Sitting of 4 March 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Hereford, in the room of John Stanhope Arkwright, esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Lord Balcarres.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Gas Companies (Standard Burner) Bill.

Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [Lords.]
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case
2
of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Manchester Ship Canal [Lords].
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the cases of the Petitions for the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

Swansea Corporation.

Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Fleetwood Gas Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill,
To be read a second time To-morrow.
Windermere District Gas and Water Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.
Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway Bill (by Order),
Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of eleventh Annual General Report of the Department, for the year 1910–11 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
Copy presented of Return of Proceedings of the Irish Land Commission during the month of December, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Order entitled The Labourers (Ireland) Order, 1912 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 7, 1912).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and France respecting Postal Rates between New Zealand and French Oceania. Signed at Paris, 29th December, 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 8, 1912).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and France regulating the Telephone Service between the two countries. Signed at Paris, 5th February, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copy presented of Annual Return of the Territorial Force for the year 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

SOANE'S MUSEUM.
Copy of Statement of the Funds of the Museum of the late Sir John Soane on 5th January, 1912 [by Act].
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney General to the House of Commons on the Tees Conservancy Bill [presented pursuant to Standing Order 175a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION BILL.
Copy presented of Report of the Attorney General to the House of Commons on the Nottingham Mechanics Institution Bill [presented pursuant to Standing Order 175 a]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1912–13 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
Estimate presented showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1913 [by Command]: referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 55.]

NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)— (INSTRUCTION IN IRISH).
Return ordered, "showing how many national schools there are in each junior inspector's district in the counties of Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Clare, Galway, Mayo, Sligo, and Donegal (a) in which the pupils or any number of the pupils can speak Irish, or (b) which are situated in districts in which Irish is spoken by the adult population; and which will also show (1) in how many of these schools the teachers are competent to give instruction through the medium of Irish; (2) in how many of these schools instruction is given

5
through the medium of Irish; (3) in how many schools in such Irish-speaking or semi-Irish-speaking districts Irish is taught as an extra, subject; and (4) in how many schools in such Irish-speaking or semi-Irish-speaking districts Irish is neither used as a medium of instruction nor taught as an extra subject."—[Mr. Nannetti.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Palmyra Island.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he had any information leading him to believe that the Island of Palmyra had been annexed by the United States of America Government; whether this island was British and administered by a British deputy-commissioner; and what steps he intended taking to protect British interests?
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any official information to show that the United States Government had taken, steps to officially assert its sovereignty over Palmyra Island; whether Palmyra Island was correctly described in the Admiralty sailing directions as having been formally annexed to Great Britain by Commander Nichols, of Her Majesty's ship "Cormorant," on 28th May, 1889; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government proposed to address any representation on the subject to the Government of the United States?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): I have no official information that the United States Government have taken any steps to assert a claim to Palmyra Island. A British Protectorate over that Island was declared in 1889 in connection with the Pacific cable. A re-survey was made in 1897 when another island was found to be more suitable for the purposes of a landing station. Palmyra was thereupon abandoned, and His Majesty's Government have taken no further interest in it.
  Mr. LLOYD: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries to obtain information on the subject?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have given the information in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. LLOYD: Will he not get information as to the authenticity of the rumour?
  Mr. ACLAND: Oh, yes.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is Palmyra a British island or is it not?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must leave the hon. Member to form his own judgment from the answers I have given. I take it that Palmyra was abandoned by the British Government, and that we have taken no further interest in it.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the island is of value and whether it is inhabited?
  Mr. ACLAND: I cannot deny that the island is of value, because I believe it was once sold for the sum of one dollar. Nor can I deny that it is inhabited, but it is only by crabs.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the description in the Admiralty sailing directions incorrect?
  Mr. ACLAND: I cannot add to the answers I have give.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the description in the Admiralty sailing directions now be withdrawn?
  Mr. ACLAND: Any necessary alterations will be made.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will put a question to the Admiralty.

  Animal Diseases.
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the uncertainty that prevailed on the subject of anthrax, he would consider the advisability of appointing a committee to inquire into anthrax and its causes?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): I do not think that the occasion has arisen for the appointment of a Departmental Committee. Careful and continuous investigations are being carried on by the Veterinary Staff of the Board, and I think that for the present we may be content to await the issue of their investigations and the results of the operation of the Anthrax Order of 1910, which has been in force for little more than twelve months.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board of Agriculture proposed to bring in any legislation to compel ships to carry hides in a part isolated from the rest of the cargo

  7
  when it was known that the hides came from a country where foot-and-mouth disease or anthrax existed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the hon. Member is aware, a Departmental Committee is at present considering whether any further measures can be adopted to prevent the recurrence of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. I think it will be desirable to postpone any legislation that may be necessary in this connection until the Committee has reported.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board of Agriculture could give the names of the ports at which the carcases of calves were landed in this country without their heads or hooves but with their skins on; and if these carcases come from countries where foot-and-mouth disease now existed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have no recent information on this subject, which is, as I understand, engaging the attention of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
  Mr. STANIERasked whether the Board of Agriculture were going to carry out any experiments on animals affected with tumours on the lines of those carried out by Dr. Von Hausemann in Germany; and whether the Board had issued any information on this subject?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No such experiments are at present contemplated by the Board. I understand, however, that experiments with malignant tumours in animals are carried out by means of the Cancer Research Fund. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent serious outbreak of anthrax among both human beings and farm animals in this country, and of the opinion generally held by the veterinary profession that the disease is mainly traceable to imported hides and fleeces, he will take steps to secure the thorough disinfection by means of formalin, mercuric chloride, or other searching disinfectant, of such goods either prior to their embarkation abroad or to their debarkation at a British port?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I anticipate that the Report of the Departmental Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease will be of considerable assistance to the Board in determining whether the disinfection of imported hides and fleeces is necessary and
  8
  practicable, and I think it desirable, therefore, to await the issue of that Report before taking any action in the matter.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a disinfectant necessary for treatment of foot-and-mouth disease would be of a very much weaker character than that required to deal with anthrax?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, but I am not quite sure that anybody is in a position to say which is an effective disinfectant for foot-and-mouth disease?
  Mr. STANIER: Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider whether a Departmental Committee, could not go into this question of anthrax?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already answered a question to that effect this afternoon, and have nothing to add to it.

  Board of Agriculture (Orders).
  Captain MURRAYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in future, he would couse copies of all Orders issued by his Department to local authorities to be circulated at the same time to Members representing agricultural constituencies?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question to refer to Orders made under the Diseases of Animals Acts. The principal Orders made under the Acts are included in the Handbook of the Acts and the Orders made thereunder which is issued by the Board and can be purchased through the usual channels. The local Orders are of no great general interest, and I think that little would be gained by the distribution of them among Members of this House. Perhaps it would satisfy the hon. and gallant Member if arrangements were made to have copies of all Orders of general interest deposited in the Library of this House for the benefit of any Members who may wish to consult them.
  Captain MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice suggested in the question is carried out by the Scottish Education Department, and that it is a great convenience to hon. Members?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid there is no accurate analogy between the practice of the Scottish Education Department and that of the Board of Agriculture. If hon. Members wish to have copies of the Orders I shall be only too glad to supply them.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention had been directed to the application of Mr. Lenett, of Bedhampton, Hampshire, for land under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act; and, if so, what action was being taken in connection therewith?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention had not previously been called to this case. I am now informed by the county council that they are endeavouring to obtain land in the locality, and that, if they are successful, it may be possible to offer Mr. Lenett a suitable holding.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked what steps were being taken to secure land for applicants under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act at Emsworth, Hampshire, also to meet those applications made at and in the neighbourhood of Petersfield and Steep, in Hampshire, and those at Rowlands Castle and North Havant?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The county council are at present considering an offer of land at Emsworth. At Petersfield and Steep they have not yet been able to obtain land which could be let at a reasonable rent for small holdings. Four applications for land have been received from Rowlands Castle and North Havant. Three of these applications are quite recent, and the council are endeavouring to find land for the applicants. An offer of land has already been made to the fourth applicant and refused by him. I have instructed the Small Holdings Commissioner to give his attention to all the outstanding applications in the places to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state when the Annual Report for 1911 of the proceedings under the Small Holding Act is likely to be published?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The preparation of Report is well advanced, and I hope that it may be issued early next month.

  Wireless Telegraphy (Fishing Boats).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will consider the advisability of granting a subvention for the encouragement of the use of wireless telegraphy on fishing boats, and thus follow the example
  10
  which has been set by the German and French Governments in dealing with boats belonging to men of their own nationalities?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that there may be cases in which fishery vessels might be fitted with facilities for wireless telegraphy with much advantage. I have, however, received no representations from those concerned which lead me to think that Government subventions are requisite.
  Sir H. CARLILE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the subject careful consideration with a view to action?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have given the subject careful consideration, but there has been, I understand, no demand up to the present.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: If a demand is made will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider it?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have said that I have considered the matter.

