Sitting of 6 April 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a Quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Wallasey Tramways and Improvements Bill.
Read the third time and passed.
Ards Railway Bill.
Swinton Mexborough Gas Board Bill.
West Gloucestershire Water Bill.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

PRIVATE BILLS (PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS AGAINST).
Ordered,
"That Standing Orders 39, 128, and 230 be suspended, and that the time for depositing petitions and memorials against private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any documents relating to any Bill to -confirm any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate, also for depositing at the Private Bill Office all documents relating to any Order under the Private Legislature Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess."—(Chairman of Ways and Means.]

NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
Return Ordered.—Copy of accounts of Receipts and Expenditure, with balance sheet for the year 1908.—[Mr. Hobhouse.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Affairs in South-Eastern Europe (The Treaty of Berlin).
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say whether a conference dealing with affairs in South-Eastern Europe is likely to be held; and whether he can make any statement on the present situation?
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State whether he is now in a position to communicate to the House the result of the negotiations in which His Majesty's Government have taken part in connection with the recent infractions of the Berlin Treaty; can he state whether the settlements arrived at piecemeal between the States immediately affected by these infractions are conditional upon their adoption by the signatory Powers in conference assembled, or have they already been adopted by the Powers; and is it proposed that a conference shall take place; and, if so, what will be its scope and functions?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): In reply to this question and that of the hon. Member for Ripon, I cannot yet say whether a conference will take place or not. The alterations of the Treaty of Berlin referred to have in the first place formed the subject of negotiations between the Powers whose legal rights were directly affected. The settlements arrived at, in so far as they involve alterations of the Treaty of Berlin, will require to receive the assent of the signatory Powers, and, owing to the various agreements which have been made, will, I trust, soon do so.
  Mr. REES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any peculiar interest attaching to Great Britain in this respect, such as is not possessed by any other signatory Power?
  Sir E. GREY: We have been acting as one of the signatory Powers to the Treaty of Berlin.

  Europeans in Tabriz.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked the Secretary of State whether any danger to the European residents in Tabriz is anticipated; and, if so, what steps is he taking to protect them?
  Sir E. GREY: The Europeans at Tabriz are subject, of course, to the risks incidental to residence in a town which is under siege. The Persian Government have been warned that if any harm happens to His Majesty's Consulate-General or to British subjects or property, they will be held responsible to His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Minister at Teheran has quite recently been requested to repeat this warning to the Shah, and the Russian Government are being asked to send similar instructions to their representatives.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Baronet whether, in view of the proximity to Tabriz of the Russian and Turkish frontiers, arrangements can be made for the entrance into that city of strong consular guards for Eussia and for Turkey to act as a check in case of an attempt being made to massacre the inhabitants?
  Sir E. GREY: That concerns the Bussian and Turkish Governments. There has been a general understanding if any reinforcement of the consular guards takes place protection will be given to the residents not only of the nationality of the countries sending the reinforcements, but to all foreign residents in the place.

  Deportations from India.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to make any statement as to the length of time during which it is intended by the Government of India to keep in prison the nine British subjects who were deported from their homes without charge or trial in December last?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA(Mr. Buchanan): I am unable to add anything to the answer I gave to the hon. Member's question on the same subject last Tuesday.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is the Secretary of State aware that neither at the time of their arrest, nor at any time since, have any of these prisoners been informed of what offence they were charged by the Government of India, and that their continued imprisonment is regarded by Liberals in this country as contrary to natural justice?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That is a question put to me on several occasions, to which I have often given the same answer.
  Mr. LUPTON: Is the Secretary of State aware of these facts?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Certainly he is aware of them.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary for India whether it is proposed, by regulation or otherwise, under the Indian Councils Bill to impose any electoral or political disqualification upon British subjects who have been deported from their homes without being convicted of any criminal offence?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State is not yet in a position to give a full answer to this question; but the fact of a candidate having been arrested under
  900
  Regulation III. of 1818 will not be prescribed as a definite and permanent disqualification for a seat on a Legislative Council.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether it is desirable that the Government of India should make its antagonists its advisers?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That is a question of opinion, I think.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether before any disqualification, permanent or otherwise, is imposed upon anyone deported he will be informed of the offence for which he was deported?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That is an ingenious attempt of my hon. Friend to get in for the second time the question put to me a moment ago.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: With great respect—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member will put any further questions down.

  Trial of Dinizulu.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in possession of the full text of the judgment of the special court in Natal which tried Dinizulu; if so, will he say whether the court acquitted Dinizulu on no less than 20 counts, and those the most serious ones of the indictment, including even the charge of inciting to rebellion; and whether he can state what action the Secretary of State proposes to take in regard to the future of Dinizulu?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Yes, Sir, the text has been received and will shortly be laid before Parliament. The indictment contained 23 counts, and the prisoner was convicted on counts 7, 16, and 5. I do not think that I can usefully make any statement at the present moment.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is it a fact that he has been acquitted of all the serious charges in the indictment?
  Colonel SEELY: He has been acquitted of the more serious charges.
  Mr. REES: Does it not impair the dignity and authority of a self-governing Colony to be given such assistance in governing one particular subject?
  Colonel SEELY: I think it is very proper that this House should be informed in these matters.

  British Indians in Transvaal.
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has come to his knowledge that some 150 British-Indian merchants and others, domiciled in the Transvaal from before the late war, are at present undergoing hard-labour sentences in the gaols of that Colony for refusal to re-register in the terms of the Registration Law; whether they have established their identity and titles to domicile after investigation by the Transvaal authorities; whether they are now being deported from South Africa to India in spite of their protests; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any action?
  Colonel SEELY: I fear that I am not able to add anything to the replies which I gave to an oral question addressed to me on the 1st and to a written question on 2nd April regarding the treatment of Indians.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: Does the hon. Gentleman mean all these questions have been answered.
  Colonel SEELY: I looked through the question carefully, and also the question to which I referred, and I think so; if there is any not covered, if the hon. Member will put down a question to-morrow, I will answer it.
  Mr. LUPTON: Has the hon. Member explained to the Hindu subjects the special advantage of being subjects of the Empire?
  Colonel SEELY: I have already explained the advantage to my hon. Friend.

  Night Poachers (Sentences).
  Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Thomas Bickley and William Parks, who were convicted of night poaching and in being in possession of 12 rabbits, at the Bingham Petty Sessions, on the 25th inst.; that the sentence passed on them was six months' hard labour, at the expiration of which they were bound over in £20 self and a surety of £20 for two years; that if they cannot secure a bondsman for £20 for their good behaviour for two years they will have to serve a further term of 12 months, making, in all, 18 months; and whether he can see his way clear to reduce the sentence?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone): I have made inquiry into this case, but I
  902
  regret that, in view of the characters and antecedents of the prisoners, I feel precluded from recommending any reduction of the sentence.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: Am I to understand that these two prisoners received these sentences for the crime they committed, and with which they were charged, or for previous crimes?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I cannot speak of the reasons which influenced the court which gave the sentences, but I may mention that 32 previous convictions, extending over 30 years, for stealing, shop breaking, causing wilful damage, trespassing in pursuit of game, night poaching, and other offences, were proved against one man, and against the other man, Bickley, 26 convictions, extending over 44 years, were proved, including four terms of penal servitude for grave crimes.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: I would ask whether in view of the fact that these two men will be imprisoned for eighteen months, presuming that they cannot get anyone to go bail, the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to allow them out on their own recognisances?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No; I see no reason at all to interfere in this matter.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: May we take it for granted that most of these convictions are for similar offences as that of the crime of poaching, which in the eyes of good sportsmen is no crime at all?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No; the poaching was only a variation of crime.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who the rabbits belonged to?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: They certainly did not belong to the men who took them.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I am not quite sure about that.
  Mr. LUPTON: May I ask whether it would not be advantageous to have a clear distinction between sentences for the lighter offences and the heavier offencs?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

  Taxi-Cabs, London (Rate of Speed).
  Mr. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the speed at which taxi-cabs habitually travel in the streets of London, and the number of accidents daily occurring; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; these matters are engaging my attention and that of the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner has under consideration the question of providing additional safeguards for the public, and hopes to be able to check the excessive speed of public motor vehicles by requiring the use of an apparatus which will give audible warning when the speed limit of the vehicle is exceeded.
  Mr. RENWICK: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the speed at which motors travel during foggy weather—during the recent foggy weather, for instance.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, yes; the speed is excessive very often in clear as well as in foggy weather.

  St. Mary's Roman Catholic Convent, East Bergholt.
  Mr. SLOANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the escape of a nun from St. Mary's Roman Catholic Convent, East Bergholt, Suffolk, on 15th February last, and to the fact that force was used to compel her to return to the convent; whether he will consider the advisability of granting the prayer of the memorial recently presented to the House, signed by 750,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom, asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the necessity, if any, for Government inspection into all such institutions; and, if not, what other steps he proposes to take in the matter to secure the liberty of such inmates who desire their freedom?
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he has made any inquiry as to the remarkable circumstances attending this case?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiry, and have received a full report from the Chief Constable of East Suffolk, from which it appears that no attempt was made to use force to bring the lady back to the convent, and that she did not, in fact, return. Two sisters overtook her when on the way to the railway station, and tried to induce her to go back with them, but she refused to do so. The Chief Constable tells me that the reports of this case published in the Press were of a garbled and sensational nature. There is no ground for any further action on my part.
  Mr. SLOAN: The right hon. Gentleman replied upon information received from the Chief Constable; is he prepared to accept documentary evidence given at an interview with the young lady herself in regard to the circumstances as stated in the question, and may I ask whether, in view of this private interview, he will make further inquiries into the matter and not take the report he has received?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Certainly I shall be prepared to consider any information, written or otherwise, which the hon. Member may have, but I think that the report of the Chief Constable has been founded on information from the lady herself?
  Mr. SLOAN: The statement of the Chief Constable is altogether different from the information which the lady has given herself.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I only stated that such was my impression.
  Mr. SLOAN: Will you accept it from me?
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Has it come to the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, and is it a fact that the two ladies who followed this lady, who escaped at night, only asked her to go back in order that they might provide her with proper clothing and money to go to her home in London, and whether it is not a fact that neither the two ladies nor the lady who was running away had any money to pay for her fare to London, and it was only owing to the kindness of the station-master that she was able to travel to London with a ticket he gave her.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I really cannot say what the two ladies concerned said to the third lady, but I know that the lady who left the convent had no money, and that money was found by the stationmaster.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive documentary evidence in this matter from the Orange Lodges of Belfast?
  Mr. SLOAN: Will he make further inquiries as to the facts of this particular case?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I am quite satisfied with the information I have at present, but if the hon. Member gives me any information which casts doubt upon that, or will throw fresh light upon the matter, I shall be glad to give it the attention it deserves.

  Prison Warders' Grievances.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there is a rule in prisons, made during January of this year, that the directors have power to dismiss any prison officer who procures, or attempts to procure, the intervention of a Member of Parliament in respect to a grievance or any other matter; whether the rule was made with his knowledge and consent; and whether he will lay a copy of the rule upon the Table of this House?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: No new rule has been made, but in January last the Standing Orders for Prisons were amended for the purpose of bringing clearly to the notice of prison officers an essential and well-established rule of the service: That it is a serious offence for a prison officer, as well as for any other officer connected with the Department, to attempt to obtain the intervention of persons of influence, including Members of Parliament, for the purpose of favouring his personal advancement, or for the purpose of making charges against his fellow officers.
  Mr. LUPTON: Is there any particular reason why Members of Parliament should be deprived of this valuable and useful information?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: What information?
  Mr. LUPTON: As I understand, a prison official is not to give a Member of Parliament information.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: He is not to give information to a Member of Parliament for the purpose of procuring his personal advancement, or for the purpose of making charges against his fellow officers. If he were allowed to do that it would be impossible to maintain discipline.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is that rule a regular one throughout the services, including the Army and Navy. If so, can the right hon. Gentleman account for some of the questions that are put here?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I cannot answer for the Army and Navy, which are naturally under different regulations, but practically the rule that I have quoted also applies to the Post Office. I will refer my hon. Friend to an answer which I gave in the House on 5th of April, 1906, which showed that I have altered other arrangements and given prison officials free right of meeting to discuss their grievances, and for the purpose of appealing to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. CROOKS: Does that apply to the Government prisons as well?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, certainly.

  Industrial and Reformatory School Fees.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER (for Mr. George Roberts)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that in the city of Liverpool there are arrears of from £5 to £50 for ordinary industrial and reformatory school fees outstanding against casual labourers, whose incomes in some cases are as low as 15s. per week; and whether he will consider the advisability of such arrears being revised with the object of relieving these men of the penalty of being sent to gaol periodically on warrants issued by the police for such arrears?
  Mr. GLADSTONE: It is the practice of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Department, in dealing with parental contributions, not to take proceedings against parents except where the failure to pay is due to wilful neglect. Arrears, therefore, sometimes accumulate, but never to such an amount as £50. The lists of parents in arrear are examined quarterly, and all proper cases submitted to me for remission; and at the end of last year I remitted the arrears in no less than 300 Liverpool cases. The hon. Member may rest assured that the enforcement of parental responsibility, which is under the control of the Chief Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, is conducted with fairness and discrimination, and that any case of apparent harshness brought to his notice is most carefully considered.
  Mr. CROOKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment there is a man in prison for not paying 1s. a week, who was out of employment when the man was committed.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: That may be so, I agree, but that it not necessarily included in the question. If my hon. Friend wishes to draw attention to the case I shall be glad to look into it.

  Post Office Salaries.
  Mr. WILESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in the Post Office Circular of 23rd March there appeared an advertisement for a full-time male assistant for Erith sorting office, competent to perform full postal, counter, and telegraph duties, at a scale of pay ranging from 3d. to 6d. an hour and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of recommending a more adequate remuneration for such responsible positions.
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): The rates of pay offered in the advertisement in question for officers over 19 years of age are those recommended by the Parliamentary Committee. The rates under 19 years of age are granted according to age and qualification, as is usual in such cases.

  Sub-Post Offices (Indoor Staff).
  Mr. HUDSON (for Mr. Wardle)asked whether, in view of the fact that the Post Office authorities are reducing head offices to the rank of sub-offices, instructions exist forbidding the allocation of established indoor staff to sub-offices; and whether in future surveyors shall be instructed that at Crown offices, under the direction of sub-postmasters, any duty among the indoor staff needing the services of an assistant for eight hours per day should be performed by an established sorting clerk and telegraphist?
  Mr. BUXTON: As I stated in reply to a question asked in this House on 26th February, there is no intention of reducing more than a very limited number of head offices to sub-offices, and that for purely administrative reasons. No instructions exist forbidding the allocation of established indoor staff to sub-offices. Each case is decided on its merits.

  Mail Service (Ardrossan and Arran).
  Mr. LAMONTasked the Postmaster-General what was the subsidy paid during the financial year 1908-9 to the Caledonian and Glasgow and South-Western Railway Companies respectively for the Ardrossan and Arran mail service; what were the summer and winter services to be provided by the companies in the same year; and whether he has made any alteration either in the amount of the subsidy or the mail service to be performed during the current financial year?
  Mr. BUXTON: A payment of £500 a year has since July, 1907, been made to the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company in respect of the Ardrossan and Arran Mail Service and a service between Greenock and Rothesay. The arrangement with the company provides for two trips a day on the Arran service during the period from 1st June to 30th September, and one trip a day during the remainder of the year. A payment of £25 a year has, since January, 1908, been made to the Caledonian Steam Packet Company for the conveyance of mails by any steamers the company run between Ardrossan and
  908
  Arran, but the Post Office has no control over the running of these steamers. No alteration has been made in the amount of the payment to either company in regard to the current financial year, and I am not aware that any alteration in the frequency of the steamer services is contemplated. I will, however, make inquiry on this point.
  Mr. LAMONT: Was the contract by the Glasgow and South-Western Railway for the winter months fulfilled satisfactorily?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have received no complaints. If the hon. Member has any complaint to send me I will make inquiry into the matter.

  London and North Western Railway Company (Dining Car).
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London and North-Western Railway Company have discontinued running a separate first-class dining care on the down day mail train from Holyhead; and, in view of the fact that this is a violation of the undertaking given by this railway company that there would be no reduction of the facilities heretofore obtainable on this train, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I will make inquiries in the matter.

  Coal Storage.
  Mr. RENWICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as only Welsh steam coal is used in the ships of His Majesty's Navy, he will state what arrangements have been made to keep in store on the North-East Coast an ample supply of such coal to be available in case of a stoppage in the Welsh coalfield by strikes, lock-outs, or other causes; and, in case no such arrangements have yet been made, will he consider the claims of the Tyne as a suitable place for such storage?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): If any necessity for coal storage should arise, the Tyne would be given full consideration with other ports on the East Coast.
  Mr. RENWICK: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in the Press to-day that a near foreign Power is storing large quantities of coal?

  Deaths at Sea (Asiatic Seamen.)
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death from beri-beri of an Asiatic fireman named Noshee Balla, one of the crew of the ss. "Karonga," of North Shields, on 2nd November, 1908; whether he is aware that this disease is attributed to insufficient and improper food; whether any inquiry was held; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining the ship; whether he had any previous sea service; and whether any previous cases of beri-beri have occurred on this ship?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): Yes, Sir. The, man referred to by my hon. Friend died in hospital of beri-beri after harving received medical attention at Philadelphia and New York. The cause of beri-beri has not yet been definitely ascertained, but it is probable that bad and insufficient food may predispose to the disease. Inquiry was held by the Vice-Consul at New York, and further inquiry will be made, if possible, on the return of the vessel to this country. I am informed that it is the practice for the crews of all vessels belonging to the owners of the "Karonga" to be medically examined when engaged at Calcutta, but I am not aware whether this particular man had been so examined. As he was first tindal he doubtless had had previous sea service. No previous death from beri-beri occurred on board this vessel since July, 1905.
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the supposed suicide at sea of an Asiatic fireman named Cheong Chung on the ss. "Moyune," of Liverpool, on 12th November, 1908; whether any inquiry was held; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining the ship; whether he had any previous sea service; whether the Board of Trade surveyors have satisfactorily reported upon the ventilation of the stokehold; if he can state the amount of coal the firemen and trimmers were required to work in each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this ship?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. Inquiry was held in the case referred to by my hon. Friend by the pro-Consul at Shanghai, the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Victoria Docks and the principal
  910
  Board of Trade officer for London. The man had been medically examined and had had previous sea service. The surveyors report that the ventilation was satisfactory, and the work at the time of the man's disappearance is stated to have been light. The man disappeared on the day of leaving Labuan after coaling. The coal consumption was 43 tons per day, and the number of firemen and trimmers was 16, including a spare man. No other case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance in this vessel has been reported in the last three years.
  Mr. STEADMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the suicide at sea on,14th November, 1908, of an Asiatic fireman named Sin Cheong, on the ss. "Kennebec," of London; whether any inquiry has been held; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining the ship; whether he had any previous sea service; whether the Board of Trade surveyors have satisfactorily reported upon the ventilation in the stokehold; if he can state the amount of coal the firemen and trimmers were called upon to work each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide or disappearance have occurred on this ship?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. Inquiry has been held in the case referred to by my hon. Friend, by the Vice-Consul at Port Said, and further inquiry will, if possible, be held on the return of the vessel to this country. I am not aware whether the man had been medically examined or had had previous sea service. As the vessel is trading between New York and the East, the Board's surveyors have not yet had an opportunity of reporting on the ventilation of the stokehold. The owners state that the consumption of coal was 32 tons per day, and the number of firemen and trimmers was 16. One previous case of suicide from this vessel has been reported in the last three years.
  Mr. STEADMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea on 25th November, 1908, of an Asiatic trimmer named Vong Kay on the ss. "Trocas," of London; whether any inquiry has been held; whether the seaman was medically examined prior to joining the ship; whether he had any previous sea service; if he can state the amount of coal the firemen and trimmers were required to work each 24 hours; whether the

  911
  Board of Trade surveyors have satisfactorily reported on the ventilation of the stokehold; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this ship?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. Inquiry was held in the case referred to by my hon. Friend by the Vice-Consul at Shanghai, and further inquiry will, if possible, be held on the return of the vessel to this country; I am not aware whether the man had been medically examined or had had previous sea service. The coal consumption was 30 tons per day, and the number of firemen and trimmers was 13. As the vessel is trading in the East, the Board of Trade Surveyors have not yet had an opportunity of reporting on the ventilation of the stokehold. No previous case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance in this vessel has been reported during the last three years.
  Mr. STEADMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the disappearance at sea on 11th December, 1908, of an Asiatic fireman named Sheik Emam Lull Choy on the ss. "China," of Belfast; whether any inquiry has been held; whether the seaman was medically examined prior to joining the vessel; whether he had any previous sea service; whether the Board of Trade surveyors have satisfactorily reported upon the ventilation of the stokehold; if he can state the amount of coal the fireman and trimmers were required to work in each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, missing, or disappearance have occurred on this ship?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, inquiry was held in the case referred to by my hon. Friend by the Vice-Consul at Marseilles and the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Tilbury. I am not aware whether the man had been medically examined or had had previous sea service. He was acting as servant to the chief engineer, and had never been employed in the stokehold. The vessel is now abroad, and the Board of Trade surveyors have not had an opportunity of reporting on the ventilation of the stokehold since the man's disappearance. The coal consumption was 90 tons per day, and the number of firemen and trimmers was 67. One previous case of suicide in this vessel has been reported during the last three years.
  Mr. REES: May I ask whether the solicitude for the welfare of Asiatic seamen evidenced by this question is calculated to promote or to restrict their employment in British ships?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the suicide at sea, on 6th December, 1908, of an Asiatic fireman named Chong Yung, on ss. "Bendoran," of Leith; whether any inquiry has been held; whether the seaman was medically examined before joining the ship; whether he had any previous sea service; whether the Board of Trade surveyors have satisfactorily reported upon the ventilation of the stokehold; if he can state the amount of coal the firemen and trimmers were required to work in each 24 hours; and whether any previous cases of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance have occurred on this ship?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, inquiry has been held in the case referred to by my hon. Friend by the Vice-Consul at Marseilles, the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Poplar, and the Principal Board of Trade Officer for London. I am not aware whether the man had been medically examined, but he had had previous sea service. He had been off duty over a fortnight before his death, and had been seen by a doctor. The Board of Trade Surveyors reported satisfactorily on the ventilation of the stokehold, and were of opinion that the men were not specially hard worked. The consumption of coal was 25 tons of Welsh or 26 tons of Japanese coal, and the number of firemen and trimmers was nine, but there were three greasers and two spare firemen employed in the engine-room. No previous case of suicide, supposed suicide, or disappearance in this vessel has been reported during the last three years.
  Mr. REES: Does the Board of Trade receive at first hand, or from any recognised association representing Asiatic seamen, complaints of this character?
  Mr. TENNANT: No. We receive no complaints, but when we have questions in the House we make inquiries of the owners of the vessels and get the information from them.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death at sea, on 8th December, 1908, from beri-

  913
  beri, of an Asiatic seaman named Goofoy on the ss. "Karonga," of North Shields; whether he is aware that this disease is attributed to insufficient and improper food; whether any inquiry was held; whether the seaman had any previous sea service; and whether any previous cases of deaths from beri-beri have occurred on this vessel?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. The man referred to by my hon. Friend died at sea of beri-beri on a voyage from New York to the East, via Malta. The cause of beriberi has not yet been definitely ascertained, but it is probable that bad and insufficient food predisposes to the disease. Inquiry was held by the Acting-Collector of Customs at Malta, and further inquiry will, if possible, be made on the return of the vessel to this country. I am not aware whether Goofoy had had previous sea service. One previous death from beri-beri occurred on board this vessel.

  Wood Pulp and Timber (Imported).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked what was the value of wood pulp and timber of all descriptions imported into this country in each of the years 1907 and 1908?
  Mr. TENNANT: The declared value of the imports of wood pulp in 1908 was £3,625,808 and the declared value of the imports of wood and timber £24,306,169, or, excluding furniture woods and staves, £21,399,622. The corresponding figures in 1907 were wood pulp £3,312,347, and wood and timber of all kinds £27,093,054, or, excluding furniture woods and staves, £24,131,243. These figures are all published in the monthly trade accounts.

  Rhymney Railway Company (Absence of Brake Vans).
  Mr. HUDSON (for Mr. Wardle)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the death by accident of Frederick Styles, a brakesman, formerly in the employ of the Rhymney Railway Company; whether he is aware that the evidence at the inquest elicited the fact that the deceased rode on the buffers, and that this was a common practice; whether he is aware that it was also stated that if there had been a brake van the man would probably have remained in it until the engine, which is supposed to have knocked him down, had passed; that it was stated that the deceased and his light could not be seen, but that if there had been a brake van a light could have been seen; and whether,
  914
  in view of the danger resulting to railway men through the absence of brake vans on this line he will state what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: My attention has been called to the accident, and an inquiry has been ordered into its causes.

  Northumberland Coal (Warships).
  Mr. RENWICKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the reason why Northumberland best steam coal is considered unsuitable for use in British warships; and will he consider the desirability of a fair proportion of such coal being used in future, so as to accustom the stokers to the use of the same, in case Welsh coal is not procurable owing to stoppages in the Welsh coal field or from other causes?
  Mr. McKENNA: Northumberland best steam coal is less suitable for general use in His Majesty's ships because of its lower calorific value, lower specific gravity, and its higher smoke-producing properties.
  Mr. RENWICK: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the second portion of my question with regard to the use of the coal by the stokers?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret I did not give a reply in the first instance. A certain amount of North Country coal is now wharfed, and the stokers are practised in using this. It is not proposed to extend it for general use.

  Small Holdings Act, 1907 (Compulsory Powers).
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what is the number of county councils to whom compulsory powers to acquire land under the Small Holdings Act, 1907, have been granted; can he give a list of such councils; and which of them have exercised the powers?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir E. Strachey): The following county councils have either made Compulsory Orders or given notice of their intention to do so, namely:—Cambridge, Devon, Gloucester, Huntingdon, Salop, Soke of Peterborough, Warwick, Carmarthen, Cornwall, Dorset, Leicester, Lincoln (Kesteven), Monmouth, Norfolk, Northampton, Northumberland, York (East Riding). Orders have been confirmed by the Board in the case of the eight counties first named. We have no reason to believe

  915
  that the councils either have not or will not put the Orders in force at the earliest possible moment.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked how many old age pensions granted to applicants in Ireland have been withdrawn consequent upon the recent inquiries of the Treasury?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have no means of: giving this information at present.

  Treasury Prosecutions (London).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary to the Treasury what was the sum paid to counsel in the Treasury prosecutions in London during 1907 and 1908, and in the three months of 1909, as compared with the same three months of 1907; and can he account for the increase?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In reply to the hon. Member it may be well to remind him that since 1879 (when the Act creating the office of Director of Public Prosecutions was passed) the description "Treasury prosecution" has been both inaccurate and misleading. For practically 30 years all criminal cases, formerly conducted by the Treasury Solicitor, have been con-ducted under the Prosecution of Offences Acts by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in such cases in 1907 the fees paid to counsel in London were £7,312 11s. 6d.; in 1908, £11,127 7s. 7d. The increased figure in this year was largely due to the trial of the Mile End guardians and the managers of the Poplar Sick Asylum. For the first three months of 1907 the amount paid to counsel in London was £2,277 1s. 10d., and for the corresponding period in 1909 the amount incurred was £3,945 12s. 6d., the increase in 1909 over the corresponding period of 1907 having been occasioned by the proceedings in Rex v. Bottomley and others.

  Carlisle Pier (Kingstown).
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is now aware of the fact that, under the contract between the Postmaster-General and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, a sum amounting roughly to £2,000 per annum is retained by the Postmaster-General on account of the use by the company of the Carlisle Prer, Kingstown; whether the Treasury have given facilities to the London and North-Western Eailway Company to bring their steamers to this pier without any payment other than the 5s. per trip charged by the Board of Works;
  916
  whether the railway company have so used this pier for a period of one year; and can he state how long the Treasury propose to discriminate in favour of an English company, and against an Irish company, in the use of a public harbour maintained by moneys voted by this House?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is that no money is retained by the Postmaster-General for the use of the Carlisle Pier, Kingstown, under the contract between him and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. A deduction of £2,000 is made from the subsidy payable to the company for the carriage of mails, in lieu of the share which the Postmaster-General enjoyed under former contracts of the gross receipts of the company in excess of £35,000 a year arising from and incidental to the passenger traffic between England and Ireland. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the affirmative, subject to the proviso that the existing arrangements with the London and Northwestern Railway Company are provisional only, pending the settlement of legal proceedings now in progress, and that the question of their user of the Carlisle Pier cannot be finally determined till those proceedings are settled. In answer to the fourth part of the question, there is no discrimination whatever between English and Irish companies, as each of the mail companies concerned, one English and one Irish, pays 5s. a trip for the use, not of the harbour, but of the pier.
  Mr. MOONEY: May I ask is it not the fact that in the contract between the City of Dublin Company and the Postmaster-General a percentage of the passenger receipts is deducted from the Irish company which amounts to £2,000, and that no such payment' is made from the English company; that the English company has the same facilities for using this Royal harbour except that this Irish company has to pay £2,000; and is it not a fact that only last month the scale of payment was issued for the present year, which will preclude the Treasury from making any further arrangement?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman has repeated every question he put on the Paper, and which I have endeavoured to answer. With regard to the scale of dues, that has nothing whatever to do with the payment made for the use of the pier. The dues affect the use of the harbour, and five shillings per trip is paid for the use of the pier.

  Old Age Pensions (Census Papers).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the difficulty of proving age for the purposes of old age pensions, if he will say in what way the census papers can be made available; to whom application should be made for their production; And the terms upon which such production can be obtained; and if he will issue rules upon the matter for the guidance of applicants?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Prior to the issue of the regulations under the Old Age Pensions Act the question was considered whether the census returns could be made available as evidence of age. The Registrar-General was consulted on the subject, and he expressed the opinion that reference to the records of the censuses of England and Wales would hardly be practicable, and would, moreover, be open to serious objections. I find from him that since then he has, at the request of the Inland Revenue authorities, caused a few searches to be made in the returns for evidence of age, but that the experiments have tended to confirm his previous opinion. In the circumstances I do not think I can take steps with a view of meeting the suggestion of the hon. Member.

  Rex v. Stoddart and Another.
  Mr. GODFREY BARINGasked Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the Recorder of London in summing up to the jury the recent case of Rex v. Stoddart and another; whether he is aware that this case occupied the attention of the Central Criminal Court for 23 days; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will consider whether any steps can be taken to somewhat curtail the extreme length of certain Treasury prosecutions?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson): It was not a Treasury prosecution in the wide sense in which that term is sometimes used. It was conducted by the City Solicitor. As Attorney-General I have no direct knowledge, but on inquiry I find that of the 23 days which the question states the case occupied only eight days were devoted to the case for the prosecution, so that one-third of the whole time, including the time given to cross-examination, was occupied by the prosecution. I may say the length of time occupied sometimes by prosecutions is owing to the extreme particularity re-
  918
  quired by our law in such cases. I am not disposed to shorten the proceedings by-relaxing or diminishing that severity of proof in cases in which liberty and character are at stake.

  Income Tax Returns (Case of Mr. Duckett).
  Mr. RICHARDSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. A. Duckett, 13, Kimboulton-avenue, Nottingham who, in filling up his return for the income-tax authorities, specifically stated that his income was £180 a year as salary from I. and R. Morley's; that, in the face of this statement, on a mere technical point, they insist on him paying one shilling in the pound; and whether his declaration in this simple case is not sufficient?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Section 19 (4) of the Finance Act, 1907, requires that claims to relief in respect of earned income must be preferred by September 30th. As Mr. Duckett failed to comply with this requirement his claim to relief could not be admitted.
  Mr. RICHARDSON: May I ask whether the official must have been aware of the circumstances from the statement, and whether under those circumstances he will allow a remission?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The application must come from the taxpayer, and must be submitted by 30th September. If the application has not been received by that date, it is impossible to deal with it.
  Mr. CROOKS: Can he say whether any person receives a salary without earning it?
  Mr. RICHARDSON: Does not the hon. Member see it was evidently a technical mistake on the part of Mr. Duckett, and must have been seen by the Inland Revenue authorities; and is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to endorse the action of their own official in taking advantage of a mere technical mistake?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No advantage was taken. The Act requires application to be made, and application was not made.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Can he say he will apply the same summary methods in the collection of Income Tax charged at a higher rate?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: A great number of applications from other persons have been equally refused.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask if any person with an income over £2,000 is called upon to make a declaration at all?

  Naval Administration (Inquiry).
  Mr. GEORGE D. FABERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave and growing anxiety regarding the Navy, he will forthwith institute an inquiry into the working of the Board of Admiralty and Naval Administration, such an inquiry to be conducted by a tribunal appointed by the Government and commanding public confidence?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not sure that I correctly apprehend the scope or object of the proposed inquiry. I have no statement to make on the subject at present.
  Mr. G. D. FABER: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that there is a precedent for such an inquiry in the Select Committee appointed in 1888 after the resignation of Lord Charles Beresford?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No; I have not that fresh in my memory, but I will look it up.

  Imperial Conference and Naval Defence.
  Captain CRAIG (for Mr. Lonsdale)asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the consideration now being given in the Colonies to the subject of the naval defence of the Empire, he will consider the desirability of calling an Imperial Conference before the year 1911 to discuss this urgent question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not understand that any desire has as yet been expressed by the Colonial Governments for a special conference on the naval defence of the Empire. If any such wish were expressed on the part of the self-governing Dominions, His Majesty's Government would give it their immediate and respectful consideration. As the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware, the first Resolution adopted at the last Imperial Conference provides for subsidiary conferences being held.
  Mr. C. C. CRAIG: May I ask whether the Government will take the initiative in this matter for once?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. This is a matter which, if it is brought to an issue at all, must be brought to an issue by a general agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Colonial Governments.

  Evicted Tenants (County Down).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any land has been acquired by the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners in the neighbourhoods of Hillsborough, Dromore, and Tullyniskey, county Down, for the purpose of settling evicted tenants; and, if so, whether the evicted tenants will be from the South and West of Ireland, or whether these allotments will be allocated only to evicted tenants in Ulster?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Estates Commissioners have given notice in the "Dublin Gazette" of their intention to acquire certain lands in county Down under the Evicted Tenants Act. These lands, if acquired, will be utilised for the purpose of providing holdings for tenants who have been evicted from farms in Ulster.

  Montray Estate, County Monaghan.
  Captain CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state under what jurisdiction, statutory or otherwise, the Estates Commissioners acted in awarding a portion of the untenanted land of the Montray estate, county Monaghan, to a man whose only occupation was that of gamekeeper?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No portion of the Montray estate was allocated to a person whose only occupation was that of a gamekeeper. The person to whom the question evidently refers was allotted a parcel of land on the Cordner estate, which he had occupied as gamekeeper, giving service in lieu of rent. The Estates Commissioners regarded him as a tenant, and allotted the land to him as such.
  Captain CRAIG: Is he an evicted tenant?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Yes.
  Mr. C. C. CRAIG: Under what circumstances was he evicted?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot say; but the allotment was made at the request of the Land Judge by whom the estate was sold under the Act of 1903.
  Captain CRAIG: Under what jurisdiction, statutory or otherwise, did the Estates Commissioners act?
  Mr. BIRRELL: He was not allotted the land because he was a gamekeeper, but he was allotted a parcel of land which he

  921
  had occupied as gamekeeper, giving his services in lieu of rent.

  Drogheda Distress Committee.
  Mr. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any decision has yet been come to about the payment to the Drogheda distress committee of the £150 asked for by them from the Local Government Board to balance their account for expenses incurred in the relief of bond fide unemployed workmen belonging to the town of Drogheda last winter ; and whether he can state how much of the £300,000 voted by Parliament for the unemployed has been alio cated to Ireland?
  Mr. BIRRELL: A payment of £150 has been made to the Drogheda distress committee to enable them to complete their operations under the Unemployed Workmen Act. The total sum granted from the Unemployed Fund in aid of Irish Expenses in the year ended 31st ultimo was £13,750.

  Massareene Evicted Tenants.
  Mr. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any progress has been made in the work of restoring to their homes the balance of the Massareene evicted tenants; whether he can give the names of those who are still unprovidd for; and whether he can settle approximately the date when their cases will be dealt with?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General for Ireland to the question asked by the hon. Member on 11th March.

  Old Age Pensions (Congested Districts, Ireland).
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return dealing with the amounts of old age pensions paid in the congested districts in Ireland, standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Antrim?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the Treasury are not prepared to grant this Return.
  Mr. C. C. CRAIG: In view of the extraordinarily beneficial results which the old age pensions have had in relieving distress and poverty in the west of Ireland and the necessity of having accurate figures when you come to deal with the congested districts clauses of the Land Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman press the Treasury for this return?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am desirous that the Treasury should give all information that it is in their power to give.

  Barrack Field, Eastbourne.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that on the 2nd March the secretary of the Eastbourne Clarion Fellowship made an application to Captain Pierce, the officer in command of troops at Eastbourne, asking for permission and terms for the use of the Barrack Field, Seaside Road, Eastbourne, for 8th to 13th July, for the purpose of holding Socialist meetings, and for a pitch in the field for the Clarion van, and that this application was refused by Captain Pierce, although he has admitted that this field has been used for temperance meetings, religious meetings, and for a circus; and, in consequence of the field being refused, does he propose to take any action thereon?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The practice of letting the Ordnance Field for any purpose other than naval or military has been discontinued for the past two years. The noise of meetings disturbed the patients in the Military Hospital, which is adjacent to and overlooks the field.

  Artillery Officers (Honours).
  Captain CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state if any honours are to be given to officers of the full rank of colonel commanding, Reserve Field Artillery, who are under orders to resign their command, after being in the service 30 years and over, and who have so far received no honours?
  Mr. HALDANE: The grant of honours rests with His Majesty, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give the hon. and gallant Member any information on the subject.

  Canvas Supplies (War Department).
  Mr. CLAUDE HAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange that contractors who supply canvas for his Department shall be bound, as in the case of contractors supplying canvas to the Admiralty, under their contracts to deliver canvas manufactured in the United Kingdom; and if he has inquired from the firms who now supply his Department with canvas whether that canvas is manufactured in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HALDANE: The War Department has an ample supply of canvas from English and Scotch manufacture of high reputation. I, therefore, see no reason for

  923
  introducing into the contracts stipuations as to place of origin, and for making the inquiries suggested.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether the canvas supplied is or is not made in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HALDANE: I believe it is made in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Have you ascertained definitely?
  Mr. HALDANE: No.
  Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Why do you not adopt the course followed in Admiralty contracts of putting in a clause that the ai tide is to be manufactured in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. HALDANE: It is not necessary. As the article is supplied by English and Scotch manufacturers, we presume it comes from the United Kingdom.

  Ocean Island Phosphates.
  Mr. WATT (for Mr. H. C. Lea)asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the date of the first lease of guano phosphate property obtained by the Pacific Islands Company on Ocean Island, the amount the company therein agreed to pay the natives, and whether the company by this first lease obtained the whole or only a part of the land on which the guano phosphates are found; and if he will give for each year, from 1900 to date, the tonnage and the value of the guano phosphates exported from Ocean Island?
  Colonel SEELY: The date of the first agreement made by the Pacific Islands Company, Limited, with the natives of Ocean Island was 3rd May, 1900. The company agreed in it to pay the natives £50 per annum for the exclusive right to raise and ship all the rock and alluvial phosphate on the island. I am informed that, in addition to the sum payable under this agreement, annual and other sums (which amounted in 1908 to over £l,100) are paid to individual native owners. The tonnage of phosphates exported is as follows:—

  Year.

  Tons.

  1900

  1,545

  1901

  13,479

  1902

  13,781

  1903

  54,722

  1904

  76,437

  1905

  108,615

  1906

  140,882

  1907

  179,101

  1908

  210,155

  His Majesty's Government have no information as to the precise value of the phosphates exported, which, of course, depends on the prices of the market.
  Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman happen to know is this company registered in London?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not.

  Somaliland.
  Mr. GEORGE GOOCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will communicate to the House the latest information in regard to affairs in Somaliland?
  Colonel SEELY: No material change has taken place in the position in Somaliland since I made my last statement in the House.

  Workmen's Trains (Newport, South Wales).
  Mr. STEADMAN (for Mr. Bowerman)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is proposed to cease running a workmen's train which was put on 8th February last between Newport and the Western Valley, on the Great Western Railway; whether he can state the reasons for withdrawing this train; and whether, in view of the many workmen residing in Newport and at the various places en route who will be adversely affected by the stoppage of the service, he will make representations to the railway company with a view to its continuation?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have communicated with the railway company, and am sending my hon. Friend a copy of their reply.

  Post Office Uniforms.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Postmaster-General whether, as a further step towards the abolition of sweating, he will arrange to have all uniforms worn by Post Office servants made by labour employed directly by the Government?
  Mr. BUXTON: I do not propose to do as suggested. The hon. Member is aware, however, that the fair wages clause is rigidly enforced; and I have lately introduced a minimum wage for the female workers under the Post Office clothing contracts.

  London Returned Letter Office.
  Mr. WATT (for Mr. H. C. Lea)asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that, in the returned letter office, London, there are employed at the present time 55 assistants (male) and 101 returners (female), although in his Estimates both for 1908-9 and 1909-10 the numbers appear as 63 and

  925
  97, respectively; and will he state whether it is proposed to maintain the numbers estimated for, or to fill the vacancies as they occur on the male establishment with females?
  Mr. BUXTON: Certain duties performed by assistants have been transferred to returners because they are in every way suitable for women, and the same course will be followed in future if it appears to be desirable.

