000,000 to the Army Estimates, and so he did not want to see them in office He hoped the Committee would not be led away by the false idea that they saved themselves by being always ready for war. It had been said that the great cost of the South African War was due to the fact that they had not enough troops in readiness. The contrary was the fact, the Government were able to take 10,000 men from India to threaten the Boer frontier and so

  1871
  precipitate the war, they also had 80,000 men ready to despatch to the aid of the 20,000 troops already there, and were thus able to threaten war without the previous sanction of Parliament. But for this unfortunate readiness the war would never have been begun, and this country would have been saved £500,000,000 of money. We conquered the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, and now they had very wisely given it away again. For the defence of the country we wanted the great Territorial Force which was being built up under the new scheme. He would be in favour of doubling it, and the cost of so doing could be met out of the saving which would be effected if the Regular Army were reduced to 100,000 men. He ridiculed the suggestion that this Territorial Force could not hold its own against regular soldiers. The reading of history contradicted that assertion. When the American Colonists rebelled we sent against them the best disciplined Army in Europe, but they were defeated by a lot of American farmers. The same thing happened recently in South Africa. We sent a highly disciplined Army of 80,000 men under General Buller, and they were hopelessly defeated by 20,000 Boers. These facts showed that a citizen Army could hold their own against a mercenary Army. The Territorial Force if large enough and properly led, organised, and equipped, would make it impossible for any foreign foe to have any chance whatever in trying to subdue this country. He would say that the Navy could be reduced by a half if we had these Volunteers, and then they would have money for old age pensions and many other things. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he wanted to hold his hand in regard to the rifle. What a good thing it would have been if he had done that two years ago, in regard to the last new rifle. A good deal of money would have been saved then if he had done so. An hon. Member had stated that the artillery had covered itself with glory in South Africa. Glory indeed! 400,000 troops fully equipped with every weapon against 40,000 farmers old, young, and middle aged; where was the glory? He had no doubt it could cover itself with glory
  1872
  if it met a foe equal in number and equipment, but what happened in South Africa was not his idea of military glory. The right hon. Gentleman need not spend £4,000,000 a year on officers. Many men were glad to go shooting at their own expense. It was said that they could not live on 6s. or 7s. a day. He could find any number of young men with all the qualities necessary to make good officers who would be glad to be officers in the Army at 7s. a day. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not get them. That was because of the bad system. It was necessary to make it compulsory for all the officers to go through the ranks; then all would be "rankers," and no false pride would prevent young men joining with a good prospect of a commission after a few years' service. With an improved system there would be no difficulty in getting plenty of good officers, and the right hon. Gentleman would be able to reduce the officers' pay and pensions by at least £2,000,000 a year. The money so saved could be devoted to doubling the Territorial Army.
  MR. GRETTONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had said something about the duty of the Chairman of the County Associations under his scheme not taking part unduly in party politics.
  MR. HALDANEwas understood to say that they should not as a rule take a prominent part in party politics in their own county.
  MR. GRETTONsaid he thought that that was rather a remarkable statement, considering that there were hon. Members in the present Administration who were Lords Lieutenant of counties, and therefore Chairmen of the County Associations, and there was also an hon. Baronet who sat for the count of Norfolk who took a part continually in party politics. There were also distinguished Members in the other House who were lords lieutenant of counties, and who took part in party politics. It seemed, however, that the right hon. Gentleman thought that if hon. Members in this House or the Upper House took part in party politics they were not to

  1873
  hide their opinions when they went into other counties than their own. He did not wish to pursue the subject, however, because he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken hastily and unguardedly. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on a point as to which there seemed to be some doubt, viz., what were the conditions on which officers could join the Territorial Force?
  MR. HALDANE: Under the Act, they will become officers by Commission.
  MR. GRETTONsaid that that was what he thought himself, but there had been some doubt about it, and he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for clearing up the point.
  SIR IVOR HERBERTasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  2. £1,743,000, Half Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non Effective Charges.
  3. £1,782,000, Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non Commissioned Officers, Men, and others.
  4. £167,000, Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate Allow ances, and Gratuities.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes before Eleven 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;—Madras Railway Company (Annuities).
Also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Argentine North Eastern Railway [H.L.]
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Alliance and other Assurance and Insurance Companies Bill [H.L.]; Leith Burgh Bill [H.L.]; and the West London Barnes, and Richmond Tramways Bill [H.L.]; ought to be dispensed with, and the Bills allowed to proceed.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Camborne Water Bill; ought to be dispensed with.
That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Croydon and Southern District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; and the London and Windsor Motor Roads, Tramroads, and Tramways Bill it [H.L.]; ought not to be dispensed with.
Read, and agreed to.
Great Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 19th and 26th of February last discharged, and Bill committed.
Huddersfield Water Bill [H.L.]; Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899;—Report from the
1658
Committee of Selection, that the following Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to Act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—E. Mansfield, L. Kintore, (E. Kintore); agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PROBATION OF OFFENDERS.
  Memorandum issued by the Home Office relative to the administration of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, containing the rules made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under section 7 of the Act.

  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION OF CARTRIDGES ON REGISTERED PREMISES.)
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an explosion of cartridges which occurred on the registered premises of Messrs. F. Dyke and Company, at 5, St. George's Avenue, Aldermanbury, E. C, on 1st January 1908.
  Presented [by command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
  Message from the Commons, That they concur in the Resolution of this House communicated to them on Thursday last, that it is desirable that the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill [H.L.] be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament as desired by this House.
NEW BILL.
  EDUCATION (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to raise the minimum age of exemption from attendance at School to thirteen; was presented by the Lord Stanley of Alderley; read 1a; and to be printed (No 27.)

  THE STRENGTH OF THE ARMY.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONrose to call attention to the strength of the Army at home; and to move for any Minute of the Army Council approving the further reduction in the numbers of the Regular

  1659
  Artillery, and the Report for 1907 of the late Inspector-General of the Forces, so far as it affects "the training and efficiency of the troops under the control of the Home Government, and the readiness and fitness of the Army for war."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, after the discussions which your Lordships have heard in the course of this year on the present state of the various forces of the Crown I should have hesitated to come before you again or in any way to re-traverse the ground which has already been so admirably trodden by the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Bedford) on behalf of the Militia and by many noble Lords on behalf of the Volunteers; but I have a genuine fear, for which I think I can show good reason, that the attention of the public and of His Majesty's Government is, by the great interest shown in the organisation of the Territorial Forces, being deflected to the Auxiliary Forces from the most important part of our Forces, the Regular Army. I do not know that it is sufficiently realised that the Regular Army has more need for advocates than the Territorial Army. From time immemorial the tongues of officers have been tied. There is no officer on full pay who, as a rule, will get up in this House or in the other House of Parliament and speak on the condition of the Army; equally officers to a large extent are prevented by their position from taking part in campaigns in the Press, or other methods of directing public attention to the subject, and, in that respect, they are in an absolutely different position from officers of the Auxiliary Forces.
  From my own experience extending over many years in another place I know that it has fallen to the Secretary of State, and very often to the Secretary of State alone, to maintain the necessity for expenditure on the Army, and to resist the large demands made upon him on behalf of the Auxiliary Forces. Looking at the position to-day, instead of having the Secretary of State engaged on that mission, we have him in nearly all of his occasional utterances in the country drawing the public mind away from the Regular Army, his references to which are an oasis, and not always a brilliant oasis, in the desert of references to the Territorial Forces, about which he speaks with trumpet sounds of certainty, but with regard to which I think perhaps a more
  1660
  chastened tone would, at this early stage of its existence, be more justifiable. Let it be understood that I do not propose to trespass for one moment upon your attention with regard to any portion of the Forces except the Regular Army. I can say for myself, and for every noble Lord sitting on these benches, that we will, as far as our power and capacity lie, either in our respective counties or outside, do our very best to make the Territorial Forces a success; but when, at the invitation of the Secretary of State, we are up on the scaffolding trying to do our best to erect an edifice, we have a right to complain that the props of the scaffolding are being cut away—I mean the Regular Army—on which the whole edifice must depend, I am not using too strong language, as I think I shall be able to show. I am not going back upon the past. I am not going to speak of any other schemes than Mr. Haldane's, and I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a number of figures.
  I assert broadly that, whereas a great reduction of expenditure with a minimum reduction of force was promised us two years ago, what we have got has been a great reduction of the strength of the Army and a minimum reduction of expenditure. The Secretary of State specifically calls attention, in his Memorandum, to the fact that the Regular Army is only 6,000 stronger than in 1898, before the war. In fact, the Memorandum is full of apologies that the Army is not even weaker than it was before the war. How much has there been of increase in the expenditure? While there is a gain of 6,000 men, the expenditure is £7,000,000 more than in 1898. This document is remarkable for other things which are not contained in it. Mr. Haldane takes credit to himself for having reduced the Estimates by £2,300,000 since his predecessor left office. There is no mention in the Memorandum of this fact, that in the last year of Mr. Arnold-Forster's period of office £1,200,000 was being spent on the rearmament of the Artillery, a service which has come to an end after four or five years of heavy expenditure. Deducting the £1,200,000 due to the completion of the armament of Artillery, the saving is, therefore, roughly £1,000,000.