  Training Colleges.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of training colleges provided by local education authorities, other than the London County Council; and in which of these there is religious instruction as distinct from acts of united worship?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The number of colleges provided by local education authorities, other than the London County Council, is twelve. Religious instruction as distinct from acts of united worship is given in seven out of the twelve, and is contemplated in eight. The names of those in which there is religious instruction are:—

  1. Bingley (West Riding).

  2. Bolton.

  3. Hereford.

  4. Portsmouth.

  5. Brighton.

  6. Crewe.

  7. Manchester.

  Mr. HOARE: Is that instruction provided by the Local Education Committee, or have facilities been given to outside bodies?
  Mr. PEASE: I do not think that all the cases are on all fours, but I should like notice of the question.
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the number of students in denominational and undenominational training colleges?
  Mr. PEASE: The number of students in training at the beginning of the Session 1911–12 were:—

  4,773

  in denominational colleges.

  7,231

  in undenominational colleges.

  12,004

  Total.

  Secondary School Grants (Religious Instruction).
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education how many secondary schools received Grants from the Board of Education in each of the following years: 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, and 1911; and in how many cases it involved the modification of the trust deeds for the purpose of conforming with the regulations relating to religious instruction?
  Mr. PEASE: The figures for England and Wales are:—

  For the year 1904–5

  …

  …

  575

  For the year 1905–6

  …

  …

  689

  For the year 1906–7

  …

  …

  769

  For the year 1907–8

  …

  …

  843

  For the year 1908–9

  …

  …

  912

  For the year 1909–10

  …

  …

  950

  For the year 1910–11

  …

  …

  973

  With regard to the second part of the question, a modification of the trust deed for the purposes indicated has been required in four cases, in one of which the modification was made by the Court. The Regulations referred to were first made in the year 1907–8.

  Education Act, 1902 (Alleged Breach).
  Mr. HOAREasked the President of the Board of Education if he will state what were the dates when he first received complaints with reference to the differentiation by the local education authorities of Cardiganshire and Glamorganshire as to the salaries of teachers; what was the date of his answers; and what steps he has subsequently taken to deal with the alleged grievances?
  Mr. PEASE: Letters were first received from the correspondents of five voluntary schools in Cardiganshire on 28th September, 3rd, 6th, 27th, and 31st October, 1911, respectively, and from the correspondents of five schools in Glamorganshire on 31st May, 9th June, 9th June, 21st June, and
  12
  21st June, respectively. The letters from the correspondents have received formal acknowledgment only, pending inquiry and communication with the local education authorities.
  Mr. HOARE: Is not the time between May and March, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, rather a long time to leave these teachers in a position of unmerited inferiority?
  Mr. PEASE: Directly my attention was called to the matter, which was in December last, I at once took steps to communicate with the local authorities in the interests of the teachers.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Are we to understand that the attention of the predecessor of the present Minister was not called at all to this matter?
  Mr. PEASE: I have no knowledge in regard to that.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to acquire knowledge on that point?
  Mr. PEASE: No; and I shall be glad to answer a question if the Noble Lord desires it.
  Sir H.CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any complaints, and, if so, how many, from the managers of non-provided schools in the counties of Cardigan and Glamorgan on the subject of the rates of salary paid by the respective local education authorities to the teachers in the schools under their management?
  Mr. PEASE: I have received complaints, such as are referred to, from the correspondents of five non-provided schools in the county of Cardiganshire, and from the correspondents of five non-provided schools in the county of Glamorgan.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the terms of any communications he has made to the local education authorities of Cardiganshire and Glamorganshire with respect to the salaries paid to teachers in non-provided schools, and the dates of those communications?
  Mr. PEASE: The local education authorities referred to were furnished with copies of the letters received by the Board with respect to the salaries paid to teachers in non-provided schools, and asked for their observations thereon on the 5th February last.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Are we to understand that that was the first communication sent on this subject to the education authorities either of Glamorganshire or Cardiganshire?
  Mr. PEASE: The first official inquiry, certainly.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why no step at all was taken between June, indeed May, of last year, and 5th February on this matter?
  Mr. PEASE: All I can say is that as soon as my attention was called to it I at once made inquiries of a confidential character. I followed that up by sending this communication on 5th February.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any reply to that from the local education authorities?
  Mr. PEASE: No, I am waiting until the local authorities meet, next month, or later this month.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us when the local authorities do meet?
  Mr. PEASE: The Cardiganshire Education Committee meet on 25th April, and their council meeting is on the same day. The Glamorganshire County Council meets on 14th March. Last week they had, I think, an education committee meeting, but, although I have inquired, I have not yet heard what transpired at that committee meeting.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to wait till 25th April before taking any steps to get a reply to the inquiry of the Board of Education sent on 5th February?
  Mr. PEASE: I have already explained to the House that I cannot expedite the meetings of the county councils, and I cannot expect a county council to confirm the proceedings of meetings of their education committee till they do meet.
  Mr. PEEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question has already been fully answered.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether any local education authorities in Wales, other than those of Cardiganshire and Glamorganshire, have made proposals to differentiate between the salaries paid to teachers in denominational and undenominational schools?
  Mr. PEASE: On 30th November I received a communication from the correspondent of the Abertillery Church of England school, in which it was alleged that differentiation was made between that school and the provided schools under the authority. This letter was forwarded to the authority on 13th February last. On 24th February the Board were informed that the education committee had resolved on the 22nd to pay the teaching staff of the Church of England school salaries in accordance with the committee's scale as from the 1st April, 1912. On 9th September I received a communication from the correspondent of the Menai Bridge Church of England school, and this was referred to the authority for their observations on 13th February. As I stated in answer to a question on 19th February, I understand from a copy of the proceedings of the education committee of the Merthyr Tydvil local authority that the committee adopted a recommendation of their salaries committee that after 31st March next the teachers in the non-provided schools should be paid at the same rate as the teachers in the provided or council schools. No other cases of alleged differentiation have been brought to my notice.

  Railways and Omnibuses.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is no provision in the several Acts authorising the construction and working of the Metropolitan District Railway and the London Underground Railways enabling those companies to run omnibuses in connection with their undertakings; and, in view of that fact that railway companies are not entitled to run omnibuses without express power to that effect, whether his attention has been called to a proposed agreement between the London General Omnibus Company and the Metropolitan and Underground Railways, whereby these railway companies propose to run and control omnibuses; and whether this House will have an opportunity of considering whether such agreement is in accordance with the public interest, or will his Department take steps to ensure that these railway companies shall not exercise powers in excess of those given to them by Parliament?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): Both the Metropolitan, District, and London Electric railway companies have certain powers of

  15
  running omnibuses for the use of their own passengers. As I understand it, the agreement referred to is one between a limited company which holds a large proportion of the capital of the two railway companies mentioned and the London General Omnibus Company. Under this agreement the limited company acquires the control of the omnibus company, but the omnibuses will continue to be run by the latter company and not by the railway companies themselves. No statutory sanction to such an arrangement would seem to be required.

  Cardboard Box Trade (Minimum Wages).
  Mr. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention of the Government to fix a flat rate for minimum wages of workers in the Cardboard Box trade under the Wages Board, irrespective of the variation in different districts in the cost of living and rents?
  Mr. BUXTON: The duty of fixing minimum rates of wages under the Trade Boards Act is imposed on the several Trade Boards, and not on the Government. I understand that the Paper Box Trade Board (Great Britain) have decided to fix certain minimum time rates of wages for female workers, and that these rates are the same for all parts of Great Britain.
  Mr. COOPER: In view of the differences in the cost of living and rents in different districts does the right hon. Gentleman consider this is just to the tradesmen situated in the cheaper districts?
  Mr. BUXTON: Obviously it is not for me to give an opinion upon that; that is a point for the Trade Boards to decide.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is not this minimum a minimum for the lowest paid wages districts, and therefore should it not be applicable to all?

  British Ships (Foreign Masters).
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of foreigners who are captains of British ships and who do not possess Board of Trade certificates of competency or service?
  Mr. BUXTON: The latest available figures as to the number of foreigners in command of British ships are those of the Census of Seamen of 1906, which show that, on 4th April, out of a total of 13,099 masters enumerated, 177 were foreigners.
  16
  I am unable to state definitely how many of these did not hold British certificates, but the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen estimates the number at probably less than fifty.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state, the number of British ships trading abroad which made use of British Consular offices between the 1st January and the 30th September, 1911, and had on board crews shipped at a foreign port?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have as yet no information with regard to the particular period referred to by the hon. Member, but according to the Census taken in 1906, on 4th April of that year, the crews of 859 British ships were under agreements opened abroad. I am not able to say definitely how many of these made use of Consular offices in the course of their voyages, but it is probable that a very large proportion did.