BUSINESS AFTER EASTER.
Mr. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister if he can give the House any information regarding the business for the Wednesday and Thursday after Easter; if he can inform the House whether the House will sit at 12 o'clock to-morrow; and if he can give any information as to the date of the introduction of the Budget?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Government propose on Wednesday, the 21st inst., to put down as first Order the introduction of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. On the 22nd a Motion will be made that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair, and that the House go into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates. As a result of general agreement between various parties in the House a Motion will be moved to-night, before the House rises, that this House will meet to-morrow at 12 o'clock. I gather that there is no intention in any quarter of the House that the sitting to-morrow should be prolonged. I cannot make any statement at present about the date of the introduction of the Budget.
Mr. W. C. STEADMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any indication as to when the Home Office Vote will be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will make that a matter of arrangement after Easter.
Mr. REES: When will Committee on the Indian Councils Bill be taken?
The PRIME MINISTER: We shall take it on the first Monday after Easter, the 19th.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Mr. STEWART BOWLES: On the Army (Annual) Bill I would like to ask whether clause 4 is not outside the Order for the second reading? The Bill was, I am informed, circulated on 25th March to Mem-
926
bers, and they were not able to make themselves fully acquainted with its contents. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean expressed the very grave doubt that he felt as to whether or not this was in order, and but for the late hour that the Bill was taken, and if you, Mr. Speaker, had been in the chair, he would certainly have asked your ruling. I submit that the House, in agreeing to the order for the introduction of this Bill, only authorised the Bill that provides for 12: months for the discipline and regulation of the Army. I submit that the provisions of the Bill must be confined to these two purposes. I submit that clause 4 goes far outside either of these two matters. It proposes an alteration of the constitution of the War Office, and a diminution in the personal power and duties of the Secretary of State, who is alone responsible to this House. It gives for the first time a statutory position to the Army Council, a body which has hitherto had no such powers. It raises, I submit, inevitably the whole question, not only of the relation between one unit and another of His Majesty's Army, but another, the effect of the relations of the supreme head of the Army and this House. I submit that it is not proper to use a Bill intended expressly for internal regulation and discipline of the Army as a vehicle to make a large constitutional change in a matter quite external to the Army itself, namely, the constitutional power and position of the Secretary of State.
Mr. SPEAKER: Many of the matters which the hon. Member has raised are more on the merits of the case than for me to pronounce upon. The point he takes, I understand, is that clause 4, transferring powers to the Army Council, goes beyond the leave to introduce the Bill to provide for the discipline and regulation of the Army. I think it is impossible to conceive wider words than the words "discipline and regulation." They seem to me to cover almost anything conceivable which relates to the Army. The Secretary of State is surely, if he has statutory authority, entitled to delegate or transfer certain of his duties? He is charged, as regards this House, with the maintenance of the discipline and regulation of the Army. Surely it is open to him, if he has the sanction of the House, to delegate or transfer some of those powers to some body? If he chooses to do that by Act of Parliament, I do not see

927
that any question of Order can arise. It is entirely a question of merits. I confess I think clause 4 comes within the Order of leave, and that it is covered by the words "discipline and regulation." The proper time for the hon. Member to have raised his complaint was on the second reading of the Bill; but in view of the special circumstances, I take no exception to his raising it now. The House, by passing the second reading, has, primd facie, given its assent to the inclusion of clause 4 in the Bill.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
Mr. THOMAS GLOVER: To-morrow three weeks to call attention to the serious loss of life in mines and the need of closer inspection, and to move a Resolution.
Mr. H. BELLOC: To-morrow three weeks to call the attention of the House to the withholding of information on matters of public importance by the Ministers responsible, and to move a Resolution.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
Mr. WHITWELL WIXSON—Criminal Law Amendment.—Bill to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and for other purposes connected therewith. (To be read a second time, Thursday, 29th April.)
Mr. HOBHOUSE—Post Office.—Bill to enable an Assistant Postmaster-General to sit in the House of Commons. (To be read a second time, 19th April.)

JUVENILE FEMALE EMPLOYMENT BILL.
Mr. CLAUDE HAYasked permission, under the Ten Minutes' Rule, to introduce a Bill to provide for the licensing of juvenile female employment agents and the protection of young girls. He said: The Bill I ask leave to introduce is much needed, and is one for the licensing of agents engaged in finding foreign employment for women and girls. The Home Secretary will, I feel sure, bear me out when I say that it has been for some years well known to the authorities of Scotland Yard and also to various societies occupied with social work, including the Salvation Army, that English girls
928
have been engaged in this country for the purpose of dancing or performing on the Continent and other countries, and many of these girls have had no chance of protecting themselves from their surroundings—which I need not describe, but which cannot be otherwise than dangerous—in the theatres and music-halls at which they have performed abroad. There is ample evidence that in other cases they have been deserted and left to starve or take to immorality so as to be able to live. Only a few days ago there was reported in the newspapers the case of six English girls, whose ages ranged from 11 to 18, who were deserted by their manager in Berlin. Alone, and in a foreign country, unable to speak a word of the language, it is easy to imagine their defencelessness, but fortunately they were befriended by an Englishman who heard of their condition. And hon. Members will remember the case in the Law Courts recently of an English actress who went to South America, and the evidence she gave. I may mention also that it is a fact that there are employed in places of entertainment on the Continent many young children who, under the laws of this country, could not be so employed, and they work longer hours than they would be allowed to do in this country. Unfortunately, in the majority of Continental countries, there is no legislation appropriate to the circumstances to which I have alluded, and, therefore, the perpetrators of offences who would be punished here cannot be touched abroad. The Home Secretary can bear out the facts, and the necessity for legislation, as I am informed that the officials of Scotland Yard have presented to him a voluminous report containing full information of some very grave cases of what has befallen those of tender years sent abroad by these foreign theatrical agents. I understand also that the London County Council have had representations made to them on the same subject. The Bill provides that every foreign employment agent who for reward obtains or professes to be willing to obtain employment for any woman or girl in any place outside the United Kingdom shall take out a licence from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for carrying on his business, and a person acting as an agent without a licence shall be subject to a penalty. The foreign employment agents' licences shall not be granted except on the production of a certificate which shall be granted by magistrates, but 21 days' notice of application to magistrates must

929
be given to the police. A certificate shall not be refused by the magistrates except when the applicant has failed to produce satisfactory evidence of good character or to give proper notice under the Bill. Notice of the address at which he intends to carry on his business shall be given by the agent, "and it shall clearly be stated on the door of his office that he is an agent for foreign employment. Books shall also be kept containing particulars of the names and addresses of the young people and their friends, and also the address of the place of amusement in which they are to be employed, together with the nature of the employment, the duration of their contract, their wages, etc. It is hoped that this will enable their parents and relatives to keep track of their children and in communication with them, so that if they fall upon evil times steps may be at once taken for their rescue. Entirely new legislation is not suggested by this Bill. The London County Council by their General Powers Acts, passed three or four years ago, provided for the registration of persons keeping servants' registry offices and employment agencies within their area. Other towns in the kingdom have since obtained similar powers in similar Acts. The mere fact of registration does very little to meet the difficulty, because practically anybody may register, but before an agent can obtain a licence he must show that he is a person of good character, and the police and others must have an opportunity of opposing the application. It appears to the Salvation Army and other bodies with wide experience who promote this Bill that the only way of meeting the evil is by some action on the lines indicated, and from all the information I have received and the information in the hands of the Government I can confidently say that there is urgent necessity for such a measure as this to be passed by Parliament. I hope that the House will allow me to introduce the Bill, that they will give it a sympathetic reception, and that it will find its way on to the Statute Book in the course of the present Session.
Question, "That leave be given to bring in the Bill," put and agreed to.
Bill brought in accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time 21st April.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Mr. BOWLES Mr. BOWLES moved—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they
930
have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, and to embody clause 4 and Parts 1, and II. of the Second Schedule to the Bill in a separate Bill." I move this Instruction, he said, upon three main grounds, which I hope will have some weight with the House, and even with the right hon. Gentleman. The House will be aware that clause 4 of this Bill is of a large and far-reaching character, and whatever may be said on its merits the proposals it makes are at any rate different in kind from not only the whole of the rest of the proposals of the Bill, but, so far as I know and have been able to ascertain, from any proposals that have been made in the Army (Annual) Bill in former years. The House will see that leaving clause 4 outside altogether the rest of this Bill is directed, as I have always believed the Army (Annual) Bill should be directed, to amending the Army Act and making small alterations in the military code in the interests of discipline. That is one of the objects to which the Army (Annual) Bill has hitherto been confined. But clause 4 is entirely different, because it proposes to make a great organic alteration for good or for evil in the methods by which the Army is administered. It proposes to make a great organic alteration, whether rightly or wrongly, in the powers and duties which at present vest in the Secretary of State. The Secretary for War is the only Minister responsible to this House for the Army, but we have in clause 4 a proposal which goes far beyond any affair internal to the Army, and it touches directly for the first time in this Bill questions closely affecting the powers and the position of this House as expressed through the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. This clause is different in kind to any other clause in the Bill.
Then there is this second consideration, which appears to me to be of great importance. If clause 4 and the second schedule are kept in this Bill, this change, which is a tremendous one, will have to be decided under circumstances which, although perfectly proper in an Army (Annual) Bill of an urgent character, which must be passed before a certain date, are quite improper in the case of the change which is now proposed. This is a Bill which must be passed before the end of this month and within the next few days, therefore it is an urgent and necessary matter. The proposals, however, contained in clause 4 are not urgent. The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors ever since the abolition of the Commander-in-Chief and

931
the Adjutant-General have gone on in the situation in which the right hon. Gentleman now stands armed with his present powers. This clause is not urgent in the interests of the War Office itself, and in any case it could be much better considered separately and later than upon this Bill. It does appear to me that any proper or adequate consideration of this proposal must involve an inquiry into many matters which have never yet been brought before the House. When we are asked not to delegate but to transfer permanently to the Army Council powers and duties which are only conferred upon the Secretary of State, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Adjutant-General, surely it is necessary to inquire what is the Army Council, and what is the object of conferring upon that body these powers? That inquiry is not an easy one, but an inquiry into the real meaning of what we are doing by clause 4 must necessarily be a very long and tedious one, and one which it is quite impossible for the House to undertake adequately upon this Bill here and now.
Finally, in asking that clause 4 should be placed outside the scope of this Bill and dealt with separately, I am only asking the House and the Government to do what the Government themselves did a few months ago. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman requires these powers, but if they are really necessary the only way in which this House ought to grant them is in a separate Bill, which we should be entitled to discuss in all its stages under conditions and circumstances which cannot apply to the Army (Annual) Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman requires this clause the course he took last year of putting it in a separate Bill is the proper course to take as far as this House is concerned. It is not a proper thing, and it is straining the powers of Government and asking a very great deal of this House to use an Army (Annual) Bill for a purpose of this kind, which it has never been used for before. The Secretary for War cannot find any precedent for asking powers of this sort in a Bill like the Army (Annual) Bill. For these reasons, because clause 4 and its schedule involve a proposal of very great magnitude entirely different to any other principles contained in this Bill, and different from any which have been placed in any Army Bill before, I am asking the House to do what the right hon. Gentleman himself asked us to do a few months
932
ago in a similar situation. I earnestly hope the House will favourably consider the Instruction which stands in my name on the Paper, which I beg to move.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I wish to say a word or two to emphasise the arguments which have been addressed to the House by my hon. Friend. As my hon." Friend has stated, the question of the merits or demerits of clause 4 do not arise upon this Motion, and the only question before us is whether the House is going to agree to consider this clause at all now, and whether it is proper to consider it at the present moment. I will submit reasons why the House ought not to accept the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward for immediate decision. In the first place, there is no question of urgency, and the questions dealt with in clause 4 might very well wait for the introduction of a separate Bill dealing with this subject, which is really necessary before any steps can be taken.
My next submission is that the proposal contained in clause 4, although it is within the letter of the sub-title of the Bill, is really outside its spirit. While subjectively it may be in the same category, objectively it is in a different category altogether. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the respective sub-titles of the Army Council Bill and this Army (Annual) Bill. The Army (Annual) Bill is one to provide during twelve months for the discipline and regulation of the Army, but the Army Council Bill is a measure to transfer permanently to the Army Council certain statutory powers and duties of the Secretary of State for War and other officers. Now these two things are not in pari materia at all, and I put it to the House that this proposal is not really at all what it purports to be, namely, an amendment of the Army Act. It is really a constitutional step of which the amendment of the Army Act is the outward and visible sign. What is this constitutional step'? It is that for the first time Parliament is asked to recognise the existence of a body called the Army Council.
Let me press this point upon the House. The Army Council was created by Letters Patent, supplemented by an Order in Council, and therefore it is the creation of the Executive authority and the Executive authority alone. Parliament, as distinct from the Crown, has never given any official recognition whatever to the existence of this body to whom it is now pro

933
posed, in the corner of this Bill, to transfer the Statutory powers of the Secretary of State. A proof of that will be found by comparing the preambles of the respective Bills—namely, the Army Council Bill and the Army (Annual) Bill—whereas in the Army (Annual) Bill you find in the preamble not one single word about the Army Council. If you turn to the Army Council Bill you find, quite rightly and properly, it is provided that: "Whereas by an Order in Council dated so and so, it is provided that the Secretary of State is to be responsible to His Majesty and to Parliament for all business of the Army Council other than that business which the Secretary of State reserves for himself, etc." The preamble of the Army Council Bill starts off by a recital of the fact that the Army Council has been created, and that because of that creation certain steps ought to be taken by Parliament. This Bill, on the other hand, does not ever recognise the fact at all, either in the title or in the preamble, that an Army Council exists. Officially and Constitutionally, up to this moment Parliament has no knowledge of the existence of the Army Council. While that is true of the Army (Annual) Act and of the Army Council Bill, it is also true of the Army Act itself. Through the whole of the 190 clauses and the four schedules of the Army Act there is not a single word even hinting at the existence of the Army Council. I mention that because clause 4 of this Bill is designated as an amendment of the Army Act. It is something far more than that, and I strongly press the Constitutional aspect on the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not profess to have anything more than a nodding acquaintance with Constitutional law, and I would not ask the House to accept a statement on such a subject from myself, but I go to a higher authority. I appeal to Csesar—to the right hon. Gentleman himself. Last year, when the Army (Annual) Bill was before the House, the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division moved an Amendment to draw attention to this very point. Seeing that certain powers were given to the Commander-in-Chief, and that there was no Commander-in-Chief in existence, the hon. Member for Blackpool proposed an Amendment substituting in clause 42 of the Army Act, for the words "Commander-in-Chief" the words "Chief of the General Staff." The right hon. Gentleman resisted that Amendment, for the very reasons which I have endeavoured to put before the House, and for which this In-
934
struction is proposed. He said that this Amendment, although it might technically be necessary, was really not worth pressing, because he was going to deal with the whole subject shortly:—
"He had not yet had an opportunity of bringing forward the Army Council Powers Bill but he hoped to introduce it later in the Session. He named to pass it as soon as he got an opportunity, but until that Bill became law it was impossible to deal with these mere formalities."
I agree that all this business of amending the Army Act by substituting the words "Army Council" for the words now there is a mere formality, but the right hon. Gentleman rightly said that it was a formality which this House ought not to undertake until a Bill had been brought forward to deal with the general subject. The right hon. Gentleman amplified his statement later in the same debate, when he said:—
"The only use of the Act of Parliament was to put right what was in substance right and what was constantly working. That would have to be done by a Bill outside this Act, and that would be the proper tune to amend the Army (Annual) Act."
That is our case, and it is a case which I believe is absolutely irrefragible.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, and to embody clause 4 and parts I. and II. of the second schedule to the Bill in a separate Bill."—[Mr. Stewart Bowles.]
The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The point put by the hon. Members for Norwood and North-West Lanarkshire would have been much more appropriate if they had put it in the form of a question designed to elicit "information. I think I shall be able to show in a moment that the attitude of affirmation which underlay their speeches is an attitude without foundation. I am sure they do not desire to go back to the system abolished by the late Government in 1904, under which there was a Commander-in-Chief and the old statutory Adjutant-General. What was done was to sweep that away, and to substitute an organisation as nearly as possible an exact reproduction of the Board of Admiralty. The powers were distributed, and the position of the Secretary of State was made clear. He is responsible to Parliament for everything done by the Army Council collectively, or by any member of it; he has power to apportion business or to withdraw any business; and the conception of the change that was made by the Order in

935
Council was that that would be a working system. I am glad to say, after between three and four years' experience of the system, that it is not only working well, but is working better every day. It is more business-like than the old system, and the distribution of functions has led to the much more efficient despatch of business. I do not for a moment assume that the House wishes to go back on that system. "But," said the hon. and learned member for Lanarkshire:—
"The Army Council was set up only by Letters Patent and Order in Council, and Parliament knows nothing about it."
I was a little surprised at that suggestion coming from so accurate a lawyer as my hon. Friend. There is an Act which, I think, he has not only heard of, but has had a great deal to do with, namely, the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, throughout which the Army Council is treated by Parliament as the effective body. In the first provision it says, "The Army Council shall pay the associations …." It is not any of these old officials who are now superseded, but the Army Council right through is treated by Parliament as the body to which the powers of that Act are entrusted. Therefore, I pass without further comment from the suggestion that Parliament has not dealt with or recognised the existence of the Army Council.
Now I come to the substantive point. I take together the points made by the hon. Members for Norwood and North - West Lanarkshire. The first thing said by the hon. Member for Norwood in particular, and I think also by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire, was that advantage has been taken of the Army (Annual) Bill to make a great organic change. There is no great organic change made. All that is suggested is that in the Act containing the working machinery by which the maintenance of the Army is carried on, the language should conform to the facts. The facts are that the Army Council has been in existence for nearly five years, and that the language of the Army Act is unintelligible to anybody who has not a great deal of technical knowledge, for the simple reason that it was drawn up when there was a Commander-in-Chief and the old statutory Adjutant-General and no Army Council, and that language stands intact to this day. In deed, the position of the Minister for War in this House is not always an easy one. On the one hand, he is reproached for
936
allowing to go on from year to year an Act the language of which is not in harmony with the existing machinery, and, on the other hand, if he tries to alter it, it is said: "Oh, this is most improper; you are introducing great organic changes." There is not a single Amendment proposed to be made in this Bill which is not of a merely minor and purely administrative character. There is no organic change proposed; there is no question of principle inserted. All that is done on each and every occasion is to bring the language of the Act of Parliament into harmony not only with the facts but with the existing working machinery. For instance, the Commander-in-Chief is named in the Army Act, and it is plain that there is no Commander-in-Chief. I take as an illustration a case which sometimes happens, where a non-commissioned officer is convicted for an offence by a civil court, and it is necessary that he should be reduced to the ranks. That would have been done by the Commander-in-Chief. What happens to-day is that the prerogative has to be invoked. The Secretary of State has to send a submission to the Sovereign; that submission has to receive the imprimatur of the Sovereign, and come back, if approved, to be adopted by the Secretary of State. The prerogative has to be made use of even in so simple a matter as that. The result is that the time of the Secretary of State is taken up by doing purely mechanical work which ought never to occupy his time—almost clerical work. That is merely an illustration of the kind of work which takes up my time, which is really unnecessary, and which ought to be put right. Then the hon. Members said: "Why do you not do this as you proposed to do it last year—by a separate Bill?" Last year I proposed to transfer to the Army Council not merely statutory powers created by the Army Act but statutory powers created by the Defence Act, the Reserve Forces Act, and other statutes. I confine myself here, and I am bound so to do—otherwise there would have been great force in the point taken—purely to things which are within the Army Act. I am proposing to transfer nothing that is not within the four corners of the Army Act; therefore it is strictly relevant to the Army Act to amend it by making its language harmonise with the language of the Order in Council. That is why it is not necessary to bring in a separate Bill on this occasion. No great organic change being proposed, no ques-

937
tions of substance being dealt with, but merely questions of drafting, no attempt being made to transfer powers created by other statutes such as the Reserve Forces Act and the Defence Act, it is proper to amend the Army Act on the occasion in the year when we do habitually amend it.

I would point out that the situation is very much simpler than it was two years ago. By the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act all the powers conferred upon the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of State, and the old statutory Adjutant-General by the Volunteers and Yeomanry Act have already been transferred to the Army Council. Therefore, I am able to leave the Defence Act and the Reserve Forces Act alone for the present, and to confine myself strictly to an attempt to give the House an intelligible Army Act which they can read without being confused by constant references to functionaries who do not exist, and whose powers cannot be exercised. Nobody has suggested that by these Amendments any responsibility of Ministers is in any way infringed or diminished, or that there is any attempt to tamper with financial administration. That is not affected in any way. What is done will be seen if hon. Members will turn to section 77 and the subsequent sections regarding the Secretary of State, and again to section 42, and the sections which deal with the Commander-in-Chief and the statutory Adjutant-General. There is simply a transfer to the Army Council, not of all powers, but of unimportant powers which are merely clerical and administrative. All the important powers are kept in the hands of the Secretary of State. Even as regards the whole of these, care has been taken in clause 4 to preserve in express terms the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament. If this Bill passes I shall be responsible to Parliament the day after it is passed exactly as much as and no less or no more than I am to-day. All that will have happened is that the Order in Council and the Army Act will have been brought into harmony. The hon. and learned Member for North-West Lanarkshire asked:—
"Is it appropriate to transfer powers from the Army Act, which is a permanent Act, by a Bill which is to operate only for a year?"
We have in the Army Act itself every word of the Code. In the Army (Annual) Bill, which we pass every year, we always amend the Army Act, and bring it into conformity with the requirements of the day. The difference made now will be
938
that the Code will be brought up to date and made intelligible in a way it has not been brought up to date before. It is said that there is no urgency in these matters. All I have to say is that if the House knew the amount of my time which is wasted in purely mechanical and unnecessary work which ought never to fall on the head of any Department, it would not be said that there is no urgency. What is now proposed ought to have been done long ago. Then it is said that this is not the occasion on which to do it. Well, I think I have shown that this is the occasion. I have confined my Amendments to Amendments in the Army Act pure and simple, and I have not dealt with other Acts which would have necessitated a separate Bill. I trust I have satisfied the House that there is absolutely nothing behind this except what I have stated. I have used my utmost endeavours to get the Bill into shape. It has been drafted by one of the most eminent draftsmen. I have been through every line of it myself, and I trust that if the House allows the clause in the Bill to pass as it stands a substantial contribution will be made to rendering the Code of the Army intelligible to hon. Members and to the public generally.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: I shall hardly deal at all with the merits of the clause which we shall have other opportunities of discussing. The only remarks I shall make will be in reply to the observations of my right hon. Friend. In regard to the existence of the Army Council and the manner of its existence we cannot put our case more plainly than in the words of the Secretary of State himself. He was asked last year by what statutory authority the Army Council exists, not before the Territorial Army Bill, but after the Act was passed, and he answered distinctly that the Army Council was created by the prerogative of the Sovereign, exercised through Letters Patent. I will not enter upon the question of the prerogative being extended to such things. It is not my intention to raise that question, but I would refer those who are interested in it to the two speeches of the late Sir William Har-court, in which he denied the existence of any such prerogative. We are told that this is carrying out the Esher Report. I would like to know what Lord Esher's view was on that subject.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE made a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: You said that the policy of the late Government was in accord with the recommendation of the Esher Committee, viz., that the Army Council should be made like the Board of Admiralty. The late Government accepted the Esher Report on that point, but they did not carry it out. It has not been carried out by this Government, and it is not being carried out by this Bill. Is that denied? There is no resemblance to the Board of Admiralty, and the speeches of Lord Spencer and Lord Ripon, in another place, against the Army Council Bill, were as clear as possible on that subject.
Let me put aside the points which arise on the speech of the Secretary of State. I also put aside the question whether there ought or not to be a Commander-in-Chief. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that this was a question of policy. It is the opposite policy which is pursued by the present Government in India, and it was recommended to this House last week in a dispatch which gives an opposite set of reasons to those which have been advanced here in regard to a Commander-in-Chief in this country. I will not touch upon that further than to point out that there is an extraordinary discrepancy.
The ground given for proceeding with this Bill is that great urgency exists, and that great inconvenience is caused to the Secretary of State and others by the present system. We have never had any ground whatever stated either by the late Secretary of State or the present Secretary of State to show that there was urgency or inconvenience, except one, and that is in the case of the reduction of a non-commissioned officer to the ranks. I pointed out last year in the debate which has been quoted, and I think two Members on the other side of the House also pointed out, that it would be perfectly easy to deal with that by a purely disciplinary Amendment in this Bill. That is not a matter of urgency. There would be no difficulty in dealing with that at all, or with any point of that description, so that I think that argument can hardly stand. The Secretary of State assumes two things. He assumes that the saving of his responsibility covers everything, but he knows the weak point in that argument. The right hon. Gentleman has always a second string to his bow, and he says: "I am a Member of the Army Council, and therefore, so far as responsibility goes, the Army Council is centred in me." No one can doubt the responsibility of that body. It is a body
940
which is sometimes the Secretary of State—both in this Government and the late Government—and sometimes quite different, according to the view which suits the circumstances of the moment. The Secretary of State has explained to-day, and he also explained in his speech on the second reading, that this Bill is to bring the Army Act into consonance with the actual law as it exists—the actual law so far as the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant-General are concerned. But what we are dealing with now are the powers of the Secretary of State. The account which the Secretary of State gave was that in 1904 the office of Commander-in-Chief was abolished and by an Order in Council all his powers were transferred to the Army Council, subject to this, that by express provision in the Order in Council it was made clear that the responsibility of the Secretary of State should remain unchanged. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated that statement to-day as to his responsibility remaining unchanged. It has already been pointed out by the Seconder of the Motion that the preamble of the Army Council Bill did give certain safeguards by explaining the meaning of the Bill, which are altogether wanting now. One part of the preamble of the Army Council Bill is taken out and put into clause 4, sub-section (b), which says:—
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Order in Council dated the tenth day of August nineteen hundred and four, respecting the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and Parliament."
That is an extraordinry way of preserving the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament. We know what are the arguments which have been used by the Secretary of State outside the House. I should like to give one or two specific examples of the working of this responsibility. In a note referring to clause 4 I find the following paragraphs:—
"This clause transfers to the Army Council the bulk of the powers of the Secretary of State.
"The powers excepted from transfer include those where the Secretary of State acts as a channel of communication to and from the Sovereign (e.g., sections 42, 70, 95, 103, 115 (1), 140 (3)."
The Notes do not mention section 88 of the Army Act, which, however, is referred to in the schedule. If the House will turn to that section they will find that, in immi-

941
nent national danger, the King in Council by proclamation may order soldiers otherwise transferable to reserve to continue in Army service. Sub-section 2 makes it lawful for the King by proclamation to order a Secretary of State to give directions for that purpose. There is a vast Constitutional difference between the King ordering an Army Council to give powers affecting liberty, even though the Secretary of State is its principal member, and the present Constitutional position of the Secretary of State standing alone. That is a serious responsibility, directly undertaken by the Secretary of State. That is what is transferred to the Army Council, and I say that it is wholly different from the collective responsibility of the Board. To speak of them as if they were entirely outside of himself is a totally different thing from the responsibility to Parliament of the Secretary of State.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE was understood to dissent.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: I do not think it is the same thing. Of course, technically, some Minister is responsible for every conceivable act of the Crown. It is a convenient fiction, but does my right hon. Friend assert that the Constitutional principle is sufficient?
Mr. HALDANE: Does my right hon. Friend really suggest that the Secretary of State is not to act except on the advice of the Army Council?
Sir CHARLES DILKE: I would refer my right hon. Friend to section 115 of the Act. Again, another section empowers any justice by warrant in emergency, signified under sub-section 1 of section 115 to impress by requisition carriages, horses, and vessels. The "officer of a Secretary of State" of the present law gives more real responsibility than the substituted "officer of the Army Council." I say there again I should much prefer the direct Order of the Secretary of State to the Order of the Army Council.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE who was indistinctly heard in the gallery, was understood to say: It is stated "and as signified by the Secretary of State."
Sir C. DILKE: That is in a general way; but with regard to provisions which apply to the whole civilian population, I should prefer the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State. I do not think that these constitutional powers ought to rest upon technicalities. I know that to a
942
lawyer of great ability and great brains like my right hon. Friend they may mean the same thing, but they do not mean the same thing. We are dealing with a power which interferes most gravely with the population of this country; and, therefore, I should prefer the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State. There is a statement in the Bill which does not seem to me to be perfectly correct as to guarding these responsibilities. There was in the Army Council Bill in its latest form a clause—clause 1, sub-section 1A—which states that nothing in clause 1 is to affect the communications to or from the King, which have to be made by or through the Secretary of State. It is stated that has been preserved. I do not see where it is.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE who was again very imperfectly heard in the Gallery, was understood to say—" It is preserved in this way. The Army Council Bill confers all the statutory power en bloc. This time we are conferring only the specified powers contained in the sections."
Sir C. DILKE: I am prepared to accept that as a matter of drafting, but it does not remove my objection to the constitutional form of the Bill. But it is better to be on the safe side regarding provisions of this kind. It is notorious, and nobody is more aware of it than my right hon. Friend, that no one knows the exact state of military and constitutional law. There is the greatest possible doubt on every point. There always has been great objection to deal suddenly with so delicate and so transcendentally important a matter in its possible consequences. That you are doing without knowing that the House of Commons did not receive with welcome or with enthusiasm either the first or the second form of the Army Council Bill; but now we are asked to deal blindfolded with the matter.
Mr. HAZLETON: I think the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway has made out a very good case in support of this Instruction. On a certain point I listened with considerable astonishment to the speech of the Secretary of State. He said that this Bill makes no important organic change in the Army, and that the Amendments for the most part are drafting Amendments. I presume that he considers if important Amendments were to be made in the Army Act a separate Bill ought to be introduced. What about the question of billeting? Under the Army Act it is confined to licensed premises, but—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss that point at the present stage.
Captain CRAIG: I think that the Secretary of State with reference to this Instruction declared that when he introduced the Bill of last year it covered a wider ground than what this clause 4 under the Army Act covers, and that he could not cover the whole of the ground with reference to the Army Council in a clause of the Act of this year. The very reason for introducing the Bill of last year in the form in which he did was conclusive evidence of the importance of the subject, but he takes from that Bill portions to which there are many objections and puts them into this Bill. This is the first opportunity which the House has had to consider a grave constitutional change. I find that the Bill of last year was introduced without any explanation, and was dropped without any explanation, and the right hon. Gentleman must have felt that it was a Bill which involved a great constitutional change, and he ought to have got the sanction of Parliament to it. Surely to take from that Bill the highly contentious matter which it contains and put it into the Army (Annual) Bill of this year shows the necessity of our raising the question which we have done. He said that the reason for this change—this extraordinary change—in procedure was because he found himself constantly doing work which might be conveniently carried on by the Army Council, and he made the most extraordinary admission that the Army Council has been carrying out functions affecting the Army for a number of years, but he knows that for any failure of the Army Council to do its duty he is directly responsible to this House. If this clause 4 passes the right hon. Gentleman will be able to shelter himself behind the Army Council. The right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway has spoken of one section of the Army (Annual) Act with reference to vehicles and carriages in the case of imminent emergency. That is to say, the change which has been made gives His Majesty the power directly to direct the Army Council—that is to say, His Majesty will be able to direct the Army Council and not the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible to this House, so that the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that the power in that respect is invested in himself. No, Sir; the point made by my hon. Friend near me is that the jealously-guarded responsibilities of the Secretary of State will be taken away from him, and therefore from the veto of this House, that is so far as
944
the Army Act is concerned. Not only does clause 4 deal with the duties of the right hon. Gentleman, but it also deals with those of Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant - General. Surely a longer statement should be made by the Secretary of State for making the extraordinary change which he has done. The point made by the right hon. Baronet opposite below the Gangway, which he did not finish, was that only part of clause 4, that with reference to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, is under this Order in Council, and that His Majesty might possibly exercise powers without this House having any knowledge of the intentions of the Government in the matter. It is a fundamental change. It is that on which we base our arguments. It is a change which we are not prepared to accept at a short notice. It is a change that strikes at the root of the command of His Majesty's forces. So that in future instead of being able to shelter himself behind some officer of the Army Council, with which this House has nothing whatever to do, the right hon. Gentleman should in all these matters answer for the whole Army Council himself. Another point I should like to put to him is this: He complains that his duty has been rather too much for him. He in no way gave the House to understand in what direction it lay except with one slight exception, in regard to a non-commissioned officer. He did not mention the fact about enlistment, which I take to be one of the most crucial parts of this alteration of clause 4, allowing the Army Council to deal with enlistments of men for His Majesty's forces. He did not deal with that, but he did deal with some small details with regard to non-commissioned officers. The arguments were unequal to the weight of the changes, and I myself feel very strongly that the right hon. Gentleman has taken a rather unfair advantage in pushing this clause 4 in the manner in which he has done. He has done all this by what has been very properly described as a side wind in the Army Council Bill, and we shall take an opportunity at the earliest possible moment of showing that we are not prepared to sit down under such tactics in a matter of this sort. I shall have much pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I think on this occasion I shall be obliged to support those opposing this suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. It is only necessary to look through the Memorandum supplied showing the Amendments of the Army Act

945
which are proposed by the Army (Annual) Bill to see that this is an Act that is going to have a very considerable bearing on many subjects, though they are not included, as it were, within the terms of the actual clause we are now debating. It is only necessary to look through this Memorandum and the 101 clauses mentioned to see that in almost all the affairs of the Army the Army Council is to be substituted, and is to decide everything in place of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. I say that is the wording of this Memorandum. I noticed the right hon. Gentleman has supplied us with very elaborate information. He has drawn a black line through the words he is going to strike out and he has put in italics the words he intends in every clause to put in. So we now have the information, though it is very late, and the Bill dealing with this Constitutional question at the same time. This Memorandum clearly shows that it involves the whole process of the administration of martial law and military discipline in this country for the future if this clause 4 becomes law. All appeals, even those mentioned by my hon. Friend in reference to billeting, all appeals have to be submitted to the Secretary of State. In future they will have to be submitted to a nebulous sort of body, described as the Army Council. The right hon. Gentleman saj's I shall be a member of the Army Council. I shall be responsible or the Secretary of State for War shall be responsible for everything the Council does. I have my doubts. There seems to be a tendency on the part of all Departments to get Committees behind which they can shelter themselves and to use the Committee largely as buffers against questions and criticisms in this House. I prefer to deal with the Secretary of State, and to make him responsible in this place to Parliament rather than to transfer those enormous powers to the Army Council as proposed under clause 4. This looks a very small measure. To read this clause which it is proposed should be struck out it looks as if it were not worth the trouble of doing it. It is only 20 or 30 lines. It looks simple enough, but one has only to look at the Memorandum to see that it involves hundreds of alterations. There is hardly a subject, if this becomes law, in which the rights of the soldiers, and even the civilians, would not be subjected to a nebulous body called the Army Council.
Mr. HALDANE: I think my hon. Friend might have taken the trouble to go to the
946
Library to get a copy of the Order in Council which I placed there this morning. If he had done so he would have found at the very beginning of the Order in Council at 10th August, 1804, which regulates my responsibility to Parliament, these words:—
"The Secretary of State is to be responsible to His Majesty and Parliament for all the business of the Council."
Mr. BOWLES: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that his responsibility to Parliament is regulated in the sense of being denned by Order in Council?
Mr. HALDANE: My responsibility to Parliament arises through the terms of my appointment, and the practice of Parliament. The Order in Council expressly expresses that, and takes care that nothing should in any way take from it.
Mr. JOHN WARD: The more the right hon. Gentleman discusses the Constitutional question and his responsibility to the House the more certain it becomes that my Friends and I must press this question to a Division. This point, it appears to me, which is now under discussion is precisely similar to that of some years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was in Opposition, and when it was stated that the proposal constituted such a great Constitutional change, such an alteration in the administration and management of the affairs of the Army, that it ought to be given notice of in a public Bill, that it ought to be dealt with in a separate legislative enactment, and that in no circumstances ought it be introduced into a Bill such as this, where there is no means at our disposal for proper discussion nor adequate time for discussing it. This Bill must, as I understand it, become law in a few days, and consequently we are bound to a limited period of time. If we are to discuss the other alterations we are bound to sit up practically all night. To push forward a great Constitutional change, such as the substitution of the Army Council for the Secretary of State, which may be a very important body, and may have all the ability necessary to manage the affairs of the Army, is a very serious matter. I do not think they can be held to be so closely and constitutionally responsible to this House as the Secretary of State is. There are punishments, I notice, for common soldiers and for officers, and these have previously come under the cognisance of the Secretary

947
of State, who could be questioned across the floor of the House as to his decision relating to them. For the future they are to be transferred—
Mr. HALDANE: They are not.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Then I have mistaken entirely the clauses of this Bill. I come to the Memorandum, clause 137, and I find with reference to officers who absent themselves without leave or overstay the period for which leave of absence is granted unless a satisfactory explanation is given to the commanding officer or such officer who is responsible, that previously it reads "notifies as satisfactory to the Commander-in-Chief or to the Secretary of State," the Secretary of State and Commander-in-Chief are to be struck out and the words are to be put in their place: "approved by the Army Council," by which, as I say, the whole rights not merely of this House to question the right hon. Gentleman as to the justice of any decision that he may have given are not only abrogated, but the rights of every officer or soldier who thinks he may have been improperly dealt with to complain to his representative in Parliament, and through his representative to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, are also absolutely abrogated if this clause becomes law. Therefore I say, that is putting forward a Motion to-day which is the same Motion that was put forward when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in opposition, and to which they objected, and hon. Members have just as good a right now for pushing their objection to a Division as the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends had then for pushing on their objection when

Division No. 52.]

AYES.

[5.15 p.m.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Higham, John Sharp

Renwick, George

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hodge, John

Rowlands, J.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hodge, Sir Robert Hermon

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bowerman, C. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hudson, Walter

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jowett, F. W.

Seddon, J.

Clive, Percy Archer

Kerry, Earl of

Shackleton, David James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

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

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

Lupton, Arnold

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cooper, G. J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Stanier, Seville

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Macpherson, J. T.

Starkey, John R.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Summerbell, T.

Craik, Sir Henry

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mooney, J. J.

Tukc, Sir John Batty

Du Cros, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

Valentia, Viscount

Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

Newdegate, F. N.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Wardle, George J.

Fell, Arthur

Nolan, Joseph

Wilkie, Alexander

Glover, Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Grady, J.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Guinness. W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.

Hazleton, Richard

Percy, Earl

Heaton, John Henniker

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

they were sitting in opposition, and when a similar proposal was brought forward by their predecessors. It is a very important matter. Military law is such a terrible engine; it commenced with no law at all, and now the few safeguards which stand at present "ought not to be whittled away without the fullest discussion and opportunity of debate. We have not the opportunity of doing that to-day, and therefore I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say that this action is perfectly reasonable. Even those who wish him well are just as anxious about this as those who wish him ill, and will object as strongly as-anyone in this House, oecause we believe that a great constitutional safeguard for the liberty of the subject, the right of the citizen and the soldier to appeal to this House and to the Secretary of State, is about to be whittled down by his action with regard to this clause 4. For these reasons, even if hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House did not force a Division, I would myself take a Division in protest against such action.
Captain CRAIG: May I ask one question? It would assist us very much if the right hon. Gentleman would say what practical difference it would make to him and the Army Council if he did not get clause 4.
Mr. HALDANE: First of all, if we get clause 4, the Army Act will be an intelligible Act in the future, and not unintelligible; and secondly, the proper persons will sign the proper documents with regard to their proper business.
The House divided:—Ayes, 71; Noes, 138.

NOES.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nicholls, George

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Alden, Percy

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Partington, Oswald

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Haworth, Arthur A.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Hedges, A. Paget

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Higham, John Sharp

Raphael, Herbert H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Mobart, Sir Robert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Barker, Sir John

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rees, J. D.

Beale, W. P.

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Idris, T. H. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Black, Arthur W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bramsdon, T. A.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Branch, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Brigg, John

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Brooke, Stopford

Kekewich, Sir George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. Thomas R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Lamont, Norman

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Steadman, W. C.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Levy, Sir Maurice

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Cleland, J. W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Clogh, William

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Strauss, E. V (Abingdon)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Mackarness, Frederic C

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

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

Verney, F. W.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

Maddison, Frederick

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Mallet, Charles E.

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Duckworth, Sir James

Marnham, F. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Massie, J.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Menzies, Walter

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Everett, R. Lacey

Mond, A.

Wiles, Thomas

Falconer, J.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Fenwick, Charles

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Morrell, Philip

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr- Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.>

Halpin, J.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Myer, Horatio

Hart-Davies, T.

Bill in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
Clause 1 (short title) agreed to.
[Clause, 2. —Army Act to be in force for specified times. —(1) The Army Act shall be and remain in force during the periods hereinafter mentioned, and no longer, unless otherwise provided by Parliament (that is to say):—

(a) Within the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man, from the thirtieth day of April one thousand nine hundred and nine to the thirtieth day of April, one thousand nine hundred and ten, both inclusive; and

(b) Elsewhere, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions, from the thirty-first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and nine, to the thirty-first day of July, one thou-
950
sand nine hundred and ten, both inclusive.

(2) The Army Act, while in force, shall apply to persons subject to military law, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions.

(3) A person subject to military law shall not be exempted from the provisions of the Army Act by reason only that the-number of the forces for the time being in the service of His Majesty, exclusive of the marine forces, is either greater or less than the number hereinbefore mentioned.]