  1661
  And what have we lost for that million? I take the figures as they appeared unchallenged the other day in a letter of the late Secretary of State. We have lost, in establishment, between 1905 and 1908, 423 Regular officers, 2,400 sergeants, =and 33,500 rank and file. The Reserve, which alone enables the Army to mobilise, will be decreased by 17,000 men in 1909 and by 10,000 more in 1910. We have lost a whole Army corps and gained a million, of money! I go back to 1898, because that is the pivot of Mr. Haldane's Remarks. Why was the Army raised in numbers in that year? It was not raised in a panic. It was not raised from any idea that war was at the time expected, because in 1897, when we began, we were not even within sight of the South African war. It certainly was not raised in a hurry, because it had been sunder discussion for many years, and for many months by the then Government. It was raised when my noble friend Lord Lansdowne took the office of Secretary of State for War, and it was raised then because for years, as I can myself testify, the pressure of every soldier of experience had been brought to bear on successive Governments to prove that without more battalions you were not able to provide adequate drafts, that the strength of a battalion at 720 did not enable it to provide drafts and to mobilise, that therefore the strength of the battalions should be raised to 800, that our Artillery was weaker than that of any Army in Europe, and that we were greatly deficient in officers and had no proper reserve of stores.
  My noble friend Lord Lansdowne took the view that we were bound to provide the number of men and the number of units which our military advisers said were necessary to complete the policy of the Cabinet. I think, even on financial grounds, that was wise. It is obvious that we are not striving to have an Army which will compete with Continental Armies; but the richest nation in Europe ought surely to have the same proportion of picked troops in its Army as much poorer nations with much larger Armies succeed in having. That is the reason why I shall direct your Lordships' attention to the case of the Artillery. What did Lord Lansdowne do? He added fifteen battalions to the Army. Nine of them have been
  1662
  disbanded by Mr. Haldane, and more are threatened. He raised the strength of the battalions at home from 720 to 800 to enable them to provide drafts and to mobilise. They have been reduced by the present Secretary of State to 720. He raised between fifty and sixty batteries of Artillery. Thirty-three of these are to be reduced into training depôts, and 2,400 more Artillerymen are to be discharged. In regard to officers, he raised the establishment by no fewer than 1,000. A reduction of nearly 500 has been effected by the present Secretary of State. He raised £ 10,000,000 worth of stores. It is very difficult to make out from the Estimates whether the stores taken for the year are in every case equivalent to -the expenditure of the year; but discussions have taken place, especially last year, in another place, which were by no means reassuring as to whether the stores laid in by the late Administration have not been heavily drawn upon and not replaced, especially in the matter of clothing.
  And what is the condition of the Army at the present moment? The Paper which the Government were good enough to place on the Table of the House on my Motion a month ago is now in the hands of the public, and I venture to say that a more disquieting document has never been laid on the Table of Parliament as to the present strength of the Home Army. I know I shall be told that the condition of the Army at home is due to the large efflux of men to the Reserve under the three years system. That has something to do with it, but by no means all. In the first place, your Lordships are aware that all the men from eight battalions which have been disbanded have been distributed among other battalions, and therefore in the last year 6,400 men have become available to swell the total of the remaining battalions. Four or five battalions have been brought home from the Colonies, and they also go to strengthen the Home Army. In regard to the Colonies, I will not diverge to say anything as to these reductions in garrisons, except this, that I venture to warn the Government that the garrisons both of Malta and Gibraltar have been brought down to a remarkable extent, and if we are to calculate on having seventy-four battalions at home in future, and that

  1663
  calculation is based on the present garrisons in the Mediterranean, to say nothing of South Africa, I think it more probable that in the next two or three years the balance of battalions will be disturbed than kept as at present. But I will not labour that point.
  I have made a careful study of the White Paper. The strength of the Home battalion ought to be 720; in the White Paper the average strength is at present 580. To mobilise the battalions of the Regular Army it has always been held that you ought to have 500 soldiers with the colours and then bring in 500 Reservists. The strength of these battalions, after taking off men under 20 years of age or under one year's service, though not both, because many are included in both columns—after deducting the least number the strength of these battalions for mobilisation is 330 a piece, and from that number you have to take away the sick and those temporarily unable to go abroad, which will bring the figure down to nearly 300. You must bring 700 Reservists into a battalion of that strength, and I ask what is the state of a battalion which may be engaged in active operation in a few days which contains only 300 men with the colours and 700 brought in, most of whom will have been away from the colours some years?
  Take the total force. The Secretary of State talked last year of 28,000 men being required with the colours and 48,000 Reservists when mobilisation occurred; but at the present moment the number that could be produced is only 22,000 men with the colours and we require 48,000 Reservists. That is a most astonishing condition of things for a force, the fighting capacity of which, according to the Secretary of State, has been increased by 50 per cent. Then let us look at individual battalions. There is no secret about them. The Durham Light Infantry, one of the best regiments in the Service, if paraded to-day for foreign service would stand at seventy-six strong. The 60th and the Rifle Brigade could each only make up one battalion from the two at home. I am informed, though I have not been able to verify this absolutely, that when the German Emperor was in London and troops were required to line the streets, one of the First Brigades at Aldershot,
  1664
  the first Brigade to go abroad on active service, sent up every man it could, and the whole brigade of four battalions was only 982 strong. I say that that requires-some explanation from His Majesty's Government.
  What I believe has greatly affected the position has been the disbandment of popular regiments. I hear that officers in the Northumberland Fusiliers belonging: to the disbanded battalion have been ordered to join the Somerset Light Infantry; but you cannot remove men in this way as you can officers. I was struck the other day by the remark of a Member of the Cabinet to the effect that, all they had done was to disband useless battalions. Of one of the battalions reduced and denounced as a useless battalion, a Report on the Army Rifle; Meeting last year in Ireland stated—
  "The team of the 4th Battalion Royal Warwicksh re Regiment, soon to be disbanded, were rightly honoured as they came up, time-after time, to receive the cups which their-splendid efficiency had gained for them. Of the twelve trophies put up for competition; among dismounted troops of all arms, this fine battalion has won no fewer than seven."
  That battalion was disbanded a few months afterwards. I saw myself two battalions in the finest condition in South Africa; they were sent home to be disbanded. It cannot be said that that, is an encouragement to recruiting. Mr. Haldane recently stated in another place that the class of recruits was so improved, owing to the increased pay and better conditions of service established by the last Government, that the-military authorities could pick and choose among them. If that be so, I cannot help wishing that the picking and choosing had not been carried so far as to reduce these fine battalions to skeletons.
  The Army at home was, twelve years ago, compared by Lord Wolseley to "squeezed lemons." That appellation describes every battalion in the list now lying upon this Table. The Army at home is absolutely melting away under the influence of these restrictions; and if the present Secretary of State for War were to cast up his account with the British public with regard to the British Infantry at this moment, he would be justified in doing it in the terms of the Irish veterinary surgeon, who sent in a bill "for curing your pony till he died." We have been told by Mr. Haldane that

  1665
  we should require 5,000 extra officers in case of mobilisation. It seems an extraordinary way of meeting that situation, to make a reduction of 500 trained officers. I know there is an elaborate scheme by which young men from the Universities and public schools are to be employed as a Reserve of officers, after having obtained a certain certificate from the Territorial Army. I hope that certificate is going to be a high one. Before I left Eton I was fortunate enough to obtain a certificate that I was fit to command a battalion in the field; and all I say is that, even if that battalion had been only of the strength of the Durham Light Infantry, I would have been very sorry for it.
  The case of the Infantry is not the worst. I do not speak in any way as a military critic. I am only repeating what I have heard under the stress of twelve years' service in the War Office. I have always heard it said that if you have the cadres and the officers, you can improvise regiments of Infantry with comparative quickness. But Artillery cannot be improvised. What is the state of our Artillery? We have ninety-nine batteries of Artillery and howitzers at home. Their general strength is about 100, but when mobilised they require 183 men. So that beyond Reservists men will have to be filched from the lower batteries to fill up the higher sent abroad. I cannot help feeling the fallacy put forward by the Secretary of State, who said he came into the damnosa hereditas of ninety-nine batteries of Artillery, of which he could only mobilise forty-two. The statement is disingenuous, for the batteries had just been created and had not had time to pass Reservists through. Since then the Reserve has risen by 4,000 or 5,000 men and is still growing.
  The idea is that sixty-six batteries are to be sent abroad in proper strength; thirty-three batteries will remain, whose strength is to be reduced by 2,400 men—or about fifty-five per battery. This deficiency will be made up by boys under twenty and Special Reservists, with less than eight months training. The only Regular batteries available against the picked Artillery of any European Power for the protection of England against invasion would thus be batteries manned one-fifth by Regulars and four-fifths by partially-trained men
  1666
  and boys. I do not wish to go into the vexed question of invasion, but the Secretary of State for War last night in another place, when asked what would happen when the sixty-six batteries had gone abroad, made this astonishing reply—
  "Why should there be anything left? Why-shall we require them? We shall not send them abroad if there is any danger of invasion."
  We had a force of fifty-seven batteries of artillery in South Africa, and will any noble Lord say that during the whole of the time those batteries were out of the country we were free from the danger of invasion? There is no time when it is more necessary for the Government to pull its resources together than when the whole of the Army is abroad.
  What is military opinion on this subject? I have over and over again heard Lord Wolseley give his opinion on partially-trained Artillery. It is his view, and I believe the view of the noble and gallant Field Marshal, who I hope will speak in this debate, that partially-trained Artillery cannot stand before Regular Artillery. Take the battle of Tsusima, which military critics are citing with regard to this effect of accurate shooting and training of Artillery. One could not fail to observe the terrible effect which even a slight difference of training made on the Russian ships; they found themselves struck time after time while their own shots went just wide enough to make the difference. A little while ago Captain Vincent, at the United Service Institution, after fifteen months with the Japanese Army, stated—
  "Partially-trained batteries, like partially-trained battleships, are only a danger to their own side."
  That is a strong pronouncement, and Sir Ian Hamilton, who was in the chair, and who was himself in Manchuria the whole time, agreed that such batteries are a danger to their own side "if they are expected to hold their own, gun for gun, against Regular Artillery." He added that three or four of these partially, trained batteries might be pitted against one trained battery, and hold their own.
  Have we come to this in this country that, when we have sent our expeditionary force abroad, we shall only have remaining Artillery which, unless it is three or four times as numerous as that of the