  Bloxwich Telephone Communications.
  Mr. COOPERasked the Postmaster-General if it is his intention to instal a telephone exchange in Bloxwich, in, the borough of Walsall; and, if so, when he expects it to be in operation?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Instructions have been given for a canvass to be made at once with a view to ascertain what support would be forthcoming for a telephone exchange at Bloxwich. If the support is sufficient no time will be lost in putting the work in hand.
  Mr. COOPERasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that his Department is asking for an annual subscription of £13 10s. for the installation of a telephone in the High Street, Bloxwich, in the borough of Walsall, whereas the rate for existing subscribers in that street is £9 per annum; and is it the policy of his Department to increase the rates of subscription over and above what the National Telephone Company charged?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The quotation of £13 10s. for a line from the Walsall Telephone Exchange to the High Street, Bloxwich, is in accordance with the tariff rates for lines to Bloxwich which has been in force in connection with the National Telephone Company's system for some years. The lower rate to which the hon. Member refers was charged under special conditions which ceased some years ago.

  17
  I have now arranged for a canvass to be made with a view to opening an exchange at Bloxwich, and if this proves to be possible the lion. Member's constituent referred to will be able to rent an exchange line at a subscription of £6.

  Application for Postmen (Ireland).
  Mr. SHEEHYasked whether Bernard Kelly applied for the position of postman in the village of Kildalky, being strongly recommended by the influential people of the district; whether his application was forwarded to the General Post Office in Dublin; and if so, what was the reply?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Mr. Bernard Kelly applied for the appointment of postman at Kildalky. He had not been in the employment of the Post Office as boy messenger or in any other capacity, nor had he served in the Army or Navy. He was rightly informed by the surveyor of the district that he had no title to a post on the establishment.

  Burray and St. Margaret's Hope Mails.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked what arrangements have been made for the conveyance of mails from Burray and St. Margaret's Hope to connect with the mail steamer at Hoxa?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have approved a proposal for using a small steamer instead of a sailing boat for these mail services.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if, in view of the fact that communications between Burray, South Ronaldshay, and the mainland are extremely unsatisfactory, he will state when the existing contract with the North of Scotland Company for conveyance of mails from Scapa to Scrabster expires; and if on its expiry he will invite separate tenders for conveyance of mails from Scapa to Scrabster, and from Burray and South Ronaldshay to Scapa?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The contract is determinable by six months' notice on either side, expiring on the eleventh day of February in any year, and I cannot give any undertaking as to the course which would be pursued in the event of its determination.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked whether there is any prospect of the mail steamer from Scapa calling at the St. Margaret's Hope pier, or if he adheres to the position taken up by the Post Office for reasons already given?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think my hon. Friend is aware that the pier is not in such a position as to admit of access by ordinary sized vessels at all states of the tide. This difficulty apart, I have no reason to suppose that other places concerned would acquiesce in the earlier dispatch of mails which such a call would entail.

  Dublin Post Office (Medical Officer).
  Mr. CHAMBERSasked the Postmaster-General will he, in filling the now vacant position of medical officer to the General Post Office, Dublin, having regard to the fact that many of the officials there employed are females, consider the advisability of appointing a qualified lady doctor to share in the discharge of the medical duties?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I already have this subject under consideration.

  South-Western Post Office.
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked whether, in view of the fact that nearly four months have elapsed since a Departmental Committee submitted a scheme for the improvement of the hours of attendance of the staff at the South-Western District Post Office, he can now say when the proposed revision will be put into operation?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Committee reported on the 18th of December last, but revisions relating to important London districts are complicated and have to be very carefully considered, and although I am not at present in a position to state how soon any changes which may be decided on can be brought into effect, no avoidable delay will occur.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    COMMISSIONERS' OFFFICES.
    Mr. COOPERasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government purchased or leased Wellington House for the Insurance Commissioners; and what are the financial terms of such purchase or lease?
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Captain Guest): Wellington House has been hired on a short lease. It is not desirable in the public interest that the amount of rent paid should be stated, but it will be open to the Committee on Public Accounts when the accounts for this year are under examination to satisfy themselves on this point.
    Mr. COOPER: Arising out of that extraordinary answer is the House to understand that henceforth the responsibility for the details of national expenditure are to be transferred from this House to the Committee on Public Accounts?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is an argumentative question.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether this House has been insured against fire?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

    LECTURES.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether the National Insurance Commissioners in Scotland have issued a circular asking county councils and town councils to provide halls for lectures on the Insurance Act; and whether he will state under what Act of Parliament the said county councils and town councils have power to incur expenditure for this purpose; and, if not, on whom will the cost of providing the halls fall?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): A circular was issued on 18th January by the Scottish Commissioners stating that they were prepared to provide lecturers free of cost if the cost of the hall and incidental expenses were met locally. No suggestion has been made that any illegal expenditure should be incurred. Lectures have been held in such halls and the expenses have been borne by the conveners of the meeting. They have not been borne by the Insurance Commissioners.
    Mr. MOORE: Is there any power for county councils or local authorities to have any lectures under the Insurance Act except upon the subject of health?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: That is their consideration. If they have not, no doubt they will not let the hall.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will see that in the appointment of lecturers under the National Insurance Act it be made a condition that no lecturer shall be a candidate for Parliament in any constituency where he has delivered lectures?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No such condition is, or can be, imposed on persons accepting temporary appointments as lecturers which would restrict their liberty of action after they have ceased to be employed for the remainder of their lives.
    Mr. FELL: Can the Government find no means of stopping what may hereafter prove a great scandal?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No such scandal is anticipated. If a young man of twenty-five takes on a temporary appointment and lectures perhaps in three or four hundred constituencies you could never lay down the condition that he is not ever to represent any one of them in Parliament.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about the two Unionist ex-candidates?

    PERSONS EXEMPTED.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANSasked whether the Insurance Commission propose to make regulations to exempt from the National Insurance Act feeble-minded people, inmates of charitable institutions such as the Royal Eastern Counties Institution, who are employed as part of their treatment without wages in the institution in household work, basket making, mat making, etc., and are provided with board, lodging, clothing, and medical attendance; and, if these people are to be treated as employed contributors, what contributions are payable by the institution in respect of them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Under the conditions stated by the hon. Member, the persons referred to would fall under paragraph (f) of Part II. of the First Schedule of the Act, and not be employed contributors, unless brought in by special order under Section 1 (2).

    SUM GUARANTEED DURING ILLNESS.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether any sum is guaranteed to a workman during illness under the National Insurance Act; and, if so, by what Section of the Act?
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask whether it is not a fact that under the German National Insurance scheme—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a condition of approval of any society that it should guarantee to its members the ordinary benefits laid down in the Act until the first valuation. Section 54 (1) provides that sums required to meet expenditure properly incurred by an approved society for the purpose of benefits administered by them shall be paid out of the National Health Insurance Fund. I am advised that

    21
    the effect of this and other provisions of the Act is that that fund is liable for the payment in full of the ordinary benefits set out in the Act until the date of the first valuation. After the first valuation a society (which must be completely self-governed), if it shows a deficiency, must reduce its benefits or increase its contributions, or, if it shows a surplus, it may reduce its contributions by repayments or give additional benefits.
    Mr. CASSEL: In view of that answer I would like to ask whether the statement that workmen during illness will in future have a guaranteed sum to rely on made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his message to the Liberal candidate at South Manchester is not both inaccurate and misleading?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Until the date of the first valuation every workman will have that sum guaranteed to rely on.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the case that the contributions under the Act, are sufficient to give a business guarantee of the money benefits with a margin of 13 per cent, in the case of men, and 20 per cent, in the case of women?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that is so.
    Mr. COOPER: Are we to understand that in the event of an approved society failing to maintain its guarantee does the State step in and take that guarantee over?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Until the first valuation the National Health Insurance Fund steps in and guarantees that to the members of an approved society.

  Road Board (Income).
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, what is the total income of the Road Board up to date; how much of that income has been derived from London; what is the total amount of the Grants made by the Roard Board up till now; and what amount has been allocated to the improvement of road communications in London?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The total sum paid to the credit of the Road Improvement Fund up to date is £1,765,449; the amount derived from London is not known; the total amount of the advances made up to the present time is £510,887 (£483,584 by way of Grant and £27,303 by way of loan), including a small Grant for experimental work in London; in addition, further advances, amounting in the aggregate to
  22
  £560,000, have been indicated to local authorities towards works of improvements, the details of which are now under consideration and discussion. The Board have also intimated that they are prepared, if application is made to them by the local authorities concerned, to contribute, subject to the approval of the Treasury, £875,000 towards the construction of a new western approach road to London.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Would the hon. Gentleman advise me what is the amount obtained from London? And with reference to the question of the £875,000, to what he referred, if that improvement is carried out? Am I to understand that the remaining £875,000 would have to be borne by Middlesex County Council and the London County Council?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have already answered the first question the hon. Gentleman asked. The amount of the Motor Spirit Duty, which goes to the expenditure of the Road Board cannot be ascertained for London alone, apart from other parts of the country. As to the second question, whether the local authorities alone have the power, it will depend in part how any betterment clause is put into a Private Bill, which would have to be passed.