Captain CRAIG Captain CRAIG moved to leave out in sub-section (a)"thirtieth day of April," and insert "thirty-first day of July." He said: I put this Amendment down not with the intention of pressing it to a Division, but of asking the Secretary of State for War whether it would be possible to make one date -when the Army (Annual) Act can come into force, both at Home and Abroad. It seems to me now such a

951
radical change is being made in the Act that it would be very fitting for the Secretary of State for War to try and arrange to have one date for Great Britain, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man. I have never been able to understand why there are two dates for this particular Act coming into force and expiring, but I think it would be much more convenient if there was only one day, and the Act was in force the. whole time all over the Empire. I have only put the Amendment on the paper, however, with a view of raising the question, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain. I beg to move.
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Mr. HALDANE: My hon. friend has so reasonably proposed this Amendment that I will take him into my confidence and tell him the reason for having two dates. Whatever date may be put down for this Bill to come on for consideration there is an invariable tendency in the House to put off passing it to the last moment. It is not a Bill in which they delight, and there is a tendency to put it off. Whatever the date may be that you get it through, you do so just in time to circulate the provisions to the Commands at Home, but it has also to be communicated to Commands at a great distance. You cannot telegraph the whole of it, and you must allow time in order to get information of the changes that are made by Parliament and this House to distant Commands. Consequently you always have to allow a different time for it coming into operation at Home and coming into operation Abroad. You only get it through Parliament a few days before it is put in force at Home, and you have not got time to get a telegram containing the information 3,000 miles away. Consequently, it has always been the custom to have two dates for the Bill coming into operation.
Captain CRAIG: The only question which arises out of that is that under this new Act powers are delegated to the Army Council. Will not that make a great deal of difference, because, instead of this Act being controlled by the Secretary of State, the Army Council will make their orders, and it may be possible to have the same day at home and abroad. The Army Council may make their orders in council and send them abroad in time.
Mr. HALDANE: No. The Army Council will be just in the same position as I
952
am. They will have the new powers, they will have the changes so far as home Commands are concerned, only a few days before they come into operation, and they will require time to tell distant Commands what the nature of those changes is.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: When this matter was discussed two years ago to the best of my recollection I understood that the Secretary of State for War gave us some intimation that he might be able on a future occasion to make these days conterminous, and, therefore, Sir, we were rather disappointed to find when we opened the Army (Annual) Act again this time that there is still the same difficulty about the dates.
Mr. HALDANE: Will my hon. Friend permit me to interrupt him? He is not quite correct. In those days we had three periods for the home, the Mediterranean and distant places. I undertook to reduce those to two, and that I have carried out. There were three days, now there are two.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I understand that there were three days formerly, but still it was pointed out that it was inconvenient to have more than one. This year it is rather more important, because you are making by this Army (Annual) Bill very considerable alterations as to Army matters. Therefore, it becomes more important that there should be no difficulties arising from cross dates. On the last occasion I ventured to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the curious position the troops would be in if they were on the sea on their way from the Channel Islands to the Mediterranean. Then a very awkward question would have arisen as to when this Act came into operation. Although he has reduced the three days to two, there are still two days left, and if I might respectfully suggest, I would certainly say it is not the fault of the House of Commons that this Act is driven off to the last moment. If there is any fault, and if there is anybody to blame, surely it is the Government who do not make any attempt to bring it in in time and to have it passed and enacted on a day on which it would come into operation without having to go to this enormous expense of telegraphing. I certainly hoped, from the right hon. Gentleman's well-known ability and desire to have all these matters put in the clearest and simplest manner, that on this occasion we should find one date, and not three.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Captain CRAIG Captain CRAIG, in moving to leave cut in sub-section (2)"while in force," said: I move the next Amendment in older to ask why the words "while in force" are included in sub-section 2 of clause 2. The section reads:—"The Army Act while in force shall apply to persons subject to military law." It has occurred to me that these words are not necessary. The Act would not apply, of course, unless it was in force. If it was in force it would naturally apply. If there was no Act it would not apply. The words appear to be quite useless in the context, and appear to me rather to confuse those who are looking at the two dates just immediately above in sub-sections (a) and (b). If the Army Act is in force one Army Act would be in force at home and another abroad during the three months, the period necessary for the various alterations to get to distant parts of the Empire. If the words "while in force" are necessary in the Act it ought to distinguish as to which part of the Act it refers to, whether to the new Act or to the old one. The words are either useless or else they are not sufficiently explicit.
Mr. HALDANE: The reason is this: We have just decided that it is expedient to keep the two periods. The next subclause says the Act shall apply to persons whether within or without His Majesty's dominions. The old Act does not apply to everyone for the same period and, therefore, it is necessary to make the words distributive and the words" while in force' are put in there for that purpose. There is another purpose for which they are put in. The keeping of this Act on foot is never allowed for more than one year, and this is the old customary phrase which fills the double purpose of providing what I have just pointed out and of acting as a reminder that Parliament does not allow the Army Act to continue indefinitely in force.
Mr. BOWLES: This is not a matter of principle, but now that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has called attention to it it appears to me that these words are as he says, either unnecessary or not sufficiently explicit. As I read this sub-section it amounts to this, that so long as there is any Army Act it shall apply to persons subject to military law, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions. I do not see how these words really cover all they are intended to cover, namely, the
954
discrepancy in the period. So long as the Army Act is in force, I understand its provisions would apply to persons without the country as well as within.
Mr. HALDANE: That is just the effect of the preceding clause. The Army Act is to remain in force during the period hereinafter mentioned, and no longer—in the United Kingdom for a year, and elsewhere for a year beginning on a different date. We say, therefore, in the next clause, the Army Act "while in force" shall apply. It is not in force in the United Kingdom when you get to the end of the first period, and it is in force at the other places.
Mr. STEWART BOWLES: My point was that though the Act would not be in force in the United Kingdom, yet if it were in force anywhere it would still be in force and would apply.
Mr. HALDANE: I pledge my legal reputation for what it is worth as to the meaning of the words. The preceding section says the Act shall be in force distributively.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: Is not this an illustration of the difficulty which arises from these two dates, and from the positions in the Kingdom and without? Supposing a soldier is in England in March, and he remains for two or three days in May, he is clearly liable to this Act; but supposing he is sent to Gibraltar, he would find that the new Act would not be in operation, and that he was under the Act passed last year. Then supposing he is brought back to England again, he finds another set of laws entirely, and therefore it is necessary, I suppose, in this clause to have in these words "while in force," in order to make them applicable to the different state of circumstances of the man in question as to where he might be on a particular date. We were in hopes that we should have seen the last of these difficulties, but as we have passed these two dates we have to provide some special words to show that this Act is-only to operate while it is in force in-various places with regard to the people who are there. If the Secretary of State considers on reflection that it is desirable that soldiers who are moved about should find themselves at different dates under different military regulations, it seems to me to be a very inconvenient and illogical state of affairs. We can only, of course, agree to these words "while in force"

955
remaining in as the best attempt which can be made under the circumstances to try and make intelligible to the poor soldier what law he really is under in the various places where he may be stationed.
Capt. CRAIG: Which Army Act does this particular sub-section (2) refer to? The right hon. Gentleman has already explained that one Army Act is in force at the end of this month, but it is not in force abroad, and the old Army Act has to do abroad until July, and yet in this clause he says "The Army Act." What the clause means to convey, I presume is the two Army Acts, the expiring one and the new one with which we are now dealing, as the case may be. If that is so I think this sub-section should be altered in some way, because it says it shall apply to persons subject to military law. As we know, a great many people are subject to military law who are not lawyers themselves. It seems to me a very difficult matter to construe as at present worded, and I think the ancient formula, "while in force," may be dropped because the preamble sets out so distinctly that the keeping of the standing Army is not allowed except with the consent of Parliament in time of peace that no one could possibly mistake it, and these words seem to be absolutely absurd. I do not like to divide where the right hon. Gentleman has staked his legal reputation on the subject, but at the same time it appears to be rather absurd for the Committee to be passing the words which appear to be either absolutely foolish or at least are confusing. I shall not press it, but I am not at all satisfied.
Mr. HALDANE: It is drafted in the proper form. The difference arises because it is necessary that there should be a difference between the time at which the Act begins to operate in this country and in distant parts of the Empire. That being so, what is said is that the Army Act which is kept alive by this Bill while in force shall apply.
Mr. R. HAZLETON: I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman, because according to my interpretation of this subsection there are two Acts in force at the same time, one in the United Kingdom and the other abroad. Why, therefore, should not this Act read instead of "Army Act," "Army Acts"? The sub-section is very confusing.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any objection to altering the time at which the Act should be enforced?
The CHAIRMAN: We have got past that point. The Amendment is to leave out the words "while in force."
Mr. HUGH LEA: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what force this Army Act has with Colonials who are serving in the King's Dominions beyond the seas, say the Yeomanry in New Zealand or Australia, and whether in the event of their committing any offence from a military point of view, such as would come within the scope of the Army (Annual) Act, they are liable to be punished under it, or whether it is only our men recruited in Great Britain and then sent to the Colonies?
Mr. HALDANE: That is a natural question to put. No, they are not under the Army Act. They have all their own Army Acts, and their own code of military law. Later on in the Bill there is a clause which enables them to apply our Army Act in the over-sea Dominions if they wish in certain contingencies, but at present the Army Act does not apply, and they have their own local military codes.
Mr. HUGH LEA: Then in that case we have our men recruited in this country and sent abroad, say to South Africa, serving under one military code, and committing offences which are far more drastically punished than those for which the Colonials under their code escape scot free.
Mr. HALDANE: I did not say that. Our men, wherever they are, are under this Act. The Colonial Governments have got their own, which apply to their own troops. It is in very few places outside South Africa that the self-governing Dominions have Imperial troops. It used to be so, but it is not so now. They have their own code, and they regulate their affairs in their own way. Our troops are always under one code of military law.
Mr. HUGH LEA: What I want to make clear is whether the Code the soldiers will serve under is ours, which is more drastic than the Code under which the Colonials serve?
Mr. HALDANE: There are at present no considerable body of Colonial troops serving side by side with ours. The Colonial Acts are collected in two volumes.

957
The provisions in some cases are very arbitrary, but in the main they are substantially parts of our Act.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: If soldiers serving in Jamaica were to come to England they would be under the Act as amended.
Mr. HALDANE: Yes.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: A case occurred recently of an officer on duty in plain clothes who refused to pay the toll demanded by a toll-keeper. That point is dealt with by No. 1,694 in the King's Regulations, and he was not entitled to travel as he was in plain clothes on duty. I want to ask what redress has the toll-keeper, not knowing the King's Regulations, and how can he demand his toll from an officer travelling in that way?
The CHAIRMAN: The sub-section simply enacts that the Army Act, while in force, shall apply to certain persons and the Noble Lord has asked a question as to what toll-keepers should do under certain conditions.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Do not those words allow that to come in?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that applies to the case of the toll-keeper.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: I understand the only redress the toll-keeper had would be under the Army Act.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: This case occurred at Liverpool two or three weeks back.
Lord EDMUND TALBOT: Not my case.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: One of the officers crossed from Liverpool to Sea-combe—
The CHAIRMAN: That is out of order.
Question: "That those words stand part of the clause" put and agreed to.
Question put: "That this clause, 2 stand part of the Bill."
Captain CRAIG: In the case of soldiers, either officers or rank and file, going abroad during this period of two months during which the old Act is in force abroad, under which Act would the soldier be dealt with for an offence committed on board steamer? I cannot conceive how those on board would know of the new Act, and would the matter be submitted to some higher authority on arrival?
Mr. HALDANE: The answer to that is contained in section 2, sub-section 1 (b): "Elsewhere, whether within or without His Majesty's dominions." It would be under the old Army Act. If he is on a British steamer he is out of the United Kingdom—he is elsewhere.
Captain CRAIG: I understood a British steamer was part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. JOHN WARD: There was one question I was out of order in mentioning a moment ago, but I think on discussing the whole clause I would be entitled to refer to it, and that is when this proposed Act is to apply. I see at the present time it finishes on 30th April. I was hoping that there might be some alteration in the date, for the simple reason that one has to pass this Act rapidly in the most busy part of the Session. I take it for granted—as the Secretary of State smiles—that he thinks that is a good reason, so as to reduce discussion on it to as small limit as possible. I think it would be most desirable that he should alter the date to somewhat later in the year, or nearer the middle of the year, rather than just a few weeks after the opening of the Session, which makes it almost impossible to discuss the matter in the way we should like to discuss it. I admit it is usually a formal affair, but it is quite clear for the future, with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Army, it is not going to bo a formal affair, and that we are going to have very drastic Constitutional innovations introduced in this Bill and that we are practically going to alter the whole law as to military discipline. Therefore, it is important that the date should be fixed, so that there could be ample discussion. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting the date back further, so as to allow more ample time.
Mr. HALDANE: If I put the date to the dog-days, say the 31st of July, I would be told I had put it at a too advanced date, while now we could have a pleasant all-night sitting. The fact is, whatever date is put down, it will always be squeezed to the last moment. That is not the fault of the Secretary of State, it is the fault of the superior powers that be.
Mr. HUGH LEA: May I ask if there is any reason why a copy of the Army Act cannot be given to every recruit on enlistment, so as to prepare him for some of the pitfalls he is liable to.
The CHAIRMAN: That is not a question that arises on whether this clause stand part of the Bill or not.
Mr. REA: May I ask whether it is in order now to move that this clause do not stand part of the Bill until that point of mine has been considered'?
Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
[Clause 3.—There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pursuance of the Army Act the prices specified in the First Schedule to this Act.]
Question put, "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: When we come to the schedule shall we be at liberty to discuss the items?
The CHAIRMAN The CHAIRMAN was understood to say that hon. Members would be in order to discuss the several items of the schedule.
Mr. RENWICK: This clause raises a very serious question in regard to the victualling houses. It is well known to the House that there is an extremely limited number of licensed houses now in the districts where they are most likely to be required for billeting. My attention has been called to the fact that in the schedule the payments to owners of such houses are utterly inadequate. For instance, if you refer to the schedule you will find that "stable room and ten pounds of oats, twelve pounds of hay and eight pounds of straw" are to be given for each horse for 1s. 9d. No licensed victualler could afford to supply horses, and especially the large number he would be likely to have, for that sum. It is well known that the time he would be called on to billet those troops would be a time of imminent national danger, when no man living knows what would be the price of fodder: therefore the licensed victuallers are alarmed.
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to discuss that or any other particular item he should wait until the schedule.
Mr. RENWICK: I have tried to keep to the clause itself. The clause contains this: "There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pur-
960
suance of the Army Act the prices specified in the first schedule to this Act." Therefore it lays down the price that the licensed victualler is to receive for something he is called upon to do, not for his own benefit but for the benefit of the nation. I maintain, and I think it is perfectly rational to claim, that if a licensed victualler is called upon to do something not for his own benefit but for the benefit of the nation, the nation ought to treat him liberally.
The CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member is dealing with is the particular price put down in the schedule. The particular criticism he is making does not apply here.
Mr. RENWICK: With great deference to your ruling, I would again submit that this clause is the pith of the whole question. The clause fixes what the licensed victualler is to receive, and mentions an utterly inadequate price.
The CHAIRMAN: The price cannot be discussed until you come to the schedule.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: If we are to discuss the actual amount of the price the proper place to do it is on the schedule, but may I point out that what my hon. Friend intended to put to the Committee is this: That to fix the schedule of prices at all might be a very serious hardship, having regard to—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not need his hon. Friend to state what he meant.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Is it in order to discuss whether there should be a schedule or no schedule to this clause?
The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: That is, I understand, the point which Mr. Renwick was trying to raise.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: May I respectfully point out that in sub-section (c) of clause 108A, which we are coming to, there is a special provision with regard to-these very things that may be supplied by persons other than the keepers of victualling houses—
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member has any remarks to make on this clause which are relevant to the Question before the House that the clause stand part of the Bill I shall be very glad to hear him. If he is simply asking me whether an hon. Member is in order that is a point that I have already decided.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: May I point out that on the question of licensed victuallers billeting is in the original Act? We here are only adding to the original Act. It; s for that reason that the clause can be discussed in the schedule.
Mr. HAZLETON: There are considerable changes made in the Act this year with regard to billeting into which I cannot enter on the discussion of this clause, but it is impossible to think that the changes that are proposed have no connection with the existing law, and therefore I think that this Committee ought to object to the form in which this clause was proposed. This clause says that there shall be paid to the keepers of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pursuance of the Army Act, the price as specified in the first schedule of this Act. We cannot discuss the schedule upon this clause, but it is obvious to anyone reading this Act that when you come to a later clause in the Act the regulations with regard to prices are entirely different. Now, I want to know from the Secretary of War, why is it proposed to put into an Act of Parliament prices that shall be paid proprietors of victualling-houses, whilst it is reserved to the Army Council or some other body to make and fix the prices that shall be paid to people other than licensed victuallers. For my part I fail to see why there should be any distinction drawn between the proprietors of licensed houses and other people who are going to be forced under the new clauses in this Act to make provision for billeting. I think it a rather extraordinary thing. The right hon. Gentleman has proposed very many changes, which many members of this Committee resent in the Army (Annual) Bill this year, and I think since you are making a change at all, you ought to have made a change in this matter as well, and be consistent, and apply the same principle to people in general as he proposes to apply to proprietors of licensed houses. I do not think he can make any case for differential treatment. The fact remains that in the permanent Army Act there is a schedule stating the prices, and that may, or may not, be a just and fair and reasonable schedule. But if it is I fail to see entirely why the same principle has not been applied in the later clauses in this Act, which we shall be discussing later on. I would ask the Secretary of State for War to give us some explanation in this matter.
Mr. RENWICK: Might I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman kindly to give us his opinion on the point. Is it fair to the licensed victualler to ask him to accept normal prices for articles in abnormal times? That is really the point I would like some information on. I think we are entitled to get it.
Mr. ACLAND: This clause has nothing to do with that at all. It only relates to normal times, and not to abnormal times
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: How can it be said that this clause relates only to normal times? Is not it a fact that a large number of people coming down to a village and demanding food would constitute abnormal times and necessarily increase the price of commodities for all the residents in that village, and therefore in that way produce abnormal times? Wherever there is an Army on the route it must produce an abnormal set of circumstances from the point of view of the local inhabitants, and must necessarily put up prices against the permanent residents in the locality, and it is trifling with the Committee for the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. ACLAND: I was using abnormal times in the sense used by the hon. Member, namely, in times of war.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: He did not say anything about war. It is within the recollection of the House. I appeal to my hon. Friend whether he said anything about war. He was referring to what we all know to be normal and abnormal. He did not say a word either as to the result of war or what exists in time of peace, and I think still that the more you look at this thing, when you are told you must be guided by the schedule, the greater is the injustice imposed upon those upon whom is cast the obligation of providing these necessaries of life. At the average profits on what they sell, and also upon those who labour for themselves and their own family, and who are to be subject to almost starvation prices because of the schedule imposed by the right hon. Gentleman, a schedule which will give him and those he acts for, and the War Office, all they need at the expense of the ordinary and permanent civil population of any district in which any portion of the regular forces may pass while on the march.
Mr. JOHN WARD: There is only one question relating to this matter that I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I quite agree that it is impossible for the

963
right hon. Gentleman to treat the two classes of possible billeting accommodation on the same footing, and when one takes into consideration that the presence of soldiers in licensed houses is going to add considerably to trade in other ways, which cannot happen in private houses, the circumstances are not on a par—
Mr. MADDISON: I rise to a point of order, so that the Committee may know where we stand. Is not it a fact that the clause we are now discussing only gives power to pay, but does not state the prices? It does not discriminate between one and the other, and, therefore, the only thing is the power to pay these prices. The prices are not stated.
The CHAIRMAN: I was listening to the hon. Member for Stoke, because I do not quite see what particular point he was seeking to make, but the hon. Member who has raised the point of order is quite correct in saying that this clause merely says that there shall be paid to victualling houses for the accommodation provided such prices as are specified in the schedule of the Act. It is quite in order to ask whether these normal prices were to apply also in abnormal times. A general question of that kind is quite in order.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I am pleased you have not ruled me out of order on a point I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman. I quite agree there is a difference. They must be treated differently because the circumstances are entirely different, but I want to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to sub-section (a) of 108 (a) to these words: "and the same provision shall apply as if reference to victualling houses and keepers of victualling houses "—which we are now dealing with—" included reference: to such public buildings, dwelling houses, etc., etc." I hope that that is limited in some way, and that the prices that are enumerated for victualling houses are not the prices that are going to be imposed on dwelling houses.
Mr. HALDANE: It is limited by subsection 3 (c) of the same clause. This very clause we are discussing, and the schedule which I must not refer to because it goes into the prices, was carefully considered two years ago. There was dissatisfaction in the House with the old schedule, and the schedules were redrafted and the price increased, and I believe they gave satisfaction at the time, but I do not want even to approach the discussion of the schedule. I only wish to say that this clause is not
964
a new clause, but the old clause drawn up two years ago.
Mr. HUGH LEA: In reference to the prices specified in the schedule and the prices referred to in sub-section c to be paid to the occupier, nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that the circumstances are very different from what they were years ago. Within the last nine or ten years heavy burdens have been put on them, and I take it that the Budget shortly to be introduced will, if anything, increase those burdens.
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member wishes to deal with the prices he must wait until the schedule is under discussion.
Mr. LEA: I do not wish to deal with the prices in detail or beyond this fact—to point out that the prices specified in the schedule in general do not give that margin of profit to the licensed victuallers which they have given in years gone by.
Mr. MADDISON: Is it in order to refer to prices? How is it possible to deal with prices which are in the schedule?
The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is out of order in referring to prices, and I was about to stop him.
Mr. LEA: The prices here do not give the margin of profit to the licensed victualler.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I presume we shall be at liberty to vote against this clause remaining portion of the Bill, especially if we gave notice, as I propose to do, of an Amendment to clause 108 (a), which would make the price they would fix by regulation of the Army Council apply not merely to occupiers, but to everybody, and our objection to this clause is that they make a cast iron set of prices. The prices are fixed in the schedule. We are not dealing with that point now. The point we are dealing with now is whether there should be any prices fixed in the schedule, which should be absolutely cast iron prices, incapable of alteration, notwithstanding the number of troops which it might be needed to send to a small place, and notwithstanding whether there is war, an emergency, or whatever there may be. Under these circumstances, what does this clause do? This clause makes it absolutely impossible in a victualling house to be paid either more or less than the price fixed in the schedule. We did discuss this

965
at very considerable length two years ago. Some of us sought to try and find a way out of the difficulty, but did not succeed. The Secretary of State for "War has provided us here, it seems to me, in sub-section c, clause 108 a, with a formula for getting out of this cast iron difficulty. And the formula is provided with regard to the very point of paying somebody who does not happen to be a licensed victualler—the price to be paid for accommodation furnished, food and fodder supplied, especially such as may be fixed by the regulations made by the Army Council, with the consent of the Treasury. If the few words are left out of section c of clause 108 a it will make this clause 3 capable of being left entirely out, and it will give, I am sure, a great deal more satisfaction to the Committee if that course were

Division No. 53.]

AYES.

[6.18 p.m.

Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Acland, Francis Dyke

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Alden, Percy

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Myer, Horatio

Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)

Hart-Davies, T.

Nicholls, George

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Astbury, John Meir

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

O'Grady, J.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Partington, Oswald

Barker, Sir John

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hedges, A. Paget

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Beale, W. P.

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

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Beauchamp, E.

Higham, John Sharp

Radford, G. H.

Bennett, E. N.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Raphael, Herbert H.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester) lack, Arthur W.

Black, Arthur W.

Hodge, John

Rees, J. D.

Bowerman, C. W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Richards, Thomas (W. Montmouth)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Branch, James

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Ridsdale, E. A.

Brigg, John

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brodie, H. C.

Idris, T. H. W.

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Brooke, Stopford

Jardine, Sir J.

Robinson, S.

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. Thomas R.

Jenkins, J.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Byles, William Pollard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rowlands, J.

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Jowett, F. W.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Cleland, J. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Clough, William

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Seddon, J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Lamont, Norman

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lewis, John Herbert

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Spicer, Sir Albert

Cox, Harold

Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lupton, Arnold

Steadman, W. C.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lynch, H. B.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Summerbell, T.

Duckworth, Sir James

Macpherson, J. T.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Micking, Major G.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Essex, R. W.

Maddison, Frederick

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Mallet, Charles E.

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

Falconer, J.

Marnham, F. J.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Fenwick, Charles

Massie, J.

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Ferens, T. R.

Menzies, Walter

Verney, F. W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Micklem, Nathaniel

Walters, John Tudor

Fuller, John Michael F.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Walton, Joseph

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Mond, A.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Glover, Thomas

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Wardle, George J.

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

adopted. Because we are not discussing at the present moment whether 6d. a night is sufficient, that is not the point. What we are discussing is whether there shall be a schedule to say whether so much per night is to be the actual amount to be paid in any event or in any circumstances. Whilst I protest against the inclusion of this clause in the Act, I do so, giving notice when the proper time comes, that we shall move an Amendment to this other clause, so as to make the prices to be fixed by regulation applicable to all kinds of people, whether they may be licensed victuallers or not.
Question put: "That clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 45.

Whittaker, Rt Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

Wiles, Thomas

Watt, Henry A.

Wilkie, Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Weir, James Galloway

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

NOES.

Balcarres, Lord

Halpin, J.

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Banner, John S. Harmoed-

Hazleton, Richard

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hodge, Hermon-, Sir Robert

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kerry, Earl of

Starkey, John R.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kilbride, Denis

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cralk, Sir Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Valentia, Viscount

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Du Cros, Arthur

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Renwick and Mr. W. W. Ruther ford.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Murphy, N. J. (Kilkenny, S.)

Fell, Arthur

Newdegate, F. N.

Forster, Henry William

Nolan, Joseph

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Clause 4.—Transfer of powers to Army Council. —There shall be transferred to the Army Council—

(a) All powers and duties conferred or imposed on a Secretary of State under the provisions of the Army Act specified in Part I. of the Second Schedule to this Act; and

(b) All powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant-General under the Army Act:

and accordingly the modifications set out in Part II. of that Schedule shall be made in the Army Act:
Provided that—

(a) Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any rules, regulations, orders, or other documents made or executed by a Secretary of State under any of the powers hereby transferred, but all such rules, regulations, orders, and documents shall until revoked by the Army Council have effect as if made or executed by the Army Council; and

(b) Nothing in this Act shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Order in Council dated the tenth day of August, nineteen hundred and four, respecting the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and Parliament, and regulating the distribution of business amongst the members of the Army Council, and the powers and duties transferred to the Army Council by this section shall be deemed to be business within the
968
meaning of that Order, and any part thereof may be reserved to the Secretary of State accordingly.

Mr. BOWLES Mr. BOWLES moved to leave out the words "there shall be transferred to the Army Council," and to insert instead thereof: "It shall be lawful for a Secretary of State himself to assume or, by order in writing under his own hand and subject to any limitations and conditions set forth in the order, to transfer for the period specified in the order to any member of the Army Council, and by similar order at any time to resume to himself again, any of the powers and duties next hereinafter mentioned (that is to say):—" He said: It has already been remarked once, and it will probably be remarked again, that we have not even now had from the right hon. Gentleman any real reason—I, at any rate, have been unable to understand—for asking for the transference of these very great powers. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has trotted out again the lay figure of the degraded noncommissioned officer as his only and sole excuse for this clause. Does the right hon. Gentleman really ask the House of Commons to make this great alteration—for it is a great alteration—merely on the ground—and it is the only ground that he has alleged—that through the abolition of Commander-in-Chief, if a non-commissioned officer, sergeant or officer, is degraded in the ranks, is it necessary to send the papers out to His Majesty and others? If not, the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps tell us what other grounds he has. For the moment he has been asked several times, and the sergeant's story is the only one that he has

969
been able to tell. That story is as old as the world. Certainly it is as old as the abolition of the Commander-in-Chief years ago. It is not, as I submit, sufficient ground for this change. That is the only ground the right hon. Gentleman has been able to allege. That being so, we are entitled to say that we are dealing here with a proposal which he has brought forward merely and solely as a matter of convenience—departmental convenience to the right hon. Gentleman and to the heads of Departments at the War Office. It is nothing else. Therefore, merely to serve the departmental convenience of the right hon. Gentleman and the heads of Department of the War Office, and to do what can be done perfectly well by an express clause in this Bill if he desired, we are asked to make an absolute transfer subject to one limitation—with which this Amendment of mine is concerned—of very great powers from the Secretary of State and other authorities to this new body, the Army Council. I say that is far too heroic a remedy. The ground upon which this transfer is asked in Parliament is altogether too slender. I want to ask what security has this House, or even the right hon. Gentleman, that the responsibility of the Secretary of State will be, not merely technical, but real. The only thing that saves from the absolute transfer of these powers is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, not the ordinary responsibility which attaches to him as Secretary of State, but his responsibility under the particular Order in Council, which is sufficiently specified, and which if it were withdrawn or modified would leave this House and the right hon. Gentleman face to face with the absolute transfer of the whole of these powers to the Army Council to make whatever use they chose of them. That is far too far for the Committee to go. Therefore I propose here alternative machinery. I say it is unnecessary to transfer the whole of these powers to the Army Council, lock-stock-and-barrel, and I say that the powers which the right hon. Gentleman takes upon himself rest entirely on the Order in Council, and can be rescinded at any moment, and if it were rescinded or altered, it would leave the House without the slightest remedy against the Army Council, in whose hands these powers would rest. In my alternative machinery I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman really finds it necessary to make a change, he should bring into his own hands all the powers set out in this schedule, and then, as a matter of conve-
970
nience, empower himself to delegate this authority to any member of the Army Council, or any other person, and let it be expressed in the Act. I suggest that there should be inserted the words of my Amendment:—
"It shall be lawful for a Secretary of State himself to assume or, by order in writing under his own hand and subject to any limitations and conditions set forth in the order, to transfer for the period specified in the order to any member of the Army Council, and by similar order at any time to resume to himself again, any of the powers and duties next hereinafter mentioned."
The Committee will observe that I do not propose that the right hon. Gentleman should be empowered to transfer those powers to the Army Council as a whole. What is the Army Council? The Secretary of State, in answer to a question which I put to him in May last on that point, said that the Army Council consists of seven members, four of whom are soldiers and three civilians, the latter including the Secretary of State. This is a matter of very great importance. I understand that the decision of the Army Council is to be taken by a majority of votes, but I think the Committee will be entitled to know how that may be. The right hon. Gentleman says there has been no dispute, but that is no answer. Suppose this Order in Council of 10th August, 1904, were altered in any particulars referred to in the proposed clause, the transfer of these powers then would be absolutely in the hands of the Army Council to exercise without any possibility either on the part of the House or the right hon. Gentleman to restrain them in case of emergency, or if they exercised their powers wrongly. That is a state of things which this House ought not to enact, and which the right hon. Gentleman does not want to enact, and which could be avoided by the adoption of some such machinery as I proposed. The real truth is that we ought clearly to state what we mean to have done. I am sure the House cannot desire merely on a question of Departmental convenience to entrust to a body, whose members are changing from time to time, and as to whom there is no real personal responsibility, to transfer in any real sense to such a body powers which at this moment do reside and ought to reside effectively and solely in the Secretary of State. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman desires it. He says that he means to

971
keep his responsibility. I suggest to him that unless Amendments are made in section (B) of this clause his real responsibility and the responsibility of this House is not kept, and it appears to me to be in the interests of Parliament, of this House, and almost equally in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that some Amendment of this clause, short of the absolute transfer which is proposed, should be adopted as being absolutely necessary in the interest of everybody concerned. I shall await with great interest what the right hon. Gentleman may have to say, and I hope that he will tell us what security the Secretary of State and the House of Commons have as against the abuse of these powers by the Army Council, on which there is a permanent majority, as I understand, of soldiers, the members of which are always shifting about, and against which body as a whole there is no real responsibility that could be exercised by the House.
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Mr. HALDANE: It is difficult for me to conceive that the hon. Member has been speaking seriously in what he has said. What he is in effect asking me is that the Minister who is charged with the most complicated and difficult business of looking after the affairs of a body so widely spread as the Army, has to have heaped upon him every kind of detail. Any system more calculated to lead to red tape and obstruction of business cannot be conceived. It has been tried in the past, and it has been protested against over and over again. The policy which is embodied in this Bill is the policy of the Government, of which the hon. Gentlemen, I believe, was a supporter. It was brought in as a clear indication of the policy of the late Government, and it is the policy of the present Government. It has been asked for by successive Secretaries of State, and I take the responsibility of declaring to the House of Commons that without some such provisions as these it would be impossible for the Minister to do his duty to the House. The hon. Member referred to the illustration which I gave, and spoke of it as if it was the only one I had to support my proposal. There are 30 or 40 powers here which I could refer to. I do not wish to be charged with responsibility of handing over lunatics, for example; I do not wish to be charged with
972
the duty of making deductions on pay or pension in the case of a bastardy order; I do not want to be a post office to receive notice, and be responsible in regard to letters; I do not want to be charged with every small detail as to the working of the pension system, because if I had to do all these things I could not do my proper business or discharge my duty to the House. The very essence of the Order in Council which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition passed through and made a law of the land in 1904 was this, that the business should be distributed, and that the responsibility should be put upon individual members of the Council for individual work on the Council, and that the Council as a whole should be responsible for the general discharge of their duties. It seems to me that the responsibility of Parliament and of the Secretary of State are strictly preserved. This has been done, and has been working as the law of the land to the great advantage of the Army for the last four years. If you pass the Amendment which the hon. Member asks us to pass the statutory powers, which are very small powers—indeed, the unimportant powers—are to be transferred, and the important powers are to be reserved to the Secretary of State. I challenge any Member of this House to point to any important power which it is proposed to transfer. The statutory system would not correspond with the system under the Order. The transfer deals with nine-tenths of the whole business arising, not from powers under the Army Act, but from powers which have have been arranged by the Government of the day for the work of the Army Council. To pass the words which the hon. Gentleman proposed to substitute for the words in the Bill would simply be to make the system under the Act completely different from the work of the system under the Order in Council. I cannot conceive of greater confusion than would result from the adoption of the proposal which the hon. Member has made, and I trust that this House, which after all really does want, I think, to try to make the administration of the Army more effective than it is at present, will not take a step which can do nothing but raise obstacles all through.
Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: I would suggest that if we left out the earlier and more important words of the clause, we might then discuss what is to be substituted for them. With regard to the tragic picture drawn by the right hon. Gentle-

973
man, all I can say is that this is the original programme of Mr. Arnold-Forster, who only said: "They kept on saying that they ought to have this power." After introducing the Bill in 1904 he dropped it, and he was under the impression from what he said in the debate on the Territorial Army Bill that that Bill had never been introduced, and he believed that a copy of it which we showed him was a draft, and it was a draft. Nevertheless, the Bill was introduced and passed the House of Lords, but it was never taken up in this House. If the Secretary of State for War had really meant what he said in answer to the interruption of my hon. Friend opposite about his powers and his responsibility as Secretary of State I should call him "the worst of the Stuarts." What I understood him to say was that the responsibility was based upon the Order in Council.
Mr. HALDANE: All I said was that the Order in Council recognised that.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: I am certain the word "recognised" was not the word used when my hon. Friend was interrupted. I think, however, it was a slip, and it went no further than the words we have before us. The words in the Bill are extraordinary. The Bill provides that "Nothing in this Act shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Order in Council dated the 10th day of August, 1904, respecting the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and Parliament."
Mr. HALDANE: Bead the words of the Order in Council.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: My right hon. Friend does not seem to see the point. The notion that you should rest the responsibility of the Secretary of State on a prerogative Order in Council—
Mr. HALDANE: I deny as emphatically as I can that I ever said anything of the sort. I expressly negatived any such suggestion. What I said was that the words of the Order in Council were in harmony with the position that a Minister of the Crown, by virtue of his office, was fully responsible to Parliament, and there was nothing in the Act of Parliament to alter that.
Sir CHARLES DILKE: I come back to the words of the Bill we have before us that: "Nothing in this Act shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Order in Council dated the
974
tenth day of August, 1904, respecting the responsibility of the Secretary of State to His Majesty and Parliament." Those, I think, are very dangerous words, and when that Order in Council appeared the matter was not left alone by the House of Commons, and a very hot Opposition was manifested to the use of those words and to that doctrine. The history of that matter, very briefly, is this: There was a declaration by the Government, as my right hon. Friend said, that the policy would be based on an imitation of the Board of Admiralty, and that was the recommendation accepted by the Government; that was the policy which the right hon. Gentleman also said was the policy of his predecessors. There were Letters Patent issued on 12th of February, 1904, and these showed what many of us thought in this House was a very dangerous doctrine.
Then came the first Bill of 1904, which was afterwards withdrawn, and this was followed by the Order in Council. I do not care from what person or party that principle may have come, I think it is a very dangerous innovation, in face of the extraordinary difficulty of understanding military law which one may see illustrated in all the many disputes which have occurred over and over again during the famous Childers time, the Cardwell time, and the Panmure time, when a Constitutional dispute arose upon these particular points. Then came the mysterious paragraph, which I have here in several forms. It is a paragraph which appeared in "The Times" Naval and Military Intelligence. It says:—
"It is notified by the War Office that the appointment of Commander-in-Chief having lapsed, the powers conferred on that officer by section 183 (2) of the Army Act have for the time being reverted to the King, and all applications for the summary reduction of noncommissioned officers serving elsewhere than in India or on active service have for the present to be submitted to His Majesty."
When we asked about that paragraph we got no information. The Secretary of State said there never was a notification issued by the War Office, and that it was only a notification published in one military district only. It never was made clear, but it showed that there were influences and currents at work in the War Office tending different ways. I think that throws a considerable suspicion upon the whole basis and construction of this clause, and the Bills which this clause has followed. May I give one practical point which I think bears upon this question? My right hon. Friend seems to think that his responsibility is complete, he being

975
Secretary of State, although he sits as a member of the Army Council. The right hon. Gentleman's account is very much like that of the Governor of the Bank of France in reply to an American commissioner by whom the very same question was put as that which has been put to the Secretary of State. He was asked what would happen if they were not unanimous, and he replied, "The Regents had as much power as he had himself, and they always were unanimous." That is the position of the Secretary of State. His responsibility as Secretary of State is quite a different thing in this House from his responsibility only as the Army Council.
Let me ask a question to illustrate this. Any Secretary of State can sign and do other, and he may sign for any other. The instructions of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury were signed "R. A. Cross." Anw Secretary of State can sign and do anything for any other. But can any other Secretary of State sit as Secretary of State as a member of the Army Council? No. That at once shows the difference between a Secretary of State's position in this House and his responsibility and position as a member of the Army Council. The Admiralty has been mentioned, but the First Lord of the Admiralty has not the powers of the Secretary of State, and all-important decisions are conveyed to the Admiralty not through the First Lord, but by a Secretary of State. That is a notorious historical fact. In the historical instance of the Danish fleet the Board of Admiralty were not informed of the intention to capture or destroy that fleet, and they acted on the direction of a Secretary of State.
I do not think it is necessary for me to keep up this debate, and all I wish is to put on record the opinions we entertain on this question. I do not think a word has fallen from the Government to make us doubt the wisdom of caution which we are trying to impress upon them. I am more profoundly convinced than ever of the dangerous nature of this Bill within the Bill, and of its totally unnecessary character. I think it is perfectly useless to attempt to carry any further a discussion in which I have now said all I wish to say.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On this question I quite share the feelings of the right hon. Baronet opposite. I think, in his reply, the Secretary of State for War did my hon. Friend behind me less than
976
justice. What was the substance of his reply? The right hon. Gentleman said that there was such a mass of detail involved, and such a mass of red tape, that without this proposal it would be impossible for him to carry on his business properly. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that this suggestion would make the transfer of any of that red tape impossible, but nothing is further from the actual situation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is most undesirable, and, indeed, most inexpedient, that a Secretary of State should be constantly refering to a mass of details involved in red tape. The question, however, is not a matter of these details, because there are other powers transferred which are far from being matters of red tape. It is not so much the details and the powers transferred, but the point we take objection to and about which we are anxious is one to which we have as yet had no answer at all, and it is as to the conditions of the transfer. I think you are using enormous engines to effect a small purpose—in fact, you are using a steam hammer to crack a filbert.
This clause is, in the first place, to start with, an absolute transfer. In the second place, it subjects that right of transfer to a right of reversion in the event of the Secretary of State deeming it desirable. That right of reversion is not put specifically into the terms of the Statute, but it is the same right of reversion which exists now under the Order in Council, and that will apply. What guarantee has this House that that Order in Council will continue to exist in the form in which it exists to-day? It rests not upon the action of this House but upon the prerogative, and that is the great difference between the Amendment of my right hon. Friend and the words of the Bill. My hon. Friend proposes to give statutory authority to the Secretary of State on this question. The Order in Council is no Parliamentary security at all; and we contend that it should be made statutory, and put into the words of an Act of Parliament. This is a matter over which Parliament can properly assume and exercise a direct control. I think the House will see the point at issue, for it has been made clear by the right hon. Gentleman, and from the Constitutional point of view it deserves most serious consideration. Before this debate closes I hope we shall get a specific answer on this point from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. JOHN WARD: The hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire made one statement, with which most of us will be obliged to disagree, namely, that it was not so much the question of the details of the powers that were to be transferred as the method of the statutory authority that was to be given for the transfer.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I do not want the hon. Member to misunderstand me. I quite agree that the actual details are very important. What I meant was that the exact point raised by this Amendment was not so much the details of the powers as the conditions of the transfer.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I take it for granted that now is the time to discuss the whole question, and therefore I am obliged to dissent from that point of view. I say, that the details are so important that we must consider them before we can get the proper focus of the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view. Seeing that he has declared that no important power is to be transferred, it is a surprising thing that it takes a Memorandum of some 16 foolscap pages of closely printed matter to enumerate all the powers transferred by this particular clause. On pages 1, 2, and 3, it is true, I do not notice there are any powers transferred—there are some alterations; the Army Council is mentioned in place of the Commander-in-Chief or the Adjutant-General; and we go on until we get to paragraph 77, where we find several important powers are transferred by this clause. For instance, the original enlistment of a person under this Act shall be as follows, either for the whole of the term of his original enlistment in Army service, or for such portion of the term of his original enlistment as may be from time to time fixed by (at present) a Secretary of State directly responsible to this House. For the future, if this clause becomes law, the Secretary of State will be responsible only in so far as he is part of the Army Council. Consequently that is a very important proviso, and one that has to be taken to account. Then with reference to general or special regulations, varying the conditions of service—
The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is discussing a point which does not arise on this Amendment. He must not go now into all these details; they may be raised on subsequent Amendments, and more particularly on the schedule itself.
Mr. JOHN WARD: There is no mention of these points in any schedule that I know of.
The CHAIRMAN: Then they are not in the clause. Everything which is being transferred is in the schedule.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I am supposed to take this Memorandum drawn up by the Secretary of State as explaining what clause 4 does.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not seem to understand that we are not now discussing the question "That the clause stand part." What he is discussing does not arise on this Amendment.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Am I to understand that at present it is impossible to discuss the details of the powers proposed to be transferred?
The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member is now discussing clause 77.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Section 77 of the Memorandum.
The CHAIRMAN: Section 77 of the Memorandum arises on the second schedule.
Mr. JOHN WARD: It arises on the words "There shall be transferred."
The CHAIRMAN: I wish I could make the hon. Member understand. The Amendment is that the words "There shall be transferred to the Army Council" shall be left out and some other words put in. What is transferred to the Army Council is not included in the Amendment at all. That follows. The particular thing to which the hon. Member is alluding is actually in lines 15 and 16 in so far as it is mentioned in the Bill itself, and it is also in the schedule.
Mr. JOHN WARD: Then I will postpone my point until we reach that portion of the Bill.
Captain CRAIG: It seems to me that this Amendment is one of the most important which can come before the Committee on this portion of the Bill. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Norwood is not so great as at first sight might appear. In one case the Secretary of State proposes to transfer practically the whole of his powers to the Army Council, and in the other my hon. Friend desires to deal with one man, and one man only. Many of us and the people in the country are not

979
aware of the actual constitution of the Army Council. We are accustomed to deal in this House with a Minister, who is prepared to answer for his Department, but it this clause stands as at present we shall lose that power. The Mover of the Amendment proposes to give the Secretary of State not only the power to delegate his authority, but also the power to recover it at any time if he thinks fit. Although the right hon. Gentleman was very fiery in his reply to my hon. Friend, could anything be fairer than to reserve to him the right when he gives away a power to take it back again? The answer of the right hon. Gentleman rather astonished me. He said that the Amendment would complicate matters and still further entwine him in red tape. Nothing of the kind. He complains of the many offices he has to perform at the present, and the next moment he assures us that this delegation of authority will not in any way interfere with his responsibility to this House. But he cannot have it both ways. If the right hon. Gentleman says, "There is really nothing in what I am doing; it is a mere matter of form; the Army Council so far have carried on the work of the War Office and done all that is necessary to be done; I am merely legalising their hitherto illegal action," it is not right to turn round the next moment and assure us in the vehement fashion he adopted a short time ago that really he had so much to do that he and other War Ministers felt it necessary to split up the work and devolve it on somebody else. We have here the very Order in Council to which so much reference has been made, and so far as any devolution of work is concerned it could hardly be more concise or clear. Under the Order in Council of 10th August, 1904, the Secretary of State is responsible to His Majesty and to Parliament. Could anything be more satisfactory than that it states that business is to be specifically transacted in the following divisions and it actually goes on through them all—Chief of the General Staff, Second Military Member, Adjutant-General, Third Military Member, and so on. For the Secretary of State to say after that that something must be done to take the work off his shoulders, and then at the next moment to say it is always on his shoulders in any case, and that he must be responsible to Parliament, seems to me quite absurd. The Secretary of State for War being a civilian, Members of this House, being mostly civilians, are accustomed to give
980
an interpretation of what is desired by the Army Council in civilian phraseology. But under this scheme the right hon. Gentleman is transferring all his powers to the Army Council. Hardly a Member of this House besides himself and the Financial Secretary knows who the Members of the Army Council are, or whether the military members dominate over the civil. Therefore, when a decision has to be taken in any important matter, under this new regulation, instead of being decided with the civilian mind with regard to the temper of this House and the country, we may find things being done from the military point of view. That is a change in the Constitution itself. To delegate to the Council the authority which hitherto has been held by the Secretary of State as a civilian is rather to reverse the position of affairs. Far be it from me to criticise in any way the Army Council; I do not wish to do so; I merely say that it is a Constitutional change which is being sprung upon us by a back door at a late hour. The Mover of the Amendment said that he was quite prepared that the Secretary of State should delegate his authority to anybody, but under the Amendment it is necessary to have a member of the Army Council to act for him in his absence if he goes abroad and desires to delegate his authority. I think that is where my hon. Friend has rather failed in his Amendment. Instead of giving the Secretary of State's authority to one of his colleagues in the Cabinet he gives it only to a member of the Army Council. I object to that, and I have placed in the Chairman's hands an Amendment to add after the words "Army Council" the words "or Minister of the Crown." If that Amendment were accepted it would safeguard every interest one could possibly conceive.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move that Amendment until the words are left out, and I then put the question that the other words be inserted.
Captain CRAIG: Then with regard to the defence made by the right hon. Gentleman. So far it has been a defence on very small matters indeed. He has not once really grappled with the situation or touched the vital point at issue. The right hon. Baronet opposite was perfectly right in saying that all through these debates the right hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise the gravity of the step he is proposing to take. I shall support my hon. Friend's Amendment, although I do think it might possibly be improved.
Mr. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I think the right hon. Gentleman will not complain of a little time being spent on this very important Constitutional change. The right hon. Gentleman gave as his reason why these various responsible duties were to be handed over from the Secretary of State, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Adjutant-General to the Army Council, that the Secretary of State was troubled dealing with a large number of unimportant details. The instances he gave of unimportant details were bastardy, lunatics, and Post Office matters. Now what occurs to me to point out is that if such matters as bastardy and lunatics were a nuisance to the Secretary of State, how much more of a nuisance will they be to the Army Council. [Laughter.] I am sorry hon. Members laugh, because I wish to point out that you cannot get rid of lunatics and bastardy. They have got to be dealt with by somebody, and I should have thought that the Secretary of State himself or the Army Council could easily have deputed some subordinate to look after these matters. If the Secretary of State had to sign his name to bastardy orders 20 times last year, I venture to say that is the outside, for I cannot imagine that the whole of the Army would be going in for this to such an extent as to make it impossible for the Secretary of State to attend properly to his duties on account of being interrupted continuously with these matters. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend's argument. My hon. Friend asked: "What is the constitution of the Army Council?" Are the Committee not entitled to know, if all these extensive powers are to be handed over to the Army Council, something more about the constitution of the body? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the question he was asked: "How do they vote?" The right hon. Gentleman said: "We have never had a vote, because we have always been unanimous, and the question has not arisen." I was very much surprised to hear that answer. I have no doubt it is strictly correct, but I was sorry to hear it, becaues if the Army Council, with the right hon. Gentleman upon it, have always been unanimous up to this date, I do not think that speaks very well for the Army Council. We should have been glad to hear that there had been real differences of opinion. That would have indicated that some progress was being made and that the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out to his military
982
colleagues that it is time they learned something about their own business. If they have had no differences of opinion, it is time that they had some. My point is that we should not pass this section handing over these extensive powers. We are entitled to be told what the body is, how it is constituted, how it intends to work, and generally the nature of its constitution, and how it votes. I think the Amendment before the Committee is an important and valuable one. It gives the Secretary of State an opportunity of retaining not only nominal power but real responsibility in his own hands. If you allow the power to be transferred, it is all very well by some Order in Council to retain the nominal responsibility, but how can we hold the right hon. Gentleman absolutely responsible for something when he gets up and tells us that the Army Council did it? We do not know that body, and we cannot turn them out. He may have been out-voted in the Army Council for anything we know. This shadowy and irresponsible body cannot be got at. We ought not to-be asked wholesale, so to speak, not retail, to hand over all kinds of powers to a body of whose constitution we know nothing. I think I am in order in mentioning one or two of these powers. They include powers about the liberty of subject, length of service, most important matters of principle and of administrative detail, and not only are the powers of the right hon. Gentleman to be handed over, but also those of the Commander-in-Chief. I am one of those who join in the protest against handing over all these responsibilities to a shadowy and irresponsible body, and I think before we are asked to do so it would have been more reasonable if the Secretary of State had given some explanation as to what this body is.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: I wish to deal with the question as to the manner in which the Army Council votes. This is a very serious matter. Either it votes in secret—
The CHAIRMAN: I allowed this question to be asked, but I do not see that it concerns this Amendment at all. The constitution- of the Army Council is known—or can be known by any hon. Member—and all these questions of detail as to how they conduct their business do not arise on this Amendment.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: When you say that the Army Council constitution is well