  1667
  enemy, will be incapable of holding its own I Can it not be realised what the danger is if we put such Artillery against the picked Artillery of the greatest Powers in the world? In words which I think I have heard from Lord Wolseley, the result would be either a shambles or a sauve qui peut. What I venture to ask the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War is, Who is responible for the advice to get rid of these 2,400 Artillery and to employ partially-trained batteries after the expeditionary force has gone 11 wish to press that question. I have had some experience of military advice at the War Office. The question of Volunteer Artillery was brought up over and over again, and I have heard officers describe its use as a serious waste of public money. I myself pressed the War Office Council when the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the cross benches was Commander - in - Chief, in the interest of economy, as to whether the last thirty or forty batteries could possibly be put on a lower establishment, and the whole of my military advisers told me that it was impossible.
  Not long after, the question arose of substituting a long service for the three years colour service. The three years colour service was maintained because of the Reserve which it was going to create. That has been done away with. I remember also that in the time of my successor, Mr. Arnold Forster, the question arose whether fifteen months service would be sufficient to train infantry, and great difficulties were put forward by the military advisers against that period being adopted; but to-day we are told that six months service or eight months with the two trainings will be enough for the Artillery. I am not asking for any secrets to be divulged. The condition of our Artillery is known to every Artillery officer in this country; it is known to every foreign military attache in London, and it is perfectly well known to the German General Staff. It is equally well known to, and is often made the subject of comment and sometimes of ridicule, by every military critic in Europe.
  I ask, who advised the Secretary of State? On what military advice does he rely? There is one officer on the present Army Council who was on the Army Council which advised me—I mean Sir
  1668
  W. Nicholson. He was, I think, not there when this step was resolved upon two years ago. There is no officer of greater experience and knowledge in the Army. I would ask the noble Earl, does Sir W. Nicholson think the Regular Artillery is-capable of a reduction by 2,400menl Does. Sir W. Nicholson consider that batteries made up as these last thirty-three batteries are to be made up are fit to be-pitted against the best batteries of a Continental Power? I think I have a right-to ask that question. I should like to> inquire the opinion also of another officer who is a member of the Defence Committee. General Sir John French is an officer who is recognised by everyone as-capable of taking the highest command in war. I know this subject must have come before the Defence Committee Is he in favour of the reduction I If these two officers—the Chief of the General Staff and the Commander-in-Chief at Aldershot—are not. in favour of the reduction, I would ask. whether it is to be regarded as having, been made simply in the interests of economy.
  With regard to the infantry, I cannot help thinking, also, that we have some right to know the opinion of the Inspector-General. The Secretary of State said a few nights ago in the House of Commons that the expeditionary force would contain 61,000 men serving with the colours. A few moments afterwards, I think through a slip, he spoke of 68,000 men serving with the colours. But I will take the lower figure.? cannot, putting the best face upon it, make out that more than 35,000> men serving with the colours could go into the expeditionary force. But the Secretary of State wants 61,000. I wish to know whether the Inspector-General of the Forces, who reviewed all these battalions last year, is satisfied with the-condition of the expeditionary force. The duties of the Inspector-General were laid down by rules at the War Office-four years ago. He is to report to the Army Council upon the training and efficiency of the troops under the control of the Home Government, and generally/ on the readiness and fitness of the Army for war.
  The famous triumvirate on whose report the office of Inspector-General was created went a good deal further than

  1669
  this. They said that he was to be the eyes and ears of the Army Council. They represented him as being to the Army Council and to the public what the auditor of a company is to the shareholders. He has nothing to do with policy; he deals simply with facts—to see whether the securities are there, which the directors have had in their charge. I ask, Are there at Aldershot and elsewhere the securities which the Army Council have tried to persuade the country are in their charge? Have the practical results of the policy of the Army Council been such as to satisfy the Inspector-General? I will not labour that point, but I will just say one word with regard to the possible remedy.
  It is not our businesses on this side of the House to suggest remedies, but I do most earnestly commend to the consideration of the War Office the re-adoption, to a limited extent, of some system of short service. I do not ask them to disturb their own conclusions in a single particular. I merely ask that these batteries and battalions at home which have had their establishments reduced should have added, say, in the case of battalions, 100 men, and in the case of batteries fifty men each—men of whom you ask a higher standard of age, education, and physique, and who for that higher standard may have the privilege of joining for three years and going for nine years to the Reserve. This would, no doubt, entail an additional 10,000 men, at an expenditure of less than half a million of money; but you would get efficiency, and I press the proposal on the Government very earnestly.
  Before I sit down I should like to make an appeal to the noble Earl to enter into the policy which I have endeavoured to put before him in a broad-minded spirit, and not to content himself with reading to us a large number of details. His expositions of late seem hardly to have that individual strength or force to which we were accustomed when he was in a position of greater freedom. He has confined himself to typewritten documents. I remember him first at Oxford. He was then a fluent and adventurous public speaker, and when I have heard him at other times he has never lacked fire and force. I hope that he will return to those more generous methods in dealing with these questions, which are put forward with no desire to
  1670
  elicit merely figures, but to elicit some expression of policy in the direction we are aiming. I can assure your Lordships that I have no partisan or personal bias whatever in regard to the suggestions I have brought before the Government. But I resent deeply the continued reiteration by the Secretary of State of the fallacy that he has strengthened the Artillery by largely reducing the number of Regulars in it. I think the noble Earl ought to explain what is meant by the statement that fifty per cent. has been added to our military strength when we cannot mobilise our best battalions.
  I think, also, that the noble Earl ought to realise that the first statement of this. Government when they took office was that they found the Army in a fine condition of efficiency, but needing better organisation. I say that that fine condition of efficiency has been frittered away in the process of improving the organisation. The Government found battalions which could be mobilised, and they have reduced them into a position in which they cannot be mobilised. They found an Army ready for war, but, if they proceed with further reductions and do not take steps to keep up the Reserves—which under their present system must be further considerably reduced—in a few years the Army will have become an Army to which peace will be a necessity. It is with a firm conviction that the present condition of the Army is a serious national danger that I ask the earnest attention of your Lordships to this matter.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for any Minute of the Army Council approving the further reduction in the numbers of the Regular Artillery, and the Report for 1907 of the late Inspector-General of the Forces so far as it affects "the training and efficiency of the troops under the control of the Home Goverment, and the readiness and fitness of the Army for war."—(Viscount Midleton.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, I was amused at the somewhat good-natured banter of my noble friend opposite, who complained that it was my misfortune, in dealing with military matters, to have to avail

  1671
  myself very largely of notes. I confess that, representing a highly technical Department like the War Office, I have felt it my duty to rely upon notes for details; and I am afraid that this afternoon I shall be obliged, if I am to place your Lordships in full posession of the facts, to enter very largly into matters of detail.
  Before dealing with the two points raised by the noble Lord, I must, as a matter of courtesy, reply to the two personal questions he has addressed to me and of which he gave me notice in a private letter. He intimated that he would press me to speak specifically as to whether General Sir W. Nicholson, who was a member of the Army Council when the resolution to reduce the Artillery was arrived at, approved of that reduction. As a matter of fact, Sir W. Nicholson became a member of the Army Council on December 17 or 18, and I think Mr. Haldane was appointed Secretary of State about a week before that. Having received the letter from the noble Lord, I felt it my duty to see Sir W. Nicholson myself, and he wished me to state to the House, should the question be raised by the noble Lord, that he, as a member of the Army Council at the time when this subject was considered, accepted the fullest responsibility for the decision arrived at. As a matter of fact, there was no minute dealing with the matter. There was considerable discussion at various meetings of the Council, and it was dealt with as a part of the whole scheme.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Would the noble Earl give us the terms of the decision? I presume a matter which had been frequently discussed at the Army Council would be made the subject of a resolution.
  The EARL of PORTSMOUTH: There is no formal resolution on the subject. Then the noble Lord asks me a question as to the opinion of General Sir John French. Now, I have the highest possible respect for the opinion of Sir John French on any question connected with the Army. I recognise his distinguished position; I know the immense service he has rendered; but when the noble Lord presses the opinion of Sir John French upon me, not as a private individual, not as a
  1672
  gallant soldier, but as a member of the Defence Committee, then I must protest against the doctrine that seems to underlie the statement the noble Lord has made. I remind the noble Lord that the Army Council is a body responsible for the efficiency of the Army, and4f any member of the Army Council upon a matter of importance, such as this in relation to the Artillery, finds himself unable to concur with the Secretary of State, it is recognised by all the members of the Council that it would be the duty of that member to resign his position on the Council.
  With regard to the Defence Committee, I would remind my noble friend of a discussion that took place in the House of Commons on May 11, 1905, and I will give your Lordships the view of the constitutional functions and position of the Committee of Defence as laid down by an authority of weight—Mr. Balfour. Mr Balfour stated "that it was not a new Executive Department. It is not an Executive but a Consultative Committee, and," said Mr. Balfour—
  "If the Committee were to be treated as a Court of Appeal—and some hon. Gentlemen had endeavoured to say as much—against the decisions come to in their own Departments either by the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary for War, in the first place, the Committee would be hopelessly overburdened, and, in the second place, the efficiency of the Departments", which it is supposed to supervise would be destroyed, and the responsibility of the Ministers at the head of them would be absolutely shattered. It is not for us to advise, much less to determine, what type of battleship, or armoured cruiser, or field gun shall be adopted, or what military organisation or naval distribution shall be accepted by the Government, by the House, and by the country."
  The present Prime Minister at a later stage of the debate on that occasion said—
  "We are now told that the Committee of Imperial Defence has nothing to do with the organisation of the Army; that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are, of course, supreme in such matters, and that the Committee are only brought into play as a sort of Court of Appeal where the two Departments are involved. ‥ ‥ I am considerably relieved of some constitutional qualms which I have had about the functions of the Committee by hearing that account of their work."
  I do not happen to know—the noble Viscount, perhaps, does—what the opinions of Sir John French are on these matters, but with all due respect to Sir John French and his opinions, I must decline