  Vaccination.
  Mr. POINTERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the recent material reduction in the vaccination of children, owing to the working of The Vaccination Act, 1907, has been accompanied by a corresponding decline in the death-rate of infants in England and Wales to the extent of 30 per cent, in 1910 as compared with 1901?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): While expressing no opinion as to any connection between the two phenomena, I may say that the facts are as stated.

  Home Rule Bill.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister if he will state the results of the inquiries made on behalf of the Government as to the opinions entertained by the Protestant minority in Ireland respecting the safeguards which it is intended to introduce into the Home Rule Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I cannot make any statement at present. The hon. Member will have an opportunity of discussing these matters when the Bill is introduced.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Irish Protestants of all classes are of opinion that the safeguards proposed are absolutely valueless?
  The PRIME MINISTER: They do not know what the safeguards are yet.
  Mr. MOORE: In order to relieve anxiety will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House if the Bill containing the safeguards will be introduced this side of Easter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that question at present.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for East Mayo has stated publicly that artificial safeguards in an Act of Parliament are no real protection?

  COAL STRIKE.
    SECRET BALLOT (TRADE UNIONS).
    Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the introduction of legislation designed to substitute in trade unions the secret for the open ballot on questions vitally affecting the interests of the whole nation?

    MINERS' MINIMUM WAGES.
    Mr. CLAUDE LOWTHERasked whether, in view of the fact that masters and men engaged in the English coal trade are with one exception agreed upon the principle of the minimum wage, the Government will insist that this agreement should come into operation at once in England; and, seeing that the national interests are in jeopardy, whether the Government will appoint a small Commission, armed with drastic powers, to settle the differences in South Wales, Scotland, and Northumberland as purely sectional matters?
    Mr. WILLIAM BOYLEasked if the Government still adhere to the second proposal made by them to the owners and men in the coal conferences in its entirety, as communicated to the House on Wednesday, the 27th ultimo, in so far as it provides that if a minimum wage be conceded adequate safeguards shall be provided to protect the employers against abuse, and if such will be embodied in any Government legislation to be introduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I propose, after questions, as hon. Members are now aware, to make a general statement as to the attitude of the Government.

  Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any decision upon the Report of the Irish Finance Committee will be taken until the Government have obtained an estimate of the contribution of the province of Ulster towards the true revenue of Ireland from direct taxation?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will obtain all the information which they consider necessary before arriving at any decision.
  Mr. MOORE: Will the Government undertake to go to impartial sources for it?
  The PRIME MINISTER: To all sources.

  Women's Suffrage (Referendum).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked if it is the intention of the Government to submit the question of the grant of the Parliamentary Franchise to women to a Referendum of the present voters?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no power to submit such a question without legislative authority. The matter can be appropriately raised when legislation dealing with the franchise is introduced.

  Royal Commission on Divorce (Report).
  Mr. KINGasked when the Report of the Royal Commission on Divorce will be presented to His Majesty?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna, for the Prime Minister): The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that the Commissioners do not expect to be in a position to present their report before the middle of the year.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. ROWLANDSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in some cases, applicants for old age pensions have to go to the workhouse to be interviewed in a similar manner to applicants for Poor Law relief; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to secure that the local pension committee should not sit within the precincts of the workhouse?
  Mr. BURNS: I agree that it is undesirable that the meetings of a pension committee or sub-committee should be held at

  25
  a workhouse, although there is nothing in the Old Age Pensions Acts to prohibit the practice. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the case which has given rise to his question I shall be happy to communicate with the pension committee.
  Mr. ROWLANDS: I shall be pleased to supply the right hon. Gentleman with the particulars.

  Ecclesiastical Commissioner's Oath.
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet entered on his duties as Ecclesiastical Commissioner; and whether he has taken or intends to take the prescribed oath, namely: I do hereby solemnly and in the presence of God testify and declare that I am a member of the Church of England as by Law established?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have not yet attended a meeting of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or taken the prescribed oath. I cannot make any announcement as to my intentions.
  Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House of Commons refused to allow Charles Bradlaugh to take an oath in which he did not believe?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that is so.

  Industrial Poisoning Cases.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the number of cases of industrial poisoning reported in 1910 to 1912?
  Mr. McKENNA: The cases of industrial poisoning by lead, mercury, arsenic, and anthrax in factories and workshops notified under Section 73 of the Factory Act numbered, in 1910, 573, of which forty-eight were fatal; in 1911, 755, of which forty-four were fatal; in January of this year, forty-two, of which seven were fatal. There have been no cases of phosphorus poisoning since 1909. Cases of industrial poisoning from other causes and in other industries are not required to be notified to the Home Office.

  Factory and Workshop Act.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the number of fatal accidents in places under the Factory and Workshop Act during each of the years 1909, 1910, and 1911, and the number of non-fatal accidents for the same period?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of accidents reported to the Factory Department in each of the three years was as follows:—

  Fatal.

  Non-Fatal.

  1909

  …

  …

  946

  …

  116,554

  1910

  …

  …

  1,080

  …

  128,470

  1911

  …

  …

  1,182

  …

  148,735

  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the number of factories and workshops unvisited during 1909, 1910, and 1911?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of factories and workshops on the register which were unvisited in each of the three years respectively was as follows:—

  Factories

  Workshops, including Men's Workshops.

  1909

  22,862

  44,267

  1910

  21,243

  32,729

  1911

  22,094

  35,856

  I should add that heavy demands were made on the staff in each of the three years, and especially in 1911, in connection with inquiries by Departmental Committees and other special inquiries, which considerably diminished the time available for inspection. The number of factories and workshops on the register in 1911 shows an increase of about 4,000 on the figure for 1909.

  Seal v. Alexander.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the case of Seal v. Alexander decided in the High Court on the 19th January last, in which it was held that places in which only men are employed and from which any work is given, out to be done elsewhere are outside the scope of the particulars Section of the Factory and Workshop Act; whether he is aware of the hardship which the withdrawal of this Act of protection means for numbers of outworkers in the wearing apparel, boot and shoe, and other trades; and whether he can see his way to introduce legislation to embody the intention of Parliament to provide that particulars of wages to be paid shall be provided for all piece work irrespective of the personnel of the premises from which the work is given out?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have had under consideration the decision given by the High Court on the appeal which was taken by the direction of the Home Office in the case referred to, and in view of the serious

  27
  consequences of the decision to large numbers of outworkers in the wearing apparel and other trades I have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to amend the law on the subject, so far as relates to men's workshops, without delay A Bill for the purpose has been drafted and was introduced and read a first time in the House of Lords last Wednesday.

  Automatic Gas Meters.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the number of automatic gas meters robbed in the Metropolitan Police area during the year 1911, and the number of prosecutions, distinguishing those of children under sixteen years of age?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that 13,261 such cases were reported to the police during 1911, and 406 arrests were made. Eighty-six of the persons arrested were under sixteen years of age. These robberies take place inside houses and tenements, where the police have no right of access, and in circumstances which render detection exceedingly difficult.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can anything be done to stop that very serious loss?
  Mr. McKENNA: Except the abolition of the system itself, I do not see what steps can be taken.

  Factory Inspectorate (Organisation).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked what modification, if any, has been made in the organisation of the factory inspectorate in consequence of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Accidents in Factories; whether any change has taken place so that inspectors' assistants may, when their knowledge is adequate, inspect and report regarding accidents; and whether assistants now receive copies of the circulars hitherto exclusively issued to inspectors containing information of interest to assistants as well as to inspectors.
  Mr. McKENNA: As regards the first paragraph of the question, I would refer to the statement on the subject which I made on the 14th December last, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Barnard Castle. Since that statement was made, I have obtained the sanction of the Treasury for the appointment of two more assistants to the higher grade for the purpose of undertaking more responsible
  28
  duties. The revision of the present system of nomination and examination in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee is in hand. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is that the selected assistants in the higher grade do report on accidents in the course of their inspection of docks and certain classes of factories; but the primary duty of the assistants is the inspection of workshops where accidents are few. The answer to the third paragraph is that it is proposed in future to circulate to the assistants the circulars issued periodically to the staff.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman do every tiling he can to enlarge the opportunities of this very zealous and persistent inspectorate?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I think the answer I have given shows that something is being done.