983
known, I would point out that we have been unable to get any information either from any public document or from any statement by any Minister in the House of Commons as to how the body works and carries out its duties up to now. We have always been given to understand that practically the Council is the creature of the Secretary of State, that he practically appoints or dismisses them, and that they are not free to exercise their duties as they like. If they do not follow out his views they would be marked down for removal as soon as convenient. No one can for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not a strong Secretary of State for War. All his friends and enemies agree in recognising that he is a Minister of force and strength, and one who, having 'determined upon large schemes, drives them through with all the energy and ability he is known to possess, and, therefore, this question is one of primary importance when dealing with the transfer of authority from the right hon. Gentleman to this, what I can only call, nebulous body. After your ruling, I shall not pursue the subject. I wish to put this question—How does that body exercise its functions—
The CHAIRMAN: Imust pointout again to the hon. Member that the question does not arise on this Amendment.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: The right hon. Gentleman says that unless the powers in regard to the smaller duties which he seeks to transfer to the Army Council are so transferred, he will still remain in what I think I may accurately describe as the morass of detail, and will be tied up by red tape, so that he cannot do his duties as Secretary of State. If he takes as an analogy a large business institution, say a bank, I would ask what would any man in this House think if the manager were to say that he is not responsible for even the smallest detail connected with the performance of the work in his office? If the office boys lost two or three pounds' worth of penny stamps would the manager be entitled to say that he could not be held responsible? We hold the Secretary of State responsible, just as the bank manager is directly responsible for any big and small act. My hon. Friend referred to some of the powers which the Secretary of State wishes to place upon the Army Council under these clauses. There is one regarding which it seems to me the right hon. Gentleman should give us some
984
explanation. I refer to the fact that he proposes under clause 88 of the Army Act, which is referred to in the schedule of this Bill, to transfer to the Army Council the power to call out the reserves for permanent service in the event of national peril. Surely that is a matter which should be made absolutely the duty of—
The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to deal with these matters of detail.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: May I, with all respect, submit that the wording of this clause says that there shall be transferred all the powers referred to in Part I. of the second schedule. I gathered from an earlier ruling that it would be out of order to discuss the general powers which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to depute to the Army Council.
The CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. Member that it is not in order to refer to these matters.
Mr. HAZLETON: To my mind the outstanding fact which this discussion has made perfectly clear is that the Constitutional hold of the Secretary of State and of the House of Commons over the armed forces of the Crown are by this Bill being very seriously impaired. I think the Secretary of State is technically correct in the position which he has taken up, because we find that under the Order in Council of August, 1904, the first paragraph read as follows:—
"That the Secretary of State is to be responsible to His Majesty and Parliament for all the business of the Army Council."
Under that the Secretary of State certainly retains his technical responsibility, but it can be altered at any minute by a stroke of the pen on the part of the Crown. Furthermore, even though he does retain his responsibility, supposing this Order were never altered or varied in any way, it is quite plain and obvious to every sensible person that in so far as the powers which the Secretary of State used to exercise are transferred under the Bill, in future the real authority will be the Army Council, and the Army Council alone. I think that every sensible person will see that so far as the powers of the Secretary of State are transferred under this Bill the real authority will be the Army Council, and the Army Council alone. Let me take an illustration. Supposing any power which the Secretary of State has transferred under this Bill comes up to be exercised by the Army Council. What

985
happens? I am not in a position to give any details, but what would actually take place? But supposing one particular-stance was brought forward, and that the Army Council took one view and the Secretary of State took another? If he differed from the Army Council he would be in this position. He would either have to oppose the Army Council or to override the decision of the Army Council and come to this House and define his position. Would the Army Council sit quietly under such circumstances? If the matter were of real importance, they would hand in their resignations. That is not a situation which the Secretary of State for War would, under ordinary circumstances, be prepared to meet, and rather than stand out against the decision of the Army Council he would give way, and in giving way he would transfer the real power, the real authority, and the real responsibility from his own shoulders to those of the Army Council. In practice, whatever the technical position of the Secretary of State may be, the step which this Committee is asked to take is one of a very serious and grave character.
Mr. BOWLES: We are bound to see in a matter of this importance what these arrangements are, and to look at them from every point of view. When a difficulty arises it will be a real difficulty and a national difficulty, and it may arise at any moment. Whether the issue is to be in the hands of a majority of the Army Council or in the hands of the Secretary of

Division No. 54.]

AYES.

[7.40 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Duckworth, Sir James

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Lamont, Norman

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Everett, R. Lacey

Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

Barker, Sir John

Fenwick, Charles

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Ferens, T. R.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Beale, W. P.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Beauchamp, E.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Lynch, H. B.

Bell, Richard

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

Black, Arthur W.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

M'Micking, Major G.

Branch, James

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Maddison, Frederick

Brigg, John

Hart-Davies, T.

Mallet, Charles E.

Brodie, H. C.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Brooke, Stopford

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

Marnham, F. J.

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. Thomas R.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Massie, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Menzies, Walter

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Percy Alport

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henry, Charles S.

Mond, A.

Cleland, J. W.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Clough, William

Horniman, Emslie John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Idris, T. H. W.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C (Kincard.)

Corbett, C H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nicholls, George

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jardine, Sir J.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

Partington, Oswald

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

State of this House it is a matter which will arise under the powers transferred under this section.
That being so, I think the Committee is entitled to know more about the matter. Is the power to be left to a majority of the existing Army Council—a majority of persons who may be constituted by the Crown—or merely to a portion of the Army Council? Are we really doing anything or nothing? Are we making a change or not?" Is the right hon. Gentleman in the same position or in a different position? That is a question which he has not answered. Surely it is susceptible to a simple answer. The demand is made that he is responsible to this House with regard to the exercise of these powers. Does the Secretary of State reserve to himself any part of the powers, and, if so, by what authority? Certainly not by the authority of this House, but by an Order in Council—that is, by the stroke of a pen. The responsibilities of this character which ought to be exercised in times of stress should be reserved for the Secretary of State to deal with. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what it is we are doing—to what body of persons we are handing these responsibilities, and under what conditions the transfer is being made—I am very sorry to say that it will be my duty to put the House to the trouble of a Division.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause":—Ayes, 134; Noes, 70.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Radford, G. H.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Weir, James Galloway

Raphael, Herbert H.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wiles, Thomas

Ridsdale, E. A.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Robinson, S

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Waiters, John Tudor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Seely, Colonel

Walton, Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Watt, Henry A.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Guinness, W. E. (Bury St. Edmunds)

O'Grady, J.

Alden, Percy

Halpin, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Balcarres, Lord

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banner, John S. Harmood

Hazleton, Richard

Renwick, George

Barnes, G. N.

Higham, John Sharp

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hodge, John

Rowlands, J.

Brace, William

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Bull, Sir William James

Hudson, Walter

Seddon, J.

Byles, William Pollard

Jenkins, J.

Shackleton, David James

Cave, George

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Jowett, F. W.

Stanier, Beville

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kerry, Earl of

Steadman, W. C.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Summerbell, T.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Thorne, William (West Ham)

Doughty, Sir George

Macpherson, J. T.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wardle, George J.

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilkie, Alexander

Essex, R. W.

Newdegate, F. N.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fell, Arthur

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

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

Glover, Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Mr. Bowles.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Captain CRAIG Captain CRAIG moved to leave out from the word "that" to the words "Army Council" in sub-section (a). He said: This Amendment of mine is to leave out practically sub-section (a) of this clause 4. The reason I move it is to endeavour to obtain some information from the Secretary of State. So far we have received nothing from him in explanation of the great change which clause 4 is about to make. It strikes me this part of the clause is the beginning of the delegation of powers. It seems to immediately place the Army Council in a position superior to that of the Secretary of State for War. We have been fighting to keep him in his position at the head of the Army, and responsible to the House of Commons and the country. If one reads carefully the phraseology "nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any rules, regulations, orders, or other documents made or executed by the Secretary of State under any of the powers hereby transferred, and all such rules and regulations shall until revoked by the Army Council have effect as if made or executed by the Army Council."
That is to say the Army Council is immediately placed superior to the Secretary
988
of State. It is for the Army Council to give orders and to execute the powers which the right hon. Gentleman so far has been carrying out with very great success and credit. But certainly that is not right. I am not learned in the law in any sense of the word, but I take it the latter part is even the worse. "These documents shall until revoked by the Army Council have effect as if made or executed by the Army Council."
The sting is to be found here in this part of the clause, because it appears that a Secretary of State for War who has been hitherto supreme is now only to rule with the consent of a superior council. His acts must receive the approval of the Army Council. Is it to be taken that this clause 4 puts the Secretary of State in the position that I have outlined? Is he or is he not superior to the Army Council, and if he is supreme in the Army Council is he supreme only when he receives a majority of votes in the Army Council? And then when he comes down to this House is he voicing his own sentiments and those of his colleagues as a Minister of the Crown, or is he voicing the sentiments of the Army Council, whose approval he has secured by

989
a near majority? That is the crucial point. So far, at all events, anything done and spoken by the Secretary for War has been taken to be a Ministerial action, taken by the right hon. Gentleman on the part of the Government, and with a full authority of the Government, and quite rightly so. Now, it appears the right hon. Gentleman is to come to this House as a member of the Army Council and speak for them, and only after his suggestions have received the approval of the Army Council. Another point arising on this part of clause 4 is this: The whole of this clause, so far as I can make out, is divided into sub-sections under letters a, b, c, and d. In all other parts of the Bill the sub-sections of clauses are denoted by numbers, but here they have had recourse to letters. "Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the validity of any rules, regulations, orders, or other documents executed by the Secretary of State under any of the powers hereby transferred." Now I object to the phraseology of this sub-section, which seems to convey that there was some power transferred by this section a, whereas there is no power transferred by any part of this sub-section a, but it is transferred by a foregoing paragraph, also under the letter a, in the early part of the clause, and therefore I really think there might be something better done in the way of drafting if they wanted to carry out the idea of the Secretary of State as to throwing over the powers he hitherto possessed into the hands of the Army Council, not one of whom anybody in this House knows anything whatever about. It is chiefly with a view of elucidating these things, and of getting some explanation of the meaning of the whole thing from the Secretary of State that I put this Amendment on the paper, and also with the view of having an explanation of the phraseology which really cannot be properly understood.
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Mr. HALDANE: I will tell the hon. Member in two or three words what it is that is done, and first of all as to the general position of the Army Council. The Army Council is a body brought together and owing its vitality and life to the Order in Council. It is the body which is presided over by the Secretary of State for War, who has supreme power to withdraw all business or any particular business
990
from the Council, and who is responsible to the King and to Parliament. He is responsible for the exercise of the prerogative in regard to this body, and it comes to this, that virtually he can overrule it. That being so, his position is this: He allows business to be transacted by the Army Council. It is distributed among the individual members, and while everything goes smoothly it goes on in that way, and discussions take place between the Secretary and the members of the Council, and, as I say, everything goes on perfectly smoothly. If any question arises on which there is a conflict of opinion the Secretary of- State would, of course, be bound, in virtue of his responsibility to this House, to make his views prevail. Now I state that in order to make clear the meaning of the words to which the hon. and learned Member refers. The words are: "Nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any rules, regulations, orders, or other documents made or executed by a Secretary of State under any of the powers hereby transferred, but all such rules, regulations, orders, and documents shall, until revoked by the Army Council, have effect as if made or executed by the Army Council." These words are put in for a purely technical reason. The power of making these regulations which the Secretary of State is transferring to the Army Council, which henceforth will make them subject to the potential control of the Secretary of State, of which I spoke, having been transferred, unless some words of this sort were put in, it might be argued that the power had been removed from the Secretary of State to make them. Consequently, this sub-section is put in as a common form sub-section, and is put in by a very competent draftsman, in order to make it plain, that the existing regulations have not come to an end. This section does not make anything retrospective. It only says that "the rules, regulations, orders, or other documents" signed by the Secretary of State, under powers which are not now continuing, are to continue in operation until powers of correcting them are effective. It is a pure common form clause, put in by a very competent draftsman, who drew this clause, to prevent any difficulty in the construction of it.
Lord BALCARRES: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman just said that he could overrule the Army Council on any question, and that it is in his power to

991
make his will prevail, but he did not tell us quite how that operation was to take place.
Mr. HALDANE: Under the Order in Council.
Lord BALCARRES: Yes; under the Order in Council, but under this sub-section he gives the Army Council, as such, powers which hitherto have been vested in the right hon. Gentleman of revoking certain "rules, regulations, orders, or other documents made or executed by a Secretary of State under any of the powers hereby transferred." It is provided that these powers, which have hitherto existed, under the sign manual of the Secretary of States, shall continue in force until revoked, not by the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament, but by the Army Council, which is not responsible to Parliament.
Mr. HALDANE: It is transferred to the Army Council.
Lord BALCARRES: That is just the point. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he has power to overrule them to any extent, why is he transferring to them under this sub-section a general power to revoke the rules?
Mr. HALDANE: To relieve himself of an enormous mass of detail and of the obligation to do everything himself. What would be thought of the head of a business who tried to do everything himself? He must delegate to some of his managers the powers to control the details of his business or he would become bankrupt. He remains responsible, of course.
Lord BALCARRES: I agree that the head of a firm must transfer to the heads of departments numerous responsibilities to deal with them, but in doing that no head of a business will transfer to his subordinates the right to regulate the rules, documents, etc., by which he himself is affected. That is what he has done. Nobody has got any objection to the delegation of what he calls the red-tape duty, of deciding whether a non-commissioned officer is to lose his rank or not, or anything of that kind. If those responsibilities really weigh upon him, by all means let him fix upon some authority who shall carry out those duties and be responsible to the right hon. Gentleman, who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament. The whole complaint which the right hon. Gentleman
992
has either not appreciated or not met is, that in carrying out this useful measure of delegation he has removed some of his own responsibility to Parliament.
Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE dissented.
Lord BALCARRES: Well, he has given power to the Army Council to remove these responsibilities, and he has stated in this particular sub-section a that they shall have power to revoke certain rules, regulations, orders, and other documents which hitherto have been under his control.
Mr. HALDANE: Circumstances may change, and just as the Army Council may make new regulations, they must have power to revoke an exisiting regulation, always subject to the supreme control of the Secretary of State.
Lord BALCARRES: No.
Mr. HALDANE: That is so.
Lord BALCARRES: I do not wish to press the matter unduly, but it appears that the Army Council is to have power to make the new regulations. I do not think it will be the Secretary of State who will have the power to make the regulations. I am entirely in favour of taking off his shoulders the decision of such questions as to whether a non-commissioned officer should lose his rank, but there is no reason why he should give them the power to revoke documents which hitherto could not be altered without the sole sanction of the Secretary of State.
Mr. RENWICK: I sincerely hope that the Committee will believe me when I say that I think I am interpreting their desire that we do not wish to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of any power which he possesses. Personally I wish he would not get rid of his powers, because I have such confidence in the right hon. Gentleman that I think we should be glad to entrust him with any fresh power that he wants, but this section deprives him of power and this House of power, and gives it to a body over which we have no control. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has control over this Army Council, but then I wish to know why he gives them the power to revoke regulations which he has put in force. It seems to me that instead of the right hon. Gentleman having the power, the Council has the power, and I ask again why does he give the Council that power? I think it is a reflection on a Minister of the Crown, who is responsible to this House, that he

993
should give away power in the way that is mentioned in this clause. We are justified in asking who is putting pressure on the right hon. Gentleman in this way? Depend upon it, pressure is being put, and it is not being put without some reason. Is it the Cabinet? Is there any pressure which the support of this House can get rid of? If so, we will give it, but we are not prepared to allow him to give away powers which we feel so much pride in conferring upon him. The right hon. Gentleman says he has delegated certain powers. Does he feel that he has too much to do? If so let him appeal to the House for another secretary or two. We are quite willing to give it, but we object to giving them to this nebulous body. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, not from the legal point of view, but from the lay point of view, tell us, Has he the right to override the Council or has the Council the right to override him? Surely it must be one or the other, and that is what we want to know. If he has the right to override the Council we maintain that the Council has no right to revoke any order or regulations which he may make. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will enlighten us first on this point, Who is putting pressure upon him? Is it his own wish that he should delegate these powers, because we wish to distinguish between delegation and the mere giving away of these powers? By delegation I mean the appointment of subordinates to carry out his orders without giving up any of his power. Or is it some pressure from the Cabinet or some other body which is causing him to act in this way?
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: In his reply a few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that he overrode the Army Council. If that is so why is it necessary that he should come to Parliament and ask it to pass an Act enabling him to depute certain powers to his creatures? Surely in that case it is no more necessary for him to come and get powers to confer certain duties upon them than it is for any man in the City to get power to depute certain work to clerks in his office.
Mr. HALDANE: The cause is this very antiquated and out-of-date expression in the statute which I am trying to get rid of by this Bill. I cannot by the exercise of my authority repeal a statute.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: If there are on the Statute Books certain antiquated
994
words which interfere between the right hon. Gentleman and the Army Council then the Army Council is to some extent independent of the right hon. Gentleman, and they are not his mere creatures as he has told us. He said this Army Council was to all intents a friendly body at which matters concerning the administration of the Army were discussed. If after discussion the right hon. Gentleman found that body did not take his view he withdrew the business from the Council or he overrode them by saying that if they brought up a report or voted in a particular direction he would take action exactly the contrary to their decision. That, I understand, is the position. If that is so how on earth can he say at the same time that he is barred from exercising that veto and from transferring certain duties to this Council because there are certain words upon the Statute Book. The two things are absolutely inconsistent, and the right hon. Gentleman has surely led the House into some error in the matter.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will clear up the subject. Until we get a clearer definition I do not believe anyone will be satisfied that these words are simple and innocuous words or that the whole of these proposals are so small and insignificant as he would have us believe. We all believe there is some motive behind these proposals, and there is unquestionably in all quarters of the House a suspicion of some ulterior motive lying behind them, and we are determined to know exactly what the result will be when this Bill becomes law.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: Is it too late to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this clause? I think we have made it clear, at all events some of us have tried to make it clear, that we have not the slightest objection to the Secretary of State delegating all his powers relating to all sorts of administrative matters. But it is perfectly montrous to hear from him that he is obliged to waste his time by doing the trivial administrative and executive things which he has referred to.
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the actual Amendment he will find that his remarks do not apply to it. Other hon. Members, too, are referring to the original transfer of these powers. We are not dealing with that now, but with what seems to be more or less a consequence of them, which is more limited.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I recognise that the whole discussion ought to have been confined to the regulations which he has himself actually made, and which it is proposed by this clause shall remain in force until the Army Council revokes them. That raises the very important question that by statute, if we passed the clause in this shape, this Army Council will have the power to revoke the regulations and orders laid down by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and will have the power to revoke documents which he in his capacity of Secretary of State has actually signed. Our objection to that is this, that immediately we pass that we lose as a House of Commons our control over the whole of these matters, and we have allowed the Secretary of State to permit himself to be overridden by the Army Council with regard to all these regulations and documents, and we have lost our power as representatives of the people to bring him to account, and to see that these matters are dealt with in accordance with the Constitution of the country. The right hon. Gentleman told us just now that he was practically supreme in the Army Council, and that if the Army Council did not agree with him he has a short and easy way with the Army Council, and he will practically suppress them. But I presume he will do that, not in his capacity as Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State has parted here by statute, if we pass the clause in this shape, with these very powers that we are calling in question. They are not merely the administrative powers and regulations and documents which are referred to in the clause, but powers of initiation and of laying down matters of principle of the greatest possible importance. In the absence of some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, we on this side of the House will be bound to go into the Lobby to record our vote against these proposals. We object in the strongest possible way to the House of Commons being deprived of its powers to deal with the orders, regulations and documents, and rules referred to.
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.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREAT NORTHERN, GREAT CENTRAL, AND GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILLS (By Order).

    PROPOSED AMALGAMATION.
    Adjourned debate on Motion for Committal of Bill [5th April] resumed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members, five to be nominated by the House and four by the Committee of Selection."—[Mr. Churchill.]
    Mr. ERNEST LAMB: I rise for the purpose of moving an Amendment to leave out the word "nine" and insert "fifteen" and to leave out the word "five" and insert "seven." The Motion would then read:—"That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of 15 Members, eight to be nominated by the House, and seven by the Committee of Selection."
    I want to emphasise that the very fact of the President of the Board of Trade putting down a Motion of this kind shows the importance of the matter that will be laid before the Committee for consideration, and emphasises the fact stated last night that this Committee would not only have to consider the actual Bill now before the House but in the words of the President of the Board of Trade:—
    "The whole case for and against amalgamation in the public interest."
    I submit that the second reading last night was granted by this House on that distinct understanding that the whole case for and against amalgamation would be considered by this Committee I want the House to appreciate the large departure from the traditional policy of Parliament and the Board of Trade consequent upon the decision arrived at by the House last night. I ask, therefore, that the House will, bearing in mind that the reference to this Committee will affect not only the actual three railways concerned, but the entire railway system of the country. I ask, therefore, that the House will appoint a much larger Committee than that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. I want to ensure when that Committee is considering the withdrawal of the present guarantee that competition gives us that some substitute may be suggested in its place. I was rather struck by a reference made by the hon. Member

    997
    for Dulwich last night, in which he emphasised the fact that the opposition to these Bills, to this Bill amalgamating three railways, was coming from some districts where there is no competition now. It is because of that fact that it will affect districts where there is no competition now, if this reference is referred to the Committee on the understanding given by the right hon. Gentleman such a reference is so wide it is important the Committee should be larger than suggested.
    I want to emphasise the point that districts even where there is now no competition will be affected by the decision come to. I speak as one who is largely concerned with the management of one of the lagrest carrying companies in London. We realise the advantages competition gives to us between the different railways, not only in the actual districts where competition exists. Take an illustration of the way we might suffer from the effect of this Bill. I instance the case of say, Penzance. We may have a difficulty of being served there, and not be able to force their hands, because we had no competition with any other railway. But we have got a hold over them at present. We can go and say we would take the traffic from them at some centre where there was competition. We might say to the Great Western, if they would not be reasonable over the traffic to Penzance we would take the competition traffic from Plymouth, and give it to the Southwestern.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has got nothing to do with whether the number of the Committee should be nine or fifteen. We are not concerned with Penzance.
    Mr. ERNEST LAMB: The point I wish to make is that it affects districts far and away beyond the districts served by the present railways in inquiring into the whole case for and against amalgamation in the public interest. If that is going to be referred I submit that the larger question is raised if the whole safeguard of competition is to be taken away from the public railways. Therefore, I plead for a larger Committee so that all interests concerned may be the better represented.
    Mr. JOSEPH WALTON: I rise to second, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade may see his way to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend who has just
    998
    spoken. Last night we were assured by the President of the Board of Trade that not only might we put to one side the question of the details of the Bill, but that the principle of the Bill—the whole question of whether we should reverse the whole policy of the State in regard to the railways in this country—and the question of sanctioning the principle of amalgamation of these three railway companies and the formation by that amalgamation of one gigantic railway trust to which traders and the public in almost half of England would be handed over to the tender mercies of that trust, we were told by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that, unlike the usual experience, when a private Bill has received a second reading in this House, and is sent to a Committee upstairs, then it is considered that the principle of the particular Bill in question has been sanctioned by the House, but the Vote was taken last night upon the distinct declaration of the President of the Board of Trade that on this occasion that question as to whether this country or Parliament should sanction the principle of the Bill was left an absolutely open question to a degree that is not usual with regard to an ordinary Bill.
    This is no ordinary Bill. This is a Bill, I venture to say, perhaps of more supreme importance to the future trade and commerce of this country and of the future well-being of the workers of this country than any measure we have had to consider during the course of this Parliament. And, therefore, in the interests of the traders who have not been consulted by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and of the workers, who equally have not been consulted, in view of the enormous importance and far-reaching results that may arise if this huge amalgamation, this building up of a railway trust for the first time in the history of this country, is sanctioned by Parliament, then I venture to say that the results are incalculable as affecting the future well-being of the trade and commerce of this country. I am perfectly astounded that the Liberal Government, of all others, should give any encouragement whatever to a proposal of this nature. They tell us that if the Tariff Reformers carry their project that there will be created in this country, to the detriment of the people and the well-being of the whole community, gigantic trusts. Yet they are committing themselves to the creation of a gigantic railway trust, affecting what,

    999
    after all, is the mainspring of trade and commerce in this country. No one wishes to deny the railway companies fair, just, and reasonable treatment, but with regard to this Bill—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill has passed its second reading. We have passed the stage of making speeches, which should have been made last night. We are on another topic now.
    Mr. WALTON: I apologise for having been inadvertently carried away. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will enable the traders of the country and the workers on the railways to realise that he does wish to extend to them all the protection and security that he can, by at any rate strengthening the Committee to consider the Bill upstairs and making it of the most representative character possible.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Committee which we are going to charge with the most important labours in connection with this Bill should be the best that the House of Commons can devise. There is no difference of opinion as to that. The question is how are we going to get the best, machinery, most accurately and usefully, to represent the responsibilities and opinions of the House of Commons. If I have to choose between the two Committees, of nine and of 15, I venture to think that nine would be the more practicable and more useful body. I think it is rather putting a tax on the House to ask it to supply 15 hon. Members to make the sacrifice of their time which will inevitably be required by this protracted inquiry. I am quite ready myself to hear arguments to the contrary, but having no other object in view than to make as strong a Committee as possible, I am advised by those who are very competent on these matters that nine would be the best Committee you could get under the circumstances in which we are met together. But I leave the question of the mere number of the Committee, and come to the question of the quorum of the Committee that is necessary to transact business. The advantages are enormously on the side of the Committee of nine, with a quorum of six necessary to transact business as against the Committee of 15 with a quorum of eight. What is most important in these matters is continuity of attention. To have eight out of 15 is little more than 50 per cent. of the whole number, whereas six out of
    1000
    nine is 66 2-3rds per cent. of the whole number. I put myself entirely in the hands of the House to decide whatever it wishes as to the size of the Committee; I only wish to point out that nine, with a quorum of six—I am advised, taking all the circumstances into consideration—is the most efficient body to examine this question.
    Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: We all know the old adage that, as far as business is concerned, a Committee of two, with one of them away, is the best. On that principle, of course, the Committee of nine would be the best; but that is not exactly the object which we have in view in asking for the strengthening of this Committee. In the first place, there is the enormous scope of this Bill. It is not merely the amalgamation of these companies, or rather, the pooling of their work, but it is the possibility in the Bill—in clause 17—of extending this very much further to other companies; and we want a committee which will go into the question whether this is the beginning of a great trust. I do not take it for granted—like the hon. Gentleman who seconded—that it is a great trust, but there is the possibility, it looks on paper, that this might be the beginning of a great railway trust, which we in this country look upon as injurious to workmen, to railway employés, and to the public generally. Therefore, it is a question altogether outside what may be called the judge-and-jury trial of the small Committees, such as sit on ordinary railway Bills, or even of a Committee of this sort that is somewhat extended up to nine members. Another important point is that this House, as a general rule, are not experts on this question, but many Members of the House are, no doubt, connected with railway companies or are connected with trades, and there is considerable technical knowledge perhaps on these matters in the House, yet we want a certain proportion of the House to be able to hear the evidence on both sides. For that reason it is necessary to have a larger Committee than we should have to go merely into the rights and wrongs of a particular case. The House wants not merely the report of one or two people who are put there as judges, but it wants as a whole to get into close touch with the great questions that affect such a vast interest as this. Owing to its enormous importance the question is very different from that involved in an ordinary private Bill, and for that reason

    1001
    I think that the larger the Committee the better knowledge the House will have of the subject when it comes to a third reading, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman and those who supported it last night, will be the decisive point as to whether the House will agree with it or not, even if the Committee has found for the preamble, and I think it so important that the House should be in close touch with the whole of the details and the evidence that is given that the larger the number of Members the better we shall be able to judge of it when it comes on in the House for third reading.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: When this matter was first put down I thought that a Committee of seven would be sufficient. This was because I did not think it should go upstairs to an ordinary Private Bill Committee of four; but after what I heard last night I am strongly in favour of this larger number. Bear in mind that we have not had a full opportunity of discussing this Bill yet. I waited throughout both evening sittings, but never had an opportunity of bringing matters before the House that I wished to. I know that the right hon. Gentleman took a great deal too much of the available time, and, moreover, told us that he did not know anything about the matter except what he picked up from a man in the street. Under those circumstances the matter will have to be tried all over again upstairs, because it is in a very different position from other Bills. When it gets upstairs it should certainly be in the hands of a very strong Committee, who will be in a position to consider the matter fully, because we shall be told eventually, whenever it comes back—if ever it does—that the Committee have done so and so, and you must vote for it, because the Committee have agreed upon that course. Another reason for a large Committee is that most Committees are more or less packed. But you cannot pack a big Committee as well as a small one; consequently, you are more likely to have an independent Committee of 15 rather than 9. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will give way, and allow us to have a larger number, so as to get a stronger opinion with regard to this Bill after its discussion.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: This is a private Bill, promoted by private parties, who seek privileges from this House, and such a Bill is ordinarily committed to one of the smallest Committees that the House ever appoints. Why? It is because it is not
    1002
    only a right, but a duty on the part of that Committee to inquire whether the principle of the Bill, as expressed in its preamble, is capable of being proved by the evidence. For that purpose they call witnesses, and counsel is permitted to appear before them. Counsel, representing all manner of conflicting interests, are allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Over and above that there is the right of every individual member of the Committee—and I hope they will always exercise it—to follow up that examination and cross-examination by an examination and cross-examination of their own. All this is at the expense of the parties concerned. Exactly in proportion as you increase the numbers of the Committee you increase the possibilities of indefinitely multiplying all these expenses. I admit we have no right to say that we shall not be put to expense in submitting proposals to the House, but I think I may respectfully remind the House that in appointing a Committee of nine Members the House is departing very far indeed from its ordinary and normal procedure. It is possible, if you appoint a Committee of 15, that every one of those 15 Members may exercise his right of examination and cross-examination, and also his right of submitting further witnesses. If this is done the proceedings may go to a great length, and the Committee may find that there is no conclusion to them at all. Then, if the expenses are so increased, who will say that the promoters will be able to bear such charges? I think it is only right, though I do not vote upon this Bill, being interested—I think the House will accord me the right of making these observations on this proposal to extend the numbers of the Committee.
    Mr. A. MOND: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is very moderate and very sensible indeed, and I agree with a great deal of it. The difficulty in which we find ourselves is that the President of the Board of Trade has insisted upon this House fixing upon a general inquiry into a private Bill. The difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman raises is one which I had foreseen all along, and is the reason why I wanted this House to reject the Bill on the second reading rather than inflict, to my mind, the unnecessary burden on the promoters of the Bill, of first spending a large amount of money on the Committee, and then not getting their Bill read a third time. The President of the Board of Trade persuaded the House not to adopt that course. This Bill is one of

    1003
    the most gigantic and important Bills of the Session; indeed of railway Bills in Parliamentary times. The President of the Board of Trade cannot now bring this Bill back to the scope of an ordinary private Bill. The very instruction the right hon. Gentleman is going to move takes the Bill outside the scope of an ordinary private Bill, yet the House of Commons last night would not have given a second reading to this Bill except on the clear understanding, and under great pressure by both front Benches, that this is the best opportunity of investigating the important question of railway amalgamation. Taking that into consideration, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us our Committee of 15 in his own interest and in the interests of the railway companies, as well as of everybody else.
    The Bill has passed its second reading, and I offer no practical opposition to the progress of the Bill. I am quite ready to accept the decision of the House, but then we must get to the point where we can get something definitely settled. We must get this question of the principle of amalgamation laid down in such an authoritative manner by this House that the railway companies and the country will know exactly where they stand. If you have a large Committee it will undoubtedly carry more weight, because it will represent more interests than a small one. A good many people are interested in this question in the House, and the larger you make the Committee the more interests will be represented, and the more authority the recommendation of the Committee will have. Take the question of the Railway Conference. It has not had the effect it ought to have, and this is largely due to the fact that the Constitution of the Committee was not so influential, or so representative, or so authoritative, as it might have been. The same difficulties will arise if this Committee is too small. All the people who disagree with the conclusions of the Committee, whatever they may be, will say: "After all, they were just a small number of gentlemen; so and so was not on, and so and so ought to have been on." The larger you make the Committee the more authoritative the conclusion will be. I am perfectly certain there are more than 15 hon. Members of this House—more than double that number—who will be quite willing to give all the time necessary to arrive at a conclusion to this question. This is not a
    1004
    small matter. It is a revolution in our railway system. It may be necessary to make a revolution. But it ought to be made with as much authority as possible. The question of a few thousand pounds, more or less, should not count. Besides, I understand the Treasury are ready to bear a portion of the cost. We cannot stop the promoters from withdrawing this Bill whenever they like, though if they withdrew the Bill, what is to become of the Committee that is inquiring into the amalgamation so as to give an authoritative opinion to the country? [An HON. MEMBER: "GO on with it."] You cannot go on with it if there is nothing to go on with. I ask the hon. Gentleman to follow out what I think is the general feeling of the House, and to permit a Committee of 15 to be appointed, and a quorum of nine is none to large to consider a matter of this importance.
    Mr. WALTER HUDSON: I rise to support the Amendment. When we consider the importance of this great question that is to be brought before the Committee, who have to consider it in all its important principles and phases, and to report to this House recommending what is to be the future respecting combines of railways in this country, we cannot have a too representative Committee of this House. There is no comparison between this Committee which is to be appointed and the ordinary private Bill Committee which we usually have for private Bills. There are many sections of this House of Commons, and we claim that the Committee which is to sit for such an important purpose should at least be thoroughly representative of the House, and be able to voice all the interests that ought to be safeguarded, and that would be injured as a result of a large combine being let loose in the country. There is a great and important question of control, and I think, according to the Press, even to-day the people are beginning to realise, what they did not see yesterday, that there is a grave principle now at stake, and that there should be a controlling power, with initiative, if the ordinary method of competition is removed. I do not support this Amendment in any factious spirit, but merely on the ground of having a thoroughly representative Committee' which will be able to do justice to such an important question. There is no analogy betwixt this and any other question that has ever come before a private Bill Committee of the House. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
    Mr. REES: Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Chester has said, I submit to the House that the Instruction of the President of the Board of Trade does not make this a general inquiry into broad principles, but is confined to the four corners of the- Bill. I have the Instruction before me, which says the Committee "are to make a special report to the House as to the advantages or disadvantages which would result to the interests of the public or of the passengers and traders using the railways of the three companies promoting the Bill," and so on. Of course, it may be urged that, in considering this matter, great principles will be decided, but in the speeches of hon. Members who have spoken too much has been made, it seems to me, of some remarks of the right hon. Gentleman indicating that, in addition to this inquiry, which will have to be taken, there will be a general inquiry as to the desirability of railway amalgamation in England. I submit with great respect that that is not the case, that the sole subject of this inquiry is in relation to these three railways, and that this case, like all others that come before these Committees, will have to be decided on its merits.
    Mr. ERNEST LAMB: I have the words of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. They are these: "In general to consider the Bill, and the whole case for and against amalgamation in the public interest."
    Mr. REES: That is as regards this particular case.
    Mr. LAMB: No.
    Mr. REES: The whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman referred solely to the case of these three companies.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Everything I said referred to the issues raised by this Bill. Still, they are very wide issues.
    Mr. REES: The right hon. Gentleman entirely confirms what I have said. I do not disguise from myself or from the House that great principles are involved in this case, although the principle of amalgamation has already been conceded, the only difference being that this is a somewhat larger amalgamation than those which have previously taken place. It is not the case that the principle of amalgamation now comes before Parliament for the first time—at least, I think not. The hon. Baronet the Member for Northamptonshire went so far as to say that the decision with regard to this case would be the model on
    1006
    which all future workings and agreement or amalgamations would depend. I submit that this is entirely going beyond the actual facts of the case. The view I venture to hold on this matter has been confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. ERNEST LAMB: No.
    Mr. REES: I am only submitting to the House what appears to me as one who lives on one of the three railways to be the issue; consequently, I have a good deal of interest in the question, though I have no pecuniary interest whatever in the matter. With regard to the size of the Committee, I venture to submit that a smaller Committee is more likely to deal fairly and properly with this case. The hon. Member for Sutherlandshire said that if we got more Members we should get more views, and that it is more difficult to pack a large Committee than a small one. That is true. But if you get a larger Committee it also provides room for some individual member with some impracticable cause like that for third-class sleepers, or anything else. You may take away from the Committee that aspect of seriousness which so important a subject requires, and which would be so desirable in the body which has to deal with it. That is the danger of appointing a larger Committee. The hon. Member for Newcastle said a larger Committee would be more representative. That is not a sound proposition. Of course we do not want all the members of a Committee like this to be directors of railways I agree; but it is desirable that the members of it should have that degree of experience of business which would bring them more or less closely into connection with the subject to be investigated, and if you had a larger Committee very likely you would have extra members who would not be likely to possess that experience, and who would be likely to introduce extraneous matters to the prolongation of the business and to the very great expense of the companies concerned in the promotion of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been accused of representing that this is not a very important Bill. I do not think he said that at all. I think he said that it was of vital importance to the company which he himself represented, and the criticism cannot fairly-be passed on what he said. Nobody in any quarter of the House will deny that the President of the Board of Trade, in dealing with this matter, has taken the utmost care to safeguard the interests of

    1007
    labour, which are represented on the other side of the House, or more immediately represented on the other side of the House. I cannot but deprecate very much the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley that there will be anything in the nature of Liberal or Conservative treatment of a Bill of this character. Surely the treatment of this Bill is a matter of business.
    Mr. JOSEPH WALTON: I made no such statement in regard to the introduction of Liberal and Conservative principles. I merely stated that it was a surprise to me that a Liberal Government should have given any sort of backing to the creation of a huge railway trust in this country.
    Mr. REES: In describing this Bill as creating a great trust the hon. Member begs the whole question. The one main aspect—and it is really the determining factor—has been entirely left out of account by almost every speaker, and it is that railway companies are not altruistic associations. I think by calling this a trust the hon. Member is giving this amalgamation a name which it does not deserve. This kind of treatment must inevitably tend to discourage railways when they find it necessary to apply for fresh powers to enable them to raise fresh capital, and it will not encourage them to come openly to Parliament, but will drive them to those subterranean methods of procedure which are represented during the debate as so much less desirable for the settlement of such questions.
    Sir ROBERT PERKS: I think the real point we have to consider is whether as sound a judgment will be arrived at by a Committee of nine as by a Committee of fifteen, and whether the presumed long inquiry and additional cost will be such as to outweigh other advantages. The old custom, when I had the honour of doing work in the Committee rooms, was to only have a very small Committee, and the great amalgamation, which was not a success, of the South-Eastern and the Chatham companies was undertaken by a much smaller Committee. I venture to think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has somewhat exaggerated the cost of inquiry by a Committee of 15. It is perfectly evident that the larger Committee you get the more representative it -will be, and the less judicial it is the more it is supposed to be representative of the interests concerned. The old rule of this House, which I believe in later years has
    1008
    been departed from, was that nobody who voted on the second reading, either for or against a measure, was permitted to serve on those Committees. If you are going to have a Committee of 15, and you are going to exclude everybody who has given a Vote for or against, you are going to reduce your Committee to a condition of ineptitude. If I were interested in the promotion of this Bill, I should not stand in the way of what I venture to think is the general feeling that a larger Committee would, under the circumstances, be better, and I think a Bill coming forward from such a Committee would come to this House with greater authority than it would coming from a smaller Committee. I do not think the larger Committee would add to the cost or the prolongation of the proceedings. I do not think there is anything very serious to object to in the suggestion to increase the number from nine to 15.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Baronet has had some experience of Committees, and I think he will agree with me that in the first place it is more difficult to get 15 capable men than nine; and in the second place, when you have got them, it is harder to make 15 attend than nine. The hon. Baronet will agree also that in a Committee of this sort, where there is no compulsory attendance, the result will be that a large number of the Members of the Committee will not attend because it is-only human nature for some of them to say, "Oh, there will be a quorum without me, and therefore I shall not attend." This Committee will sit for a considerable time, and consequently it will be a great strain upon the Members. That strain will be far greater if you have 15 men who have other vocations and whose time is occupied than if you take nine men who may be inclined to sacrifice themselves for the good of the House. It has been said that you would be more in touch with the House if you had a Committee of 15 instead of nine. Now there are 670 Members of this House, therefore in that respect it cannot make any earthly difference whether there are nine or 15. I should have thought the extension from nine to 15 could not in the least place the Committee in any greater touch with the feelings of the House. It has been argued that it is unnecessary to increase this Committee because there is to be an extended inquiry into all sorts of questions and as to whether the general future of railways will be amalgamation. This is a private Bill, the second reading of which has been passed by the House-