  1673
  to be a party to having his name and authority brought into the question.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I thought I traced in the noble Earl's remarks an insinuation or suggestion that I had been in communication with Sir John French on this matter I may say that I have not communicated with either Sir W. Nicholson or Sir John French, and I do not think either of them had the least idea that I should mention their names or ask for their opinions.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I knew, as a matter of fact, that the noble Viscount had not been in communication with Sir W. Nicholson, and I did not wish to imply that he had communicated with Sir John French. I now come to the question of Artillery. I know there has been a considerable amount of apprehension in this House and elsewhere that we were tampering in some mysterious, underhand way with the Field Artillery. We have been accused of attempting to weaken it. As regards this, I would remind your Lordships that on July 24, 1906, I gave an undertaking that we would not reduce any Regular Artillery men until we had an adequate number of trained Militiamen (or Special Reservists) to take their place. That undertaking I repeated in reply to a question put to me by the noble Marquess (Lord Lansdowne) on July 2 last year. And I now assert most emphatically that we have acted up to that undertaking both in the spirit and the letter. We have not abolished a single man in the Artillery. In point of fact, the total British and Indian establishments show a slight increase. I will give a few figures to prove this. The total establishment of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery (British and Indian combined) was 29,879 on April 1, 1906; It was 29,938 on April 1, 1907, and the corresponding establishment taken in Estimates for the year beginning April 1, 1908, is a total of 30,159.
  To return now to the state of the Artillery at home. Of the 99 batteries of Field Artillery at home we found that only 42 could be mobilized, owing to the deficiency that existed to complete the ammunition columns. That is to say, we could only mobolize the Artillery requisite for four divisions. Under our proposals we hope to be in a position, by training
  1674
  Special Reservists for the ammunition column work, to mobolise the Artillery required for our expeditionary force of six divisions. It is true we have reduced the establishment in 33 batteries at home from 117 men to 52 for training purposes, but we have not abolished the men displaced in these batteries. The 2,400 effectives corresponding to the change in establishments we still retain.
  If my noble friend will look at pages 14 and 15 of the Army Estimates for 1908–9 he will see an item under the Field Artillery "Excess numbers temporarily retained"—2,404. These we will retain until the newly organised training batteries give us the much larger number of trained Special Reservists for ammunition column work and work of a similar character. To make our position clear in this important matter I may recapitulate what I stated in your Lordship's house on the 24th July, 1906, to be a settled policy. At present we have got a number of artillerymen all trained on the same high standard under the old system. If we had to mobilise to-day under the old system, we should be forced to employ on less important work of ammunition columns men just as highly trained as those who would actually tend the guns. I do not think your Lordships are aware of the great change that is necessary owing I to the new gun. The old 15-pounder necessitated a total of 305 rounds per gun to be carried by the ammunition columns. The new 18-pounder necessitates 508; besides that, the ammunition is heavier.
  The highly trained artilleryman is an expensive soldier, and if, as we propose, we can get at the cost of a single artilleryman, six or seven trained Special Reservists equally efficient for what he is called upon to do, we shall be in a position of being able, without extra cost, to have sufficient high-class gunners to be distributed amongst all our batteries in adequate numbers and a sufficient number of less highly trained men for less important work. The result will be that in each battery we shall have an adequate proportion of the highly trained gunners plus a number of men not so highly trained perhaps in the first instance, but quite capable of performing the duties assigned to them. So that, instead of having, as at present, only men for forty-two batteries all equally trained

  1675
  though allotted different duties, we shall be able to man adequately and efficiently the sixty-six batteries required for the Expeditionary Force for which we already have the guns.
  So much for the artillery. I should like now to refer to the Infantry. We fully appreciate the present serious position of the infantry battalions at home, but we must emphatically decline any responsibility for their present state. We have taken steps to remedy the existing state of affairs, which is the result of a policy inaugurated not one or two, but several years ago. Even as far back as the summer of 1905 the noble Lord's successor at the War Office realised what was to happen during the ensuing three or four years. I do not intend to indulge in any unnecessary party recriminations in this matter, and I fully appreciate my noble friend's attitude in this respect; but if we wish to analyse the causes of the present weakness we cannot overlook the history of the last ten years.
  I should like to explain as briefly as I can the conditions which all authorities are agreed upon as essential to the sound position of infantry battalions under the linked battalions, or, as it is often called, the Cardwell system. In the first place, assuming the even distribution of the linked battalions as between home and abroad, the home battalion has in peace to train recruits (after a short stay at the depot) and to supply annual drafts of men of the prescribed age and physical standard for the corresponding battalion abroad. In the next place, notwithstanding this annual drain of mature soldiers, the home battalion should still have a considerable residue of mature men to stiffen it when the Reservists are called up to join it on mobilisation. How is the home battalion enabled to accomplish this I Our aim should be that the term of colour service should be sufficiently long to secure that the men sent out in the annual drafts shall be able to spend an appreciable period (usually four years) on foreign service. Otherwise they must be replaced every year or every two years. Secondly, the annual intake of recruits should not be subject to violent fluctuations, so that men in the various periods or categories of service may be numerically as nearly equal as possible. Thirdly, the number of recruits taken annually
  1676
  should be such that when the men in any special category of service are drawn upon for the annual draft, there should still be a. residue over to keep the home battalion in a sound condition as regards mature men. Finally, my Lords, you must have continuity; you must have established such a condition of things as shall go on steadily year after year, as any dislocation has not only an immediate effect, but an effect often extending over a considerable period of years. Your Lordships will, therefore, appreciate the paramount importance of a definite and settled policy free from sudden changes in a matter of this kind.
  Now it cannot be maintained that the conditions which I have just outlined have been allowed free and undisturbed play during the past ten years. When the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne>: was at the War Office in 1898–1899 such conditions did generally obtain, and the state of the home battalions before the South African War was generally satisfactory. The period of service with the colours was seven yearn, sufficiently long; to admit of men serving in India or Colonial stations for the normal period of four years. The individuals in the battalions were evenly distributed in the various age categories of service. The recruiting was normal. The result was that when the South African War broke out the home battalions on the whole did possess a considerable amount of seasoned men to enable them, when the Reservists-were called up, to take the field as efficient battalions.
  In 1900 the noble Marquess left the War Office, and was succeeded by the noble Lord opposite. In 1902, as the troops returned from South Africa, and the Army came back to peace conditions, the noble Lord began his experiment. The period of colour service was reduced from seven to three years, and the foundations of the draft difficulty thereby laid. I am aware it was contemplated that sufficient men would be induced to extend their colour service, but this, anticipation was not fulfilled. My noble friend himself, speaking on Army Estimates on the 4th March, 1902, admitted that he was making a great, experiment, for he said—
  "lam going to ask the House to take a' great plunge as regards both terms of service and the pay of the Army."

  1677
  The shorter period of colour service necessitated voluntary extensions and a bigger annual intake of recruits. The noble Lord hoped to persuade the young men to extend their colour service by various inducements. Experience, however, has shown that these inducements did not take account of what I may call human nature. For three years the common soldier had got the benefit of good food, clothing, &c. At the age of from 21 to 25 or 26 he found the opportunities and freedom of civil life (with his sixpence a day for nine years thrown in) much more attractive than the inducements to prolong his service with the colours. He preferred to take his chance in civil life with sixpence a day rather than to remain with the colours for 1s. 6d. a day.
  My noble friend, in the speech to which I have referred, anticipated that 50,000 recruits of all arms would be forthcoming annually, and that the extensions under the improved conditions would be 50 per cent. Now, as a matter of fact, during the year October, 1903, to October, 1904, a year when his terms of service were in full swing, the total number of recruits was only 42,000, and the average extensions in the infantry never exceeded 30 per cent. I may here remark that in the opinion of the experts 70 per cent, extensions would have been necessary in the infantry, which was the important arm, to provide the drafts imperatively demanded by India and the Colonies, and also to provide a sufficient residue of seasoned men after these drafts had been drawn off.
  I should like, while on this subject, to call your Lordships' attention to the effect the three years system has had on the Indian drafts. In the first place, as the necessary number of men did not extend, our home battalions have had to be stripped year after year of every available man over 20 years of age to supply the Indian drafts. Our home battalions have thus been left depleted of seasoned men. Even with this emasculation of the home battalions we have been obliged to let India go short year after year. For instance, in addition to next year's draft of 6,700 men, which would be about the normal, we shall have to provide at least 550 more to make up the shortage consequent on our inability to supply the full quota during the
  1678
  trooping season just ended. Then, again we have been compelled to have recourse during the last few years to the most, undesirable and expensive expedient of giving lump sum bounties to men in India to extend their service there.
  These evil effects began to be felt ins 1905, and have become gradually more marked until they reached their lowest, point during the past year. We look forward to an improvement next year;, but that is duo to the fact that the three years system was definitely abandoned in November, 1904, and its effects have now exhausted themselves. We estimate the demand next year, including last year's deficit, to be about 7,600,. and henceforward we expect a steady improvement. My noble friend has, therefore, called your Lordships' attention in the Return which I laid on the Table to the strength of the home Army at a time when the effects of his terms of enlistment have just reached the climax and before the sounder system which we have, substituted has had time to produce-results. Furthermore, he has done this at the time of the year when under any system, sound or unsound, the home? battalions are of necessity weakest in. the matter of seasoned men—i.e., at the end of the trooping season, when they have just thrown off their annual drafts.
  I have no desire to trouble your Lordships with unnecessary and complicated statistics, but the draft figures for the past three or four years and our efforts to supply India's needs are very instructive. But before I give them I would like to remind your Lordships of another result of the three years system as regards the Indian drafts. Not only have we-been obliged to adopt such "heroic" remedies as the bounty, but to prevent excessive shortage we have been obliged to send out three years men who had no intention of extending and who, therefore, had only spent a year or two in India when we have been forced to bring; them back again for discharge on completion of their term. All this tended to swell the annual drafts far beyond the: normal, and to increase the cost of transport, which, even in normal circumstances; is considerable. This extra cost could not be charged to India, and the Imperial Exchequer has had to bear the brunt of it. Your Lordships will be interested to> learn, in connection with this transport