  William Ball (Insanity).
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to make a definite statement as to the person or persons whom he intends to appoint to make the investigation promised into the circumstances connection with the insanity of William Ball, at Pentonville Prison?
  Mr. McKENNA: I propose to ask the President of the Royal College of Physicians to nominate a medical man to make the inquiry.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Who does the right hon. Gentleman propose to appoint to investigate this case?
  Mr. McKENNA: The President of the Royal College of Physicians will be asked to nominate a medical man to hold an inquiry.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will it be a full inquiry into all the circumstances in regard to his treatment in prison?
  Mr. McKENNA: That would be the subject of the inquiry.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I mean the man who had charge of him apart from the doctor?
  Mr. McKENNA: The whole subject will be inquired into.

  Patent Medicines (Committee of Inquiry).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether he has decided on the constitution of the Joint Committee to be appointed to inquire info the traffic in patent medicines and allied matters; and

  29
  whether, in view of the difficulty of disassociating the question of the sale of such drugs from that of the illicit practice of medicine, he will consent to enlarge the scope of the inquiry so as to include these matters in the terms of reference?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar inquiry on the 13th December last.

  Censorship of Plays.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether a play, entitled "Quits," by Laurence Cowen, has been licensed, whereas in the case of a play entitled "Tricked," by the same author, a licence has been refused, although the two plays are identical except in inessential differences of names and localities and such changes as these have necessitated; and whether he will introduce legislation to render such a contingency impossible in the future?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that the play entitled "Quits" has been licensed for performance. The Lord Chamberlain has no knowledge that it is by the same author as a play entitled "Tricked." The Lord Chamberlain is of opinion that the two plays are not identical, and is unable to agree that the differences alluded to are inessential.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the second play was written with the express purpose of making a play that was identical except in-the merest inessentials?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. Sir; I know nothing whatever about the intention of the author.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the play, "Tricked," refers to the position of the nation with regard to the Parliament Bill and the Home Rule Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe not.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question: whether he intends to introduce legislation? Will he also say whether or not he disagrees with the report of the Postmaster-General's Committee?
  Mr. McKENNA: As regards the last part of the question, I have been unable to concur with the facts alleged in the question itself, and therefore it does not arise.

  Trade Disputes Act.
  Mr. FRED HALL (Dulwich)asked what expenditure has been incurred since the passing of the Trade Disputes Act for the special provision of military and police for the maintenance of order in connection with labour disputes; and what expenditure was incurred for the same purposes for a similar period before the passing of the Act referred to?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am afraid it would be quite impossible to get out figures on this point that would be of any value.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman get out the figures so that the House may be informed?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I could not get reliable figures on the subject.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in answer to a similar question last September he said he would make full inquiry into the figures, and is the result that which he has just given.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is so. It has been found on examination it is impossible to give any figures of the smallest value.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman will surely see it may be part of the constable's ordinary duty to protect property, and it would be quite impossible to allocate any part of the charge to a constable doing his duty in protecting property during a riot.
  Mr. FRED HALL: Is the House to understand that the amount has considerably increased since the passing of the Act.
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman furnish the figures if the question is confined to the provision of the military and extra police?
  Mr. McKENNA: I answered the question put down on the Paper.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not a fact that these continuous attacks on trade unions produce labour unrest?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    MARRIED SAILORS' ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the allow-

    31
    ance for wife and family now granted to soldiers married on the strength is shortly to be extended to Territorials; and, if so, whether he will take steps to see that a similar privilege is extended to sailors?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The hon. Member's question is understood to refer to the separation allowance which is granted to the wives and families of non-commissioned officers and men on the married establishment when employed on detached service. There is nothing in the Navy corresponding to the married strength of the Army, and it is not proposed to extend separation allowances to seamen. The conditions in the Army and Navy are so dissimilar, that obviously no comparative survey of the return for services rendered can be complete which merely confines itself to one item.

    HYDRO-AEROPLANES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the successful experiments now being conducted on the South Coast of France with hydro-aeroplanes; whether the experiments have established the fact that these machines can rise from and alight upon the sea; and whether any representative of the British Navy has been present at the experiments?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The Admiralty are aware that experiments with hydro-aeroplanes are being carried out by private individuals in the South of France, and also that this type of machine is capable of rising from and alighting on water under favourable conditions. There is no official representative of the British Navy present at these experiments.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other nations are sending representatives, and would it not be worth while to send somebody to see these most important experiments?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has not been thought worth while up to the present.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the British Navy owns any hydro-aero-planes; and, if so, how many?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: One hydro-aeroplane is now under construction at East-church, and two others are on order.
    32
    Experiments with machines of this type are being continued at Sheerness, Lake Windermere, and Barrow, and the results so far attained have been promising.

    NAVAL PROGRAMME, 1911–12.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether the contract for the fifth armoured ship, provided for in last year's Navy Estimates, has yet been accepted; if so, when was the date of such acceptance; and whether it is expected that the sum of £69,913 allocated for such ship will be expended before the end of the financial year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The order was placed provisionally on Saturday last. The reply to the last part of the Noble Lord's question is in the negative.

    INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the Danish vessel, "Selandia," now in London, driven by internal combustion engines; and whether, in view of the accepted efficacy of this method of propulsion, he will state what policy the Admiralty purpose to pursue in the development of ships fitted with engines of this type?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I paid a very interesting visit, with other members of the Board of Admiralty, to the "Selandia" on Friday last. Important experiments were begun some time ago with a view to ascertaining the possibilities of the internal combustion engine as a method of propulsion in ships of the Royal Navy.

    ROVAL MARINES.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an officer in the Royal Marines is required to pay £50 down if he desires to purchase a charger, and that attached to paying this sum is the proviso that the charger must not be sold within four years from the date of purchase; and whether, seeing that the service of majors in the Royal Marines averages about one year at headquarters before embarking for two years' service at sea, he can see his way to rescind the proviso in question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Royal Marine officers have recently been afforded the privilege of obtaining chargers from the Army Remount Department on payment of the sum of £50. Horses so purchased may not be sold by private contract, or otherwise disposed of, within four years without

    33
    previous sanction. Should an officer have to dispose of his horse earlier, it is taken back by the Remount Department in accordance with the authorised scale, which depends upon the age and condition of the horse. Royal Marine officers may, however, obtain their chargers from any source they wish.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First. Lord of the Admiralty whether the recent concession allowing officers of the Royal Marines to hire chargers at Government expense is causing dissatisfaction; that at large parades considerable difficulty is experienced in obtaining the necessary number of chargers; and whether he will consider the advisability of providing officers of the Royal Marines, when on shore, with chargers free of cost to themselves, as is done in the case of other mounted officers in the Army?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware that the conditions governing the supply of chargers from the Army Remount Department to officers of the Royal Marines are causing dissatisfaction, nor am I aware that any difficulty is experienced in obtaining chargers when required. Having regard to the general conditions of service of Royal Marine officers, I am unable to apply the Army rule for the supply of chargers free to these officers.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I ask what sailors want these horses, and whether they are sea horses or not?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would remind my hon. Friend the Royal Marines are sailors and soldiers too.

  Royal Dockyards.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH - COOKEasked what contribution per week in a self-supporting scheme would be necessary in order to insure hired workmen in the Royal dockyards 15s. a week maximum by way of pension at the age of sixty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not in a position to give the desired information. I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave him on this subject on 20th February.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is himself considering the question of making some arrangement by which pensions could be given to hired men?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: We are looking into the question whether it would be possible
  34
  for the hired men themselves to build up a fund, but the matter is not so easy as the hon. Gentleman imagines.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will not the question of contributions come in?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to know.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether no person can sit for the examination for the position of an assistant storehouseman whose age exceeds 35; that this age limit not only deprives the Service of some excellent men, but renders it impossible in several places for men to compete who have been employed in the Naval Ordnance Depot for many years, whereas a man who may have been in the depot for only one year is eligible; and whether he can see his way to raise the age limit so that a larger proportion of the experienced men may be entitled to entry for the examination?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I presume that the hon. Member's question refers to the examination held for the situation of storehouseman, second grade. The limits of age for these examinations are twenty-two to forty-five: and successful candidates are eligible for appointment up to the age of fifty, provided that the examination list is still in force at the time of the vacancy.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether any progress has bean made with the petition forwarded to their Lordships by the Association of Royal Dockyards ex-Apprentices and Apprentices, which has been under consideration since the summer of 1910; and whether the Lords of the Admiralty are able to acquiesce in that part of the petition asking that apprentice time may be allowed to count for gratuity or pension?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The proposal to reckon apprentice time for pension or gratuity is still under the consideration of the Treasury. I understand that the question is one that affects boy service throughout the Civil Service.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the answer be given before the Naval Estimates are introduced?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot say. It is a matter which affects other Departments.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will the Naval Estimates be brought in?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  German Navy (1912–13 Programme).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has information regarding twelve destroyers now being constructed in Germany for unnamed owners; whether these vessels are being built at the instigation of the Government in advance of the German 1912–13 programme; and what steps he proposes to take to meet a precedent calculated to upset international naval calculations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the full reply I gave to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire on Wednesday last.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the English twenty destroyers of the 1912–13 programme will be put out to tender directly the House sanctions their construction?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; no time has been lost. The tenders were asked for in December. They have come in, and they are going through a long process of careful examination that I expect will be completed by the middle of this month; and by that time I shall probably have made my statement on the Naval Estimates. I think therefore no time will be lost whatever in making progress at once.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Then are we to understand these twenty destroyers will be begun directly the sanction of this House is given to their commencement?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It will be possible to do so if it is considered necessary. Meanwhile, no time is being lost.
  Mr. R. HARCOURT: Would they be begun in March or not till the Shipbuilding Vote in July?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I certainly contemplate being able to commence construction as soon as the House sanctions it.