    1009
    When the Bill goes to the Committee, will it be in order for that Committee to hold a roving inquiry into all sorts of matters which are not within the scope of the Bill? The title of the Bill is the Amalgamation or Combination of the Great Northern, the Great Central, and the Great Eastern Railways. Will it be in order for that Committee to engage in a roving commission of inquiry as to whether or not the London and North-Western and the Midland Railways, or some other railways in England, should amalgamate? It seems to me that the Committee cannot go beyond the scope of the Bill, 'and in the interests of the railway companies and of the time of this House I should be glad if you, Mr. Speaker, would kindly give a ruling on the point, so that we might know where we are before a considerable sum of money and a large amount of time are wasted upstairs.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The only answer I can give to the question put to me by the hon. Baronet is this: After the Bill has been sent to a Committee, it will be for the House to decide the terms of the Instruction. Everything will depend on the terms of the Instruction in the first place, and secondly upon how the chairman of the Committee interprets that Instruction. I am not inclined at this moment to give any interpretation of an Instruction not yet passed. If the chairman found himself in any difficulty in interpreting the Instruction of the House, he would probably refer to me; at all events, I am there for the purpose of giving such advice as I can, and I should give the best advice I could in interpreting the Instruction settled by the House. I cannot give the hon. Baronet or the House any further information than that at present.
    Mr. LOUGH: The weighty words which have just fallen from you, Sir, might, I think, induce the right hon. Gentleman to yield to the Motion which has been made. It is evident that the arguments put forward against enlarging the Committee are based entirely on the supposition that this is an ordinary private Bill, and that it should be treated as such by the Committee. That was the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Quite the contrary. My argument was that a very wide departure had been made from the normal procedure.
    Mr. LOUGH: I think perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did qualify the words afterwards, but certainly the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and. the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, who appeared as an able assistant on this side, maintained that the matter should be treated somewhat as an ordinary private Bill. But the ruling, if I may so term it, which you have just given indicates that the whole inquiry of the Committee turns on the nature of the Instruction. That is a matter which ought to> count when we are arguing for the enlargement of the Committee. If even those who are opposed to the enlargement will look at the Instruction, I think they will be converted to the views of my hon. Friend who has made the Motion. There are no less than nine different duties, all more or less removed from the immediate subject of the Bill, embodied in the instruction. The Committee is told to examine all the proposals of the Bill in relation to the public interest; then in relation to the various private interests; to hear the Board of Trade and all other Government Departments; and, above all, to make a special report to the House of Commons, stating whether any advantages or disadvantages will arise from the adoption of the policy; and to consider the Bill from the standpoint first of the public, then of the passengers, then of the traders, and then of the servants of the companies. That is as weighty a reference to a Committee as any Member now present has ever heard given in this House. I do not think my right hon. Friend is really very hostile to the proposal which has been so largely supported in all parts of the House. The hon. Baronet representing the City of London said that 15 members would no> more represent this House than nine Members. The House is divided into at least four parties, perhaps more, and it is very hard to get those four parties fairly represented on a Committee consisting of a smaller number than 15. Fifteen will not really give any too great facilities for having fairly represented on the Committee all the great interests represented in this House. My right hon. Friend has taken an independent view with regard to this matter. He leaves it to the House, and I would make an appeal to those in charge of the Bill. We have discussed the matter for an hour, and there is a preponderance of opinion in favour of the enlargement of the Committee. The duties of the Committee are large, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman who

    1011
    represents the promoters to consider whether he would not be consulting the interests of the Bill by agreeing to the Motion which he has made.
    Mr. MADDISON: I think the supporters of the Amendment have not been well advised in constantly using the word "trust" in connection with this Bill. Some of us who voted for the second reading take just as strong exception as they do to the formation of anything like a trust. The whole question is what is the best machinery to report upon this Bill? I do not agree with my right hon. Friend when he talks about parties. I understand that in regard to private business the selection of Members is not on a party basis at all.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: They are appointed by the Whips.
    Mr. MADDISON: Small private Bill Committees are not appointed by the Whips at all.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: This is a Select Committee.
    Mr. MADDISON: As far as party representation is concerned, it is to me a very minor point, and ought not, I think, to be the governing factor. My experience generally has been that to examine a very important matter a small Committee is the best, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he would be well advised to support the larger Committee in this case, simply in the interests of a really impartial consideration of this Bill—a very important and far-reaching Bill, and one which has given some of us a good deal of trouble in deciding to support the second reading—trouble which, in my case, was got over by carefully listening to the arguments when almost for the first time in my life the two Front Benches converted me and sent me into the Lobby in support of the Bill. It is very desirable that the promoters should waive their objections to a Committee a little larger than the one they want, so that at the very start they may smooth matters over, and enable the Committee to settle down to present a carefully considered report—a proceeding which will be in the interests of the Bill, in the interests of the public, and in the interests of private concerns as well.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: By the indulgence of the House may I say that I adhere to my original opinion that nine is the more workable number, and that you could get through all the business you have to do
    1012
    with a Committee of nine. But much more strongly than I hold that opinion, I hold the opinion, after what has been said, that this is essentially a matter for the House to decide. I am not going to stand against the House in the matter at all. I want the House to appoint the Committee which it thinks best—not the Committee which I or the right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks the best. I want the House to entrust this important matter to a body in which it has entire confidence. That being so, I shall certainly not resist at all the proposal which has been made to increase the size of the Committee. The House has decided that this Bill should have a second reading and be examined by a Committee. Let us try to find the best Committee and to give the Bill the most thorough and at the same time perfectly fair examination. I think it would be for the convenience of the House that we should now come to a decision.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The argument which I put forward on the ground of expense is one which I cannot abandon. The House must see that we are hopeless at present, in the face of the desire to increase the number of the Committee. We have to submit to the decision which the House may arrive at. What the promoters may do hereafter, I am not in a position to say. We do not agree to the proposal for 15. We think it is an injustice and hardship, and it must not be said that we are agreeing to the enlargement of the Committee.
    Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: It seems to me that it would be advisable to have a small Committee, which would be more likely to carefully examine this Bill in all its details, but if it is understood that it is the Bill, and nothing but the Bill, that is to be considered, it does not appear to me that it matters very much whether the number is nine or 15. The hon. Member for Chester has told us that this Bill involves a revolution, and there are some persons who think that there is involved in it a principle of legislation. I submit that it is not a revolution, and that there is no new principle involved. The House has for many years considered questions of amalgamation. Amalgamations have been made ever since 1840. The Great Western Railway and the London and North Western are probably two of the most influential and powerful in the country. They are the most useful, and give the best facilities to traders of any of the railway companies in England.
    Sir F. BANBURY: With the exception of the Great Northern.
    Sir G. DOUGHTY: I can hardly agree with my hon. Friend. These two railways are made up very largely of smaller companies which have been amalgamated. Therefore, since the House has for a great many years exercised the principle of amalgamation, I cannot see that there is any new proposal involved in this particular amalgamation. I am rather inclined to think from some of the speeches which have been made that there is a desire on the part of certain hon. Members who were defeated last night to kill the Bill tonight. It is with great reluctance I say so, but I am afraid I must come to that conclusion. The President of the Board of Trade in what he has stated has done his duty as representing the Board of Trade, and the hon. Member for Barnsley has gone one better, for he has lauded the Liberal party for doing their duty. If it is the intention of the House that the Committee to be appointed should faithfully and impartially examine this Bill, and not deal with amalgamations generally at the expense of the railway companies concerned in this Bill, I do not see myself that there is very great objection to the extension of this particular Committee, but I think it should be distinctly understood that these railway companies are not going to take this Bill into Committee to be shot at by everybody, and for the purpose of enabling an inquiry to be held and principles laid down for all kinds of amalgamations in the future. Someone has referred to the public interest, but on that question I submit that the Instruction which the right hon. Gentleman is going to move in regard to the public interest in respect of this particular Bill and nothing else should meet the requirements of the case. Therefore, if it is the understanding that the decision of the Committee is to be in regard to this Bill and not on general principles, I do not see why the number should not be increased to 15.
    Mr. R. W. ESSEX: It seems to me that the other side of the House are a little bit ungenerous. They are setting many who have not made up their minds unnecessarily by the ears. How do the companies propose to deal with the public generally? We were told by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London last night that the maximum of concession has already been given. Therefore the companies are going before the Committee,
    1014
    having from their point of view said their last word. I wish to see this House represented very fully on the Committee, so that all interests may be carefully guarded from every possible standpoint. It does seem to me that the powers given to these companies will be so enormous if the Bill passes that £1,000 more or less, so gigantic is the capital involved, ought not to weigh with them. I am not here to take any part in criticising the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade. He says that the railways of this country are in a parlous condition. Up and down the country everybody is dissatisfied. There is inelasticity in the development of rolling stock, and the right hon. Gentleman has thrown himself into this controversy to see whether at this time he cannot do something to help them. But I cannot get myself away from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said the other night that this Bill must be seen to be one of a kind which will be followed by similar Bills. If this Bill obtains the ear of the House, does the House not see that it is the precursor of others? If this amalgamation takes place future amalgamations will take place, and although we may not be able to put searching questions which have relation to the aspect of affairs in future, yet this consideration must inevitably be at the back of the mind of every member of the Committee sitting from day to day. I sincerely hope that at this stage the promoters will deal with the House generously and frankly. When it is stated for the railway companies before going into the Committee that they have given away the last concession possible, it seems to me bad business to say so when setting out in an undertaking of this kind. I do not wait to say what this Bill proposes. My hon. Friend says that it is not a Trust, but it covers one half of the country.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not speaking at all to the Motion before the House, but to the Bill as a whole.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Resolved: To leave out the word "five" and insert "eight" as the number of Members of the Committee to be nominated by the House, to leave out the word "four," and to insert "seven" as the number to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
    Ordered: "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of 15, eight to be nominated by the House and seven by the Committee of selection."
    Ordered: "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move "That nine be the quorum."
    Lord BALCARRES: I have sat on many Committees—on one for six weeks—which have dealt with railway Bills, and I have always understood that every member is expected to attend regularly. Now it is proposed that no less than six members of this Committee may be absent without leave, although we are dealing with a Bill of immense importance.
    Mr. COURTENAY WARNER: I do not see why the same rule should not apply to a Hybrid Committee as to a small Committee. The consideration of this Bill may last for a long time, and therefore it would be impossible for every member of the Committee to attend, say for two or three months.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Nine is a suspicious number. The question is whether nine or some larger number should be a proper quorum. The hon. Member says that you cannot expect anything like 15 members to attend.
    Mr. WARNER: The Noble Lord said that every member was supposed to attend. Such a suggestion in the case of 15 members is an impossible condition.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The question is whether nine should be a quorum or a larger number, say 12. I will not deal with the hon. Member because he does not appear to understand the question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman asked a Member below the gangway what the number was to be, and the hon. Member said "nine."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must really protest against the statement of the hon. Baronet. [Cries of "Order, order."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point of order before the House.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the number nine, and an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said it was a suspicious nine.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Baronet in his uncalled-for discourtesy has made an incorrect statement. My hon. Friend below the Gangway suggested eight, and I suggested nine, and the reference of the hon. Baronet is quite uncalled for.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The statement which I made is correct.
    Mr. ERNEST LAMB: May I rise for a personal explanation? I mentioned "eight" when the right hon. Gentleman rose to move "nine," as I thought "eight" was sufficient for a quorum. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have nothing to withdraw. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
    Mr. SPEAKER: Because an hon. Gentleman uses an expression which some hon. Gentlemen do not like it is no reason why he should withdraw. If there is anything to withdraw, I will call upon the hon. Member to do so, otherwise an hon. Member might have to withdraw half his speech.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I heard the hon. Gentleman say that nine is the proper number.
    Sir G. DOUGHTY: I think that it will be very difficult to get nine Members to attend regularly on the Committee. Nine out of 15 on exceptional occasions seems to me to be a fair and reasonable number, and I hope the House will agree to the suggestion.
    Ordered, "That nine be a quorum."
    Mr. CHURCHILL Mr. CHURCHILL moved: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the proposals of the Bill in relation to the public interest as well as to the various interests directly affected; to hear the Board of Trade and any other Government Department by counsel and witnesses, and to make a special Report to the House stating whether any and what advantages and disadvantages would result to the interests of the public or of the passengers and traders using the railways of the three companies promoting the Bill, or of the persons employed by those companies, if the powers sought by the Bill were granted; whether any, and what, safeguards are necessary for the protection of these special and general interests, and (in the event of the Committee finding the Preamble of the Bill proved) what provisions, if any, have been inserted for this purpose."
    Mr. MOND Mr. MOND moved as an Amendment to the proposed Instruction to the Committee after "Committee," in line 1, to insert "to receive all petitions to be heard against the Bill in Committee which may be deposited not later than five days before the first sitting of the Committee, and to hear

    1017
    the petitioners thereon." He said: The right hon. Gentleman has only formally moved his Instruction without giving to the House any information as to its interpretation. I think he places both sides of the House in an extremely difficult position by his action, a difficulty referred to both by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Sheffield and by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. I think we are entitled to know, and the House wants to know, what this Instruction implies. I should like to go through the Instruction, if I may, in detail. The Instruction reads:—" That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the proposals of the Bill in relation to the public interest as well as to the various interests directly affected; to hear the Board of Trade and any other Government Department by counsel and witnesses." I would like to remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said in last night's debate as to what he intended to do, and on that this House gave a second reading to this Bill. He was arguing Against the contention of myself and others and he pointed out that:—
    "To compare such an inquiry as I am now asked to initiate, such an abstract and vapoury discussion with the kind of inquiry which will follow if the Instruction of the Board of Trade be adopted, is really to compare a sort of debating society discussion upon, we will say, murder and suicide, with a coroner's inquest upon the body of a man."
    I might say he anticipated a funeral of some kind, whatever kind of an inquiry he is going to hold. He went on to say:—
    "There is as great a distinction between theory and reality as there would be in these cases. I suggest to the House that instead of an unreal and visionary inquiry a full examination of real and concrete proposals, with the actual interests represented and with the real facts brought by those concerned before the Committee, is infinitely of greater value to those who wish to see public interests protected and public opinion guided into larger combinations of railway enterprise and more perfect and more satisfactory methods of public and State control. Under the Instruction of the Board of Trade, we should have an opportunity of making before the Committee the whole case of amalgamations in the public interest."
    That is the whole question so far as this Bill is concerned, that the Committee would examine "the whole case of amalgamation in the public interest." That, I understood, and a great many Members who voted for the Bill understood, to mean that the whole question of amalgamation of railways would be brought before the Committee by the Board of Trade, and I really am surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman seems to repudiate the interpretation of his words. If he does, I think he will find a large number of Members who voted with him last night
    1018
    were under another impression when they gave their votes. He went on to say:—
    "And we should make that case with all the information which we have acquired during these conferences, which have been held for the last year."
    Is he going to make before this Committee the whole case of amalgamations? He cannot mean that retrospective inquiry by a Committee relating to these three companies' Bill. Anybody taking these words would imagine that the right hon. Gentleman means that we are going to have an inquiry into the principle of amalgamation, and that this railway Bill is going to be a body which will be vivisected, and its body will be operated upon. It is not a dead corpse, however, which you are going to have a post mortem upon, and you may have all your railway counsel and their experts to explain to you the beauties and the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamation. I thought it was very unfair to the railway companies, and I said so on the second reading, but the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to that. He said:—
    "Let us go on and consider the whole question."
    but he does not tell us to-night if he sticks to what he said last night, when he said:—
    "You require definite and concrete proposals before you can achieve any further results. All we have learnt by these conferences we shall be able to put forward before the Committee in the public interest. I propose to secure that these thoroughly able and competent persons should help us and call witnesses who would unfold before the whole nation the essence and the main features of the great question of railway amalgamation."
    The right hon. Gentleman, on a speech I made on the introduction, suggested the other day that he would call me as a witness. I have no desire to be called as a witness, but certainly I should not be a very relevant witness merely on the question involved in this Bill. If he suggests that he should call me as a witness it would only be to give my views as to railway amalgamation. I think hon. Members are entitled to be informed to-night whether or not this Instruction has this meaning, so that they can consider with their friends whether they will go on with this Bill or not. I gathered from them that they had not the slightest intention to land themselves in this experimental method, and being practical men of business I do not understand why they should spend thousands of pounds for the purpose of assisting a Committee on the general question of amalgamation. I suppose they will withdraw this Bill, and if that is so it is of

    1019
    extremely small use appointing a Committee of 15 Members of this House to consider a Bill which will not exist. That is the position in which we come to be placed. I am not opposing this Instruction; I should like to see it widely extended; but I should like to have a definite explanation of it which would guide the Chairman of the Committee upstairs in deciding what was and what was not within the scope of the Bill. On a point of order, need I move the Amendment standing in my name now?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It was for that purpose that I called on the hon. Member, but he is not bound to move the Amendment if he does not wish to.
    Mr. MOND: Shall I be able to move it afterwards?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have exhausted his right to speak.
    Mr. MOND: Under those circumstances I think I must move the Amendment. I do not imagine that my right hon. Friend will raise any serious objection to it. The Amendment has for its object to enable a petition which has not been filed on 12th February this year, under the Standing Orders, to be heard by the Committee not less than five days later than the first sitting of the Committee. This question is not a new one, and what I propose is simply following a well-known precedent. On the South-Eastern and Chatham and Dover amalgamation second reading debate a similar Amendment was moved, and Mr. Ritchie, who was then at the Board of Trade, accepted it with the consent of Mr. Cosmo Bonsor, the chairman of the company. I know there are some very large interests which wish to petition and have not petitioned yet, among them the Port of London, and there are several others which would be excluded if the Amendment was not made. Among them, I understand, is a very important representation of the Labour interests, which would be entirely excluded. The Instruction has widened the scope of the Bill from what it would have been without any Instruction, and it naturally follows that petitioners may now want to lodge petitions who would have had no locus standi whatever at the earlier date, and therefore the Amendment would only put them in the position in which he would wish them to be. I do not imagine that railway companies desire in the least that anyone should not be represented before the Com-
    1020
    mittee who wishes to be. I hope they will follow the example that Mr. Cosmo Bonsor gave, and will give assent to what is a very moderate and formal proposition.
    Mr. G. J. WARDLE: I second the Amendment on the same grounds largely as the hon. Member. I, too, should have liked some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this Instruction as to whether, in his opinion, employés would be brought within the scope of it either as witnesses or in any other way. Failing that, and in order to make sure that the employés get before the Committee in some shape or form, I second the Amendment. Otherwise the employés, it appears to me, would have no locus standi at all. There are at least 83,000 employés on these three companies, and the new clause which the President of the Board of Trade has moved does not seem, in our opinion, to cover the whole ground or to safeguard the interests of the employés which are at stake. It is in no factious mood at all that we deal with this Instruction. Personally, I am in favour of it, and the party with which I am associated intend to vote for it, because we feel that this is, at any rate, an advance upon any previous method of dealing with a Bill of this character. There is all the more reason why we should press for the Amendment and for the interests of the employés to get before the Committee in some way, as, although the various chairmen of the railway companies have stated that no dismissals shall take place, and they have given their pledged word for it, yet we find that dismissals are already taking place, and the interests of the employés are not being safeguarded.
    A large number of the permanent men at Leicester belonging to the Great Northern Railway have been discharged as permanent and restarted as temporary men at a reduction of one shilling per week. That is stated to have taken place only so recently as last week. There are other grounds upon which the interests of the employés should be looked after. I have heard again at Leicester there are men being employed from 4.30 o'clock in the morning to 8.30 o'clock at night with an hour or two for meals, simply in consequence of new arrangements which have been made with the Great Central Railway under this agreement, which, by the way, has been in force for many, many months. There

    1021
    is every necessity, therefore, why the interests of the employés should in some form or another under this particular Bill be brought before the Committee.
    I am aware that this is a new departure, and that during the past years when private railway bills have been brought before this House, the only way, and that a very rare way, in which they could be looked after at all was by blocking the Bill. There was no chance at all to get before the Committee either by counsel or witnesses, or in any other shape or form. I am glad there is to be a departure in that line. I do hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept this Amendment, and so give the employés the opportunity, if they desire, by counsel or witnesses, of getting before the Committee. There are other interests in which the employés are very much interested under this Bill. There are quite a number of clauses, apart from the question of dismissal, which deal with superannuation funds and pension funds, and things of that kind, and all of which are of immense interest to the men.
    Three superannuation funds are to be wound up, and there is no definite provision that a new fund is to be started. I should like to say a word as to the dismissals. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that a much more drastic clause with regard to this question of dismissals of railway servants was inserted in a Railway Bill in 1900, which prevented, which absolutely denied to the company the right of dismissing any of their men in consequence of the amalgamation. That was when the Great Southern and Western (Ireland) took over the Waterford and Limerick Railway. The clerical staffs upon these railways feel that there is great danger of there being dismissals. There are upon these railways 14 district superintendents with four assistants. All of them have those various departments with district superintendents, many of which will evidently be unnecessary if the companies are worked as a joint concern.
    It seems to me that the interests of the employés require that witnesses in some shape or another should go before this Committee and that their interests should be safeguarded in the utmost possible way. The clause, in our opinion, is not sufficiently drastic. We have all of us examined that clause and we are convinced that it does not meet the necessities of the case. Therefore we want either that clause strengthened or want some power
    1022
    with the Board of Trade to prevent the interests of the employés suffering, and should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could meet us in some manner.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: It ought hardly be necessary to pass this Amendment to the Instruction for reasons that I shall show presently, but in any case it seems to me to be one that must work great hardship. Its effect is to confer a locus standi upon a lot of people who have no locus standi at all. The precedent is relied on of the South-Eastern and Chatham Railways in 1899. Assuming that the form of words was in that case identical with those now proposed—of which I am not at all sure—the form accepted by Mr. Cosmo Bonsor was accepted by him at the time for some reason or another, probably that, the public not realising the full significance of the Bill, no more than nine petitions were presented against the Bill. We have actually got 69 petitions against the present Bill. On this question of petitions I may refer to the case of the railway servants. When this Bill was: introduced their case was raised by specific provisions in this Bill. They had a full locus standi, and the right to enter petitions. They were even more interested at that stage than they are now, because the provisions at that stage were much worse against them than they are now on account of the clause which the right hon. Gentleman has announced his intention to insert. Yet notwithstanding that, the railway servants have not petitioned against the Bill.
    Mr. WARDLE: They have the right.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: There are a great many railway servants in this country, and I suspect that a very large number of them indeed knew perfectly well what the provisions of this Bill pro posed to effect, and what the effect would be upon their own destinies and interests. Similarly with regard to the traders throughout the country, they could not have been taken by surprise. In any case when this Bill was introduced it was worse with regard to trades than it is now, because the modifying and mitigating clauses containing restrictions and safeguards had not been proposed. The proposal now made is one which must increase the length of the inquiry without adding anything to the substantial securities which Parliament rightly and properly seeks to provide in the case of all proposals of this kind. I hope, therefore,

    1023
    that the House will not allow this Amendment to the Instruction without very serious consideration, and without taking into consideration the very marked restriction which exists between this case and that of the South-Eastern and Chatham. The hon. Gentleman who last spoke said something about a complaint in reference to the action of the Great Northern Railway Company last week. I am bound to say I think that in the case of specific facts concerning the conduct of a promoter of a Bill in this House, relied on for the purpose of debate, notice should be given to the persons themselves so that it would be possible for them to make every answer that can be. made. It is part of the elementary customs and habits of this House not to bring forward statements of the kind under circumstances in which no answer is possible.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Winston Churchill): Last night I was much criticised for taking my instructions from the promoters of this Bill, and to-night I am criticised by the hon. Baronet opposite for taking my instructions from those who are opposed to this Bill. The House will, I hope, realise the very limited sphere in which the Board of Trade, and I am speaking for it, can move in dealing with this matter. I am anxious that this Bill shall be fairly considered, and I am very anxious that private business should be examined in a scientific and cool manner. At the same time I cannot control those who are in charge of this Bill. It is open to them at any stage of the proceedings to say that they are not willing to go any further with their project. Therefore, bearing in mind these two considerations, it is quite clear that even the representative of the general interest, which I have to look after here—that I should not represent those general interests in any practical way if I put forward demands which the value of the Bill, to the promoters, will not bear. I want the House to see the limits to any effective bargain which I can make under the authority placed in me by Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Stockport has asked definitely what will be the position of the men—the railway servants—before the Committee? He asks whether they will have access to the Committee. Well, they have not yet petitioned against the Bill, and unless the Amendment of the
    1024
    hon. Member for Chester is carried, I should say they would not have access to the Committee except through the medium of the Board of Trade. Under my instructions the Board of Trade can call any evidence they think necessary and proper. That is a matter which rests with them entirely, but I should certainly not consider any discussion complete unless the railway servants, who are immediately and vitally interested with this decision, have full access to the Committee in a reasonable way. But if the Amendment of the hon. Member is accepted, then it would be open to the railway servants, not only to make private representations to me, which would result certainly in some of their representatives being heard before a committee—I can give an undertaking on that point—but it will be open to them to make a petition against the Bill, and secure themselves a locus standi in the regular manner. The hon. Gentleman opposite has urged the House not to accept this Amendment. I do not think really it makes very much difference whether the Amendment is accepted or not. Because if there were any parties who were objecting to the hardship, through not having up to the present petitioned against the Bill, the discretionary power which I ask the House to give me under the Instruction, would enable me to put them right.
    The companies who are promoting the Bill have not shown any disposition to contest the petitions against it on the ground of locus standi. There are no fewer than 68 petitions against the Bill, not 9, but 68, and none of these petitions have been challenged on the ground of locus standi, therefore I think it is quite clear that the company have not attempted to deal with the object entertained to this Bill in any narrow or pedantic spirit, and the fact that there are 68 petitions against the Bill seems to me to be an argument which should prevent them from taking up. the position that they would be greatly injured if there were 69 or 70 petitions. Therefore I submit to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite that there will be no material increase of the labours of the Committee or of the expense to the companies by the acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester. On the other hand, it is well that the promoters should try to reassure all parties of the House and all parties in this country, railway servants, passengers and others, that they are earnestly anxious to

    1025
    make their Bill something not only to conduce to their advantage, but also to conduce to the advantage of all classes. If by agreeing to this Amendment of my hon. Friend they are able to satisfy a few more classes who are disturbed by their proposal, and are able to have it more thoroughly and fairly discussed, then I think that any inconvenience that might be caused will be repaid by the fact that they are placing it on a broad and surer foundation. This matter, in the first instance, rests with me, because I am moving the Instruction, and it rests with me whether I personally accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester. I say I will accept the Amendment, which I am advised does not make any very great difference, but will probably have the effect of removing some of the cases of hardship, or what are alleged to be hardships. I am asked to say a word on the subject of the Instruction generally. I have been animated by a desire to have a fair examination of this important proposal. I want it examined in all its bearings, and to do that will carry you a very long way; but I do not want to make this Bill a vehicle for discussion of railway nationalisation generally, or the amalgamation of railways not at all concerned with those now seeking powers from us, and between these two there is a very wide field. In my judgment the promoters of this Bill would have a right to complain, and I think it would be contrary to the whole practice of this House, if upon a measure for the amalgamation of these railways an Instruction were passed which would have the effect of enabling a general discussion to be opened on amalgamation without reference to these particular railways.
    Mr. MARKHAM: Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw what he said last night? For there it is.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not withdraw what I said last night. It is perfectly consistent with what I have always said. I said that this Bill which has been brought forward does raise the question of amalgamation, and, in considering this Bill, in relation to every point, it will be open, under the Instruction of the Board of Trade, to bring forward a case, whether for or against amalgamation. I hope I have made that clear. It is my intention, so far as I can, to have the subject thoroughly examined in relation to this Bill, and go as far as I can without adopting a procedure which would place an
    1026
    unfair burden upon the parties concerned, and without adopting a procedure which would extend beyond the subjects properly raised in relation to this Bill. Of course I cannot be answerable for the intentions of the promoters. It is open to them if they are dissatisfied with the scope of the inquiry to withdraw their Bill. I have no control over that. It would be open to us to decide even after they had, withdrawn the Bill whether the Committee should not continue to discuss the general question apart from the issue raised by this Bill. I think the House will do well to take the Instruction as it stands with the amendment, which I accept, of the hon. Member for Chester. We ought to try and act reasonably and fairly over this Instruction and this matter. I am anxious to persuade the promoters to concede, and the opponents of the Bill to forbear. I am anxious to make this Instruction the means of a thorough discussion of the great issues raised, and at the same time not to go beyond what is fair and proper on a private Bill. It is not a matter that can be described in a precise definition, because naturally it must depend upon the give and take which exists when such a subject is being discussed and debated. The limit on the one hand is that, subject to fair play for the parties interested, these questions shall be examined in all their bearings, and that will involve the great issue raised by railway amalgamation. If the companies are dissatisfied with the course the discussion takes it is open to them, as it is open to all private parties bringing measures before this House, to withdraw their Bill if they think it is in their interest to do so. Between these limits I think we can have a most useful and valuable inquiry into this Bill, and I hope the House will arm me with the powers asked for by this Instruction to state the case in the national interest. I hope the promoters who have asked for privileges at the hands of the House, which cause great apprehension in many parts of the country, will be desirous of meeting us in a fair spirit, and, subject to the right to withdraw their Bill if they think they are treated with too much severity, I hope they will endeavour to do justice to the wish and desire of the House that this matter shall be fully examined.
    Lord BALCARRES: I should like to say a word or two on the technical aspect of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Chester. Is it a fact that the hon. Member for Chester's Amendment will extend notice to parties who at present have

    1027
    not got notice? The President of the Board of Trade says it does not really matter, because, under the discretionary powers he takes, he could even call the Members of the Amalgamated Society to give evidence and state their case. I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the discretionary power which he takes under his new clause gives him the right to put into the witness-box persons who, under the Standing Orders of the House, have no locus standi before the Committee?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer the question without consulting legal opinion, but my information is, after carefully consulting authorities on the subject, that under this clause the Board of Trade would have power to call what witnesses it chooses. The words are "To hear the Board of Trade by counsel and by witnesses," and that is completely in the discretion of the Board of Trade.
    Lord BALCARRES: That confirms what I imagine is the general reading of the clause. I think we are laying down some rather far-reaching precedents in this matter and I am not sure that this is a desirable precedent. We have a most elaborate code of law—perhaps too elaborate; that might be discussed on another occasion—which prevents persons coming before these Committees who cannot satisfy the Standing Orders Committee that their locus standi is good. The President of the Board of Trade, I fully appreciate, has been hard pressed in this particular case. It is the duty of the Board of Trade to help forward railway companies in what they consider to be their interests as much as it can, and that view has been followed by the right hon. Gentleman, whose attitude has commended itself to many Members of the House. He has produced certain new clauses, of which this is one, and I want to point out how far this new attitude is going to take us. The President of the Board of Trade, with all his Parliamentary powers, now comes to the House, saying, "I ask to be given powers which the Standing Orders Committee under the rules of this House do not possess. I ask the right to call witnesses who the Standing Orders Committee would say are out of order before this Committee." Moreover, he is asking powers at the Government expense to place, say, the Amalgamated Society's views before this Committee of 15 Members, while the railway companies concerned would have to pay their side of the bill. I ask the House to
    1028
    bear in mind that in the case of many railways the Parliamentary capital cost has amounted to £50,000 or £60,000 or £70,000 per mile. Is it right that a Government Department should be empowered to call all sorts of evidence, to pay for that evidence, and have it given by persons who are not entitled to give it on their own account, and to place upon railway companies or corporations, gasworks or any of these great interests, the cost of rebutting that evidence? Personally I doubt it. Let us go one step further. The hon. Member for Chester made a speech in which he asked for an explanation. Although he has been a very frank opponent of this measure, he questioned, I 'think I am right in saying, the fairness of making this trio of railway companies pay the expense of defending railways in general against amalgamation or against what is called nationalisation. There, I think, he was reasonable. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has stated that this Committee is not to be made a vehicle for general discussion. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is not to be a vehicle for general discussion, what is the explanation of the terms of this Instruction? The Instruction tells the Committee that they are to consider "what advantages and disadvantages would result to the interests of the public or of the passengers and traders using the railways of the three companies promoting the Bill." It is difficult to think of any person who would not be allowed to have a locus standi before the Committee in view of these terms. What is the meaning of these words'? They have to consider the proposal in relation to the public interest as well as the various interests directly affected. Those directly affected include residents in the various districts and employés as well as traders and passengers. What is the public interest? I conceive that the public interest to a person very much interested in amalgamation in the West Country might be the chance of the bringing forward of a proposal to amalgamate the Great Western and the London and North Western Railways. If that be so, the right hon. Gentleman is going back upon his declaration that this Bill is not to be made the vehicle for general discussion. The President of the Board of Trade, the other night, almost invited the hon. Member for Chester to become a witness before the Committee. If that was really meant to be a serious indication, it might mean that the hon. Member himself was in a

    1029
    position to give evidence as a trader or that he was considered one who would be justified in speaking on the proposed amalgamation. The right hon. Gentleman has not fully explained the meaning of the words. I wish to know what is the public interest apart from passengers, traders, residents, and employés. Would the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce be entitled to give evidence before the Committee or not? I think these are all points which really ought to be cleared up. The President of the Board of Trade said that if the companies found that the witnesses brought before them were too onerous for them to reply to, they could drop their Bill, and that there was no occasion, if that happened, for the Committee to stop their labours. That must be a misapprehension.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, no; that is not what I said. What I said was that the Bill could be withdrawn, and that in that event I might be ready to recommend the House to consider by means of a further Committee the question which has been brought into the arena of discussion by the introduction of this Bill.
    Lord BALCARRES: The same Committee. That is the point. You cannot have the same Committee. No man will be able to serve on this Committee if it reflects on or promotes the interests of his Constituents. The House ought to be warned that if this Bill does break down it will be impossible for it to work out the question of railway amalgamation.
    Sir R. W. PERKS: When the Chatham Bill was before this House, in 1898, it is quite true that Mr. Bryce agreed to a similar amendment.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The case constituted a fundamental difference.
    Sir R. W. PERKS: I have had a great deal more to do with railways than my right hon. Friend. My recollection is fully accurate, but I agree that this instruction does add enormously to the cost of this Bill, far more than my right hon. Friend seems to appreciate. The hon. Member for Chester said that anybody could be represented; but it is perfectly clear that the clause is almost identical with the Amendment moved in 1898. It is undertaking novel duties in connection with this amalgamation; and the very fact that the Board of Trade has undertaken these duties and has undertaken costs and preparation of evidence which
    1030
    otherwise would have fallen upon the petitioners is a strong reason for considering-this matter. It has been assumed that the case of a general locus has been covered by the inquiry which the Board of Trade is about to institute, with all the authority of the Board of Trade, and with the resources of the Government at their back, in a way which an ordinary petitioner could not contemplate.
    Now I take the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford in the interests of the railway employés. We all know as practical men it is a very difficult position, for groups of railway employés, be they clerks, or drivers, or workers in the shops, or ordinary men on the road, to get themselves organised to present a petition, and to present their case to the House even under such a case as this. In the first place, it is very costly, and it is not always a pleasant position for the railway employés. The Board of Trade has assumed that task in this case. The railway employés must have their case presented under this Instruction by the Board of Trade, and I venture to think they will have it presented far more effectively in the interest of the railway employés than if they came there under any kind of organisation and said, "We are going to avail ourselves of this clause, and we come to present a petition against the Bill by counsel." In the first place, the Board of Trade would not then assume the same responsibility that the railway employés and the different interests concerned in that direction impose upon them. There is no doubt whatever some of us are very familiar with what is called the general locus, and nothing will contribute more to the overlaying and weighting of this Bill than the adoption of an Amendment such as this. It is especially unnecessary because the Board of Trade have undertaken the task, as I have indicated before. May I say one word as to how far the Committee will be justified in looking into the question of amalgamation. I very well remember when the Chatham and South-Eastern amalgamation was before the House. Evidence was brought forward and admitted by the Committee as to the effect of such amalgamations in this country, and I think no reasonable man, looking at this instruction, can for one moment deny that the Committee would have perfect power, not to inquire into the question of the amalgamation of these railways with the Northwestern or the Midland, or other companies not contemplated in the amalgama-

    1031
    tion in this Bill, but they will have the right to inquire whether the amalgamation of these southern lines, both of which are closely connected with the Great Northern and the Great Central, would be in the public interest. Seeing that this Amendment is, by virtue of the first Instruction, unnecessary, and would be very costly, and would place the employés of the railway in a somewhat awkward position, and would add very greatly indeed to the cost of this Bill, I venture to think it is an Amendment which the promoters of the Bill could not reasonably be asked to accept.
    Mr. ERNEST LAMB Mr. ERNEST LAMB moved to amend the proposed Amendment by adding at the end the words, "If the Committee thinks fit." He said: I confess I find myself in a difficulty from this Amendment to the Instruction. I will be very frank with the House, and say I am interested in the carrying trade. I feel what the House was led to do last night has created some concern, and I am not sure that the House realised what we were doing. When I come to this Instruction in its official form, and having regard to what was agreed to last night, I feel with the Noble Lord that the Press dent of the Board of Trade has placed us in a somewhat difficult position. His words were the reference should include
    "The whole case for and against amalgamation in the public interest."
    That was generally accepted in the country. One of the leading evening papers, "The Westminster Gazette," has a leading article on the subject. Now his words are in reference to a private Bill, and that that cannot be made the vehicle of general discussion on amalgamation. I submit that that varies the discussion of last night. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has emphasised the fact that if the Amendment is accepted it will not give a locus standi to people who have not at present that locus standi. When I moved to enlarge the Committee I wanted to ensure representatives of all parties interested. I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not in any spirit of factious opposition I moved. Therefore, with his permission, I would like to move an Amendment to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, and that is to add at the end of his Amendment the words "if the Committee thinks fit." That would save any farcical or unreal petitions being deposited, and
    1032
    would prevent any factitious opposition being used, by petitions being deposited by people who have no locus standi. But I do think that the Instruction, as moved by the Board of Trade, raises a very large consideration affecting the thousand and one questions which will arise in the case of traders generally, if this amalgamation takes place. I support the Amendment to the Instruction with the addition of these words, and I move accordingly.
    Mr. JOSEPH WALTON: I rise to second the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend below the Gangway. I think the whole House will give the credit to a Committee of 15 who are to consider this most important Bill, that they will consider it in a thoroughly impartial fashion and examine the whole question fairly, as regards the just interests of the companies on the one hand, the interests of the public traders and of the employés on the other hand, and I do not think that any Member of the House would for a moment believe that any of their colleagues would unduly prolong the proceedings of the Committee, or increase the expenditure to be paid by the railway companies beyond what might be reasonable for them to have to hear. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in my opinion, has not withdrawn from the position which he took up either last night or in the previous debate. It is a question as regards the extent and scope of the inquiry which this Committee has to conduct.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: On a point or order, Sir, may I ask your ruling as to whether the Amendment to the Amendment is in order? The Amendment runs, "to receive all petitions to be heard against the Bill in Committee which may be deposited not later than five days before the first sitting of the Committee, and to hear the petitioners thereon." The Amendment is to add at the end, "if the Committee thinks fit." How can the Committee think fit after we have said that the petitions are to be deposited five days before the meeting of the Committee?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These words apply with the verb "to hear." The petitioners will have an opportunity of appearing before the Committee, and the Committee has then to decide whether or not they will hear them. That. I think, is perfectly clear.
    Mr. JOSEPH WALTON: I was saying that the President of the Board of Trade had stated that the Committee would have to consider the principle of railway amalgamation, and surely if they have to consider the principle of railway amalgamation between the Great Northern Rail-way, the Great Eastern Railway, and the Great Central Railway Companies, in considering the principle of amalgamation in connection with those three companies the Committee has also to consider the question of amalgamation for the country as a whole. What was done in this particular case would, the President of the Board of Trade said, constitute a model for any future amalgamation which may be proposed, I hope the House will come to a decision on this question, but I have confidence in the Committee of 15 which will be appointed to deal fairly with it, to make a thoroughly exhaustive inquiry within the scope of inquiry given to them, which will be a guidance to the House of an authoritative character when the Bill comes down for third reading, and which will also afford considerable guidance to them as a precedent in any future proposals of the same nature which may come before them.
    Mr. MOND: It may save time if I say I accept that Amendment.
    Lord BALCARRES: Is it not rather wrong to let the Committee of 15 Members settle the matter? First it is the ordinary Committee of the House that settles these things, then the President of the Board of Trade undertook to do it. That I do not very much appreciate, but we can always attack him, as he is here responsible to the House. Now it is proposed that the Committee upstairs shall settle it—not whether a petitioner shall have the right to place his petition, but whether the petitioner shall be entitled to be heard. If it is taken out of the hands of the Board of Trade it ought to be placed in the hands of the Standing Orders Committee. That is the proper authority. That is the body that this House sets up at the beginning of every Session to deal with these things. We have taken it out of their hands and offered it to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman does not like it very much, but he accepts it. Now the hon. Member moves to take it out of their hands and put it in the hands of the Committee upstairs.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott): The words of the
    1034
    Amendment of the hon. Member for Chester are rather wide, and probably the best way to deal with that matter is to accept the Amendment which has been suggested, and to add "if the Committee think fit." Probably on the whole it would be better for the Committee to have the matter in their own hands, owing to the familiar circumstances which are raised by the Instruction and by the Amendment which has been accepted by the President of the Board of Trade.
    May I make an appeal to the House, if possible, to come to a decision about this Instruction to-night. I admit the enormous importance of the Bill, and that it may very rightly take up a good deal of the time of the House, but already in regard to the second reading of the Bill and the Instruction there will have been occupied before we reach eleven o'clock tonight somewhere between eight and nine hours. The ordinary amount of time given by the House to the discussion of the stages of private Bills in the House is something like 24 to 28 hours, so that on the second reading and on the Instruction to this Bill we shall already have taken one-third of the average time given to the discussion of private Bills. It is difficult at times to find convenient time for the discussion of private Bills which does not unduly prevent hon. Members from discussing other subjects. After Easter there are a good many opposed Bills which may take the time of the House, and it would be extremely desirable if we could come to a decision on the Instruction.
    Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: Of course, the Amendment puts us in the position of being saved by the common-sense of the Committee from anything like vexatious or pettifogging consumption of time by persons who have really no moral right to be listened to. I am entitled to draw attention to a still more important fact. The House have been led to believe that this Amendment of the Member for Chester is nothing more or less than a repetition of the Amendment which the House accepted in the Chatham and Dover Rill. That is not so. The proposal of the hon. Member for Chester was submitted by Mr. Bryce and the House did not accept it. Mr. Ritchie moved as a preamble to those words proposed by Mr. Bryce these words:—
    "Subject to the rules, orders and proceedings of this House."
    Those are words of the utmost importance, Mr. Bryce's proposed Instruction not

    1035
    having the effect of giving a locus standi to anybody who otherwise would not have it. That is not the case here. The House has not been asked to accept the same safeguard. We are thrown out into the open and at the mercy of persons who under the ordinary practice would not be given a locus standi. This Amendment to the Amendment is a mitigation, and leaves a discretion to the Committee which is the only safeguard which stands between us against this most dangerous and indefensible extension of our liabilities under the procedure.
    Mr. ARTHUR MARKHAM: I cannot agree that although we have been discussing this Bill eight hours it is sufficient. My Constituency is largely interested in the Bill. I am personally one of the largest traders in the House, and I have not had a single opportunity of saying a single word on this measure. Therefore I think my Constituency, being chiefly interested in this matter, has a right to be represented. I speak as a plain business man, and I want to get some explanation from the President of the Board of Trade, whose attitude I have not been able to understand. He has been riding two horses, and I want to know which horse he is going to ride on now. The President of the Board of Trade said last night:—
    "Under the instruction of the Board of Trade, we should have an opportunity of making before the Committee the whole case of amalgamations in the public interest, and we should make that case with all the information which we have acquired during these conferences which have been held for the last year, which have been somewhat disrespectfully referred to to-night, which were instituted by my right hon. Friend, and which were abandoned for this very reason—that you could not get any further by mere words."
    That is a distinct, clear statement that the whole system of amalgamation would be opened if this Bill goes to a Committee. I asked him whether he withdrew that, and he said he did not withdraw. That is simple to any business man. Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that statement or not: Are you going to send this Bill with a clear and definite statement from the right hon. Gentleman, which he said he would not withdraw, and which is perfectly clear to every business man, that this Bill is going to bear the whole burden of the cause occasioned by the whole question of amalgamation. Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that or not? Does he mean to stand by the statement he made yesterday, or does he withdraw it, and if he withdraws it will he make a
    1036
    clear and definite statement that no question of amalgamation can be entered on which does not affect the parties interested in this particular Bill]
    Sir GEORGE DOUGHTY: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment or the Amendment to the Amendment. It seems to me that both put the whole case into confusion. I am very sorry the President of the Board of Trade seems to have thrown himself into the arms of the Opposition—I mean those Gentlemen who have been opposed to this Bill from the very first. If this instruction is to be established it seems to me it gives a roving commission to any persons who choose to lodge petitions, and any persons who may desire to prevent it becoming law may brief counsel and appear before the Committee and occupy any reasonable amount of time that they may desire to occupy. I submit that that is not the intention of the Bill. It is not the intention of the Instruction of the right hon. Gentleman. For my part I would really like to know, as the hon. Member for Mansfield has suggested, what is in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade? Are we to understand his Instruction means that in the public interest, so far as the Bill is concerned, there shall be an inquiry? If that is the position, then I do not think that any one need contest it very much further. If the Board of Trade are to call witnesses, if they are to call gentlemen representing labour and gentlemen representing trade, as I think they should do, if it is limited to what obtains in this particular Bill, then I think it is quite right and in order. But if the President of the Board of Trade means that he is to call witnesses for the purpose of rebutting or establishing the case for amalgamation generally, then I submit we shall soon be in such a state as regards this question that the House will not know where they are. From the many speeches of the President of the Board of Trade and the statements made from time to time I really do not know what is meant by what he asks in this Instruction. It says that in the public interest the Board of Trade shall call witnesses, and it refers to this Bill, and this Bill only; but when the President of the Board of Trade gets up from time to time, in answer to questions and speeches, he leads the House to believe that the general case for amalgamation is to be made in this Bill. We want to know whether that is so or not because if that is the position

    1037
    I venture to suggest that those who are promoting this Bill will reconsider their position. It stands to common-sense they must do that. It may cost them £100,000 to contest this particular Bill before a Committee such as it is proposed to appoint, and then they may come to this House for a third reading and have the Bill thrown out. I appeal to the judgment of everybody here whether we ought not to be told frankly and plainly whether the President of the Board of Trade intends his Instruction, even if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chester is accepted, to apply simply to this Bill or whether it is to contain powers for a roving commission on all general principles of amalgamation so far as railways are concerned. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the House plain, distinct, definite words on that aspect of the question.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly withdraw nothing that I said on the subject of this Bill. The Instruction was entirely in accordance with the regular practice in regard to private Bills. In my judgment that

    Division No. 55.]