  1679
  question, that the total extra cost involved in maintaining the Army in India in consequence of the three years enlistments has been £68,000 extra transport charges and £32,000 in bounties, making a total of £100,000, of which Army Funds have had to bear £ 80,000 and India £20,000.
  I now come to the draft figures themselves. In 1896–7 we sent to India as drafts pure and simple, 7,288 men, in 1897–8 we sent 8,590, and in 1898–9 we sent 7,402, so that the average of these three years would be about 7,760 per annum. This indicates the normal drain on the home battalions at a period when the old condition of seven years colour service obtained. If we now take the period during which the effect of the three years system was felt we find some very interesting figures. In 1905–6 we sent out 8,953 men, in 1906–7 9,975 men, in 1907–8 8,586 men. The average of these three years would be about 9,000, as against the average of the earlier period of 7,760. That is a difference of 1,200 men. But that is not all. We began the year 1903–4 with a surplus of about 350 men in India, and have ended the present season, 1907–8, with a deficit of 550. That makes an additional 900 men on the wrong side. I think these figures amply prove the upsetting effects of the three years system.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Does my noble friend entirely ignore the fact that he has taken as one of his years of comparison in regard to the number of drafts to India the first year of the war, 1898–9.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I have not taken that.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: If he has not taken that year, then I withdraw. He has also entirely forgotten that throughout the war we had to offer bounties to men in India to extend their services. Therefore, those men, as well as the three years men, have had to be relieved.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: This, then, being the situation as we found it, I will briefly indicate the steps we have taken to improve it. We have reverted to the seven years system, which experience has shown to be the soundest as far as the Indian and Colonial drafts are concerned. The conditions of the home
  1680
  battalions when the noble Marquess was at the War Office is the best proof of this. We have reverted to the establishment of 720 rank and file, which stood the test of several years from 1892–3 onwards. I have not overlooked the fact that the noble Marquess, in order to strengthen the Reserve, raised the establishment to 800, enlisting 100 out of the 800 on a short service basis of three years. But we are dealing now with the question of drafts, not with the question of the Regular Reserve. I am aware it is often argued that an establishment of 750 rank and file is not large enough to meet the exigencies of the situation. My answer to that is this. Our figure of 720 is not necessarily final, and when we have got the recruiting into a normal condition again, we can, should the necessity arise, increase the establishment.
  But as regards this figure of 720, there is one important factor to aid it now which was absent under the old conditions. I refer to the extraordinary decrease in the annual wastage. The policy initiated in 1902 by my noble friend of increasing the pay of the Army has been attended with excellent results in this respect, and I wish to congratulate him upon it. The two millions a year extra expenditure incurred in recent years on the pay of the Army have been well spent. We have developed that policy of generous treatment by laying down in November last that the 3d. messing allowance was to be given to every man on enlistment, instead of his having to wait until he had completed six months service. This general increase of emoluments during the recent years has been attended with very important results. The class of recruits we are now getting shows a marked improvement, and this fact, together with the generally improved conditions of the soldier's life, have resulted in considerably lessening the wastage. The number of men invalided has fallen from 4,973 in 1903–4 to 2,894 in 1906–7. The number of troops rejected as unlikely to become efficient soldiers has fallen from 1,373 in 1903–4 to 928 in 1906–7. And in the third category of wastage—discharges for misconduct—it has fallen from 3,656 in 1903–4 to 2,119. This gives a total decrease from 10,002 to 5,937, or practically 4,000 less. This decrease of wastage to the extent of 40

  1681
  per cent, has a very important effect on the establishment we fix.
  I may also remind your Lordships of another important fact in this connection. Lord Lansdowne before he left the War Office was apparently so convinced of the soundness of the system to which we have reverted that he actually began, for Reserve-producing purposes, an experiment of increasing the establishment to a total of 800, but of enlisting 100 of that number for a short period of service. The remaining 700, plus any voluntary extensions, were to supply the drafts. From this I think I am justified in inferring that the noble Marquess and his advisers were of opinion that the draft difficulties could be practically met, in normal conditions, by an establishment of 700, plus some extensions of short service men, because only that portion of the higher establishment of 800 would be effective for drafting purposes.
  Before I sit down I should like to make some reference to the specific requests of the noble Viscount. There is no such Minute in existence as is referred to in the Motion, and, therefore, it will be impossible for us to comply with his request. As regards his further request for the production of the Report of the late Inspector-General of the Forces, I am afraid that, with every respect to my noble friend, and with every desire to place your Lordships in possession of the fullest information, I cannot comply with that request either. The Inspector-General is the eyes and ears of the Army Council, and their confidential agent. He gives us Reports of the most confidential character in relation to all questions connected with the Army, including individual regiments and even individual officers. If it were once accepted as a precedent that the Reports of the Inspector-General were not to be considered as strictly confidential, I am bound to say their value would be enormously diminished. It is essential that the Inspector-General should feel with absolute confidence that his Reports are entirely confidential documents, and exclusively at the disposal of the Army Council. The view of the Army Council is that their responsibility is complete and full, jointly and severally.
  EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not propose to trouble you with any remarks about the Army generally, as
  1682
  that subject has been gone into very fully by the noble Viscount who brought forward the Motion. My intention is to confine myself, on this occasion, to the-artillery, so far as that branch of the service is to form part of the Territorial Army. As regards the strength of the Artillery, my noble friend has drawn attention to the fact that it has been reduced during the last twelve months, by no less than sixteen officers and 2,676 men, and, unless I am mistaken further reductions are contemplated. Up to the present the reductions have only been carried out in the Garrison Artillery, and no one could reasonably object to such reductions if they had been made, because it was considered that, after providing for the artillery of the striking, force, a larger number of artillerymen would be left in this country than would be needed for its defence. But this is-not the contention. The reductions are not supposed to be made for this reason, for a far larger number of artillerymen, are to be recruited than have been, disbanded, no less a number than will admit of 196 batteries of horse, field, howitzer, heavy, and mountain being raised for the Territorial Army.
  But what I want to draw your Lordships' attention specially to is the fact that, after the departure of the striking, force, the only Regular Artillery left-in this country would be eight horse and thirty-three field batteries; but only the-eight horse artillery batteries—and there is no knowing how soon these might be required to replace a wastage in the striking force—would be available for home defence, as it is laid down that all the Regular Field Artillery are to be used for training purposes. This seems to be a most extraordinary waste of good material, and the idea of using these; thirty-three batteries for such a purpose must be given up, for I cannot believe that the country will be satisfied with a sham artillery. We should then have forty-one Regular batteries for home defence, and it would be incomparably better to have this smaller number of thoroughly efficient Regular batteries; than the larger number of untrained inefficient batteries. I feel sure that every artillery officer of experience, if. asked, would endorse my opinion.
  But I go further, my Lords, and say emphatically that the 198 Territorial

  1683
  batteries, by reason of their unsatisfactory composition, their want of proper organisation, and their lack of anything approaching to sufficient training and gun practice, would not, in spite of their "numbers, be of the slightest use in the field; and not only would they not be of the slightest use, but they would be a positive danger. My Lords, in making this statement, I am deeply sensible that I am taking a serious responsibility upon myself, a responsibility I most certainly would not venture to take were it not clear to me that the safety of this country depends upon the Territorial Army, for in time of trouble the Regular Army would, in all probability, be abroad; the Navy would be doing its legitimate work of seeking out the enemy's fleets, protecting our widely scattered commerce, and ensuring the safe delivery of our food supplies; it is essential, therefore, that that Army should be in all respects as efficient as it is possible for a citizen Army to become.
  I feel it is due to the House, as well as to the right hon. Gentleman whose genius has created the Territorial Army, that I should explain to your Lordships the reasons for the statement I have made. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am a firm believer in the vital importance of our having a Territorial Army, or, as I should prefer to call it, a National Army, and I have no hesitation in saying that this country owes a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Haldane for all that he has done, and is still doing, in spite of the great difficulties, he has had to contend with, to provide us with such an Army. The right hon. Gentleman has laid the foundation of a National Army, the framework of which is quite admirable, but it is for the country to see that that framework is filled in with thoroughly serviceable material, properly organised to take the field. I will now explain why I consider that the proposed artillery portion of the Territorial Army can never be made sufficiently trustworthy for the duty it may be called upon to perform.
  In the first place, I am satisfied that, if ever this country is invaded, it is almost certain to be done by surprise. This points to the supreme importance of the home defence Army being in a thorough state of preparedness. Now, the eight Horse Artillery and thirty-three Field
  1684
  Artillery batteries can and certainly ought always to be ready to move off at a couple of hours' notice, not perhaps complete in all respects, but sufficiently prepared to take the field; whereas the Territorial batteries could not possibly be moved without a delay of several days, and then, as I have said, they would be useless on account of the inexperience and insufficient training of the officers and men. I will go into details about this presently, but let me revert to the question of surprise, because, after all, the value of the Territorial Army depends upon whether it can always be in such a condition as will enable it to deal effectively with a surprise invasion. A little more than a year ago I drew the special attention of this House to certain facts brought forward by my noble and gallant friend Lord Lovat, which showed in the clearest possible terms that an invasion of this country by surprise is a danger we have to reckon with and must be prepared for.
  The noble Lord who represents the War Office in this House pooh-poohed my suggestion that an invasion would be made at the time when we were least prepared for it. He expressed his astonishment at such a thing being thought possible between nations apparently on friendly terms; if I remember rightly, he said that such action would be brigandage. My Lords, this action may be called by any name which appears to the noble Lord to be appropriate, but of this we may be certain, that no fear of the action being so designated will ever deter any nation, coveting the possessions of another nation, from quietly making all necessary preparations to gain her object on the first favourable opportunity. This has frequently happened in the past, and it would surely be very optimistically foolish of us to flatter ourselves that it will not happen in the future. I conclude, whether your Lordships agree with me or not as to the possibility of surprise, that you admit an invasion in some form or another is possible, or where would be the need for a Territorial Army? And as no one in this House or anywhere else can say whether the warning we may receive will be long or short, we surely cannot run the risk of deferring to train the Territorial Army until some kind of warning is given. Dangerous as this would be in any branch, of the Army, it would be