  Corrupt Practices Act (Refreshments at Public Meetings).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to certain meetings in favour of the National Insurance Act recently held under the auspices of the West Norfolk Liberal Associations, at
  36
  which refreshments and cigars were advertised and given free; whether he proposes to take any action with regard to such meetings, in view of the Corrupt Practices Act; and, if not, whether the Act will be so amended as to include them?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The Attorney-General has asked me, in his absence, to give his answer. It is not open to the Attorney-General to take any action under the Corrupt Practices Act or otherwise with regard to such meetings. If the Noble Lord means to suggest that legislation is desirable which would forbid the free distribution of refreshments or cigars at meetings or smoking concerts or similar functions held under the auspices of political associations of whatever complexion, and if a Bill with that object could be treated as non-controversial, the suggestion would be considered.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Have the Government any intention of introducing such a Bill? In the meantime will one be equally immune from prosecution if a money equivalent is given for the cigars?
  Sir J. SIMON: The Noble Lord must give me the cigar before I can answer.

  Land Registry Department.
  Mr. LLOYDasked how many appointments in the Land Registry Department have been made without Civil Service examinations during the present Government?
  Sir J. SIMON: The number of such appointments is three.

  Development of Shetland Industries.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the decrease in the population of the rural districts of Shetland, and that the Government have appointed a gentleman to report upon the possibilities of developing Shetland industries, he will appoint a gentleman of experience to report also upon the development and protection of oyster and mussel beds?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The question of the best methods for the development of the Scottish shell fisheries is at present engaging the attention of the Fishery Board, who will consider the possibilities of the development in Shetland along with other localities.

  Jamaica (Disturbances).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he can give any information regarding the origin and extent of the disturbances in Kingston, and what is the present position there; and (2) what is the strength of the Regular forces, Volunteer forces, and local police forces, respectively, available for the suppression of disorder in Jamaica; and how many of such forces are available in Kingston?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have received a telegram to the following effect from the Governor of Jamaica, dated 27th February: "In consequence of action taken by West India Electric Company in increasing tramcar fares, resented by public as breach of faith, disorders arose last Saturday in connection with car service in Kingston, taking form of asserting legal rights, and some arrests were made. On Sunday there were further disorders, but not of a serious character, and principally taking form of boarding cars by large number of citizens not evilly disposed. These disturbances gave encouragement to dangerous and criminal class of the city population to assault police and damage cars, and at midnight on Sunday they attacked cars and burnt one, and made assaults on police in various parts of city, injuring two officers and twenty-five constables. On Monday I gave instructions to police to take all necessary steps for protection of property and person, and to be prepared to use armed force to clear streets as soon as necessity should arise. On Monday night crowds of roughs, having accumulated missiles in house-yards, attacked company's power-house and police. Entering city with my aide-de-camp at 8.45 p.m., I found some policemen besieged by mob in a rum shop. Major Wyndham and self effected entrance and release of policemen, but were stoned without suffering appreciable injury. I proceeded to police-station, and pointed out to Inspector-General serious condition of affairs. Found he had already sent relief. I then left station. Shortly after mob attacked station, and police were sent out armed. It became necessary for them to use firearms and fixed bayonets. One youth killed, several persons wounded, a number injured (principally by mob). Order was restored; police have been reinforced from country. Cars are to-day running without molestation. I have no reason to expect further trouble, but every precaution taken.
  38
  Damage not serious to property in city except broken window-lamps and a little shoplifting."
  In a further telegram, dated 28th February, the Governor reported that order had then been completely restored in Kingston, and that there was no attempt at disturbance on the night of 27th February. In reply to the hon. Member's second question, there are in Jamaica approximately 600 men of the West India Regiment, 350 other Regular troops, 100 Militia Artillery, and 900 constabulary. Of these the West India Regiment, the Militia Artillery, and 300 of the constabulary are available in Kingston. There are also 900 rural police.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked whether any of His Majesty's ships were at Kingston from the outbreak of disturbances on 25th February; and, if not, at what port the nearest of His Majesty's ships was upon that date, and how far such port is from Kingston?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: None of His Majesty's ships were at Kingston on the date in question. There were two at Barbados, distant 1,040 miles from Kingston.

  BILLS PRESENTED.
    ECCLESIASTICAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To declare and amend the Law Ecclesiastical with respect to the relations between the Church of England and Protestant Dissenters, to the right of burial, to the right of admission to the Holy Communion, to the issue of marriage licences, and to public worship." Presented by Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES; to be read a second time upon Friday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
    LICENSING BILL.
    "To amend the Licensing Law with regard to off-sales by retail." Presented by Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEY; supported by Colonel Burn, Captain Knight, Mr. John Lyttelton, and Mr. Touche; to be read a second time upon Friday, 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
COAL STRIKE.

  PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has any statement to make as to business?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the House will grant me its indulgence if, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I rather exceed the limits ordinarily prescribed for an answer to such a question. The House has been kept informed, as far as possible, of the progress of the negotiations going on during the last ten days; but I am sure it will be an advantage if I am allowed, by the indulgence of the House, very briefly to put together a more connected narrative, as far as possible, of the actual progress made. It is just a fortnight ago that the Government, who had been closely watching from the very beginning the various stages of the controversy in the coal industry, and who have had the advantage of the most skilled and experienced advisers in such matters in this country, came to the conclusion that it was their duty and in the general interest actively to intervene. I accordingly, in the name of the Government, issued invitations to the representatives of both the interests concerned to confer separately with myself and my colleagues, with two objects: in the first place, in order that we might acquire from the best and most authoritative sources first hand knowledge of the case as it presented itself both to one side and the other; and, in the next place, that we might be able to ascertain the measure of the gap which lay between them, and form some estimate as to how far it was possible that it should be bridged. Both sides, I am glad to say, responded, and responded readily, to that invitation, and I am paying a debt of obligation when I say that each of them in turn presented its case with fulness of knowledge, with ability and skill, and with an admirably calm and cool temper, which very much helped us in arriving at a definite conclusion.
  I need not say to the House that we who represented the Government in the matter listened to the cases so presented with an absolutely impartial mind, and without any kind of prepossession one way or the other, but having done so—these conferences lasted over several days—we unanimously came to certain conclusions. The first was that there are cases—I do not, at present, pretend to say how numerous, but they are substantial in number and in circumstances—in which underground workers in the coal industry are prevented by causes over which they have no control, and for which they are in no sense responsible, from earning a reasonable minimum wage. We came further to the conclusion, in which we were equally
  40
  unanimous, that such cases ought to be met, and must be met, by the recognition and application of what, if I may use a compendious expression, I may call district minimum wages, but, at the same time, we were equally strongly of opinion that if that principle was to be recognised and to be applied, it must be subject to two conditions. In the first place a minimum wage, varying district by district, according to the very diverse conditions under which the coalmining industry is carried on in this country, must be a reasonable one, and next the concession, the universal concession, in all the coalfields of the country of a minimum and reasonable wage must be fenced in and accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect the employers against abuse, and, in particular, to provide against such a diminution in the output as would in the long run be disastrous to all concerned in the industry itself.
  These are the conclusions at which we arrived, and the way in which we proposed to translate them into practice was to invite both parties to meet together in District Conferences, where a representative of the Government would be present to give them any assistance, and at which we hoped and believed, and still hope and believe, a reasonable minimum rate might be arrived at; but in the last resort, in the event of failure to agree, a figure, varying as I have said, district by district, should be fixed, after full consideration and after hearing all the interests concerned, by those whom the Government had so delegated to represent itself. That is the position which we had reached in the early part of last week, and these conclusions, in the shape of four propositions—the first two stating the agreement at which we had arrived, and the second two stating the practical machinery by which we proposed to give effect to these arrangements—were submitted to both parties. They were accepted, I will not say willingly, I daresay with great reluctance in some quarters, but they were accepted, and genuinely accepted, and in the best spirit, by what now turn out to be quite—measured by the number of persons employed and by the output of the industry—65 per cent, of the coalowners of Great Britain. The coalowners of Northumberland held back for a moment, but, I am glad to say that after a few hours they joined their fellow coalowners, and we may now say that the proposals of the Government have been accepted by practically the whole of the coalowners of England