    AYES.

    [10.59 P.m.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Nicholls, George

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    O'Grady, J.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Partington, Oswald

    Bennett, E. N.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Black, Arthur W.

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

    Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Saff. Wald.)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Brace, William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Brigg, John

    Hills, J. W.

    Radford, G. H.

    Brodie, H. C.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Rainy, A. Rolland

    Brooke, Stopford

    Hodge, John

    Renwick, George

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Horniman, Emslie John

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hudson, Walter

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Byles, William Pollard

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Jardine, Sir J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Jenkins, J.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Clough, William

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Robinson, S.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Rowlands, J.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

    Crooks, William

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

    Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Seddon, J.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Seely, Colonel

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shackleton, David James

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Silcock, Thomas Ball

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Elibank, Master of

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Essex, R. W.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

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

    Summerbell, T.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Maddison, Frederick

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Ferens, T. R.

    Marnham, F. J.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Fuller, John Michael F.

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

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

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Mooney, J. J

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Glover, Thomas

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Verney, F. W.

    Instruction will enable the Board of Trade to call witnesses and make the whole case for and against amalgamation in reference to this particular Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "You did not say so."] I say so now. The whole case in reference to this particular Bill. I do not think I can find any words which more accurately describe my intention, and, I think, the general intention of the House.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment put and agreed to.
    Question put, After the word "Committee" to insert the words "to receive all petitions to be heard against the Bill in Committee, if the Committee thinks fit, which may be deposited not later than five days before the first sitting of the Committee, and to hear the petitioners thereon."
    Question put, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 27.

    Walton, Joseph

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Wardle, George J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Williamson, A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mond and Mr. Ernest Lamb.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    NOES.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

    Newdegate, F. N.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fell, Arthur

    Perks, Sir Robert William

    Banner, John S. Harmood

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Rees, J. D.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Bowles, G. Stewart

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Kerry, Earl of

    Stanier, Beville

    Cave, George

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir G. Doughty and Mr. Remnant.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Main question, as amended, put and agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That it be an Instruction to the Committee to receive all petitions to be heard against the Bill in Committee which may be deposited not later than five days before the first sitting of the Committee, and to hear the petitioners thereon if the Committee thinks fit; to consider the proposals of the Bill in relation to the public interest as well as to the various interests directly affected; to hear the Board of Trade and any other Government Department by counsel and witnesses, and to make a special Report to the House stating whether any and what advantages and disadvantages would result to the interests of the public or of the passengers and traders using the railways of the three companies promoting the Bill, or of the persons employed by those companies, if the powers sought by the Bill were granted; whether any, and what, safeguards are necessary for the protection of these special and general interests, and (in the event of the Committee finding the Preamble of the Bill proved) what provisions, if any, have been inserted for this purpose.

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the chair.]
Postponed Proceeding on Amendment proposed on consideration of Clause 4.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: At the interruption of the business I was trying to make one last effort to induce the Secretary for War to reconsider the effect of the whole of this clause. I was endeavouring to point out that the confusion which was almost certain to arise in times of emergency would be very great and would lead to a great deal of difficulty. I
1040
think we are entitled to have direct control over the Army through the Secretary of State for War, who is responsible to this House. It is now proposed to hand over not merely the whole of those powers to the Army Council, but also to give them distinct powers to overrule the Secretary of State. But when the time of stress or difficulty comes, the question will be asked: Who cancelled these orders? Who gave these orders? Who is responsible for the state of confusion which has arisen? And we shall be met, not by the right hon. Gentleman, but by a Secretary of State who has not his ability, with the reply: "Oh! the Army Council have done all this. I am very sorry, but I was not consulted." Is that right? We understand that this proposal is brought forward because the Secretary of State desires to free his Department from a great deal of trivial and unnecessary work. What is to prevent the Secretary of State to-day from delegating any number of these powers to anybody he likes? If it was a great commercial undertaking, such as a bank, the manager would be responsible to the directors, who would be in the same position as the House of Commons. The manager would be entrusted by the directors with the responsible management of the whole business. Supposing he went before the directors and said, "Do not hold me responsible; hold the staff or half a dozen sub-managers responsible for various matters directly to yourselves." That would be all right if the directors had the right to deal directly with those people, as they would have in the case of a bank. But where the analogy breaks down is in the fact that this House has no control over the Army Council. The Secretary of State has pointed out to us that whatever the Army Council does, he is supreme, and if the Army Council does anything of which he disapproves he

1041
can override them. If that is so—and, of course, we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that it is so, although no one in this House knows by what authority it is so—why delegate all these powers or transfer them to the Army Council? As a matter of principle, I solemnly object to handing over to an irresponsible and nebulous body powers vested by the Constitution of the country in the House of Commons, through the control which it has over the Secretary of State. That is the crux of the whole matter. I make one last appeal to the logical mind of the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter in this light. If he is over-burdened with his office, let him delegate to any number of colonels or other people the duty of looking after the lunatics and special gentlemen to whom he referred, so that his high and honourable office may be free to be responsible to this House for all the serious matters which by the Constitution are vested in him.
Mr. RENWICK: Since we were discussing this question before a quarter past eight I have taken the trouble to get a little further information with regard to it. We are afraid that the Secretary of State for War is being effaced by the Army Council. Certain Members appear to think otherwise, but I propose to prove that our fears are well founded. I consider that the Committee at present is called upon to deal with a very grave constitutional question. It is nothing more nor less than a Bill for the effacement of the Secretary of State for War. I have in my hand the memorandum showing the Amendments proposed on the Army (Annual) Act. At the beginning of clause 78 the words "The Secretary of State" are crossed out, and then the clause proceeds "The Army Council may from time to time by general or special resolutions vary the conditions…" At the beginning of sub-section (2) the words "The Secretary of State" are again crossed out, and the words "The Army Council" are inserted. If that is not effacing the Secretary of State I do not know what it is.
Mr. JEREMIAH MacVEAGH: He is still to get his salary.
Mr. RENWICK: If hon. Members will turn to page 5 of the Memorandum they will see that in clause 79—[Interruption.] I am surprised that supporters of a Liberal Government should be laughing at an attempt of this description to deprive the House of Commons of the right which
1042
it has exercised from time immemorial to have control over Army matters. In clause 79 the words "The Secretary of State" are crossed out. In clause 80 the words "The Secretary of State" are again crossed out.
The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is going to read these quotations he should try to make them in some way relevant to the Amendment before the Committee. That is not being done.
Mr. RENWICK: With all due deference I am trying, to the best of my ability, to make this absolutely relevant by proving that the power is being taken from the Secretary of State by the Army Council. I am dealing with a document published by the Secretary of State, and I will deal with the clauses in general terms. Take clause 80, 84, 86, 88, and 91. In every one of these clauses "the Secretary of State" is to be crossed out. The line is to be passed through "the Secretary of State," and "the Army Council" substituted. If that does not mean the abasement of the Secretary of State by the Army Council I do not know what does. After all, we admire the right hon. Gentleman, although he is a Member of the Liberal Government. We have the greatest confidence in him. We recognise the great sacrifices and great exertions which he has made on behalf of the Territorial Army. He is the eyes of the Territorial Army, yet he himself has abased himself. If he is suffering from pressure, let him come over to this side of the House, and we shall be glad to welcome him. But, Sir, notwithstanding the levity of certain Members of this House, we are calling attention to a very grave matter. When hon. Members in the House change sides, as they will do very shortly, we shall—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment, and I must warn him that he is digressing.
Mr. RENWICK: I conclude by supporting this Amendment in the interests of the right hon. Gentleman, the House, and the Army.
Captain CRAIG: I should like to make one comment—
Mr. BOWLES: My Amendment appears next on the Paper to that of my hon. Friend. May I ask you, Sir, if his Amendment will cut mine out? Will it be in order for me to move it later?
The CHAIRMAN: Of course it will be cut out if this Amendment is defeated.
Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in answering the various criticisms in regard to the matter at present before the Committee said, quite rightly I think, that there was a certain amount of difficulty in settling the question as to who was to have the supreme control in this matter. I understood him to say in the earlier part of the debate that the orders he had hitherto made as Secretary of State might be overriden by the Army Council, and that the Army Council might again, in turn, be overriden by himself. That seems to me to be a very dangerous and roundabout way of arriving at a simple expedient, which might be more easily arrived at by doing what we have been urging all the night, namely, omitting clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman admits that in the past, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, he has made certain orders, and signed certain documents, and that now. under this sub-section, the Army Council could come along and say he was wrong. He could then come along and say the Army Council was wrong and override them. That seems an anomalous position. The next thing that struck me on hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech was that he seems to have taken some advice from

Division No. 56.]

AYES.

[11.30 p.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hedges, A. Paget

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Henry, Charles S.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Higham, John Sharp

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Beale, W. P.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Robinson, S.

Beauchamp, E.

Horniman, Emslie John

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Bennett, E. N.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Black, Arthur W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rowlands, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Brace, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Seely, Colonel

Brodie, H. C.

Jenkins, J.

Shackleton, David James

Brooke, Stopford

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Byles, William Pollard

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Strachey, Sir Edward

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Lewis, John Herbert

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Summerbell, T.

Clough, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

Markham, Arthur Basil

Verney, F. W.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Walton, Joseph

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Marnham, F. J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duckworth, Sir James

Mond, A.

Watt, Henry A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Essex, R. W.

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Evans, Sir Samuel T.

Nicholls, George

Wiles, Thomas

Everett, R. Lacey

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Wilkie, Alexander

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ferens, T. R.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Partington, Oswald

Williamson, A.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Haldane, Rt. Hon, Richard B.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Radford, G. H.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Rainy, A. Holland

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

the Admiralty. He seems to have yielded to some pressure brought to bear upon him in the Cabinet, or from some other source, to have these changes made in the Army. I think he is trying to follow the Admiralty pattern, which will not suit the Army. I think in cases where grave Constitutional changes like this are suggested the right hon. Gentleman might be frank and say straight out why it is that he could not do what he seeks to do by an Order in Council instead of by an Act of Parliament.
The CHAIRMAN: It is not a question of what this Bill or that Bill does; it is a question whether we should leave out the second paragraph (A) of clause 4, and I invite the hon. Member to speak to that and not to wander all over the whole Bill.
Captain CRAIG: Very well, Sir; I will not wander all over the Bill, because I have Amendments down later on which deal with other subjects. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was very concise in explaining why he objects to leaving out this sub-section. Perhaps he would tell us something more definite on the subject.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'under,' in line 20, stand part of the clause." The Committee divided:—Ayes, 114; Noes, 41.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Hazleton, Richard

Nolan, Joseph

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hills, J. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Banner, John S. Harmood

Hodge, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Houston, Robert Paterson

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hudson, Walter

Renwick, George

Cave, George

Jowett, F. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kilbride, Denis

Seddon, J.

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanier, Bevilie

Doughty, Sir George

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Macpherson, J. T.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Fell, Arthur

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Glover, Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain Craig and Mr. Bowles.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Newdegate, F. A. Newdigate

Mr. BOWLES Mr. BOWLES, in moving after "Secretary of State," to insert, "the Commander-in-Chief or the Adjutant-General," said: If the Amendment is not accepted, I really cannot understand why the position should have been made which I propose to fill up. The clause proposes to transfer to the Army Council all powers and duties conferred or imposed on a Secretary of State and powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant-General. Proviso (a) provides that nothing in this section shall affect the validity of any rules, regulations, orders or other documents made by the Secretary of State, but apparently the result of the thing as it stands would be to invalidate all rules, regulations, orders or documents which may hitherto have been made by the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant-General. I see no escape from that position, I am bound to say, and I beg to move.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY of WAR (Mr. F. D. Acland): The only desire is to keep back such rules, regulations, orders, and documents as may be considered by the Secretary of State. There are no rules, regulations, orders, or documents made by those two officers. There are a considerable number of rules and regulations made by the Secretary of State, and their validity has to be maintained, otherwise they would all have to be reordered.
Mr. BOWLES: I do not think the explanation satisfactory from the point of view of this Committee or of the Army. The hon. Gentleman says, as far as he knows, there are no orders, rules, or regulations made by those officers, or documents made by either of those defunct officers. If that is so the inclusion of the words could do no harm.
Mr. ACLAND: They are not needed.
Mr. BOWLES: I agree they are not needed. He is right in saying there are
1046
in the whole archives of the Army no rules, no regulations, no orders, or documents of any kind signed by the officer who held the office of Commanding-Chief not so long ago or by the Adjutant-General to which either now or hereafter some appeal might be made.
Mr. ACLAND: Such orders are under the Army Act.
Mr. BOWLES: They had no power to do so, otherwise I think the hon. Gentleman, having admitted that those words can do no harm, and that unless he is right in the very wide statement he made, namely, that not one of their rules and regulations can be called into question, unless he is right in that great injustice might be done by not making provision such as I propose. It does seem to me that those words should be inserted.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I am rather surprised at the reply of the Under-Secretary for War, especially if one looks at the Memorandum that has been submitted to the House, and looks at 30, 42, 57, 59, 64, 67, 73, and 75, all striking out the authority and power which the Adjutant and Commander-in-Chief had in previous years. I can quite understand that this alteration of the law was required if all these powers now abrogated have never been put into execution, if there has never been any order issued under any of them, and never been any regulations made under any of them. But I am afraid that that cannot possibly be the fact, that there must be some exceptions to the sweeping generalisation of the Under-Secretary, and if you will look at the subject for a moment and look at the Memorandum issued from his own office, and if it then appears that there has never been any order issued under any of these extensive powers which are now to be abrogated then all I can say is that the War Office must be a most peculiar institution.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: May I be allowed to point out that section 161 is very important with regard to evidence of any fact that is required either before a judge or for any purpose of any kind. Suppose that the certificate or any copy of any other document which has been signed by the commanding officer or the Commander-in-Chief is wanted to be given in evidence. It is conceivable that there might be a case next year in which some document that has been authenticated by one of these defunct officials was brought up and tendered in evidence. It would be perfectly good evidence under section 163 as it stands. But now if you pass this section without this Amendment that my hon. Friend proposed the effect would be to invalidate that document, because all orders and documents signed by these defunct officials become of no use. The effect would be to invalidate the evidence and prevent justice from being done. I feel quite certain that the hon. Gentleman representing the Government in this matter cannot be serious in stating that all documents and orders signed in the past are now to be set aside in that way. It seems to me that he must admit that he has made a mistake.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Is not the case even worse than is represented by my hon. Friend? Take the Memorandum—take clause 59. I understand from the Under-Secretary that none of these documents or decisions in writing, or otherwise, or the rules or orders of the late Commander-in-Chief or Adjutant-General are any longer valid. If that be so, how on earth would a sentence of, say, five years' penal servitude imposed be valid if the documents by which the unfortunate person was sent to penal servitude are no longer legal or binding? Then go to clause 75, and we have a somewhat similar provision. Here you have a provision which might unquestionably have resulted in imprisonment or the serious punishment of soldiers under the authority of the two constituted officials to whom allusion has been made. Yet, on the ipse dixit of the Under-Secretary, we are to be told that though these persons are in durance vile, this authority no longer exists." Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly inform us by what Statute the words proposed to be inserted are necessary, because otherwise it seems that the assertion of the Under-Secretary goes further than facts justify?.
Mr. HALDANE: There is nothing—take section 59, it indicates that the committal authority remains.
Mr. HAY: What about the past?
Mr. HALDANE: There is nothing in the Bill that invalidates anything that has been made in the past.
Mr. HAY: Surely if you take away the authority to commit a man to prison ipso facto the man remains?
Mr. HALDANE: That is not really law. If a man is in prison he remains in prison until his sentence expires. Take another case. Once a document has been certified it remains in existence, and is exactly like a judge's certificate. The fact that a judge dies does not invalidate the document. Once certified, the death of the judge does not revoke his certificate. The extinction of the office of Commander-in-Chief four years ago does not invalidate Acts. The clause has been drawn to meet the practical necessity of any cases that can possibly arise.
Captain CRAIG: The right hon. Gentleman says there is no question of invalidating what has gone before. Surely if that is the case there is no necessity for this at all. That is the whole point. Why should it be necessary in the case of the Secretary for War. and not necessary in the case of the two other officers? He makes an invidious distinction between the Commander-in-Chief and himself. The question is that of their signature to a document, without which signature the document would be invalid. Of course, it is perfectly right of him to say that if a judge dies that does not make his decision invalid. If you take any document signed by any person in the exercise of his ordinary capacity that signature makes the document legal or illegal; and, according to this clause, everything that has been done by the Commander-in-Chief in the past becomes illegal simply because it is not valid. The Secretary of State makes a special exception of his own office, and then says it does not matter about the others. That seems to me to be absolutely extraordinary. His predecessors in office I presume have signed many documents, and if this saving clause is not to be put in with regard to them, I presume those documents will be invalid. Therefore, just as his predecessors signed documents in a similar way, so will those documents become invalid. That is the sole point. I think the whole of these clauses have been drawn up in a very careless manner, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
Mr. JOHN WARD: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman seems to contradict a good many of the reasons and justifications put forward in the early part of this debate on the very subject we are debating now. He told us that the reason for the particular form in which this clause stands is because the office of Commander-in-Chief was abolished. In consequence it has been found utterly impossible to degrade even an ordinary non-commissioned officer without securing the King's sanction. We are told that the office of Commander-in-Chief has been abolished for a considerable time, and in consequence all the- regulations, all the authorities, and everything relating to his office have been in abeyance and have died with the office of Commander-in-Chief. Both of those suggestions cannot be true. One may be true, but you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either the office was abolished and all its powers have fallen into abeyance or else the statement that the power of the Commander-in-Chief is vested in His Majesty is true, and not even a non-commissioned officer can be degraded without His Majesty's authority. Which of those views is correct?
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: May I point out the dilemma into which the right

Division No. 57.]

AYES.

[12.6 a.m.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hazleton, Richard

Renwick, George

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hills, J. W.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Houston, Robert Paterson

Seddon, J.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Kilbride, Denis

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Cave, George

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

Stanier, Beville

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Craik, Sir Henry

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Newdegate, F. A.

Doughty, Sir George

Nolan, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Remnant.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hudson, Walter

Alien, Charles p. (Stroud)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Essex, R. W.

Jardine, Sir J.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Everett, R. Lacey

Jenkins, J.

Beale, W. P.

Fenwick, Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Beauchamp, E.

Ferens, T. R.

Johnson, W (Nuneaton)

Bennett, E. N.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Black, Arthur W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Levy, Sir Maurice

Bowerman, C. W.

Glover, Thomas

Lewis, John Herbert

Brace, William

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brodie, H. C.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Brooke, Stopford

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Macpherson, J. T.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Micking, Major G.

Byles, William Pollard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marnham, F. J.

Clough, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Mond, A.

Collins, Sir Win. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Henry, Charles S.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholls, George

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hodge, John

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Duckworth, Sir James

Horniman, Emslie John

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Parker, James (Halifax)

hon. Gentleman's explanation has placed us. There is one way in which he can get rid of these orders, and it is that he can call upon the Army Council to invalidate what he himself signed last year. There is no way of getting rid of any order in existence which the Commander-in-Chief may have signed.
Mr. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the omission of the words "by a Secretary of State"? I think that would meet the objections which have been raised. I should like to move the omission of those words.
The CHAIRMAN: We have got beyond those words already.
Mr. HALDANE: This clause has been very carefully considered, and it is most efficient for its purpose.
Mr. REMNANT: The right hon. Gentleman does not say whether he accepts my suggestion. Surely he sees that there are serious objections, which he must admit are worthy of consideration.
Question: "That those words be there inserted"—put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 111.

Partington, Oswald

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonsh.)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Seely, Colonel

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Shackleton, David James

Wiles, Thomas

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilkie, Alexander

Radford, G. H.

Stanley, Albert (Stalls, N.W.)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rainy, A. Holland

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Ridsdale, E. A.

Summerbell, T.

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

Robinson, S.

Verney, F. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Watt, Henry A.

Rowlands, J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Mr. HALDANE Mr. HALDANE rose in his place and claimed to move: "That the question that clause 4 stand part of the Bill be now put."
Question put: "That the Question that clause 4 stand part of the Bill be now put."
Mr. HUGH LEA: On a point of order, I wish to ask whether after this clause has been put it will be in order to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire, namely: "Nothing in this Act shall in any way be retrospective"?
The CHAIRMAN: Not on this clause.

Division No. 58.]

AYES.

[12.14 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hedges, A. Paget

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

Ridsdale, E. A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Henry, Charles S.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Higham. John Sharp

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Beale, W. P.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Beauchamp, E.

Horniman, Emslie John

Robinson, S.

Bennett, E. N.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Black, Arthur W.

Hudson, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Bowerman, C. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rowlands, J.

Brace, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Brodie, H. C.

Jenkins, J.

Seely, Colonel

Brooke, Stopford

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Byles, William Pollard

Jowett, F. W.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Levy, Sir Maurice

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Clough, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Summerbell, T.

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Verney, F. W

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duckworth, Sir James

Marnham, F. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Mond, A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Everett, R. Lacey

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Murray, Captain Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wiles, Thomas

Ferens, T. R.

Nicholls, George

Wilkie, Alexander

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Norton, Captain Cecil William

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Glover, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Haldane. Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Partington, Oswald

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Radford, G. H.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rainy, A. Holland

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

NOES.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Craik, Sir Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hazleton, Richard

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Doughty, Sir George

Hills, J. W.

Cave, George

Edwards, A. Clement (Denbigh)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Essex, R. W.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lupton, Arnold

Mr. HUGH LEA: Will it be in order to move a new clause, so that the Wood case may be excluded from its scope? I take it that the case is still going on, and that this clause is being moved now so as to rule it out of court.
The CHAIRMAN: Any question on a new clause should be put when we come to-new clauses.
Question put: "That clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 32.

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Renwick, George

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Macpherson, J. T.

Rutherford, w. W. (Liverpool)

Younger, George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Seddon, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Remnant.

Newdegate, F. N.

Stanier, Seville

Nolan, Joseph

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Question put accordingly.

Division No. 59.]

AYES.

[12.20 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hedges, A. Paget

Ridsdale, E. A.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Henry, Charles S.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Beale, W. P.

Higham, John Sharp

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Beauchamp, E.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Robinson, S.

Bennett, E. N.

Horniman, Emslie John

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Black, Arthur W.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Bowerman, C. W.

Hudson, Walter

Rowlands, J.

Brace, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seely, Colonel

Brodie, H. C.

Jardine, Sir J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Brooke, Stopford

Jenkins, J.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Levy, Sir Maurice

Summerbell, T.

Clough, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Verney, F. W.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duckworth, Sir James

Marnham, F. J.

Watt, Henry A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Mond, A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Essex, R. W.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Everett, R. Lacey

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wiles, Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Nicholls, George

Wilkie, Alexander

Ferens, T. R.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Partington, Oswald

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

Hardy, George. A (Suffolk)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Radford, G. H.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rainy, A. Rolland

NOES.

Banner, John S. Harmood

Hazleton, Richard

Nolan, Joseph

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hills, J. W.

Renwick, George

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, w. W. (Liverpool)

Cave, George

Jowett, F. W.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kilbride, Denis

Seddon, J.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Craik, Sir Henry

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Stanier, Beville

Dalrymple, Viscount

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Doughty, Sir George

Macpherson, J. T.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Younger, George

Glover, Thomas

Mooney, J. J.

Goulding, Edward Altred

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Bowles and Mr. Remnant.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Newdegate, F. A.

Clause 5—Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict. c. 58, s. 115. —(1) In sub-section (2) of section one hundred and fifteen of the Army Act (which relates to the supply of carriages and vessels in cases of emergency), after the words "carriages of every description" there shall be inserted the words "(including motor-cars and other locomotives, whether for the purpose of carriage or haulage)."
(2) At the end of the same section the following sub-section shall be added:—
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 36.
"(9) The Army Council may, by regulations under the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, assign to county associations established under that Act the duty of furnishing in accordance with the directions of the Army Council, such carriages, animals, and vessels as may be required on mobilisation for the regular or auxiliary forces, or any part thereof, and where such regulations are made an officer of a county association shall have the same powers as are by this section conferred on an officer of the Army Council."
Captain CRAIG: I beg to move to leave out the word "including" and to insert ""which shall be deemed to include."
Mr. SEDDON: On a point of order. I beg leave to move that progress be reported.
The CHAIRMAN: I have called on the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Captain CRAIG: I do not intend to press this Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his wording of the Clause is better than mine, but it seems to me rather complex as it stands. The clause contains the words "including motor-cars and other locomotives." Considering that later on reference is made to this matter only in the word "carriages" there may be confusion. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is right as it stands I shall not press this to a division list, but I think that if he wants to safeguard himself he should accept the words I have, proposed. I agree with the inclusion of motor-cars, but in what he describes as "this carefully-drafted Bill," the right hon. Gentleman seems to treat motor-cars later on in the same way that he treats Irish cars, a matter I shall raise on the schedule.
Question proposed, "Clause 5, page 3, line 39, leave out 'including' and insert 'which shall be deemed to include.' "
Mr. HALDANE: This clause has been drawn up with great care, in order to remove any possible doubt about motor-cars and locomotives of that kind. These words fulfil the purpose for which they are put in, which I think is properly appreciated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Captain CRAIG: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Captain CRAIG: I move the next Amendment, after "other" to insert "road traction." I think we ought to raise this important question, but as the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied me that the draftsman is correct, I wish to ask to what locomotives the right hon. Gentleman refers. If any hon. Members read the clause carefully, they will find that after the words "carriages of every description" there will be inserted the words "including motor-cars or other locomotives." Other locomotives must mean locomotives on the railways, and if one takes up the Army Act and carries
1056
this to its conclusion one will find that an officer under the regulations will be able to commandeer all locomotives on any railway. That is rather a large order, which ought not to be left to some officer, who, in time of emergency, may take it into his head to hold up the whole railway system of this country, perhaps against orders from headquarters. I should not be against this if it were necessary in time of sudden emergency, but we ought not to do anything which will make it possible for some officer to upset the control of the railway system, and may possibly create national peril. To understand the question fully we must take the Army Act, and there we see that hitherto this has only extended to ordinary horse-drawn vehicles. Now we are dealing with modern motor-cars, and I presume that the words "other locomotives," though they seem rather indefinite, refer to other road traction locomotives however they are driven. If that is the case I am quite in accord with the clause. If it is suggested, however, that an officer is to have the right to go to a station and commandeer railway locomotives, I think the right hon. Gentleman is defeating the very purpose he has in view in this very important matter. The careless drafting of this clause may lead to great danger. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what locomotives are referred to, and why they do not coincide with the schedule. I hope he will tell us also how he reconciles the 3d. a mile for Irish jaunting cars with the charge for locomotives.
Question proposed. Clause 5, page 4, line 1, after "other" insert "road traction."
Mr. SEDDON: I beg leave to move, "That progress be reported, and ask leave to sit again." I do so because of the Vote which has just been taken on clause 4, and the closure of that clause. There was a very serious and important amendment to that clause.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not reflect on the action of the Committee.
Question proposed "That I report progress and ask leave to sit again."
Mr. HALDANE: I appreciate the point of the hon. Gentleman, and I know what he refers to. I give him my personal assurance that I scanned carefully the whole of the words which could have had a bearing on a certain case. Not one of the

1057
Amendments to this section touch that case, nor are there any words which could make the clause retrospective. If the clause could bear on the case I should have regarded it as personally dishonourable to closure it. I have taken the opinion of Parliamentary counsel on the subject, and we satisfied our minds that there was not a shadow of doubt that that case will not be affected. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be content with that assurance.
Mr. BOWLES: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw his Motion on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, though it is very admirable. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that this clause does not bear on a certain case, but there was one Amendment of very great importance to this clause affecting his own responsibility, and I think in view of all the circumstances, and considering the late hour and the fact that the House will meet again at noon to-day, the hon. Member is thoroughly justified in his Motion.
Mr. HAY: I venture to join in the appeal which has just been made. The House will meet again in less than twelve hours, and it must be evident to everyone that there is no chance of finishing this Bill. If we go on the business for to-day cannot be proceeded with, and it will, therefore, be much better for the Government and the whole House if we can have two or three hours given to us to discuss this important matter on another occasion. Failing that, there is nothing but the prospect of a hard debate, though I hope there will be no acrimony, because obviously anyone who really has given any attention to these subjects must recognise that the Army (Annual) Bill this year is one of very great importance. It is not a Bill involving questions of detail. It touches first principles and matters of the highest Constitutional moment. When matters affecting Army government were before the last Parliament the second reading of Bills by no means as important as this took not one, but two days, and the Government devoted more than two days to the Committee stage of a Bill which is by no means greater than this. I would, therefore, urgently represent to the right hon. Gentleman that his own convenience and that of his Department and of the House of Commons at large, would best be consulted if we adjourned now, and came to some agreement whereby the Bill may be discussed on a future occasion, and when
1058
all sections of the House would perhaps be fresher, and therefore we shall arrive at conclusions more easily than now.
Mr. HALDANE: I would appeal to the hon. Member not to discuss the Bill in this tone. It is vitally important that it should be proceeded with. I cannot possibly, at whatever cost to myself, and this is the third disturbed night I have had from various causes, leave what is a duty without doing my very utmost to put the Bill through. The other House sits to-day to take the first reading of it, and the hon. Member knows it is vital that this Bill should get through within a definite time. There is another thing. We are coming to a very important point of principle. The national defences are not in a satisfactory or proper condition. Why should the hon. Member wish to prevent them from being put in a proper condition? Why should he wish to make it difficult to make the necessary amendment of the law without which the mobilisation of the Territorial force cannot be made a reality. I would really appeal to the hon. Member not to discuss this Bill in this fashion. It is meant to improve the machinery of national defence, and I would earnestly ask for the cooperation of the House.
Mr. REMNANT: I hardly think the speech we have just listened to is calculated to expedite or improve matters. We are just as anxious, and always have been, as the light hon. Gentleman, to do the best we can to put the new arrangements on a proper footing in reference to our Territorial force, and for him to assume that he alone and his party are trying—
Mr. HALDANE: I never have. I think I have given the fullest credit to the other side for the great assistance they have rendered in putting this through.
Mr. REMNANT: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I hope, although we could not draw that inference from his speech, we may take it that that is his intention, and as such we accept it. But not one single concession has been made during the debate to any recommendation which has come from this side. He has said that clause 4 had nothing whatever to do with a certain case which has been referred to. The whole question could have been raised on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutherland-shire.
The CHAIRMAN: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say

1059
that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire was not in order at that place. If the question was in order at all it could be raised as a new clause. The particular Amendment in the form in which it was put down was not in order on the clause.
Mr. REMNANT: I am sorry I referred to the Amendment, but the whole Clause, there is no doubt, gave us an opportunity of raising matters in reference to cases which have occurred and which are very likely to have occurred in the past, and which would have given us an opportunity of calling attention to a matter which, to say the least of it—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is reflecting on the action of the Committee in passing the closure, and also I think on my discretion, which he has no right to do, in accepting the closure.
Mr. REMNANT: I apologise if I have done that. The matter was raised and referred to by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and I thought I should not be out of order in also referring to it. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, anxious as we are and as now we understand he and his party are, to let us postpone the matter to a later period, when we shall be fresh to deal with it. There is no urgent necessity for it. We have until 30th April, therefore why try by force to push the matter through to-night? I am quite sure the majority of Members, apart from party feeling, are really, in their inmost hearts, anxious that we should defer it until such time as we shall be able to discuss it when we are not tired and weary of the work we have gone through.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I hope the hon. Member for Newton will insist on putting his Motion to a Division. It is quite clear that we are discussing really two Bills. Clause 4 was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman as an absolutely separate Bill of sufficient importance to warrant the whole business and the formulae of the House being gone through to consider it in its single aspect, and if the matter is being delayed at all it is largely because the right hon. Gentleman is making such great constitutional changes in the proposal now before the House that we are entitled to use every form of the House as a protest.
Mr. RENWICK: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very serious admission,
1060
and almost a charge against this side of the House that we are pressing this appeal at a time when we are preventing him putting the defences of the country in a satisfactory condition. I wish to discuss certain clauses in the Bill, but if I thought for a moment that I was endangering the country by preventing defences of the country being put in a satisfactory condition, I would not stand in his way. After a serious admission of this description; the House is entitled to an explanation of what is meant by the defences of the country being in this unsatisfactory condition.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: The many Members who are interested in the Wood's case will have heard with great interest the statement of the Secretary for War, and I am sure no one who knows him would think he himself would be capable of the rather contemptible trick of endeavouring to non-suit the plaintiff in: that case by inserting a clause of this kind. But I must confess that does not entirely remove my doubts. There is no doubt about it that lawyers of great eminence have advised the plaintiff that the effect of this clause will be to non-suit him.
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order; that does not really arise. We are not discussing whether clause 4 does or does not do what the hon. Member says.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I am not discussing it. I am only dealing with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State himself, to which surely we are entitled to reply. Lawyers have advised the plaintiff that the effect of this clause will be to non-suit him. We all accept without the slightest reservation the declaration of the Secretary of State for War that nothing could be further from his intention than to do so; but I suggest that it would be in the interests-of expeditious discharge of business—and I ask him to do it—if the right hon. Gentleman makes it clear in the Act itself that such will not be the effect of the Bill. That will remove the objection that many of us have. The right hon. Gentleman has taken legal opinion. Other legal opinions will be advanced. And it may be, although counsel waive the point before the judge, and do not plead the Act, that the judge may conceivably prefer to take his own view of the Act. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that strict justice will be done in this case. In my opinion he has a grievance, and should have a fair trial.
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order; the hon. Member is now really discussing the Wood's case. The question is whether I shall report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I was going to appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion if the right hon. Gentleman gave the explanation we desire.
Mr. HALDANE: The remarks of the hon. Gentleman have been most moderate and reasonable. But to put in a new clause such as is desired, and that would have no effect, would simply lead to confusion. If I had the least doubt that this would rot be the case, and the question arose, I would at once take steps to set the matter right. There is no shadow of a foundation for the imputation that anything in this clause affects the case referred to. I do not think it can possibly do so. If I should turn out to be wrong, I will find some means to put the matter right.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I appeal to my friend to accept frankly the full statement that has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman. But there is still another question of importance left in this Bill; that is the question of general billeting. There is some justification for the long time that has been occupied up till now, and some justification for the Motion before the Committee, for this is an exceptional Army (Annual) Bill. It not only contains important small matters, but two matters of absolute novelty and of very considerable constitutional importance. One is the matter that has consumed so large an amount of time this afternoon—the handing over of these powers dealt with under clause 4—and the other question which has still got to be dealt with, is this very important one of general billeting. We are bound, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, in the interests of the defence of the country to see this clause through to-night, because the defences of the country are in an absolutely unsatisfactory condition. If the Government insist on this, then may I appeal to the hon. Member who has moved this Motion to withdraw it? May I also appeal to hon. Members on this side of the House not to oppose these Amendments, which are, we are told, practically drafting Amendments. It is none of our business to make the Bill of the Government grammatical or more lucid. Let it alone Let us get on to the more important matter of general billeting.
Mr. SEDDON: I only want to know whether I have got the right idea. Do I gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that if Lieutenant Woods is non-suited he will find some other way whereby he will have access to the law courts. If so, I will willingly withdraw my Motion, because I want the business to proceed. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is because I feel that this man has certainly got a grievance—[Cries of "Order, order!"]—and that this is the only form of protesting against an injustice.
Mr. HALDANE: If the House lets the Bill pass and Lieutenant Woods be nonsuited by anything in this Act, I should conceive it a dishonourable act on my part if we did not take care to use some means to make good anything that happened.
Mr. SEDDON: I beg leave to withdraw.
The CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure the Amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Mr. HAY: No, no.
The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Gentlemen should be a little quicker. I am very sorry if the hon. Member wishes the Amendment not to be withdrawn.
Mr. HAY: Is it not the practice that the Chairman puts the question, yes or no, from the Chair in respect of a Motion for leave to withdraw or a Motion to report progress?
The CHAIRMAN: Never.
Captain CRAIG: With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member below the gangway, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation, as perhaps he has forgotten the point.
Mr. HALDANE: There may be locomotives other than road traction. For example, we have had at Aldershot locomotives which go over fields and up hills. There is no difficulty about railways, because the railways are not under the Army Act but under the National Defence Act of 1888, and we can take possession of them in times of great national emergency. The hon. Member may rely that the language chosen by the Parliamentary draftsman with myself was in order to make provisions for this and insure that we could get possession of any kind of locomotive that we want.
Mr. HAY: I cannot find any provision as to the form of payment for motor-cars

1063
and other forms of mechanical conveyance which would be requisitioned. It is obvious that the payment made for either horses or carts would not be adequate for a motor-car or for the petrol or other fuel consumed in driving a mechanically driven vehicle. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, what words he will insert in the Bill whereby there will be proper remuneration given to the persons who have got to lend these vehicles under this section?
Mr. HALDANE: The provision is in the Army Act in a special section, I think it is 115—"The Army Council shall cause due payment to be made for carriages, animals, and vessels furnished in pursuance of this section." We amend the section by putting in the words, and then the whole provision of sub-section 4 applies.
Mr. HAY: I underlined the very words which the right hon. Gentleman has read in my copy, but I cannot see that they form any provision for payment for these motor-cars and other vehicles. Surely some more definite words are required. This is another instance of the hasty way of dealing with these matters. Words should be inserted on a proper business footing safeguarding the rights of citizens whose property is used in the manner covered by the section.
Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member will notice that there is provision that the amount of payment for the carriages, which include the locomotives, is to be determined by the county court judge having jurisdiction in the place where such carriage is furnished or through which it travels in pursuance of such requisition.
Mr. HAY: Am I to understand that before a man can get reasonable payment he has to appeal to the county court judge—that is, practically sue the Secretary of State? Surely there ought to be some more equitable and rapid and friendly arrangement between the State and those whose property is used for the defence of the country.
Mr. HALDANE: It is only to come before the county court in case of a difference. You could not make a scale.
Mr. HAY: Some of these county court judges are very prejudiced in regard to motor-cars, and will take a very drastic view of the value of the services. I would ask some indication of the scale of payment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman
1064
will say what payment was made the other day in connection with the journey made by motor-cars to Hastings under some arrangement made by him, because in all seriousness it is a matter of importance to a large section of the public, and in a year or two hence, when these motorcars are much more numerous and are owned by persons of smaller means than those who now own them, the matter will be one of very widespread public interest.
Mr. HALDANE: The other day these motor-cars were lent very generously by certain gentlemen, and nothing was paid at all.
Mr. RENWICK: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to define what is meant by vessels—ships, steamers, canal-boats, or what does it mean?
Mr. HALDANE: Vessels can only be local vessels. They are the only kind of vessels which are meant by the clause.
Mr. RENWICK: Would it mean County Council steamers, for instance?
Mr. HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what a "local vessel" is?
Mr. HALDANE: You will find it in Section 115. A local vessel includes barges, boats or other vessels used for transport on any canal or navigable river.
Mr. HAY: "Local"—
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. We have passed these words and it is not in order to discuss them.
Mr. HAY: I only wish to ask a question in connection with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not raise the matter.
The CHAIRMAN: Sometimes we have an inquiry made which is not strictly in order, but if it is likely to facilitate business I allow it. If, however, hon. Members are led to go on discussing the point, it is really quite out of order and must be stopped.
Captain CRAIG: I beg to withdraw my amendment. [Cries of "No."]
Question: "That these words be there inserted," put and negatived.
Captain CRAIG: I beg to move to leave out from "thereof," to the end of line 13. "and where such regulations are made an officer of the county association shall have the same powers as are by this section conferred on an officer of the Army Council." This would have the effect of leaving the