  1685
  especially dangerous as regards artillery, and it is because I believe that, under no circumstances, could the Territorial Army batteries be given sufficient training to take their part in the defence of the country, that I venture to assert they would be not only useless, but dangerous.
  Let us see what is to be the composition of the batteries of the Territorial Army, how it is intended to organise them, and what amount of training is to be given to them. As regards practice, where and how this is to be carried on is not laid down in the Army Orders of the 24th of last month, but evidently a ridiculously small amount of time is to be devoted to this important part of artillery instruction. There is to be one adjutant for every horse artillery or heavy battery and for every brigade of field or mountain artillery one sergeant-major for every brigade of field or mountain artillery; and one sergeant-instructor—or two in all—for every section in each battery, whether horse, field, heavy, or mountain. In other words, every battery of horse and heavy artillery will have one adjutant and two sergeant-instructors, and every brigade of field or mountain artillery, consisting of three batteries, will have one adjutant, one sergeant-major, and six sergeant-instructors.
  The training as a unit will be eight to eighteen days a year, the individual training, forty-five drills recruit training and twenty drills annually in subsequent years—a drill being one hour's actual training and a day's training not less than six hours' work. Those eight to eighteen days a year are to include practice, so that the only training the unit would have of any practical value to artillery would be (leaveing out Sundays) seven to sixteen days annually. The horses are to be hired, which means that the batteries will only exist on paper, except for one week or fortnight in every year. I mention this fact, my Lords, not because I think that an invader would be deterred from carrying out his object if it happened to be arranged to come off during the artillery training, but to show your Lordships the absurdly small amount of training the batteries are to receive.
  A limited amount of training has been already tried, I say limited in comparison
  1686
  to what is considered necessary for Regular batteries, but still a vast deal more than the Territorial Army batteries will receive, and the result was far from satisfactory. For several years past a brigade (three batteries) of Lancashire Militia Field Artillery has been trained for two or three months each summer on Salisbury Plain. It had the advantage of the following Regular Army staff:—One adjutant, one sergeant-major, three battery sergeant-majors, throe battery quartermaster-sergeants, one farrier, three shoeing and carriage smiths, three saddlers, three wheelers, nine corporals, nine bombadiers, 41 gunners, 27 drivers, and six trumpeters—total, 119 per brigade. Until last year the lieutenant-colonel was a Regular officer, as were the three battery commanders until 1906. The result of this experiment was, the senior artillery officer reported he thought that the batteries justified their existence if considered as Reserve to Regular batteries, from which they differed in (1) incomplete training and insufficient practice, (2) the high order of discipline essential in a battery. He added that they would, in a reasonable time after mobilization, be fitted for employment in the field, provided that the commanding officer, the adjutant, and the permanent staff were always retained. His report, in fact, was to the effect that it would be a dangerous delusion to imagine that Militia or Volunteer batteries could be produced fit on mobilisation to be able to cope successfully with the highly-trained batteries of a Continental army.
  My own view is that it would be hopeless to expect the Territorial Artillery, with the few hours (I may almost say) of training to be given to it as a unit, ever to be fit for service, but that, given a high class recruit, as in the Honourable Artillery Company, and not less than five to six months consecutive hard training under experienced officers and non-commissioned officers the first year, gunnery could be taught, and also possibly riding and even driving (though the latter would be a great difficulty), but all ranks would inevitably fail in the application of minor tactics, such as in the selection and occupation of a position. Nothing requires more constant practice than this kind of work in the field, for a battery badly brought up to a position.

  1687
  exposes itself to annihilation in the course of a few seconds, before it has had time to fire a single shot. You will realise, my Lords, that this is no exaggeration when I tell you that a quick-firing battery, manned by trained officers and men, can fire sixty rounds in a minute.
  From what I have heard, artillery appears to be the weak arm in the splendid national army of the Swiss, yet it has a fair amount of training; the men can ride and drive well, and look after their horses, but, for want of practice as a unit in the field, neither officers nor men have a sufficient knowledge of minor tactics. It was because the Boers realised that it was impossible to trust to insufficiently trained mobile artillery that they never utilised their guns in the form of a battery, or even as a section of a battery. They worked them, heavy or light, singly as guns of position, and in such a way that, from their intimate knowledge of the ground, they could get them away quickly when the time for retirement came. Later on in the war, when they had lost the services of the State Artillery, which was chiefly manned by Hollanders, their own want of artillery training forced them to realise the futility of attempting to work their guns themselves, and consequently they abandoned or destroyed them all.
  Believe me, my Lords, to trust to amateur artillerists would be to court disaster. Guns cannot be treated as men, who, to a certain extent, in quantity may make up for quality. Under the most favourable conditions guns are more or less of an encumbrance to a mobile army in the field, and especially would this be the case in a close country like England; it is essential, therefore, that the Artillery with the Territorial Army should be of the best, however few its numbers. If we are not to have the best, it would be infinitely better to have no artillery at all, and to spend the money thus saved in establishing a well-organised mobile force of mounted riflemen, such as the Boers used with signal success during the latter part of the war in South Africa.
  My Lords, I always feel, when speaking on military matters in your Lordship's House, that I am labouring under a serious disadvantage from the fact that I am a soldier. For some reason, which
  1688
  I confess is difficult for me to understand, the soldier, no matter how great his experience may be, always seems to be distrusted when he ventures to give an opinion upon the subject which he has made his life's study. When the enemy is actually in the field the soldier is generally given a free hand, because he alone is supposed to understand the work and to be able to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. But when preparations are on foot for the conduct of a war for which he has to bear all the responsibility, the soldier is the last person to be consulted.
  In all other professions the opinion of the expert is sought for and acted upon when a crisis arises; not so with regard to the Army. This may be accounted for by the idea that the soldier is always wanting to go to war, whether war is justifiable or not, and is always imagining that someone else is wanting to do the same, against whom he must protect himself. This feeling is exemplified in a quotation given by my noble friend Lord Cromer in his most interesting book "Modern Egypt," from a letter of the late Lord Salisbury, who wrote—
  "If they (the soldiers) were allowed full scope, they would insist upon the importance of garrisoning the Moon in order to protect up from Mars."
  Well, my Lords, so far as I myself am concerned, whatever undue military ardour I may be credited with, it must, I think, be acknowledged that at my time of life and after all I have seen of war, I may be acquitted of any undue ardour, and that the one and sixty years that have passed since I had the honour of first putting on uniform as a Sandhurst cadet may have brought to me some measure of sound judgment with regard to the exigencies of war. My one desire is to use my experience for the benefit of my own country, and my hope is that I may be able to persuade the people of this country to insist on its being sufficiently garisoned to protect it from the invader. I have no axe to grind, and if I persist in telling you things which some of you may not believe, or which others, perhaps, may not wish to hear, it is because I venture to think I know what I am talking about, and because I desire to save the country from a disaster which will inevitably befall it, if it refuses to be warned by what has happened in the past

  1689
  to nations very similarly situated, and neglects to take the most ordinary preautions for the future.
  EARL CROMER: Referring to the passage which my noble and gallant friend has just quoted, I should like to say that Lord Salisbury did not at all mean that the advice of soldiers should not be listened to in making preparations for war, but was alluding to the advice of soldiers in political matters which might lead up to war. That is quite a different thing.
  EARL ROBERTS: I quite recognise that.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, the Return which His Majesty's Government has laid upon the Table of the House at the request of the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, shows the ineffective condition of the Regular Army at home. The most serious revelation is the state of the Artillery. But the noble Viscount has himself dealt with that question. I propose, therefore, to confine my remarks to that branch of the service with which I am to some extent familiar, that is the Infantry. An examination of the Return shows that there are now something over 20,000 Infantry soldiers fit for the field at home, a number barely sufficient to furnish without mobilisation the Infantry required by two Divisions. But we are told the Infantry for six Divisions can be mobilised by means of the Reserve. It is to this Reserve that I beg to call your Lordships' attention. The Infantry Reserve is there 135,000 strong, and the most valuable military asset which is left to us. That Reserve la due entirely to the policy pursued by Lord Midleton when he was at the War Office, and when the noble and gallant Field-Marshal was Commander-in-Chief. His Majesty's Government have inherited that Reserve from their predecessors. I propose to show to your Lordships that this Reserve must soon vanish, and I challenge His Majesty's Government to show how, under the conditions which they have now established, it can be replaced.
  After the South African War the most urgent question was to refill the depleted Army Reserve. To accomplish that object the late Government placed the
  1690
  whole Infantry of the Army on a three years basis of colour service from 1902 to 1906. Hence in due course a much more rapid transfer to the Reserve took place. We must remember that the late Government added fourteen Line and two Guards battalions to the Infantry of the Army. The present Government reduced eight battalions of the Line and one of the Guards after those battalions had been in existence from seven to eight years. This reduction was no doubt made because the Government found that they had more serving soldiers than they required. These nine battalions have been disbanded, but the men passed through them to the Reserve are still in the Reserve. These men cannot be replaced as they become time expired, because the cadres which created them are no longer in existence. In a few years the Reservists created by the disbanded battalions must disappear from the Reserve, also the large number of Reservists, due to the whole of the Infantry having been put on the three years basis of colour service, will pass out of the Reserve. The establishment of every Home Battalion has been reduced from 800 to 720, which means that there will be a smaller Reserve-creating unit, and a bigger shortage of men with the colours to be made up from the Reserve on mobilisation, an extra and immediate call on the Reserve amounting to upwards of 8,000 men due to the reduction of eighty men per battalion on the home and Colonial list. Thus a special and large outflow from the Reserve is soon due, and not only is there no special intake to balance it, but the normal intake in future must be less than it ever has been in the past.
  The question I should like to ask the Government is this. When the last Reservists created by the three years basis of colour service have passed out of the Reserve, when those created by the nine disbanded battalions have become time expired, when the period of colour service is seven years instead of three, when the Reserve-creating battalions stand at 720 instead of 800, what will be the condition of the Reserve? And further, how do the Governnment then propose to mobilise the Infantry of the expeditionary force when some 8,000 additional men are required on mobilisation to make up for