  41
  and North Wales, and the only sections of coalowners who are at present unable to see their way to accept them are those who represent South Wales and Scotland. That is the case as regards the owners.
  4.0 P.M.
  Then, how did we fare with the men, the miners themselves? The miners were, I think I may say, satisfied—they had every reason to be satisfied—that the Government had recognised, and that 65 per cent. of the owners had recognised, the principle of a minimum wage for which they had been contending. They did not demur to, on the contrary, throughout all these proceedings they have recognised to the fullest, and in the most candid way, the necessity for accompanying the grant of a minimum wage with adequate safeguards. There has been no demur of any sort or kind to that proposition—I do not say we have come to an agreement yet as to the precise machinery by which it is to be worked out. They agreed further with us, and it was part of their case, that it was impossible to fix a uniform minimum wage for the whole country, and that the matter must be dealt with district by district and area by area; and, finally, I am sure they will agree with me when I say they all accepted what is too obvious to need demonstration, namely, that if you have a minimum wage, it must be fixed at a reasonable amount. The point at which difficulty arose was this: Accepting all that, which I might almost describe as common ground, they insisted as a condition preceding the entering into any further negotiation or arrangement, that not merely the principle of a minimum wage, varying district by district according to the circumstances of the various areas, should be accepted, but that the actual figure in each district should be the figure they themselves had arrived at and announced to be their irreducible minimum in certain resolutions which the Miners' Federation passed on 2nd February last. I will come back to that in a moment when I deal with details. That was the position. That schedule of theirs was to be treated as beyond the range of negotiation or of revision. That was the condition of things which we had reached on Thursday last, and on that day, at the suggestion of my colleagues—and accompanied by my three Tight hon. Friends, who went through all this anxious and laborious time with me and who gave me invariable and unfailing help—I went to the Foreign Office, and having not merely the executive, but the whole of the conference of
  42
  the men present, I addressed them. There is a certain amount of controversy about what I said. I said nothing to the men at the Foreign Office last Thursday which I am not prepared to repeat upon the floor of this House. A report was published the next morning. Of that report I wish to say that it was an accurate report and, as far as everything material is concerned, an exhaustive report. I do not say it was a verbatim reproduction of everything I said—I know there were corrections of phraseology, perhaps even of grammar—at any rate prunings of repetitions and excrescences such as I think always occur in impromptu speeches, and my speech was absolutely impromptu, without preparation of any sort. The process to which that report was subjected is one with which, I think, almost every hon. and right hon. Gentleman here is perfectly familiar—a process which takes place in the interval between the time when he rises and emits upon the floor of this House his opinions, to the time when they appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But I said nothing in that speech—and I am borne out in my recollection, not only by my right hon. Friends who were with me, but by the President and Secretary of the Miners' Federation, which in substance or in any material respect differs from or goes in advance of the published report.
  I was very much surprised to be told that there appeared in some of the newspapers to-day, a statement by one of the miners' representatives, that I had said that at this Conference of miners that I and my colleagues, His Majesty's Government, regarded the grant of the minimum wage in the coal industry as the first step to the attainment, apparently by legislation, at any rate by some form of compulsion, of a minimum wage in all the industries of the country. If I had said that it would have appeared in the report. I am not in the habit of engaging in sly flirtations of this kind with Socialism and then trying to conceal from the public the manner in which I have been employing my time. Not only did I not say anything of the kind, but anyone who takes the trouble to read my speech will see that it is absolutely inconsistent with the whole drift of the argument which I addressed to the miners; for my argument was this: I was trying to impress upon them that in getting as far as we had we had made an enormous advance from their point of view. It was all important to them to agree to conference, deliberation and

  43
  negotiation with regard to the actual figures of the minimum wage. I pointed out, and laid the greatest possible stress upon it, that in this respect the industry in which they were engaged, the coal industry, had peculiar and indeed unique features, and it was those peculiar and unique features which justified, and even necessitated, on the part of the Government, an intervention which otherwise would have been wholly unwarranted. To suppose, when that was the main drift and gist of the argument I was addressing to the men, that I put in a plea that this was going to be the first step towards the application to the other industries in which those conditions did not obtain, is entirely to ignore the foundations of the case I addressed to them. Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have given me private notice of questions. I hope they will be content with that answer on that point at any rate. One of them has asked me whether there were informal conversations or whether anything further was said. What wais published to the world was my speech. It is an accurate and exhaustive reproduction of what I said. There- were informal conversations—there always have been—which followed the delivery of my speech, an interchange of opinion in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took part as well as myself, of a perfectly friendly and conversational kind between the representatives of the miners and myself, but on no substantial and material point did what was said in that conversation differ from what was said in the speech.
  I hope the House will forgive me for having gone into the matter at such length. I think I am entitled to be somewhat hurt by the insinuation that I could deliberately or even inadvertently allow to go to the world as an authentic account of what I had said a report from which were omitted or suppressed material and substantial matters. What did I say? I do not want to weary the House by repeating the speech I actually delivered, but it is important for the purposes we all have in view that I should emphasise the points I put before the miners on that occasion. I told them this, after enlarging on the peculiar, indeed the unique, conditions of their industry. I said, you are now, to-day, in a position which a year ago, six months ago, six weeks ago, you would have thought it would be almost impossible to be placed in. What have you got? You have 65 per cent, of the coalowners of
  44
  the country agreeing that a reasonable minimum wage must be established in your industry. You have got, further than that, the representatives of the responsible Government of the country declaring they are convinced of the reasonableness and justice of that principle, and that they will take whatever means are necessary, not withstanding the reluctance or even the resistance of what we hope and believe is a dwindling minority of owners who still take the other view, to carry out that principle throughout the coalfields of this country. I said to the men. I think I was entitled to say, that is wonderful progress you have made; you are within sight of your goal. You have got the principle for which you have been fighting and contending recognised practically by the employers and recognised in terms by the Government of the country. What remains? You do not deny the necessity, you admit it perfectly fully and frankly, for adequate safeguards against abuse, so that is out of the way. What is left? Merely the question of fixing the amount area by area.
  It is important in the interests of everybody, in the interests certainly of fair play, that the House and the public should clearly understand how this question arises about fixing the minimum wage. The miners stated their case perfectly clearly. They have throughout these negotiations shown the utmost candour. The position of the miners is this. They said, we were ready to negotiate, if the principle were admitted, with the owners as to amount. We found that was impossible. It was not impossible in the federated area, where negotiations took place and very nearly reached a satisfactory conclusion, but in other parts of the country it was found impossible altogether. Thereupon, at their meeting on 2nd February last, they passed a resolution affirming the principle of a minimum wage and appending to it as a schedule a list of, I think, seventeen different rates applicable to the1 different coal areas of the country. They ranged in amount from, I think, as low as 4s. 11d. to as high as 7s. 6d. There was every kind of intermediate, variation. The miners' position was this: they said these were not the rates we should have been asking if we had been bargaining. We should have asked more, but finding that bargaining—a conclusion reluctantly come to—was impossible, we fixed the rates for the different areas as low as we possibly could, and in many cases lower than we thought was reasonable. That is the