1065
regulations to the Army Council. I hope eventually to get something out of the Secretary of State. By sub-section (2) of this clause, a subordinate officer of the county associations is to have the same powers as are conferred on the officers of the Army Council. Is a subaltern officer of the county association to have the same powers as the officer of the Army Council in commandeering transport throughout the country in time of war? My slight experience in this matter is that the mistake has been made of putting powers of this nature in the hands of junior officers, and if the scheme of commandeering transport in this country in time of emergency is to be carried out by junior officers of the county associations instead of by officers who understand all about the movements of troops, if the right hon. Gentleman really means to delegate to boys the duty of commandeering locomotives, motorcars, carriages and horses, boats and vessels, then the matter is very serious. The powers given to the Army Council under this Bill are, in the opinion of many of us, far too wide, but when you come to take them away from the Army Council and give them to the junior officers of the county associations, it appears to me to be absolutely ridiculous.
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Mr. HALDANE: In discussing the Army Estimates I explained fully what we propose to do here. At present a general mobilisation can only take place in a national emergency. It is necessary to get horses and carriages to mobilise the Army. These can be taken and are paid for. At present the officer of the Army Council can make up his list and then go and get the justice's warrant to take the carriages. This proposal is to give that power in addition to the officer of the county association, and there are enormous advantages in that. To begin with, the county association can take a census of the horses and vehicles in the county very much better than the Army Council can do. Our machinery at present is imperfect, and the object of introducing this power is to enable the county associations of the country generally to do that which they can do in a way we cannot. Nobody's horse and carriage can be taken without a warrant of the justice, and the only effect of this will be to enable the county council to make a preliminary census of the means of transport, and then their officer
1066
can make the same application to the justice for a warrant as the officer of the Army Council.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment. It is quite clear that this clause only empowers the Council to make regulations under which the officer of the county association can carry out most valuable and important work. It is not likely that the regulations will be framed in such a way as to cause difficulty or injustice to any responsible person.
Captain CRAIG: I certainly do not wish to stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that if the Army Council make the regulations, then any officer of the county association can claim under the section to exercise all these powers.
Mr. HALDANE: Only on mobilisation.
Captain CRAIG: My hon. Friend below me is of course well up in the law, and I accept his advice, though I am still doubtful on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? ["No."]
Mr. MOONEY: I wish to ask whether it is in order to withdraw the Amendment when a Member desires to speak upon it.
The CHAIRMAN: I put the question whether the Amendment should be withdrawn, and I heard the cries of "No." The Amendment, therefore, still remains alive and can be discussed.
Mr. HAZLETON: I wish to ask the Secretary for War what difference this proposal makes in regard to Ireland. We have in Ireland no county associations, and therefore I presume that the provisions of this new clause will not apply to Ireland. Will Ireland under this Bill stand in the same position under the law as she stands in to-day? I presume that a county association can have no jurisdiction outside its own county, and I suppose the law in Ireland on this question will stand as it is to-day. If the people of England and Scotland think the law is not adequate to meet their needs, that, of course, is their concern, but the whole interest of my hon. Friends on these benches in this Bill is concerned with clause 7. Under the circumstances I am quite willing to allow this matter to remain as it is.
Amendment put and negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6.—Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict., c. 58, s. 122 (6).—In sub-section (6) of section one hundred and twenty-two of the Army Act (which defines "qualified officer" in relation to convening and confirming the findings and sentences of general courts-martial) for the words "on whom the command of any body of regular forces may be conferred" there shall be substituted the words "on whom the command of any part of His Majesty's forces may be conferred."
Captain CRAIG: I desire to move an Amendment in clause 6, page 4, line 19, to leave out the word "part" and insert the word "body." In the old Army Act the word "body" is used, and this Bill changes it to "part." It used to mean "a body of troops," but the introduction of the word "part" may make it include a rifle or a gun, whereas a body would refer to a unit. I have put this Amendment down to ascertain why, after being a stickler for the ancient and honourable terms handed down to us for generations past, the right hon. Gentleman has suddenly superseded this very ancient term of "body" and inserted a change which makes it read "part of His Majesty's forces."
Amendment proposed: "In page 4, line 19, to leave out the word 'part' and insert the word 'body.' "—[Captain Craig.']
Question proposed: "That the word 'part' stand part of the Question."
Mr. HALDANE: The ground for using the word "part" is that we want to make the case as wide as possible, so as to include an irregularly formed body. The curious position is that at the present time, when you are dealing with the Colonies, the Colonial Governor is all right because he has got all the necessary powers under his local military Acts so long as the troops are within the Colony, but when they are in some other part serving with the Regulars then they come under the Army Act. When in transit from the Colonies to this country or vice versa, the troops are under no proper law, and there is no power to deal with them. Although that is the case, it will not be so under the terms of the Army Act if the Governor-General has command of even a few Regulars with the local troops. The Governor-General may have Colonial troops, and perhaps a few garrison
1068
engineers or garrison artillery. Take the case of the Governor-General of Canada who has got no regular troops serving with him. This new provision places him in as good a position as the Governor of a smaller province who has some regular troops. Under section 122, "Any part of His Majesty's forces" will include any Colonial troops which may not bo formed in the same bodies as here, and the power which is given gets rid of the temporary disqualification which prevents the Governor of a great colony at present from having power.
Captain CRAIG: I beg to withdraw under the circumstances.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. JOHN WARD: This is the most important clause in this Bill. When discussing the Territorial Bill last year, the Labour Members and the Irish Members were particularly anxious to see that the Territorial Army would not be placed under martial law and all the ruthless provisions of the Army Act. This clause we are now asked to accept without a division is a subversion of all the promises that were made during the passing of that measure. We were told that they would be treated as citizen forces, and we understood everything would be done to preserve their citizen character. Now if this clause becomes part of the Army Bill all the promises that the Territorial Forces would not come under the disciplinary regulations of the ordinary Regular Forces will be abrogated or destroyed. Therefore I protest most strongly against this, and more especially against the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman just given to my hon. Friend above the Gangway. At present it states that the officers qualified "for convening and confirming the sentences of general courts-martial," which may include death sentences or any period of imprisonment shall be the officer "on whom the command of any body of Regular Forces may be conferred." We are asked to translate what is in the Army Act "body of Regular Forces" into "any part of His Majesty's Forces," which includes the Territorial Army, or any of the forces that are established by the Act of last year. It is only necessary to refer to one or two of the later clauses to see clearly what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. By this clause he is securing all the powers for

1069
military tribunals, for imposing military law, and for allowing the Territorial troops when embodied to be under the discipline of ordinary military law, which is no law at all. The very thing against which we protested most strongly during the passage of the Territorial Forces Bill the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to secure by a method which is not fair to those who supported him then. The right hon. Gentleman will now understand why I have taken such interest in opposing this Bill. I told him the other night that I intended to protest against his attempting to militarise the Territorial Force. It was no use attempting to fight the matter on these few words; they would soon be disposed of. One has to fight the whole thing, and I am going to fight it unless there is some alteration in the principle here attempted. On this point I should probably part company with hon. Members above the Gangway, because they are in favour of the military code being applied to the citizen soldiers, while I am not. All enlightened communities are reducing the power to interfere with the citizen, but the right hon. Gentleman is going in exactly the opposite direction. Almost every proposal he has put before us during the last year or two has been to exalt the military at the expense of the civil—
Mr. HALDANE: May I interrupt the hon. Member? He is under a complete misapprehension. The clause has no more to do with the Territorial Forces and the application of martial law than it has to do with the forces of the Emperor of China. Sub-section (6) of clause 122 of the Army Act defines "qualified officer," in so far as relates to convening or confirming the findings and sentences of general courts-martiaI as "any officer … on whom the command of any body of regular forces may be conferred." There we propose to substitute the words "on whom the command of any part of His Majesty's forces may be conferred." If the hon. Member will turn to that sub-section, which is the only thing with which we have here to deal, he will find that the words we propose to leave out appear at the end of the sub-section, and that the reference includes "the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Governor-General of India, and a Governor of any Colony"—it has nothing whatever to do with the Territorial Forces—" on whom the command of Any body of regular forces may be conferred." These are officials who have nothing whatever to do with any troops at
1070
home. The sole object of the clause is to get rid of the technical difficulty that troops brought from the colonies to the theatre of war where martial law would prevail are at present under no jurisdiction at all. I can assure my hon. Friend that the clause is limited in the manner I have described, that it has nothing whatever to do with the Territorial Forces, and that it does not extend military law any further than it extends at present.
Mr. JOHN WARD: That appears to be a very good explanation, but, without wishing to give offence to the right hon. Gentleman, I say distinctly that after reading the Memorandum issued by his own Department in explanation of the clause I am not satisfied. The most important words he has omitted to mention at all. He has read the latter part of the sub-section referring to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and so on, but he left out the first part, which says that:
"'qualified officer' for the purpose of this Act, so far as it relates to convening or confirming the findings and sentences of general courts martial, means any officer not below the rank of a field officer commanding for the time being any body of the regular forces either within or without His Majesty's dominions."
And then follow the other words. These are the men who may convene a court-martial, order a man to be tried, confirm sentences, and so on, without reference to anybody else. For the words "on whom the command of any body of regular forces may be conferred," it is proposed to substitute the words "on whom the command of any part of His Majesty's forces may be conferred—"
Mr. ACLAND: Only the Governor of a colony.
Mr. JOHN WARD: It does not say anything of the sort. The Memorandum contains section 122 sub-section (6) as it will read after it has been amended. The terms of the section as amended are "'Qualified officer' for the purposes of this Act, in so far as it relates to convening or confirming the findings and sentences of general courts-martial, means the Commander-in-Chief and any officer not below the rank of a field officer commanding for the time being any body of the Regular Forces either within or without His Majesty's dominions; it also includes the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Governor-General of India, and a Governor of any colony on whom the command of any part of His Majesty's Forces may be conferred by His Majesty." These are the terms of the section, and it is only necessary to

1071
read several other sections to see clearly that, unless there are some words inserted limiting the power of these officers in respect to the convening of courts-martial, when the members of the Territorial Force are embodied they will be subject to the provision, and therefore I resist the proposal now before the Committee. That is to say, the Territorial Force are going to be subject to the roughest, rudest and most brutal code of our military law. There is not the slightest doubt about it, and for that reason I shall vote against the proposal.
The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): I was glad I was in the House when my hon. Friend spoke. He knows that before I took a seat on this bench I took the view that it is desirable not to extend, but rather to diminish, the scope of what is termed martial law. As representing the Colonies in this country, I have to say in regard to this particular clause that it has been put in at the request of the Colonial Office, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it has absolutely no more to do with the Territorial Force than with the inhabitants of Mars. Can I put it more forcibly than that?
Mr. JOHN WARD: The clause says that it is to apply to "any body of the regular forces either within or without His Majesty's dominions."
Colonel SEELY: I have put it as strongly as I can, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I would be the last person to deceive this House, when I tell him that this has been put in at the request of the Colonial Office, and that it has nothing to do with the Territorial Force, I am sure that he will accept the assurance that that is my belief, and the belief of the great Department I have the honour to represent. All that he complains of has been the law of the land for fifty years past. Some hon. Members will remember that I took some part in the discussion of this question in years gone by. I am therefore familiar with the pitfalls in connection with it. If I may pass this paper across to my hon. Friend, I think he will understand the pitfall into which he has fallen. [Paper was handed to Mr. Ward.] We are referring here to clause 122, subsection (6) of the Army Act itself. All that happens under the new clause in the Army (Annual) Bill is that we enable the Governor General of a colony to be put in the same position in regard to troops
1072
in transit as he would be in supposing the troops were in the colony. The reason for this is that it is the desire of those great units themselves which have been greatly embarrassed owing to the interregnum when there is an absence of such provisions. No man either in the Colonies or in this country can be in a worse position by the provisions of the proposed new clause, but it will in the view of the Colonies be convenient to them if the clause is passed. If I can make any further explanation in the matter I am sure that I shall be glad to do so. I ask my hon. Friend to accept my absolute assurance that it has nothing to do even remotely with the Territorial Force in this country.
Mr. HUGH LEA: I desire to identify myself with the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent. I do not think that anybody who has had any experience of or come under the jurisdiction of martial law can do anything else than oppose tooth and nail the proposal in the Bill to extend the provision to a civilian force in this country.
The CHAIRMAN: The question has been put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Having since looked into the matter I must say that the meaning of this section and of the section of the Army Act which is altered by the clause is so clear that the line the hon. Member is now taking is quite out of order. The words of the Bill cannot apply to the Territorial Force.
Mr. HUGH LEA: I bow to your ruling. I would ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether this has been done at the request of English officials—that is to say, officials like the Governors of Colonies or the Viceroy of Canada—or has it been put in at the request of the Colonial Legislatures themselves?
Colonel SEELY: Of course, nothing is done in this House with respect to Colonies which are self-governing Colonies except at the request of the Governor acting on the advice of his Ministers. This is the result of consultation between this country and the Colonies, and my hon. Friend can rest assured that it has been done at the request of the Governors so acting.
Mr. HUGH LEA: I am prepared to accept the assurance the Under-Secretary has given. The Secretary of State said that the clause was to fill up a kind of gap or interregnum when troops are on board

1073
ship at sea—that is to say, during the time they are going from one colony to another, or going on active service abroad—and when they are passing from the jurisdiction of one Military Act and coming under the military law provided for here. To my mind that martial law is hateful, and for that reason I shall oppose the clause and take the question to a Division. I do not for an instant believe that our colonists know what is being done, and I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that every man in our Colonial Forces has been warned that it is proposed to bring them under this clause. If we were engaged in war, say in Abyssinia, can the right hon. Gentleman state that Australians who volunteer for service there would be aware that directly they left Sydney they would become liable to martial law as constituted by the Army Act? I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance on that point.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to say, after reading the section of the Act itself and knowing exactly the bearing of the words which are to be altered, I can see that the explanation of the Secretary of State is correct. Therefore, under those circumstances, I accept the explanation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7.—Billeting in Cases of Emergency. —The following section shall be inserted in the Army Act after section one hundred and eight:—

(1) Where directions have been given for embodying all or any part of the Territorial Force, His Majesty by Order distinctly stating that a case of emergency exists, and signified by a Secretary of State, and also in Ireland the Lord Lieutenant by a like Order, signified by the Chief Secretary or Under-Secretary, may authorise any general or field officer commanding His Majesty's regular forces in any military district or place in the United Kingdom, to issue a billeting requisition under this section.

(2) Any officer so authorised may issue a billeting requisition under his hand reciting the said Order and requiring chief officers of police to provide billets in such places and for such number of officers and soldiers, and their horses, and for such period, as may be specified in the requisition.

(3) The provisions of this Act as to billeting shall apply to billeting under such
1074
a requisition as if for references therein to a route there were substituted references to such a requisition, subject, however, to the following modifications:—

(a) The occupiers of all public buildings, dwelling-houses, warehouses, barns, and stables shall, as well as the keepers of victualling houses, be liable to billets, and the said provisions shall apply as if references to-victualling houses and the keepers of victualling houses included references to such public buildings, dwelling-houses, warehouses, barns, and stables, and the occupiers thereof:

(b) The powers and duties conferred or imposed on constables shall be exercised and performed by the chief officers of police, and accordingly for references to constables in the said provisions there shall be substituted references to the chief officers of police, and for the reference to a justice of the peace in subsection (7) of section one hundred and eight there shall be substituted a reference to a court of summary jurisdiction, but a chief officer of police in selecting the persons required to provide billets, and in determining the number of officers and soldiers to be billeted on any person shall, so far as practicable, have regard to the convenience of the several occupiers, and shall act in accordance with any general instructions which may have been issued by the police authority:

(c) The prices to be paid to an occupier other than the keeper of a victualling house for accommodation furnished, and food and fodder supplied by him shall be such as may be fixed by regulations made by the Army Council with the consent of the Treasury:

(d) Sub-section (2) of section one hundred and three (which defines a route), paragraph (6) of section one hundred and eight (which relates to the power of a justice to vary a route) and paragraph (2) of Part II. of the Second Schedule to the Army Act (which requires billets to be made out to the less distant victualling houses) shall not apply.

(4) Any regulations as to prices so made shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are

1075
made, and if within forty days after they have been so laid either House presents an address to His Majesty praying that any such regulations may be annulled, His Majesty may thereupon by Order in Council annul the same, and the regulations so -annulled shall thenceforth become void without prejudice to anything done there-under in the meantime.

(5) For the purposes of this section—
The expression "public building" includes any building wholly or partially provided or maintained out of the rates, and any building to which the public habitually have access, whether on payment or otherwise;

The expression "chief officer of police"

(a) As respects the City of London, means the Commissioner of City Police, and elsewhere in England has the same meaning as in the Police Act, 1890;

(b) In Scotland has the same meaning as in the Police (Scotland) Act, 1890;

(c) As respects the police district of Dublin metropolis, means the Chief Commissioner of Police for that district, and elsewhere means a county inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

(6) Compensation shall be paid by the Army Council out of money voted by Parliament for Army services in respect of any damage caused by any officer or soldier billeted under this section to the premises in which he is billeted, and the amount of such compensation shall in the event of disagreement be determined—

(a) In England by arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889:

(b) In Scotland in the same manner as a question of disputed compensation under sub-section (10) of section twenty-five of the Local Government Act, 1894;

(c) In Ireland by arbitration under the Common Law Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1856, as amended by any subsequent enactment.

Captain CRAIG: I wish to ask the Secretary of State if he will explain the word "distinctly," which appears in this clause. Who is to be the judge that His Majesty is "distinctly" of opinion that a case of emergency exists. If the Army Council thinks that a case of emergency exists, then I take it that there is no necessity for this word to appear in the
1076
Bill. If the Order in Council is placed before this House, I suggest that someone will arise on the point of order to discuss the question whether the Order in Council was sufficiently distinct. I am quite sure this matter will appeal to everybody who is devoted to the end which the Secretary of State intends to achieve. I beg to move that the word "distinctly" be left out.
Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Mr. HALDANE: The word "distinctly" is stated because under section 115 of the Army Act the word is used. We are using the same phrase which is contained in that Act. I will call the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the way in which the provisions are restricted. This clause can only be operative where directions are given to embody all or any part of the Territorial forces. Then His Majesty, by Order, can distinctly state if a case of emergency exists. The conditions of embodiment are described in Section 17 of the Territorial Act. According to the Reserve Forces Act of 1882, Section 12, in any case of imminent national danger the Army reserves shall be called out. If Parliament is not sitting Parliament must be convened; and there is the safeguard. Parliament must be consulted, and it must be distinctly understood that a national emergency exists.
Captain CRAIG: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. HAZLETON: I hope it will not be necessary for me to detain the Committee at very great length. At the same time I must say that this question is one of great importance. There are two reasons why I regret that it should be my duty to bring forward this matter. The first is that we are at a very late hour in the sittings in this House. It is a very late period of the night to introduce a subject of this importance. The second is that the question has been given an unexpected turn. It is a matter of very considerable importance to Ireland, and the Irish Members have gone to Ireland for the Easter Recess. With regard to clause 7, I must confess it was with very considerable astonishment that I read it in this Bill. The conclusion I arrived at was that the clause as it stands must be a mistake on the part of the Government draftsman. It seems to me that whoever was responsible for drafting this clause he entirely overlooked the fact of the difference

1077
that exists between Great Britain and Ireland with regard to the armed forces of the Crown. In the recent Session of Parliament this House was engaged in passing for Great Britain a measure of great importance in the Territorial Reserve Forces Act, and I would remind the Committee that under that Act there is not in Ireland to-day a single county association or a single member of the Territorial Force, because the Act does not apply to Ireland. That fact raises a very marked and a very clear distinction between Ireland and Great Britain. Now, so far as I understand this clause 7 in the Bill we are discussing, the new provisions with regard to billeting affects not only the Territorial forces, but the regular Army as well. If I am wrong in that, I should be glad if the Minister for War would correct me. But I take it this new provision applies equally to all the forces of the Crown. What is the justification for that? I do not propose to discuss the merits of the question opened up by this clause in its general application. I am only concerned mainly as to how this Bill and this clause affects Ireland. What is the position created by this proposal? At present under the law as it exists billeting can only take place upon licensed premises. This clause proposes to change that, and to give power to billet troops on all kinds of private houses and public institutions, and from the wording of the clause troops could be billeted on St. Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Cathedral, or upon any church or chapel in the country. That is a very wide and far-reaching change in the law. My purpose in rising to move this Amendment is to show the Committee and, if I can, to convince the Secretary of State for War that he cannot make out, and has not made out, any good reason why this provision should be extended to Ireland. As I pointed out, there are no Territorial forces in Ireland at the present time. I am not going into the question of why that is so. The Government and the Minister for War no doubt will be able to provide the Committee with good and sufficient reasons as to why the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman was not extended to Ireland. But my contention is that the very reasons which have seemed good to the Secretary for War and to the Government for not extending to Ireland the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman and establishing there the Territorial system ought in this case to hold equally good for not extending
1078
to Ireland the new provisions proposed by this clause. I tell the Committee fully and frankly that it ought to pause before forcing this new regulation upon the Irish people. As we have no Territorial Army in Ireland there can be no possible necessity for putting this new regulation upon us. As I understand it, the whole case for this regulation is that you will have in Great Britain under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme a larger force to deal with. You will have more soldiers for whom to provide accommodation, and therefore the existing provision in the law is not adequate to provide it. But nothing that this House has done within the past few years has increased the number of soldiers in Ireland, and therefore you can make out no good case for increasing the accommodation. The proper course would be for the right hon. Gentleman to recognise frankly that there is a case in Ireland for differential treatment upon this question. The Government have shown in their Army reorganisation scheme that they recognise that Ireland stands in a special position apart from the rest of the United Kingdom, and I ask the Minister for War to recognise that fact in this matter as well. I should much prefer to ground my objection to this proposed sweeping change in the law on the plea that, so far as Ireland is concerned, it is unnecessary, but at the same time I am fully aware that there are other considerations of a broad character which enter into this question. I have no desire or intention whatever of shirking those considerations. What are those considerations? The Irish people at the present day are unalterably opposed to the present system of Government in Ireland. They are frankly and openly disloyal to that system. They will not be otherwise until they are given the right which they demand of managing and directing their own affairs.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Caldwell): The hon. Member is going away from this particular Amendment, which is, whether this clause should be applied to Ireland.
Mr. HAZLETON: I am endeavouring to point out why this particular clause ought not to be applied to Ireland, and I will keep within the limits of your ruling; but I submit that I am entitled to show that existing conditions in Ireland are such that this law ought not to be applied to Ireland.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out to the hon. Member that it is not a second reading, but an Amendment in Committee, and therefore the discussion cannot be so elaborate as on a second reading.
Mr. HAZLETON: I submit that this matter is of very great importance to Ireland. I have no desire to make a second reading speech, and no intention of doing so. Nor am I on this occasion going into the question of the system of Government in Ireland, but I do wish to point out that in the lifetime of the present Parliament the Chairman of the Irish party declared here that if there were the remotest possible chance of success he would have no hesitation whatever in advising his countrymen in Ireland to take up arms to drive English rule out of Ireland as it exists there at present. England has it in its power to change all that so as to make the Irish people loyal and reconcile them to the Empire as she did in the case of the Transvaal. Until that is done disloyalty will continue in Ireland.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order; that is obviously the question of Home Rule.
Mr. HAZLETON: From what I have said it must be clear that you are proposing under this clause to billet in Ireland English soldiers upon a population entirely out of sympathy with them under existing conditions. I say that the Irish people would bitterly resent such action as that.
Captain CRAIG: I should like to point out that the hon. Member is speaking for a certain part of Ireland only, and not for the North of Ireland.
Mr. HAZLETON: I am speaking with full confidence that in what I am saying I shall have the approval of members of the party to which I belong, which represents three-fourths of the population of Ireland to-day.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: And the majority of Ulster.
Mr. HAZLETON: Yes, and the majority of Ulster. If the right hon. Gentleman will not yield to Irish public opinion upon this question it can only add to the existing friction and misunderstanding, and make matters worse than they are to-day in Ireland. For a Liberal Government to propose this change in opposition to the representatives from Ireland is a most reactionary step, and before it is too late I urge the Minister for War to reconsider
1080
the proposals in this clause, and accept the Amendments I have placed upon the Paper.
Amendment proposed: To leave out from "State" to "may."—[Mr. Hazleton.]
Question proposed: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member is really under a misapprehension as to the intention of the Government in proposing this clause. They are not asking for some privilege for the Territorial Force. Ireland, unfortunately, has one thing in common with the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is that Ireland may be invaded.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I wish someone would.
Mr. HALDANE: I cannot join the hon. Member in that wish. The position of Ireland in that case would be worse.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: It could not be worse.
Mr. HALDANE: The purpose of this clause is to provide for rapid and effective mobilisation in an emergency. The emergency is very carefully safeguarded, as I have already shown, but on very great emergency it is necessary to send troops rapidly to the point of attack. I hope these powers may never have to be put into operation, but it is necessary, if you are to make your national defences efficient, to have the power of putting your troops swiftly and efficiently at the point where, it may be, you are weakest. That may happen in Ireland, as in any other part of the country, and it may be necessary to send Regulars or Territorials there. These provisions are put in, not in the interests of the Territorial Force, but for the protection of the people of Ireland as much as for any other people in the United Kingdom against the possibility of any invasion.
Captain CRAIG: I would just like to say that, although we have great objections to many parts of this Bill, we should not like it to be thought that we are associated with any way with the sentiments of the hon. Member below the Gangway. I am quite sure Ulster would be only too glad to billet, if necessary, all the solders of His Majesty's Army in Ireland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not give way in this matter. I assure him I shall vote with him if the hon. Member goes to a Division, and I am sure my colleagues from Ulster will do the same.
Mr. MOONEY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given us any explanation of the great change in the existing law with regard to Ireland. I submit that the necessity for private billeting does not arise in Ireland. You are seeking, under the guise of providing further facilities for billeting, to impose upon Ireland a provision which was in existence 30 years ago, when you could billet troops in private houses. On the motion of a Conservative Government that power was taken away when the old Act was abandoned and the Army (Annual) Act was first introduced. They said it was not right that that power should exist in Ireland, and they did away with it. It is left to a Liberal Government in the guise of a popular Act to say the power shall be re-established to billet troops on private houses in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to explain that this will be under the control of a public authority, but there is no watch committee in Ireland, and the power will be in the hands of the police inspector. The right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of the working of the Irish Police Act, and we have. He goes out of his way to allay public anxiety in England by pointing out that after all there will be public control in the matter. There will, however, be no public control in Ireland. Let the right hon. Gentleman confine himself to England, and do not let him go back to a power of 30 years ago, which was found to be obsolete. There has been no case made out for it. I believe it is recognised that in England under the new scheme private billeting would be necessary, but there is no such necessity in Ireland, because there you are decreasing your force and you have no Territorial Army. You are taking power not only to billet the Territorial force if they are embodied, but also regular troops, and not only on public buildings but on private dwellings. If this power is to be exercised by head constables in Ireland, private grievances will often be worked off in this way. You do away in the case of Ireland with the public control which you specifically give in England, and you put the power in the hands of paid officials. That is not the way you should differentiate between this country and another; and I am surprised that a Liberal Government should tell us that from this date we are to go back to the old system of private billeting found to be so bad and given up 30 years ago. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the Amendment.
Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member would not have suggested that we are restoring the conditions of thirty years ago if he had had any knowledge of the facts. The power of thirty years ago was the power of billeting on private houses in times of peace, and now it is only proposed that the power shall be exercised in times of great national emergency. May I point out that the only alternative is to provide barracks for the men everywhere we may possibly want to have them stationed; and I am perfectly certain the taxpayers—both of this country and of Ireland—would refuse to incur the enormous expenditure which that would entail.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I should not have intervened if it had not been for the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for East Down. The hon. and gallant Member does not speak for the province of Ulster or the North of Ireland. He said the whole of the North of Ireland, with the exception of one black spot in South Down, agreed with him. There happened to be 33 Members returned for the province of Ulster, and the hon. Member belongs to a small band of 13, which is only a minority of its entire representation. Instead of representing the whole of the province, they represent only a corner, and, if it would not be unparliamentary, I would describe them as the "Corner Boys of Ulster." Even the great and loyal city of Belfast provides one black spot.
Captain CRAIG: May I point out that it is only a very temporary black spot.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: All I can say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that there are a lot of temporary black spots. There are four in Donegal.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order. It has nothing to do with the Amendment how many black spots there are in Ireland.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: I am only pointing out that the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to speak for the province of Ulster, and, as another Ulster Member, I may be allowed to say that altogether we have got about 18 black spots. The Under-Secretary to the War Office said the effect of this clause will only be to empower billeting in Ireland in the case of a national emergency. But we are always in a national emergency. At the present moment we are in a national emergency. Hon. Members above the Gangway are fond of telling us that they are afraid that the Empire will go to pieces

1083
unless we have eight "Dreadnoughts." We do not know how soon the same argument may be used in favour of billeting these soldiers in Ireland because of some other national emergency. We have got historic memories not only of an unpleasant but of a hideous character in Ireland, and no man who has given even cursory attention to the history of Ireland can pretend ignorance of the dislike of billeting which exists in every corner of Ireland, and in no part more bitterly than in the Constituency of the hon. and gallant Member, which, in 1798, suffered as much from billeting as any part of Ireland. This does involve a startling departure from what has hitherto been the practice. Billeting has up to the present been confined to licensed premises. I am not concerned about that. Licences are granted subject to that condition, and those who apply for licences know what they are asking for when they make their application. I say it is intolerable that the military authorities should have the right to billet soldiers on private individuals. Government after Government has laid it down that Ireland cannot be trusted with volunteers—you cannot even trust Ireland with your new Territorials. Every Secretary of State for War comes up with a new Army scheme, and almost before we have had time to tell him that it will not do, we get a new one; but never yet has any War Secretary proposed that Ireland should have a Volunteer or Territorial force. As they have not given us that privilege, I think the Government might at least spare us the operation of billeting. In the meantime we are entitled to point out that you deny to Ireland the right to have a citizen Army—
An HON. MEMBER: What would you do with it if you had it?
Mr. MacVEAGH: We would see what we would do with it when we have it. I was saying that you deny to Ireland the right to have a citizen army, and, that being so, we object to the penalties that a billeting scheme would impose upon us.

Division No. 60.]

AYES.

[2.32 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bowles, G. Stewart

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Brace, William

Corbett. C H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brodie, H. C.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Beale, W. P.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Beauchamp, E.

Byles, William Pollard

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.),

Bennett, E. N.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Duckworth, Sir James

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Black, Arthur W.

Clough, William

Essex, R. W.

Sir W. COLLINS: There is some similarity between the case of Ireland and the case of London in this matter. The police in London are not as they are in places in the provinces, under popular control. I hope it may be possible in the case of London (in view of the peculiar position of the police authority) to secure that the convenience of householders with regard to billeting shall be respected, and to set up a reference to the London County Council in the same way as householders in the provinces have some popular authority to appeal to.
Mr. HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the General Instructions shall be laid upon the Table of the House?
Mr. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Caldwell, are we discussing England now?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is limited to Ireland.
Mr. HAZLETON: Before this matter goes to a Division, I desire to protest against the offhand manner in which both the Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for War have dealt with this question. They seem to consider that it is a matter of no importance whatever and that it can be disposed of in the cavalier fashion in which they have sought to dispose of it in this debate. I tell them that this is a question which will come up again. Most pf the members of the Irish party have left the House; but we who remain here intend to press the matter to a Division and to bring it before this House on every possible occasion.
Mr. REMNANT: The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to London. I do not know whether we shall be in order in saying something upon that aspect of the-question before the Committee.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 19.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Rowlands, J.

Fenwick, Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Ferens, T. R.

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Seely, Colonel

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Micking, Major G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Simon, John Allsebrook

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Stanier, Seville

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Marnham, F. J.

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Mond, A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morpeth, Viscount

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

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

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Hedges, A. Paget

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Verney, F. W.

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

Partington, Oswald

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Henry, Charles S.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Higham, John Sharp

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hills, J. W.

Radford, G. H.

Wiles, Thomas

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wilkie, Alexander

Horniman, Emslie John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Jardine, Sir J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

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

Jenkins, J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Robinson, S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

NOES.

Bowerman, C. W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Summerbell, T.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Macpherson, J. T.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Doughty, Sir George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Nicholls, George

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Hogan, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Hudson, Walter

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hazleton and Mr. Mooney.

Kilbride, Denis

Seddon, J.

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

Captain CRAIG: I do not propose to move the next Amendments which stand in my name, but I do desire to raise the one dealing with billeting. Now I am thoroughly in favour of billeting, and the only fault I have to find with this clause is that throughout it the right hon. Gentleman refers to "occupiers," and not to "owners." The object of my Amendment to this clause is to make it obligatory on the owners of houses which may not be occupied for the time being to permit the buildings to be used for the purposes of billeting. Take the case mentioned under sub-head A of this particular clause. It provides that it shall have reference not only to public buildings, but to barns and stables, and the occupiers thereof. The point I wish to make is that the occupiers of barns and stables would not always come within the meaning intended to be applied by the right hon. Gentleman, and I would throw out to the right hon. Gentleman a suggestion that he should appeal to the Committee to allow him to make the necessary Amendment in no fewer than five parts of this clause, I beg to move.
Amendment proposed, clause 7, page 5. line 1, after "occupiers" to insert "and owners."—[Captain Craig.]
Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
Mr. HALDANE: I would suggest that in the context the meaning of the word is quite clear. The object of 'the clause is this: that when the owner and the occupier are separate persons one, of course, deals with the tenant in possession, and when there is no tenant in possession then the owner would be deemed to be the occupier because nobody else is in possession. Therefore, for the purpose of this context I am satisfied that the right expression has been used. You want to deal simply with the question of occupation, and the question of occupation is constructive occupation.
Mr. BOWLES: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's explanation amounts to this: That in his opinion "occupiers" in this clause means "occupiers or owners." That being so what can be the objection to putting in these words?
Mr. HALDANE: You want to know with whom you have to deal, and you have to deal with the occupier.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 105.

Division No. 61.]

AYES.

[2.45 a.m.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hogan, Michael

Renwick, George

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kilbride, Denis

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

Seddon, J.

Dalrymple, Viscount

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

Stanier, Beville

Doughty, Sir George

Macpherson, J. T.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir Mitchell-Thomson and Mr.Remnant.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mooney, J. J.

Hazleton, Richard

Morpeth, Viscount

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hedges, A. Paget

Ridsdale, E. A.

Baltour, Robert (Lanark)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Henry, Charres S.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Beauchamp, E.

Higham, John Sharp

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Bennett, E. N.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Robinson, S.

Black, Arthur W.

Horniman, Emslle John

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Bowerman, C. w.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Brace, William

Hudson, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brodie, H. C.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Rowlands, J.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jardine, Sir J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyns)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Jenkins, J.

Seely, Colonel

Byles, William Pollard

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Clough, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lupton, Arnold

Summerbell, T.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

M'Micking, Major G.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Duckworth, Sir James

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Marnham, F. J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Elibank, Master of

Mond, A.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Essex, R. W.

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Everett, R. Lacey

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Wiles, Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Nicholls, George

Wilkie, Alexander

Ferens, T. R.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan;

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wilts, Arthur Walters

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Partington, Oswald

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

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Radford, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Mr. Fuller.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Mr. MOONEY Mr. MOONEY moved in sub-section 3, section (b) to omit the words "and for the reference to a justice of the peace in subsection (7) of section 108 there shall be substituted a reference to a court of summary jurisdiction." He said: I would not have troubled the Committee with an Amendment of this kind if the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend behind me had been accepted. If the clause only dealt with England I would not have very much to say about it, but there are two points raised by this sub-section. Over and over again the right hon. Gentleman has told us he could not accept Amendments, because he stated that the wording of the clause had been most carefully considered, and there was not the least possible chance of a loophole of escape. The right hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of English law, but he is now embarking on Irish law, and I do not think he had that in his mind quite when he or his Parliamentary draftsmen drafted this section, because the ques-
1088
tion of what is a court of summary jurisdiction is probably one of the most difficult things you can find in Irish legal annals. Every year this House passes an Act, and every Act passed for Ireland sets up a new court of summary jurisdiction in that country. You have therefore to be very careful when you are referring to a court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland to define what court you mean. I do not understand why the power which is at present given by the Army (Annual) Act to a justice of the peace should be taken away. I gather that at present if he has reason to think a constable is exercising the powers of billeting unduly or unfairly he may require him to give an account of numbers of officers and soldiers and their horses billeted on public buildings; and if that is so, in the case of billeting as applied to public buildings only, I think there is a much stronger reason when you are billeting on private houses for having some check on the power of the constable. By this Bill

1089
you take away the power from the individual of going to a justice of the peace and tell him he must go to a court of summary jurisdiction. I do not think that is a proper procedure, and the principal reason I move my Amendment is that I would like to know what is a court of summary jurisdiction in the case of Ireland. There are about 17 different courts of summary jurisdiction there, and I would like to know to which of them you are to go. Are you to go to the court set up by the Dublin Act or to the court set up by the General Act, or to the court set up by the purely Irish local Acts? One of the courts of summary jurisdiction under the Irish Act may be one justice of the peace sitting by himself in a public place or a court house. That would be going back to the old way of going to a justice of the peace. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be very careful in dealing with courts of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. I object to the safeguard being taken away from the individual who thinks he is being unfairly treated by the method of billeting of being able to go to a justice of the peace and to his being obliged to go before a court of summary jurisdiction. I also object to this power being given to the constable. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to make this section palatable by stating in the Memorandum which he has issued that the clause proposes that the duty of selecting the house and the men to be billeted should belong to the chief officer of police, and that there would be public control over him, because he is responsible to the watch committee or the police committee. That may be so in England, but it is not so in Ireland. The police authority in Ireland under this section would be the county inspector, and he would never bother his head about it. The thing would therefore be done by the head constable. It is too big a power to put in the hands of a head constable. You have no right to put such a power in the hands of such subordinate officials. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has sufficiently considered the question of what is a court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland, and therefore I would ask him to accept my Amendment, which would leave things exactly as they are.
Mr. HALDANE: I do not think the hon. Member has quite recognised the trouble which has been taken to get this thing out. Our object was to get a stronger court than might be ordinarily obtained if you merely have a justice of the peace. The hon. Member knows that the sub-section
1090
referred to in the clause says a justice of the peace may require a constable to give an account in writing of the number of officers and soldiers and their horses billeted by such constable, together with the names of the victualling houses. It occurred to us it might be insufficient protection for the subject. A justice of the peace might be a person with strong military views, and we thought it better that a subject should have the right of going to a stronger court. Accordingly, we have made an Amendment saying it should be a court of summary jurisdiction, as defined by 166 of the Army Act, sub-section 5. That sub-section provides that a court of summary jurisdiction when hearing and determining cases under the Army Act, shall be constituted by two or more justices of the peace sitting at some court or public place, or by some magistrate or officer sitting alone, or with others, at some court or place appointed for the public administration of that justice. Our purpose was to have the proceedings in some public court where reporters may be present.
Mr. MOONEY: You are taking away the chance of going before a public justice of the peace and going before a stipendiary magistrate, where the public cannot go.
Mr. HALDANE: He must be sitting at some court or place appointed for the public administration of justice. The tribunal within the meaning of the section is not qualified unless sitting at a court or place appointed for the public administration of justice. I think we have really done the very best we could.
Mr. KILBRIDE: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has paid any attention to the administration of the Act of Edward III. during the last two years in Ireland. He must be aware that sane people have been sent to gaol under the Act by a court of summary jurisdiction sitting in places which were not public courts of justice. Where were these places? They were not public courts of justice. Very often it was the private house of the resident magistrate himself. There is nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman has read out—nothing as the section stands—which would prevent anybody being brought before the resident magistrate in his own house. Such a thing would not be tolerated in England. It may be the law in England, but if it is it is more respected in the breach than in the observance. But we are accustomed to resident magistrates in Ireland, and it is

1091
because of our knowledge of them that my hon. Friend has raised his objection and moved his Amendment. There is no analogy between the administration of the law in Ireland and in England. The police in Ireland under an Act of Edward III. every day bring men before the resident magistrate sitting in his own house. That is the recognised place for exercising summary jurisdiction.
Mr. HALDANE: We are not proceeding under that Act of Edward III. We are proceeding under a special section of the Army Act, which requires that the application should be made to a magistrate sitting alone or with others at some court or other place appointed for the administration of justice. The second point is that this is a case in which you may apply to any justice you like, or to any petty sessions or magistrates to compel the officer to give an account in writing of the soldiers and houses which the constable is billeting, and if you like one tribunal in preference to the other, you are entitled to resort to it. This is a kind of check which is given by the calling in of the intervention of the court, and, when you do that, it is in some public place. I really think that whatever may be said about the Act of Edward III., this section of the Army Act will make a considerable improvement.
Mr. MOON EY: Any Acts in recent times have been so complicated that it has always been found best when setting up a court of summary jurisdiction to say under which Summary Jurisdiction Act you are setting it up. Cases affecting the rights of individuals have in recent times been known to be tried in police barracks, or in a back room to which the public have not had access. The resident magistrates have held courts in their own houses, and that action has been upheld. You are again putting these people under the power of the Act of Edward III. That does not get over the difficulty. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would get over the difficulty by making it clear that the proceedings will be under the Summary Jurisdiction Ireland, 1897, Act.
Mr. HALDANE: If the applicant does not like the resident magistrate he can go to the bench of magistrates.
Mr. HAZLETON: I am sorry to have to continue the complaints which I have been making against the right hon. Gentleman since 3 o'clock yesterday, but I must say
1092
that I think that every speech he has delivered has been more reactionary and democratic than the last. I do not wish at all to impeach the motives with which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward his defence of the clause which we are now considering; but I do say this, that there will be—rightly and justly—very far-reaching suspicion in Ireland as to what have been the motives of the Government in making this proposal. Under the existing law the people can appeal, if they feel aggrieved, to a justice of the peace. You are seeking by this proposal to remove that power from the people, and you are seeking to put in its place a court of summary jurisdiction, which may be one resident magistrate. Why is that proposed? I think the reason is that since the Army Act was passed you have adopted in Ireland a Local Government Act under which representatives of the people all over the country—chairmen of county councils and district councils—have been made er-officio justices of the peace, and this Liberal Government, which is so loud in its professions with regard to the democracy comes before the House of Commons, and asks us to go back on that Act, and to deprive justices of the peace in Ireland of their proper jurisdiction.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I am not continuing this debate in any spirit of opposition. My desire is to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to believe for a moment that his Parliamentary draftsman may not know everything. Here is a case where, if you use the words "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" both for this country and for Ireland, you are using an expression which in one case means half a dozen things, and in the other something entirely different. Now the people of Ireland have a grievance with regard to the way in which courts of summary jurisdiction are carried on in Ireland. Some 150 years ago in England courts of summary jurisdiction were held by magistrates in their own houses, but now we have something like reasonable public procedure. There are, however, parts of Ireland where resident magistrates have taken upon themselves to hold courts in barracks and in their own houses, and they deny access thereto to a considerable number of the public. I believe they always make some kind of pretence of admitting some representatives of the public, and that has been held on appeal by the Court of King's Bench to be under such circumstances a court of sum-

1093
mary jurisdiction and to be a place where justice was being publicly administered, although that was obvious that it was nothing of the sort. This Amendment could possibly do no harm to the clause. In Ireland there are many different courts of summary jurisdiction, constituted under a variety of Acts of Parliament. I think if the right hon. Gentleman were a little more conciliatory he would save a good deal of time, but apparently he will not lend an ear to my suggestion, however reasonable and useful, and thereby it is simply prolonging the discussion.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has referred us to a clause in the Army Act, which be suggests gives us perfect protection against any abuse. But the words of which we complain are "Some magistrate or officer sitting alone," and as I gather that may not mean a magistrate at all; a military officer may act. Throughout this debate the right hon. Gentleman has displayed a great deal of suaviter in modo, but at the same time he has given us a little too much fortiter in re. He has not made a single concession, although he might well have met us on many points. I do not know whether it is the object of the right hon. Gentleman to avoid having a report stage, but I do suggest that he saves no time by pursuing this course. I can suggest another reason why he should accept this Amendment. We are considering a very difficult question in connection with the law of Ireland, and we have no Irish law officer present to tell us anything about it I do not know we are much worse off for that, but I do suggest that those learned gentlemen ought to be here, and tell us at least what they do not know about the matter. While we have a profound admiration for the genius of the Secretary of State for War as a member of the English bar, he will, I am sure, excuse us for thinking he knows very little about the law of Ireland. If he did he would understand why this clause meets with so considerable an amount of opposition from us. I entirely fail to see why he should object to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
Mr. HALDANE: We have tried to do the very best we can in drafting this clause. It is not one which puts anybody under the jurisdiction of this tribunal. It is a clause which enables a person who wants information to apply to any tribunal he pleases which has any jurisdiction at all. Under it you may pick your tribunal, and
1094
if a man does not like the tribunal he need not go to it. We thought it better that it should not consist of a single justice of the peace, but that it should be either two justices sitting together in public court, or some magistrate or officer empowered by law to do the work of two or more justices sitting in open court.
Mr. MacVEAGH: What does the word "officer" mean?
Mr. HALDANE: I have said if a man does not like the tribunal he need not go before it.
Mr. MacVEAGH: Then what tribunal is he to go to?
Mr. HALDANE: He is to go either to two justices sitting in open court or to some magistrate or officer. The latter must be an officer empowered to do the work which is done by more than one justice of the peace, and he must be a judicial officer authorised for the purpose. As I have said, we have taken the section in the Army Act, which has been carefully drafted for this purpose.
Mr. MOONEY: It is quite true that an appeal under this section is an appeal by a person who may be aggrieved or who may want to get information. But that is not our point. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that a court of summary jurisdiction must be constituted of two or more justices of the peace, but I venture to point out that the option does not rest with the individual of choosing which tribunal he shall go before. He may be compelled to go before a resident magistrate, who will not call in the assistance of another magistrate, but will insist on sitting alone. We want to avoid compelling an individual with a grievance to go before a resident magistrate, who will sit where he likes. I do think there should be some clearer definition of this provision.
Mr. HALDANE: If the hon. Member will read section 166 he will see that it is provided that any proceedings taken before a court of summary jurisdiction in pursuance of this Act shall be taken in accordance with the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
Mr. MOONEY: That is my point. We want a definition of what is a court of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. During the last few years such courts have been constituted under many different Acts, and I

1095
am asking for a clear definition of the term. Why cannot you define the Act by saying the Act of 1879, of 1884, or of 1852, but whatever you do, take away this power for one individual to sit in summary fashion without hearing evidence at all.