  1691
  the reduced battalion establishments, and at a moment when all the Indian drafts have been sent abroad?
  All the factors I have just mentioned tend to deplete the Reserve by drying up the source of supply. They are all coming into operation and are cumulative in their action. A Return was published by the Government last session making a calculation by which it was shown that with a diminished number of cadres, and with a reduced establishment in each cadre, and with a longer period of colour service, the Reserve of the Regular Army would be increased—a seeming impossibility which has not yet been explained Further, in dealing with the numbers of the Reserve, the Government have hitherto based their calculations on establishment instead of on the strength. That is to say, the value of a battalion as a Reserve-creating cadre is always reckoned at its full establishment, when very likely it has been more than 100 men short of its proper establishment. The number of the Reserve depends in no way upon the establishment, but solely upon strength. Again, every recruit enlisted is calculated as passing into the Reserve. No allowance is made for men who die, desert, are invalided, or discharged before completing their colour service, or extend their colour service and do not pass into the Reserve. My experience is that only one recruit out of every five reaches the Reserve.
  In the Army Order of 23rd December last the statement is made that combatant units, which come into action on the outset of a campaign, should on mobilisation consist in due proportion of Regular soldiers and Regular Reservists. It is an elementary maxim in all military organisation not to swamp the serving soldiers of the battalion first for service by too large an influx of Reservists who must be more or less rusty. But what does the Government consider as the due proportion of serving soldiers to Regular Reservists? Lord Wolseley in his time has described the home battalions as "squeezed lemons." This Return shows the accuracy of that description to-day in a truly alarming manner. The height of the "squeezed lemon "season is just after the Indian drafts have been sent abroad. After the departure of the last of the Indian
  1692
  drafts, that would not be till April, there are fewest Line soldieis in a battalion at home of twenty years of age and fit for foreign service. The Return asked for by Lord Midleton is dated 1st February, but since that date two transports have sailed to India and two to the Colonies, reducing by some thousands the number of men over twenty years of age now at home. I do not know if there are yet more transports to go abroad. After sending out the last of the Indian and Colonial drafts if there is an average of anything like 300 serving soldiers of twenty years of age and fit for foreign service in the home battalions it is the very outside number.
  To complete the battalion to war strength, that is up to 1,000 men, 700 Reservists must be added to each battalion on mobilisation. Now, do the military advisers of the Government assure them at that is a due proportion of Regular soldiers and Regular Reservists? How long do their military advisers tell them that battalions thus composed will require before they are fit to go into action with any chance of success against the trained troops of a military Power? Now these are the battalions of the expeditionary force. They will be very good battalions, but you must give them time, and time is the most valuable present you can make your enemy on the outbreak of hostilities. I understand it is the intention to reinforce these battalions in the field solely by a system of drafts derived from the Special Reserve. If reliance is placed upon drafts only, then the system can only be worked successfully by coming to-an arrangement with the enemy never to put more than a certain proportion of any one unit out of action at any one moment.
  Assume that a battalion—and these things happen in war—goes into action 1,000 strong with a full complement of officers, and comes out with 300 men and five or six officers, then the Government propose to dip into the general drafting pool, that is the Special Reserve, for 700 or 800 depot-trained boys, who have never seen the Regular Army and are strangers to each

  1693
  other, being collected from many different depots, and unknown to the regiment to which they are to be drafted. They will go out under officers they have never seen, provided from the Government does not know where—the matter is still under consideration—and be added to the renmant of the regular regiment with the result that the unit will be useless for any military purpose, and must be struck off the strength of the field force. The unit cannot be replaced, because no system of expansion of the Regular Army by organised units is contemplated by the Government.
  It is obvious that as the Regular Army and its reserves becomes more and more reduced in numbers, and the establishment has now beer reduced by 21,000 men, it is increasingly important to be able to place the whole of the remainder in the actual theatre of war, and as near the fighting front as possible. That can only be accomplished by freeing the Army both at home and abroad from all garrison duties, and duties pertaining to troops of the second line. The Government must relegate a considerable part of the reduced first line troops to second line duties, because they have decided to abolish the Militia, which has never failed to give embodied service at home and abroad, freeing the Regular Army for first line duties in the field. The abolition of the Militia is certain. The creation of the Territorial Army, or rather of anything which legitimately could be called an Army, is doubtful. I am only concerned with the Territorial Army in so far as it may aSect the fighting efficiency of the Regular Army.
  We are informed in the Memorandum which accompanies the Army Estimates that the use of the Territorial Army is not only to free the Regular Army from all home duties—nothing is said about foreign service duties—but also to enable the Navy to act with greater freedom at a distance from these shores. Because apparently the Government trust that the Territorial Army will be so awe inspiring that no Continental invaders will attempt to approach our shores save in such overwhelming numbers
  1694
  that the very size of their flotilla would be an impediment to their advent, and a hindrance to their landing. Such is the view expressed in the Memorandum which accompanies the Army Estimates as to the value of the Territorial Army, which, by the way, does not yet exist. But the all important point is that that view should be shared by all possible Continental invaders. Are the Government really prepared to give us a distinct assurance that such will be the case? "We know perfectly well that the special contingent and the Territorial Army do not exist. They are but a phantom force invoked as an ignis fatuus to lure away the inquirer from his search after the true state of the Regular Army. I most strongly support the Motion of the noble Viscount for Papers giving farther information as to the state of the Regular Army at home.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: My Lords, I can promise that I shall occupy the time of the House for but a very few moments, and the remarks I have to make will have reference to what was said by the noble Viscount as to the Inspector General's Reports, and the reply of my noble friend the Under Secretary of State for War. I think the whole House must feel that there is a very wide divergence in the views of the noble Viscount, who spoke from large practical experience of War Office affairs, and of 'he noble Earl as to the nature of those Reports. After quoting Paragraph 10 of Section 3 of the Esher Report as to the Inspector General being the eyes and ears of the Army Council, the noble Viscount said that at that time it was commonly understood that the Inspector General was to act as a sort of auditor and accountant, who was to keep the public informed as to the solvency of our military resources. Nothing could be more different from that than the reply which was given by the noble Earl the Under Secretary. Whereas the noble Viscount said the public was to be informed as to the condition of these securities, the noble Earl below me told us that the public was not to be informed, and, practically, that the information of the Inspector General was for the Army Council, and should only reach the country in such doses as the Secretary of

  1695
  State for War sees fit to lay before Parliament. Whatever the practice is now, I would like to know what really was the spirit and intention of the Government by whom the Inspector General was appointed, and what in their opinion he was to do, and not to do. Though I can understand that my noble friend can give no promise that the Reports of the Inspector General should be laid on the Table, yet at this particular time and in relation to the Army, at all events, I hope there will be some reassuring statement as to the Report of the Inspector General on our military resources.
  THE EARL OF ERROLL: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words in support of the Motion of the noble Viscount. I will not say anything as to the analysis of 'he Paper which has been placed before your Lordships. I think the noble Earl the Under Secretary accepted all the criticisms of the noble Viscount, as well as the responsibility for the state of those battalions. But, my Lords, I cannot help thinking that "the man in the street," when he opens his newspaper to morrow morning, will read with surprise, not to say with some alarm, that only four battalions of the sixty nine at home are up to strength, and I think he will begin to consider whether, after all, a voluntary system is suitable to the needs of the country.
  We have been told that for mobilisation at home we should only be able to get about 30,000 men. To mobilise at all we should want 53,000 horses, and I should like to know from the Government whether these horses will be forthcoming. The noble and gallant Field Marshal who spoke from the cross benches told us that invasion, if it came, would be sudden. Therefore, I should like to ask whether these horses could be produced at a moment's notice. If not, I do not believe that it would be possible to mobilise this force under a very long period. We should have to fall back, I suppose, on the Territorial Army and take their horses, and I do not think they would be very pleased with that.
  I do not think the public really quite realise the extent to which the Regular Forces have been reduced since the present Government have been in power. Their
  1696
  attention has been so much riveted of late on the Territorial Army that they have quite failed to grasp the extent to which the Regular fighting strength of the country has been weakened. Since 1905 some 26,000 efficient fighting men, with the Reserves they would have produced, have been taken from the Army. Three thousand of these were trained gunners. These figures are serious enough; but I understand that further reductions are to be made in the battalions being brought home from South Africa. The nine battilions which hive been reduced were admittedly in a highly efficient state. The reduction of these men has, as far as I know, never been justified on any military grounds whatever; it has been justified merely on grounds of economy and in pursuance of election pledges. There has been nothing at all scientific in these reductions. Mr. Haldane said himself that he had not been able to work out what the requirements of the country were. The grounds upon which these reductions have taken place are political, not military; and in the interests of the Liberal Party, not of the country.
  Economy at the expense of efficiency is the falsest economy, and means pouring out money like water when the crisis arrives. I had hoped that the noble Earl the Under Secretary would have given us the opinion of some members of the Army Council upon these reductions. I am bound to say that outside the magic circle of the War Office I do not believe there is a single soldier of standing who would acquiesce in them. It has been claimed that these reductions will be compensated by increased efficiency. I grant that the formation of brigades and divisions is, to a certain extent, an improvement; but I think it is an odd way of improving your efficiency to reduce efficient men and replace them by those who are less efficient or by none at all. I cannot see how the reduction of 500 officers can in any way add to the efficiency of these forces.
  Nothing practical has been done to add a single officer to the Army. Certain nebulous negotiations have been going on with schools and Universities. Youths when they leave these seats of learning