Division No. 62.]

AYES.

[3.29 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Haworth, Arthur A.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Hedges, A. Paget

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Beauchamp, E.

Henry, Charles S.

Robinson, S.

Bennett, E. N.

Higham, John Sharp

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Black, Arthur W.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Brace William

Horniman, Emstie John

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Brace William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rowlands, J.

Burns, Rt. Hod; John

Hudson, Walter

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seely, Colonel

Byles, William Pollard

Jardine, Sir J.

Sllcock, Thomas Ball

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

Clough, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lewis, John Herbert

Summerbell, T.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lupton, Arnold

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Duckworth, Sir James

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Duncan, C (Barrow-in-Furness)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Elibank, Master of

Marnham, F. J.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Essex, R. W.

Mond, A.

Wiles, Thomas

Everett, R. Lacey

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Wilkie, Alexander

Fenwick, Charles

Nicholls, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ferens, T. R.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, W. (Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Partington, Oswald

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Radford, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

NOES.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Kilbride, Denis

Seddon, J.

Bowerman, C. W.

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

Stanier, Beville

Bowles, G. Stewart

MacCaw, Wm. J. Maceagh

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Macpherson, J. T.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Dalrymple, Viscount

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, s.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Morpeth, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Remnant, James Farquharson

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Mooney and Mr. Hazleton.

Hogan, Michael

Renwick, George

Jenkins, J

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments have been disposed of, and we come, to the next one, in the name of Captain Craig.
Mr. RENWICK: Before that I move to report progress.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must wait until he is called upon. I called upon the hon. Member whose name is on the Paper.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: On a point of order, is it not competent for any Member of this House in Committee to rise to move to report progress?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Member who has the Amendment next on the
1096
Question put: "Clause 7, page 5, line 15, leave out from 'police' to 'but' in line 17. That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 23.
Paper has the first right of being called. If he does not rise, of course, someone else may go on.
Captain CRAIG: As my hon. Friend below me had some difficulty in moving to report progress, I will, instead of moving the next Amendment in my name, move to report progress, on the ground that the Secretary of State for War has not, throughout this long, intricate, and most extraordinary Bill, given way one inch to the Amendments moved from any part of the House. It shows that there is something behind the mere explanations which are given from the Front Bench against these Amendments. I cannot recall any Bill of this magnitude going through the House without the Minister

1097
in charge agreeing to a few of the Amendments. It has been all take and no give since the debate started, although there has not been one frivolous Amendment moved. This Bill, especially as regards clause 4, revolutionises practically the whole office with which the right hon. Gentleman is connected. I do not suppose any Minister has received during his tenure of office such courteous treatment from the Opposition as the right hon. Gentleman has received to - night. Why has the right hon. Gentleman refused all Amendments? Is it to save a Report stage or not? It will shorten debates very much if the right hon. Gentleman will say he cannot and will not take a single Amendment proposed in any part of the House. Then we shall know where we are, and that under no circumstances no matter how wise we are, and how foolish the clause may be, the right hon. Gentleman will not accept any Amendment, and we on these benches must make up our minds to adopt different tactics. If the right hon. Gentleman admits that he will not amend the Bill, so as to save another stage, it means that discussion is absolutely useless, and the whole debate resolves itself into a farce.
Question proposed: "That I report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Craig.]
The PATRONAGE SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. J. A. Pease): Of course I am not prepared to criticise in any way the character of the Amendments which have been moved to this Bill. We desire to meet any fair criticism of the Bill perfectly fairly, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that having had some communication with the leaders of the party in opposition, I offered them a morning sitting with a view to enabling them to discuss this Bill during a reasonable period of the sittings of the House. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Somersetshire whether he thought that would be a satisfactory arrangement, and I understood from him that it would be. If he or any hon. Member opposite had made representations to me that there was a desire for more than an ordinary morning sitting, I should have endeavoured to respond to that demand. It has been our desire that every proposal in this Bill should have proper discussion at a reasonable hour, and we were under the impression that by affording the House a full morning sitting there would be ample opportunity for dis-
1098
cussion. I regret that the Opposition have not thought it necessary to follow the course which was suggested to the Front Opposition Bench, but I am afraid it is absolutely essential that this Bill must be passed through its Committee stage tonight.
Mr. CLAUDE HAY: Without Amendment?
Mr. J. A. PEASE: With regard to Amendment, that must rest between the Secretary of State and the House. The whole discipline of the Army depends upon this Bill being passed through by a certain period of the year, and, having regard to the Easter holidays, it will be necessary for this Bill to be read a first time this day in another place in order that it may be printed and circulated and considered there at the end of the Easter Recess. Therefore, we are obliged, I am sorry to say, to sit up to-night in order that the remaining clauses of the Bill may be passed through, and I trust there will be no undue delay in passing this Bill.
Mr. MOONEY: This is not an ordinary Army (Annual) Bill, and, even if it were, the hon. Gentleman must remember that a very considerable amount of time has been taken up by the old Army (Annual) Bills, which practically renewed the same provisions year after year. There was no more stout opponent of that Bill than the present Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Colonel SEELY: I regret that I should have said anything to create any misunderstanding. I said that on the occasion when we obstructed the Army (Annual) Bill we did it for a definite purpose of party policy; but, as my right hon. Friend has just explained, there was an understanding with the chief Opposition Whips, and that was the only reason for any interruption. I would be the last to make any charge of bad faith against hon. Gentlemen opposite, but there was a distinct understanding with the chief Opposition Whip that, if the Bill had a morning sitting and was fully discussed, there should be no undue delay in its passing into law.
Mr. MOONEY: I am glad the hon. Gentleman does not say that we have made any bargain. We made no bargain. The hon. Gentleman talks about obstruction, but any Amendment which I put down was not put forward with the intention of obstructing the Bill. All I did was to put down Amendments which I thought fair

1099
and reasonable; and I do not think it is fair to say that the Bill, which makes hay with the old Army Act, should go through after a few hours' discussion when the old Bill itself occasionally took the whole day. It makes a complete revolution in our Army system; and yet, when we bring forward perfectly reasonable Amendments, and in no spirit of obstruction, we are met by the right hon. Gentleman, who says he has considered this and has considered that and will not do it. I do not think he is going the best way about to get his Bill through quickly, and I really think we ought to report progress. If my hon. Friend had not moved to report progress I should have done so on another ground, because the Bill makes a complete revolution in police administration in Ireland, and there is no official representative—neither the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General, nor the Solicitor-General for Ireland, here: On that ground, I should have moved to report progress if my hon. Friend had not done so.
Mr. REMNANT: I strongly resent the very unnecessary remark by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. The Chief Government Whip, in terms with which no one could find fault, led us to imagine that some arrangement had been made with our own Whips on this side. All I can say is that until he mentioned it a few minutes ago I had never heard of any such arrangement having been made with anybody on this side of the House; and for the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to call across the floor of the House that a bargain was made and had been broken—
Colonel SEELY: I did not say it had been broken.
Mr. REMNANT: What was your objection then?
Colonel SEELY: I am sure I would be the last to endeavour to bring heat at this time into the debate. The hon. Gentleman opposite was referring to me and accusing me of having caused the delay during the debates on the Army (Annual) Acts in previous years. Do not let us have any misunderstanding. In order to avoid any, may I say at once that I did not suggest that there was any breach of bargain, nor did I say one word to suggest it.
Mr. REMNANT: Why did you mention the word "bargain"?
Colonel SEELY: I said that on the occasion mentioned, when we had been fighting the Army (Annual) Act, there had been no bargain, whereas we had just heard that there was a bargain. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that there was an arrangement made through the ordinary channels that the debate should not continue beyond ordinary limits. If that is not the case, or hon. Gentlemen opposite did not understand it was, I at once withdraw any imputation of that kind. I thought it was fully understood that there was a sort of undertaking that we should not sit too late. I assure the hon. Gentleman I wish to say nothing offensive to him or his hon. Friends.
Mr. REMNANT: I could not understand the cause or reason of the hon. Gentleman's throwing the charge of breach of faith across the floor of the House, and neither can I understand his long and rambling explanation. I am, however, quite sure we may leave ourselves in your hands, Mr. Emmott. As an hon. Member has pointed out, it is useless bringing forward any Amendments. They will not be accepted. No concession has been made during the whole course of the debate. I had assumed that after what the Chief Government Whip has said there would have been a strong disposition to accept the inevitable, but after the insulting remark of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies—
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): I do not think the hon. Member should use that expression with regard to what the Under-Secretary for the Colonies has said. It is said that a bargain had been made with certain hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who-are not present, and who are therefore carrying out their part of the bargain.
Mr. REMNANT: I do not think you understand, Sir. He pointed to us and said a bargain had been made.
Colonel SEELY: I have already said that if the hon. Gentleman opposite knew nothing of this arrangement I will unreservedly withdraw any imputation I may have made. However angry he may be with me, I refuse to be angry with him.
Mr. REMNANT: Of course, I accept what the hon. Member has said—namely, that he did not mean what he said, and that he did not mean to insult in any way. May I ask the Chief Government Whip one question? Will he say whether any undertaking was given by our Whips on this side that this debate was not to be prolonged in this way?
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I cannot say there was any bargain in the sense which was perhaps in the minds of the hon. Members when the word was used. But my recollection of the understanding with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Somerset is that if we gave a morning sitting to the Army (Annual) Bill in Committee it would be all right. I understood that, at any rate, there would be no prolonged discussion beyond the morning sitting. I cannot say more.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: Whatever arrangement may have been made by occupants of the Front Benches, nobody will suggest that there was any arrangement with the Irish Members or with the Labour Members. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we cannot be taken as consenting parties to this Bill, and that we must exert strenuous opposition. I support the Motion to report progress. I do so the more readily because I so seldom agree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Down, and I cannot resist the opportunity on this occasion. And I cannot resist the temptation to agree with him on this occasion because he really made a sensible speech. I will suggest a way out of the difficulty which has arisen. As the Secretary of State for War does not want to accept any Amendment, I suggest that he should tell us now that when the Bill gets to the other place he will have this billeting business for Ireland struck out of the Act. If he will tell us that we shall be quite satisfied. We do not want this billeting in Ireland. We have been here now for 16 hours. I was tired over an hour ago, when I remembered that in another eight hours we have to be down here again. If there is no consideration for Members of this House, surely the officials of the House should be considered ! I would urge the right hon. Gentleman, with the object of bringing these proceedings to a close and of letting everybody go home perfectly satisfied, to give us the undertaking that I have suggested. This is a most important Bill, but there is nobody on the Front Ministerial Bench to represent either Ireland or Scotland, and even on the Front Opposition Bench there is not a soul to be seen. All the Members identified with the Front Opposition Bench are slumbering peacefully at the present moment, and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway are without a leader. I think the right hon. Gentleman should give the
1102
undertaking in the interests of peace and of the dignity of this House.
Mr. HALDANE: The hon. Member who has made such a good-humoured and conciliatory speech has done something to help the situation. Let me say at once that I hope my attitude has not appeared discourteous or unreasonable. I have tried to do my best on the question relating to a possible outbreak of war and provision for billeting in Ireland. I cannot alter my attitude. After all the difficulty as to that is this, that Ireland is an integral part of the defences of the country, and we are trying to make our system of mobilisation more adequate than it has been. On the subsidiary point whether we have taken the best machinery with regard to the matter of summary jurisdiction, I will undertake to consult the Irish Law Officers as to whether we have been right or wrong before this Bill appears in another place, and if I am told we are wrong then I will take care that Amendments are brought forward as Government Amendments in the other House. There are one or two further points which I will consider in the same way. My personal impression is that I have been right in the course adopted. Anyhow, if the Committee will let this Bill go through as it stands I will undertake to have the conclusions I have referred to revised, and if there is anything dubious I will arrange for such Amendments as will meet the justice of the case.
Mr. REN WICK: In the course of this debate there have been two or three suggestions that we have disregarded an arrangement. We never heard a single word about any arrangement. I do not think I can be accused of obstruction. I have not put a single Amendment down on the Paper; but I considered that there were several most important Constitutional changes proposed in this Bill, and I felt it my duty to criticise them. So serious are these Amendments that hon. Members will be surprised when they see the effect of them. I am equally surprised at the proposal that we should hurry this Bill through the House without discussion in order that it may be adequately debated in another place. I maintain that this is the proper place for discussing a measure of this description and I confess I am somewhat astonished at this testimonial from the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the efficacy of another place for debating Bills of this nature. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us now to

1103
adjourn. We have several other important Amendments to bring forward. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges there may be points which require further discussion, and he says he will arrange to have them dealt with in another place. But what opportunity shall we have of considering them? I can assure him there is no desire on our part to retard this Bill. I, for one, would far rather help him to carry it through, but I do think it requires further consideration and that the House is not in a fit condition to give it that consideration this night.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I must express my surprise that when our whips were here at a quarter-past eight nothing was said about the arrangement which we are now told was come to. We fully acknowledge the great courtesy of the Secretary to the Treasury, who has admitted that there really was no bargain made. We acknowledge, too, that the action of the Government in setting apart a morning sitting for the consideration of this Bill was something out of the common for which we ought to be grateful. But in this particular Bill there are two matters of vital importance as well as absolutely new. One is the question of transport and the other is the new proposal as to billeting. Hon. Members opposite. who have shown themselves rather restive should do us the justice to remember that it would have been the easiest possible thing for any of us to have put down 30 or 40 new clauses, not one of which could possibly have been disposed of, even with the aid of the Closure, under half-an-hour, and had we been minded to obstruct the Bill we could have prolonged the debate over Good Friday. There ought, therefore, to be equal courtesy shown on both sides. Now the question of billeting is a very important one. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War has been discourteous, but may he not have shown himself a little obstinate? If only he had been prepared to make some concessions at an earlier stage I do not think this debate would have lasted so long.
Mr. HAY: I wish also to join in the appeal for an adjournment of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that this Bill is one of the greatest importance. He has also stated that it is absolutely necessary for the effective defence of Great Britain and Ireland that it should be passed, and surely, under
1104
such circumstances, he could not expect it to go through in the course of one afternoon. I have had no knowledge of any bargain or understanding between the sides of the House and I do not think I can fairly be accused of being guilty of any breach of understanding. I would put forward one further reason for adjourning the debate. When the original understanding was come to that the Bill should be taken to-day it had not been printed, and it is only since then that we have been enabled to realise the im mensity of the proposals embodied in it. We now see that it requires close scrutiny and full and careful discussion, and I do think it is a pretty tall order for any Minister to come down with a Bill like this and practically say, "I refuse to accept any Amendment of any sort or kind, big or small; you must leave it in my hands and I alone will make any alteration I may think fit." That is not what we deem to be Parliamentary discussion, and I am perfectly confident, when the proceedings of to-night are made public, the country will realise for the first time the importance of the changes which are being thrust upon it with regard to military organisation—changes which seriously trench on the rights of the people.
Mr. BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War throughout this debate has shown the greatest possible courtesy to us on this side, and nobody, I am sure, would desire to minimise the efforts he has made to deal fairly by us. But the situation is this: The right hon. Gentleman and we ourselves must realise that the House of Commons, in dealing with this Bill, is placed, through the action of the Government, in a position of absolute incapacity. That is a position for which the Government is responsible and in which the House of Commons ought not to be put. It is not reasonable. It is in fact an impossible situation from the point of view of the House itself, that, on a Bill like this, which makes great and far-reaching changes in the law, the House should be absolutely prevented from dealing in any way, good or bad, with the provisions of the Bill. It is reducing Parliamentary discussion to an absolute farce.
While the right hon. Gentleman may be wrong, while there may be some matters in which he himself may wish to see this Bill amended, the situation is such that he is unable to make any Amendment, and if it is to be made at all, it must be made by Noble Lords in another place. I do

1105
not see, in these circumstances, what earthly good can be served by prolonging the discussion on this Bill. We do not stay here till this hour in the morning to amuse ourselves. I have sat here with the hope, it may have been a vain hope, that some of the arguments which we have brought forward might prevail. Now the House is told that, however forcible the arguments may be, this Bill is to be taken as it stands. I think, and I believe the House itself thinks, and I am sure the country will think, that the House of Commons ought not to be absolutely gagged, tied, and bound on a Bill of this sort.
Mr. HAZLETON: I think it is only right that the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood should be noticed from these Benches. I quite agree with what he has said about the country and the right hon. Gentleman, but hon. Members have felt it their duty, not from any motives of obstruction, but honestly, and on their merits, to oppose certain proposals in this Bill. In regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newry, the right hon. Gentleman has at least weakened in his attitude, but while acknowledging that, I would like to point out that that is only one detail in regard to clause 7, to which we are, on its merits, unalterably opposed.
Mr. MARKHAM: Year by year we get to the same pass on this Army (Annual) Bill, and I entirely agree with a great part of what the hon. Member for Norwood has said. Cannot the Government so divide the time that Amendments which are reasonable can be accepted. We all know the difficulty which the Secretary

Division No. 63.]

AYES.

[4.25 a.m.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hogan, Michael

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bowies, G. Stewart

Kilbride, Denis

Stanier, Beville

Dalrympte, Viscount

MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macpherson, J. T.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Captain Craig and Mr. Remnant

Hazleton, Richard

Remnant, James Farquharson

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Beauchamp, E.

Crooks, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Bennett, E. N.

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Black, Arthur W.

Duckworth, Sir James

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Bowerman, C W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Hedges, A. Paget

Brace, William

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen)

Brodie, H. C.

Elibank, Master of

Henry, Charles S.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Essex, R. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

Everett, R. Lacey

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Byles, William Pollard

Fenwick, Charles

Horniman, Emslie John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

Fuller, John Michael F.

Hudson, Walter

Clough, William

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Illingworth, Percy H.

of State for War is in, and that if he accepts any Amendment he has to go through the report stage. It is exactly the same whichever party is in power. If the Government can see their way to get rid of this system and make the House the deliberative assembly which it ought to be, it will be a good thing.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: So far as I am able I shall be very glad to communicate with the various parties in the House, another year with the approval of the Prime Minister, and try to make arrangements by which more reasonable opportunities may be given to the Amendment of the Bill than appear to have been given this year.
Mr. J. MacVEAGH: It would be churlish not to acknowledge the courtesy of the Secretary of State for War. We have secured two satisfactory results from this discussion. We have the satisfactory assurance just given, and we have the assurance that the position with regard to Ireland will be considered. At the same time I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood in regard to placing this House in a position of inferiority to the House of Lords. That is a practice which should not be encouraged. The fact that we are told that these Amendments can be made by the House of Lords weakens the demand made by the hon. Gentlemen opposite that the House of Lords shall be abolished.
Question put, "That I report progress and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee divided. Ayes, 15; Noes, 107.

Jardine, Sir J.

Partington, Oswald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Jenkins, J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Summerbell, T.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Radford, G. H.

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

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

Levy, Sir Maurice

Ridsdale, E. A.

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lupton, Arnold

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Robinson, S.

Wiles, Thomas

M'Micking, Major G.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Wilkie, Alexander

Markham, Arthur Basil

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Marks, G Croydon (Launceston)

Rowlands, J.

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Marnham, F. J.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Mond, A.

Seddon, J.

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

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Seely, Colonel

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

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

Silcock, Thomas Bali

Nicholls, George

Simon, John Allsebrook

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Captain CRAIG: The unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves with regard to Amendments places me in an awkward position. As the Government have announced that they will not, or cannot, accept any Amendment, I shall not obstruct the time of the Committee by moving any more Amendments. It was a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not let us know earlier in the evening that it was waste of time to move these Amendments. Had he done so I certainly should not have moved some I have moved. The right hon. Gentleman has now led the Committee to understand that Amendments are so much waste of breath, because no matter how sound they may be they will not be accepted by the Government. I take that as a very grave state of affairs, but I bow to the inevitable, and do not propose to move any more Amendments standing in my name.
Question proposed: "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. HAY: I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take steps to lay upon the Table of the House shortly after the passing of this Bill the Instructions which will be issued by the police authorities with reference to billeting, and also a statement showing the prices to be paid to the occupier?
Mr. HALDANE: I have consulted with the Home Secretary, and he thinks we shall be able to meet the hon. Gentleman with regard to the police Instructions. It will require a little consideration whether any general Instructions are to be given, but it looks as though the general Instructions in sub-section (b) would be of such a character that they could be laid on the Table.
Mr. HAY: May I ask whether these White Papers will be laid this Session?
Mr. HALDANE: I hope so.
Mr. RENWICK: May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman? In this clause there are two scales of payment for billeting. Surely it would only be fair to put the two classes on the same basis. I cannot see why we should differentiate in this way. I say that as an act of justice to the victualling houses they should both be put into the same category.
Mr. HALDANE: We left the matter open because we thought there were certain conditions, such as the lodgers of the inns of a victualling house also being his customer, which should be taken into account.
Mr. J. WARD: I wish to oppose this clause becoming part of the Bill. I do not think it would be right to allow such an alteration in the Constitution to be made without protest. For the first time in the history of the country we are going to pass into law a provision whereby military authorities will have power to billet soldiers, not only on those who hold licences from the State, but on private dwellings at a moment's notice or without any notice at all. I say that is an innovation which the House of Commons ought never to allow without some protest being made. There may be some who think it is quite proper that we should encroach upon the rights of the civilian population and increase the powers of the military authorities in every possible direction, but I am not one of those who believe in that policy at all. I notice that the clause says that the power may be exercised on the embodiment of the Territorial Army. It is not necessary even for the country to be at war for an embodiment either of the whole or part of the Territorial Army to take place. Under certain conditions, when the first reserve is called out

1109
for permanent service, the King by Proclamation can proceed to embody the whole or part of the Territorial Force, and from that moment in that part of the country where they may happen to be embodied they may be quartered, if we pass this clause, not only on public buildings or on licensed victuallers and others who well understand the engagements they entered into in reference to this matter when they took their licence, but the privacy of the home is to be invaded. There need not be any prospect of war at home, and there need be no war in Europe at all to embody the Territorial Army; and yet, immediately on its embodiment, this part of the clause becomes law, and the Territorial Army may be billeted on the citizens. I well remember when the military forces were applied for during the great dispute in the coal trade in Chesterfield in the early nineties. Except for the billeting of non-commissioned officers on the public-houses, the military authorities had no power to billet the private soldiers, and they naturally made their own camping and provisioning arrangements. It would have been a great hardship on the colliers of Chesterfield if they had had quartered on them the military forces called in to threaten, and, it might be, to shoot them. This is a peculiar and most unusual kind of suggestion, and I, at any rate, am going to do all I can to protest against it. I think the House of Commons would be foregoing one of its main privileges if it allowed such a breach of civil rights as this to be enacted without protest. There have been sneers that this is mere obstruction. It is nothing of the kind. I have never stood in opposition to the Government, and do not wish to oppose them now; but I certainly am not going to allow great Constitutional changes of this description to be made without protesting and without taking a Division of this House just because some hon. Gentlemen think it is necessary to support the Government on every possible occasion. I am prepared to use all the forms of the House, and even to sit here a whole week, if I could persuade a sufficient number of Members to do so on this one point, whether the homes of private citizens are liable to be invaded for no national reasons at all. I can quite understand that if there were a great emergency, a possible invasion, or some contingency that one could foresee, all property would become liable to military control. Everybody understands that, and does not object to it, but that is not this clause. It
1110
is on the embodiment of the Territorial Army that this billeting power will apply and, when the first reserve is called up proclamations to embody the whole or part of the Territorial Army can be issued at once. There may be no fear of invasion of this country and no prospect of war within 7,000 miles of these shores, and yet the power of billeting on the private citizen may apply. It ought at least to be limited to occasions of national danger, and this enormous power to invade civil rights and privileges ought not to be allowed to be used except under the strictest conditions. One can see that gradually the military spirit is being put foremost. On whom will the private soldier be quartered? Is he likely to be quartered on the villas in the west end of our towns? Nothing of the sort. The officers, I notice, have to pay for everything, and you may be sure that they will be quartered with people who could afford to quarter them for nothing. But the private soldier is to be billeted for sixpence or ninepence per day. Who is he likely to be quartered with for ninepence per day? Why, of course, it is intended that he should invade the privacy of the working man's home. You are not going to quarter soldiers at ninepence per day in villas or to secure grand quarters for them for the money. No; this is intended as a very serious encroachment on the rights of the working people of this country. There are many other reasons for my objection to this policy. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has already power under certain circumstances of national danger to do what is now proposed. That may be so. If we want a Territorial Army and wish to avoid invasion, let us do the thing properly. Let us provide the men with the means of accommodation, and not drive them to invade the homes of the people. If there is only one man who is prepared to go to a Division with me on this subject, I shall put my views to the test.
Mr. HALDANE: I really think the hon. Member might have taken a little trouble to study the matter before he spoke. He has totally misunderstood the law. This power only existed on a great emergency arising. The first reserves can only be called out in case of imminent national danger and of great emergency. My hon. Friend has not done himself justice in this matter before making his statement.
Mr. MARKHAM: I wish to protest in the strongest possible way against the

1111
waste of time of this Committee by the hon. Member for Stoke. He has spoken time after time. He opposed clause 6, and—
The CHAIRMAN: I think we had better leave clause 6 alone. We are now on clause 7.
Mr. MARKHAM: The hon. Member has not even read the Bill. He has not taken the trouble to read the Act—
Mr. J. WARD: I would ask the hon. Member to mind his own business. I have read the Act, and spent much time and attention on the consideration of this subject. It is only rudeness on the part of the hon. Gentleman to—
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order. That is not a term that should be used across the floor of the House.
Mr. J. WARD (to Mr. Markham): Your impudence led you astray.
Mr. MARKHAM: You have got a swelled head.
The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
Ordered that clause 7 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8—(Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict, c. 58, ss. 175, 176, and 177, as to persons subject to military law).
Ordered that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9—(Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict. c. 58, s. 177, as to persons belonging to Indian and Colonial forces).
Ordered that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10—(Application of Army Act to men of the Reserve forces).
Ordered that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11—(Amendment of 44 and 45 Vict. c. 58, s. 190, as to definition of the expression "Governor").
Ordered that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. HUGH LEA Mr. HUGH LEA moved the following new clause (clause 12): "Nothing in this Act shall in any way be retrospective."
He said: I listened very earnestly to the protestations of the right hon. Gentleman in relation to clause 4, and what he said about matters to be brought before the Army Council. The right hon. Gentleman gave us only his pious opinions. We have
1112
got absolutely no guarantee whatever that his opinions may not be overruled in the first case that comes forward. Turning to Mr. Haldane, the hon. Gentleman said. The first fee I ever paid for a legal opinion was to the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Haldane. It will be competent to introduce this Amendment; it will not interfere with the Act at all, and it is not going to cause the right hon. Gentleman any bother. I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to put in this new clause.
Mr. HALDANE: What the effect of these words would be I cannot tell. There are definition clauses throughout this Act on which the proposed clause might have a very prejudicial effect, and, therefore, I cannot accept it. The best legal opinion has been taken on clause 4, and it is felt that there is nothing in the clause that would prejudice Lieutenant Wood's case, but if I should be wrong in the matter, and Lieutenant Wood's case should seem to be prejudiced by anything in this Bill, I will take steps to put matters right.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I think after the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has given us his assurance on two occasions it should have been frankly accepted. I am very sorry to find this Amendment moved, but it cannot be done seriously. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with Lieutenant Wood's case, and I think it is a pity that this new clause should be moved.
Mr. SEDDON: I think it only fair to my hon. Friend who moved this new clause to say that when he drafted it the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has now given to the House had not been given. I am certain that he will now withdraw it.
Mr. LEA: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That Schedule 1 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. RENWICK: I have handed in an Amendment to rearrange the maximum prices in the first schedule. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he had left the question of prices open, but. according to clause 3, the keeper of a victualling house is to be paid the prices specified in this schedule. I propose to amend those prices. I suggest that instead of allowing 4d. only for a soldier's breakfast the amount shall be 8d., and that, I

1113
think, is small enough. Again, I would give 1s. 10d. for his dinner instead of 11½d., and for his supper 6d. instead of 2½d. I do not, however, wish to press this Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman will give me an assurance that he will reconsider this schedule on these lines, especially in the case of the mobilisation of troops in times of imminent peril, so that the licensed victuallers' remuneration may be fixed by the Army Council.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: I should like to know what is the meaning of the word "maximum." Does it mean that the licensed victualler may be paid an even smaller amount than the price fixed in the schedule? If it does, then I should like to know what is to be the minimum paid.
Mr. HALDANE: Of course, if the licensed victualler will take a smaller amount we shall only be too delighted, but we cannot compel him to do that. I may point out that the schedule of prices was revised the year before last, and considerable changes were made in it, but I can assure the hon. Member for Newcastle I will further consider this matter with an open mind, although I would point out that the prices we propose are by no means inadequate, and that those which he suggests would very nearly double the cost.
Mr. RENWICK: I quite admit that in normal times the schedule is fair and reasonable, but I want to point out that in the event of mobilisation at a time of imminent peril prices of food may be considerably increased, and I do not think that in that case the allowance to the licensed victualler would be sufficient. Under the circumstances I will not press my Amendment.
Mr. HALDANE: I will undertake to consider the whole thing.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: What is the meaning of the note at the foot of the schedule that an officer shall pay for his food? If the note were not there could it reasonably be assumed that he would get it without paying for it? I do suggest that the next time the right hon. Gentleman brings this Bill in, and I hope he will have an opportunity of doing so, unless my friends on this side of the House should come into office, he will leave out such an anachronism as this.
Schedule 1 put and agreed to.
On Schedule 2,
Mr. J. WARD: Will you put from the Chair parts 1 and 2 of this schedule separately? I wish to vote against part 2.
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot put them separately.
Mr. J. WARD: Then I shall have to vote against the whole schedule.
Mr. HAY: I wish to raise a question about the treatment of military offenders. I do not think any provision has been made to treat first offenders separately from other prisoners, as is done in the case of civil prisoners. There is no provision for the treatment of military prisoners in the detention barracks, or for giving them the benefit of the Borstal treatment. I would strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Commissioners in H.M. prisons with a view to that special treatment for first offenders which has proved so successful elsewhere.
Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to make an observation or two in regard to part 2 of this schedule. I know that earlier in the debate the right hon. Gentleman said he did not propose to transfer any important powers from himself to the Army Council, and it was decided that it was on part 2 of the schedule that the matter should be discussed. While there may be some minor powers to be transferred there are some which, from the point of view of the common soldier, are very important. If these are transferred from the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible to this House, to the Army Council which is not, it will be very serious. For instance, in-section 77 of the Memorandum the name of the Secretary of State will be struck out, and it will be the Army Council which will decide the terms of enlistment and the conditions under which a soldier-will have to serve. In section 78 the power will be transferred to the Army Council to decide whether a man shall enter the Reserve and to decide his length of service, and one hundred and one other things, which are very important to a soldier, for his pension depends on them. In section 79 the powers as to fraudulent enlistment and punishment for the same are handed to the Army Council. Then in section 80 the powers of the Secretary of State in regard to false entries on enlistment and the right to revise the sentences are transferred. There are other matters in reference to recruiting and other things where the Secretary of State now has power to vary the conditions. It appears to me that the idea underlying all

1115
this is to deprive this House of opportunities to discuss these matters. I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman requires more time to discuss and decide questions of policy, and that the consideration of details hinders the work of his department, but if we transfer these powers we shall not be able to criticise the right hon. Gentleman as we can now. We may not only lose the power to discuss these details, but we may lose the power to alter the decisions which may be arrived at, for naturally the right hon. Gentleman will consider it his duty to defend the Army Council. That is the reason I want to exclude part 2 of the schedule.
Mr. HALDANE: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have gone very closely into this matter, and my responsibility will not be one whit diminished. The hon. Gentleman says truly that the Minister responsible should be free to devote himself to large administrative policy, but that will not prevent him from looking closely into these matters, for which he will be just as responsible after the passing of this Bill as at the present time.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Emmott) in the chair.
Motion made and Question proposed: "That the Bill be read the third time."
Mr. HAY: I think it a very strong order that the right hon. Gentleman should try to take the third reading now. The House meets again in a few hours, and it will be perfectly easy to take the third reading then. I protest very strongly against rushing the Bill through in this way.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: At any rate, it was a definite understanding with the leaders of the Opposition that the third reading should be taken at this sitting. I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wellington Division of Somersetshire that the third reading must be taken to-night or at the commencement of the proceedings this day, and he said that there would be no difficulty whatever in securing the third reading. Arrangements have been made in that direction, and I hope the House may see its way to give the third reading to-day. In that event the Government have put down no other orders for to-day, save the Motion for the adjournment.
Mr. W. W. RUTHERFORD: As I understand from the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury there was a definite understanding that the third reading should be taken now. I think it is our duty so far as we on these benches are concerned to carry that understanding into effect. It is only where there is no Amendment made in Committee that it is possible under the Standing Orders for this to be done, and this throws some light upon the way in which the matters have been dealt with in Committee. At the same time we have not been informed that there was any such arrangement, but after the explanation just given we are prepared to carry out the bargain, though we certainly think that this is a Bill upon which there ought to have been a proper opportunity of discussion on third reading.
Mr. J. WARD: I wish to protest against this Bill. I have listened to the whole of the debate, and while I have been satisfied with some of the explanations which the right hon. Gentleman has given it does not in any way mitigate the suspicion which I have to the general tendency of the Bill, or alter my opinion that it is in the wrong direction. Yesterday the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean pointed out that the proposal contained in clause 4, transferring an immense amount of authority from the Secretary of State to the nebulous body called the Army Council, had been proposed by the last Government, and that as a consequence the Liberal Opposition criticised the measure to such an extent that it was decided it should not be part of the Army (Annual) Bill. To come back to the conditions previously condemned by the Liberal party when in opposition, and include these novel and unconstitutional principles in a Bill that is to be hurried through the House in a few days, is not the way to treat the House or the supporters of the Government. Under these circumstances I shall do my best to protest against it. I allowed clause 7 to slip through while resenting the interference of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division. If the hon. Member was put up to insult me so as to divert my attention and thus avoid a Division he was successful.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the word "insult" has been flung too often across the floor of the House during the debate.
Mr. J. WARD: The hon. Member's action, however, will not prevent me from going

1117
to a Division on the third reading. I object to many things in the Bill, and two things in particular. The proposed enormous delegation of powers to a nebulous body called the Army Council and the billeting of soldiers on private individuals are quite sufficient reasons to justify me and my friends interested in Liberal principles dividing on the third reading.
Mr. HAZLETON: I opposed this Bill in Committee, and intend to oppose it on the third reading. We regard this, so far as Ireland is concerned, as a very bad Bill indeed. We consider it is setting up a bad precedent in Ireland which the Government will one day regret. We have made our protest, and I hope those who have joined us throughout this debate will force that Motion to a Division.
Mr. HUGH LEA: I rise to add my protest to that of the hon. Member for Stoke. I sincerely hope he will carry the matter to a Division. I look upon the proposal to delegate these powers to the Army Council merely as a corollary to the reactionary ideas embodied in the Territorial Army scheme. Two years ago I viewed with the greatest amount of disfavour the idea of transforming the old Volunteers and Militia into a kind of Territorial body and subjecting them to martial law, which

Division No. 64.]

AYES.

[5.30 a.m.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

Robinson, S.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Hedges, A. Paget

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Beauchamp, E.

Higham, John Sharp

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Bennett, E. N.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Rowlands, J.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Horniman, Emslie John

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Black, Arthur w.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Bowerman, C. W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Seely, Colonel

Brace, William

Jenkins, J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Brodie, H. C.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Stanier, Seville

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Clough, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

Lewis, John Herbert

Summerbell, T.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

M'Micking, Major G.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

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

Crooks, William

Marnham, F. J.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mond, A.

White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonsh.)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Montagu, Hon. E. S.

Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P.

Duckworth, Sir James

Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C (Kincard.)

Wilkie, Alexander

Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

Nicholls, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Essex, R. W.

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

Everett, R. Lacey

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Fenwick, Charles

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

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

Ferens, T. R.

Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Radford, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

NOES.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Macpherson, J. T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. John Ward and Mr. Hazleton.

Kilbride, Denis

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

Seddon, J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

should only apply to soldiers; and here you get invasion of the private individual's home and the delegation of powers to a body of men who cannot be held responsible to this House.
Mr. LUPTON: I entirely agree with the objections made to rushing this important Bill through the House in this way. There is no power to amend it, and I think we, who work for the Government and keep them in power, should receive fair treatment in these matters. Having said that, I think the hon. Member for Stoke and the other Members who say they are going to divide will show greater sense of dignity if they simply walk out of the House. I am at a loss to understand why hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway opposite oppose the Bill. They will have it all their own way when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. Surely they have confidence in the discretion of the Upper House! I cannot understand why they should oppose it. but hon. Members on this side of the House may well object to the way in which so important a measure has been rushed through the House.
Question put: "That this Bill be now read the third time."
The House divided: Ayes, 87; Noes, 7.
Bill read the third time, and passed.
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to move "That this House do meet this day at 12 o'clock."
Mr. HAY: Before that Motion is put I want to be quite clear about arrangements. Is it the intention that no business shall be taken except the Motion for the adjournment for the holidays when we meet to-day?
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: There will be questions and one or two private Members' Bills. There will be no other public business.
Mr. HAY: Does that mean that there will not be any business beyond the Motion for adjournment?
Mr. JOSEPH PEASE: No Government business.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at Eighteen minutes before Six a.m. (7th April).

  Protestants in Malta.
  Protestants in Malta.
  Trunk Telephone (Dublin, Galway, Moate and Athlone).
  Trunk Telephone (Dublin, Galway, Moate and Athlone).
  Post Office (Sorting Office Wages).
  Post Office (Sorting Office Wages).
  Four Courts, Dublin (Heating and Ventilation).
  Four Courts, Dublin (Heating and Ventilation).
  Superannuation (Civil Servants) Bill.
  Superannuation (Civil Servants) Bill.
  Zanzibar and Pemba (Slavery).
  Zanzibar and Pemba (Slavery).
  Naval Conference (Article 34).
  Naval Conference (Article 34).
  Feeble-Minded (Poor Law Institutions).
  Feeble-Minded (Poor Law Institutions).
  Old Age Pensions Act (Amendment).
  Old Age Pensions Act (Amendment).
  Redemption of School Debts.
  Redemption of School Debts.
  British Military Officers (India and Burmah).
  British Military Officers (India and Burmah).
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Department of Agriculture (Ireland).
  Tithe, County Longford.
  Tithe, County Longford.
  National Universities (Ireland).
  National Universities (Ireland).
  Science Instruction (Ireland),
  Science Instruction (Ireland),
  Commercial Education (Ireland).
  Commercial Education (Ireland).
  Grazing Lands, Newport, County Mayo.
  Grazing Lands, Newport, County Mayo.
  Evicted Tenants (Brabazon Estate, County Mayo).
  Evicted Tenants (Brabazon Estate, County Mayo).
  Mrs. S. Hyde's Estate (Ballindangan, County Cork).
  Mrs. S. Hyde's Estate (Ballindangan, County Cork).
  Claremorris Estate (Cloonball, County Mayo).
  Claremorris Estate (Cloonball, County Mayo).
  Taafe Estate (James Mullooly).
  Taafe Estate (James Mullooly).
  Hopkins Estate (Errill, Queen's County).
  Hopkins Estate (Errill, Queen's County).
  Old Age Pension Disallowed (J. W. Boyle, Dungloe).
  Old Age Pension Disallowed (J. W. Boyle, Dungloe).
  Territorial Force (Inoculation against Fever).
  Territorial Force (Inoculation against Fever).
  Army (Annual) Bill.
  Army (Annual) Bill.
  Granite Imported (Scotland).
  Granite Imported (Scotland).
  Masons, Granite Cutters and Polishers (Scotland).
  Masons, Granite Cutters and Polishers (Scotland).
  Steamship "Avala"(Death from Beri-beri).
  Steamship "Avala"(Death from Beri-beri).
  Steamship "Clan Matheson"(Death of Fireman).
  Steamship "Clan Matheson"(Death of Fireman).
  Royal Navy (Alleged Espionage).
  Royal Navy (Alleged Espionage).
  Secondary Schools (Higher Grant).
  Secondary Schools (Higher Grant).
  Enlargement of Schools (London).
  Enlargement of Schools (London).
  Council and Voluntary Schools (Statistics).
  Council and Voluntary Schools (Statistics).
  Education Office Staff.
  Education Office Staff.
  Attendance at Annual Grant Schools (Scotland).
  Attendance at Annual Grant Schools (Scotland).
  Indecent Performances.
  Indecent Performances.
  Bloodhounds for Recapture.
  Bloodhounds for Recapture.