  1697
  will, I believe, be given captains' certificates, but they will have had no experience of military affairs or of leading men, and will add very little, I think, to the military strength of the country. The shortage of officers is due to the fact that the terms offered are not "good enough." The pay of the men has increased enormously during the last few years, but the pay of officers has remained unchanged for the past 100 years. I was told this morning by a friend of mine that two young relatives of his had gone into a Line regiment, and that their pay would be £90 a year, out of which they had to expend £60 on their kits. I do not think the wonder is that we are short of officers in these circumstances; the wonder is that we can get any officers at all. If the country wants officers it ought to pay them a living wage; otherwise, the officers will not be forthcoming, and the results will be disastrous.
  If the Territorial Army is to be kept up in stores, equipment, and ammunition, I think the sum that has already been voted will be insufficient, and what I am afraid of is that when this is found out, further reductions will be made in the Regulars. One of the Government's supporters in the House of Commons said the other night that he thought further reductions were possible, and they must look for considerate reductions in the Regulars if they were to provide money for the complete equipment of the Territorial Army. Now, Auxiliaries, as I prefer to call them, cannot take the place of Regulars, and it is idle to pretend they can. I consider that it is dangerous to exalt Auxiliaries at the expense of the Regulars. It shows a great want of any sense of proportion, and it deceives the public by making the strength of the Army appear much greater than it really is.
  I am not speaking in any spirit of hostility to the Territorial Army. I quite recognise, on the contrary, that it is our duty to do everything we can to make it a success; but what I object to is the starving of the Regulars for the Territorial Army. Savings by reduction of the establishment, or by depletion of stores and ammunition,
  1698
  are effected at the cost of efficiency. Before the war £5,500,000 were spent on military stores; now there is less than £2,000,000. I would press for assurances from the Member of the Government who will speak later that the stores and ammunition are adequate to the wants of the country. I notice that the Vote for small arm ammunition his been very much increased this year, and that the reason is that there is no surplus of ammunition in hand. I think this is a question of vital importance to the country, and one upon which, I hope, we shall have some information.
  The withdrawal of troops from South Africa and the Mediterranean leaves India without reinforcements nearer than home. This concentration at home means reinforcing from the furthest point, and at a time when the Navy will not guarantee the convoy of transports until after a successful campaign has been won. Owing to the reductions in the Mediterranean garrisons it will no longer be possible for us to send eight seasoned battalions up to the Soudan, as we did in 1898. I know it is claimed by His Majesty's Government that the Reserve is very much larger than it has ever been before, but I venture to say that the old Reserve was better than, the one we have now. I thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to me, and I think I have shown that the state of the Army is very serious and disquieting, and that the country is in a much weaker military position than it was this time three, years ago.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I think most of your Lordships will agree that we are greatly indebted to Lord Midleton for having brought forward this Motion to night, for, no matter what our political opinions on other matters may be, we are deeply conscious of the fact that upon the statesmanlike solution of national defence depends the security and well being of this country. For this reason free discussion in this House, at any rate, is certainly most essential, for by this means alone can the country be made aware of the real military changes that the Secretary

  1699
  of State for War has brought forward since the present Government have been in office. For a false step or injudicious action may result in such disastrous consequences that it is the imperative duty of each and every one of us to prevent the possibilities of such consequences arising. It is, I believe, with this object that the noble Viscount has opened this discussion, and thereby enabled the public to understand more fully than they do at present what effect these changes have had, or are likely to have, upon the Army of this country as a fighting force. The present Secretary of State for War recognised in his first speech in the House of Commons that none of his predecessors had taken over the Army in so good a condition, either as regarded quantity or quality, and that he was convinced in the belief of a continuity of policy, but the policy he has adopted is a reversal of that of his predecessor. The policy of the late Government was that the Army should be maintained at an adequate strength, should be thoroughly organised for war, and should be capable of great expansion. By the universal opinion of military experts this is only possible by provision for increased power of expansion in time of war; an increased number of trained officers and men, an increase in the personnel of the artillery, more especially its reserve, and the creation of a striking force capable of taking the field on an emergency prior to general mobilisation. The scheme of the present Secretary for War satisfies none of these requirements. In a small Army like ours the preservation of units is of primary importance with a view to expansion in time of war; but Mr. Haldane has destroyed eight battalions of the Line with their reserves, one battalion of the Guards, with the promised, destruction of another, with their reserves, the Regular artillery to the extent of 5,000 men with their reserves, and the promise of a reduction of 3,000 additional trained men of the artillery with their reserves, 35 battalions of the Militia, and the conversion of the remaining battalions into Line depots, and of the artillery Militia into a force as yet not decided upon. Such a reduction as this fully justified the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in the statement he
  1700
  made in your Lordships' House on 26th June last, that—
  "The amputations to which the Government have resorted will have a very serious effect in weakening the fighting efficiency of the Regular Army, for it seems to me that the policy must be one which tends to diminish the strength of the Army Reserve."
  It will be remembered that in 1905 the late Secretary of State for War, Mr. Arnold Forster, submitted to Parliament the proposal that the Militia should form the Territorial Short Service Infantry of the Regular Army. This proposal was generally denounced on the plea that it was nothing more nor less than the transformation of the Militia into sham Regulars. The present Secretary of State for War and his supporters joined in the cry. In spite of this fact, Mr. Haldane has adopted the principle of the proposal referred to, and has declared it as essential to the welfare of the Army; but with this difference, that under the present scheme the Militia as a force is virtually dead, for it becomes nothing more nor less than a recruiting depot for the Army. This fact, I must confess, I did not realise until the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War stated last month, in answer to a question put by Lord Raglan, that during the non-training period the battalion did not exist as such. When the present Government came in office two alternatives existed for the Militia—reform or destruction. When the Secretary of State in the House of Commons stated that—
  "He would see that the Militia were not bled white,"
  the force fondly believed that this indicated that he was in favour of reform. It is now evident, however, that this force is confronted with the other alternative, and is sentenced to death. By this step the Army is deprived in time of war of a potential reserve, the value of which has been proved on many occasions in the past. I would like, therefore, to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the reduction and changes of the forces to which I have referred are founded by the Government on the belief that we are justified in placing our reliance in time of war upon untrained troops and officers, and in discarding highly trained officers and men in order to obtain money for the Territorial Army which is to be brought

  1701
  into existence by the County Associations. If such is the case, then I believe that there is some truth in the words of a military writer, who said that—
  "In accepting the new scheme we are deliberately neglecting the teaching of every war that has been fought since the world began, and are declaring in unmistakable terms that every nation which has fought and expects to light for its life is making a tremendous error. We are assuming that we alone have learnt the secret that without preparation, without sacrifice, without training, and without leading we can safely commit the fortunes of the nation to the stern arbitrament of battle, confident an the efficacy of good intentions, amiable speeches, and half measures to work a miracle In our favour—a miracle which has never been vouchsafed to any other people in the world."
  I commend those words to His Majesty's Government, and I hope they will ponder before destroying the Militia, that constitutional force which has done great service for the country in the past.
  LORD WENLOCK: My Lords, I hope it will not be long before His Majesty's 'Government give a reply to the remarks which have fallen from the noble and gallant Field Marshal on the cross benches. I do not think that since the discussions on the Army have taken place we have heard a more solemn and more serious utterance than that which the noble and gallant Earl has made to night on this subject. I am bound to say, anxious as I am to promote the success of the new scheme, that I cannot help thinking there is a great deal of truth in what he has said. As chairman of one of the County Associations entrusted with the organisation and equipment of a portion of this new force, I can fully endorse what the noble and gallant Earl said as to the difficulty of raising field artillery. We are having great difficulty with the men for the new force. We are to ask them on 1st April to change their old occupations and take up new ones, and the only way in which we can get field artillery is by turning to the old garrison artillery and explaining what is to become of them, that they will become field artillery and be taught to ride and use guns in the field. Naturally, in that case they will say: "Let us have the guns and we will proceed." But we understand that one gun per brigade is all that we are to
  1702
  have. The result is that the men are getting so disappointed that they are dwindling away in numbers every day, and I am told that by the time the guns are ready in my part of the country there will not be any men to man them. Therefore, I think this is a matter which the Government should very seriously consider, and I trust that they will not delay in making an answer to the statement of the noble and gallant Earl. A Volunteer artillery force, would, in my opinion, end in a ridiculous failure.
  LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I rise to correct a misapprehension in the mind of the noble Viscount who initiated this discussion. He said there had been, dangerous reductions in the Mediterranean garrisons, and that we should not be able to draw upon that Reserve in case of another war. It is the fact that there have been considerable reductions in the garrisons at Malta and Gibraltar, but they have been in a great measure compensated for by the very large increase of 2,500 men in the Egyptian garrison. The upshot of the whole thing is this, that whereas under the late Government the whole strength of the Mediterranean garrison was, roughly, 18,000, it is now, roughly, 17,000. That is the only change that has taken place.
  The reduction in the Guards has been referred to by Viscount Hardinge, but at the time that reduction was made these extra battalions of the Guards wer not fulfilling the duties for which they were called into existence. They were formed in order that they might constitute part of the Mediterranean garrison. But they were never used in that way. As there was not sufficient barrack accommodation for them in London and elsewhere, a great number of the Guards were put down permanently at Aldershot, and the service became unpopular. It was impossible to get the requisite number of men, and the commanding officer of the Grenadiers stated that there were not enough officers to go round. That was the reason for the reduction in the Guards, and it has been viewed as a very sensible one. I know that there are officers very high up in the Guards who ara glad that the reduction has taken place.

  1703
  With, regard to the Northumberland; Fusiliers, the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton, knows very well that these battalions were reduced because they were brought into existence for the war. They were exceptional cases in which two battalion regiments were made up to four; and they were accordingly reduced, but I take it that it is pretty certain the men and officers would be employed in the other battalions. I think it must be very satisfactory to the military authorities to have seen the enormous growth of the Reserve. In September, 1906, the Reserve amounted to 110,000 men; the number has since been augmented to 135,000, and in the Estimates it is further increased to 142,000. That is an enormous increase, and I think it will be satisfactory to the noble Duke who spoke to night that a great number of the men have been enlisted for periods which will take them on into the Reserve until 1911–12. There is another solution which might be adopted, by means of which we should be relieved of danger when the great depletion of the Reserve takes place. Men might be invited to join Section D, and give four more years service in the Reserve. When attacks are made on the present system, I think we should look with pleasure to the growth of the Reserve, which is the best reservoir of our strength.
  Moved, "That the debate be adjourned until Monday."—(Lord Lucas.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: On the Motion for adjournment, might I ask whether, on the resumption of the debate, the Government will be able, in addition to other matters, to give figures showing the present strength of the Artillery Reserve?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I cannot give an absolute pledge, but I will inquire.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should hope that the figures would be available.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Perhaps the noble Viscount will put a Ques-
  1704
  tion on the Paper that I may know exactly what he wants.
  On Question agreed to, debate adjourned accordingly.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.