  45
  schedule which they presented and in regard to which they said they were not prepared to negotiate. I need not say that we brought this schedule in all its features very carefully before the employers who appeared before us. The employers—I am not saying for the moment now which side is right, that is not the point, and I am not pre-judging it—pointed out that there were, to this schedule presented by the miners, a number of very formidable objections.
  I purposely do not go into detail, but I will indicate in a general way what were the objections the employers took. In the first place they said that, admitting, as we all admit, that this is a matter which has got to be arranged district by district, the men's schedule lumped together into a single area parts of the country which ought to be kept separate. In other words, there were too few districts in the men's schedule to meet the actual requirements of the trade. They said, next, that in the men's schedule, even in a particular district, which was admittedly one capable of being treated as a whole, sufficient allowance had not been made for what they say is an undoubted fact in regard to the actual working of the coal, namely, that although the characteristics of the district as a whole may be similar, there are great variations as between particular pits, so there again they said there is not enough elasticity of latitude in the scale. Thirdly, and, of course, this is a much more serious objection, they said that the rates as a whole—I do not say they attacked them all, nor do I go into any question which rates were more vulnerable than others—but, taking them as a whole, the effect, they said, would be that in many parts of the country the less productive pits, the pits in which working has been carried on under the most unfavourable conditions, must be closed. They could not afford to pay the minimum wage on so high a scale, and the result of that must inevitably be the curtailment of the area of production, and consequently, in the long run, a diminution in the amount of employment.
  These are the two cases. I carefully abstain from expressing any opinion which was right and which was wrong. It may be that the men's scale is in all respects a reasonable scale. It may be, as I said, that it will probably turn out to be the case there is a lot to give-and-take in the matter, that some criticisms are well founded, and that others are not. The point I put to the men is this, and it is the
  46
  point I put to the House now—I am not adopting a contentious attitude, as the House will see, my whole object is peace—the point I put to the House and the point I put to the country—that great body of public opinion which, after all, dominates and, in the long run, controls us in matters of this kind—was it possible for any Government, even when it had recognised, as we had, the principle of a reasonable minimum wage—was it possible that we were going to ask Parliament, and eventually the country, for that is what it would come to, to coerce those responsible men who out of the fulness of their knowledge and experience have presented this formidable array of criticism and objection—to ask Parliament to coerce one of the two parties in an industrial dispute to accept, not merely the principle, but the very figures which had been dictated by the men without inquiry, without negotiation, without any machinery for arriving at an equitable determination? I put that argument to the men, and though I have in the course of my life, professional and political, had to present many cases, often, I am glad to say, good eases, sometimes, perhaps, indifferent cases, I will not say bad cases, it has never been my good fortune to present a case which seemed to me so irresistible from the point of reason, justice, and common sense. And as I watched these men, the very flower of the mining industry of this country, while I was speaking—I was over-sanguine—I flattered myself, and I think some of my right hon. Friends shared my opinion, that I had almost persuaded them. Well, I did not.
  I regret to say that a few hours later on the same day, and again on the next day—I ought to add this, since something has been said about my speech, that I pointed out to the men, whom I was supposed to have been flattering, I pointed out to the men in quite as plain and direct language as I could possibly use in this House, the enormous and terrible responsibility which they were incurring in arriving at a decision and entering upon a course in which the sufferers—the immediate sufferers, and perhaps the ultimate sufferers—would be neither themselves nor those with whom they were contending, but the great bulk of the population. Well, as I have said, the men—I am not blaming them, I am not attempting at this stage to impute praise or blame, or to apportion responsibility—came for reasons which seemed to them good and 'Sufficient to the conclusion that they could not

  47
  accept the proposal of the Government which, adopting the principle of the minimum wage, would have left the adjustment of the precise figure in each district to the conference of men and masters. Thereupon, on Friday morning last the negotiations on which my colleagues and I have, I venture to say, expended as much labour and a3 much anxious desire to arrive at a pacific conclusion as it is possible for men to do, came not to a breakdown, but to a deadlock. I would venture to say that if any apology were needed, I do not think the time and labour expended upon them has been wasted. We have advanced a great deal, a long way, upon the road towards a possible settlement as compared with the position in which we all stood, say, a fortnight or three weeks' ago, and I must say that I have never seen in all my experience, nor do I think has anybody else, an industrial controversy in which such large interests were involved where there was the same spirit of fairness and good feeling between the parties concerned. From beginning to end of these discussions there was no trace of anything in the nature of bitterness or envenomed feeling between the employers and employed. So far so good. But the result for the moment is, of course, lamentably insufficient.
  I have spoken of what took place as a deadlock rather than as a breakdown. I cannot but hope and believe that as time goes on—and time in this matter is of vital, I may almost say of fatal, importance—there will be a bringing together, an approximation of points of view, possibly of machinery of adjustment, which last week seemed remote. But so far as the Government is concerned we have done all we could, and we shall continue to do what we can with that object. But, quite apart from that, we are not idle now. We have felt it our duty under these conditions—being as strongly of opinion as we ever were that the best way of fixing a scale for a reasonable minimum for the various districts is by agreement between the parties, and we are still hoping that that may be done—nevertheless we have felt it our duty to undertake, and we are undertaking, with such materials as we can command, a careful and rigorous examination of the figures that have been presented both on one side and on the other. I cannot say more than that at the present moment. I think the House will agree that that was our bounden duty. The stoppage has begun. The consequences which it is en-
  48
  tailing on the comfort, the prosperity nay, even the daily life of the community, are at least as formidable as anybody could have foreseen, and as they develop they will increase day by day in intensity and in volume.
  In these circumstances I venture to say to the House of Commons, if they think, as I hope they will think, that the Government has shown and is showing an adequate sense of the magnitude of the task imposed upon it, I say to them, although it may become, and probably will become, necessary that we should debate the whole question here, I hope it will not do so to night. I speak advisedly and with a full sense of responsibility on this matter. I have laid before it an absolutely full and candid account of what has happened. I deplore more than, perhaps, anybody else can deplore, that so far our efforts have been unavailing to avert a national catastrophe. But I do say this, and these will be my concluding words—and I ask the universal assent of every man in every quarter of the House—the responsibility of those, be they the Government or be they either or any of the parties to this dispute, or of those who advise or have influence with them—the responsibility of those who, having it in their power to take any step to minimise and shorten this terrible national calamity, do not use it to the full is a responsibility which history will not measure.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I need not say that under any circumstances I should not have dreamed of saying anything by way of criticism of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but, more than that, I had already come to the conclusion that he has recommended to the House that no possible good could be gained by a discussion of this subject, at least from our point of view. I do not intend to take any part, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his Government that, while we recognise that the responsibility is that of the Government, we recognise also that there is a responsibility on everyone who has influence within this House, and we shall certainly do nothing which lies within our power to avoid to increase the difficulties of the Government in this matter. That is all I wish to say except this: I think it is not only right, but my duty, on behalf of my Friends for whom I speak, to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the clear and frank statement which he has laid before the House.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Home Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, what measures he proposes to take to preserve the lives of 400 ponies at Whitburn Colliery, near South Shields, where it is reported that the miners refuse to allow anyone to descend into the pit?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention has not been drawn to this matter until the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question reached me an hour ago. I will make inquiry at once, but I am not aware that I have any statutory power in the matter.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the appalling suffering which has already taken place in the ironworks districts, an opportunity will be given to the House of Commons at an early date—although the Leader of the Opposition does not want that opportunity—to enable the views of Members representing mining constituencies to be expressed. His Majesty's Government have not yet had the opportunity of hearing the matter discussed.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am rather sorry at the ungracious remark of the hon. Baronet. I cannot imagine anything more patriotic than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly an opportunity for discussion will be given, but I hope in view of the appeal which I have made, that the House will allow me to defer at any rate any such discussion.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "negotiation." Might I remind him that no negotiations are taking place at the present moment.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman will he take into consideration whether some sort of organisation might be begun at once for feeding the poorer classes in case the strike lasts very long. It is a very serious question.
  The PRIME MINISTER The PRIME MINISTER indicated assent.

SUFFRAGETTES (WINDOW SMASHING).
Mr. NEWTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice: whether, in view of the extensive
50
damage done by Women Suffragists to retail traders in London by the smashing of expensive plate-glass shop windows, many of which cannot be replaced under three or four weeks, and the consequent great loss of trade which necessarily follows, he will take steps to introduce and pass through both Houses of Parliament with all possible speed, a Bill giving the persons or firms who may be damnified by future outrages of this kind, a right of action against the funds of the Women's Social Political Union or other suffragist body to which the delinquent in each case may belong, and meantime what steps he purpose to take for the protection of public and private property against the perpetrators and instigators of these organised attacks?
The PRIME MINISTER: I only got the hon. Gentleman's question before I came into the House. I have not had time yet to give it the mature consideration that I should like. I am sure that he is only giving utterance to a very widespread opinion when he indicates that these disgraceful proceeding should be brought home, not merely to the wretched individuals immediately concerned, but to those who are responsible. I entirely agree with that view, but I should like to consult my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General before I commit myself further.

SUPPLY.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): In rising to move that you leave the Chair, I ask the indulgence of the House on two grounds. First, because, after the very grave statement made by the Prime Minister, I suppose that everyone is more concerned with matters of more vital importance even than those which we shall now discuss; and, in the second place, because for many years past my Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for War has presented the Estimates, as I now do, with a wealth of detail and lucidity of statement which I cannot hope to rival. Though I cannot hope to rival his lucidity of statement, and I certainly cannot attempt to rival the length of his remarks—I have listened to

  51
  them all; I never found a word too much in them—I will try to follow my Noble Friend in avoiding as far as possible bringing the affairs of the Army into what one may Gall party conflict. But at the very outset I am afraid we must approach a very controversial question, though it is not a party question. It is the question whether the Army is properly armed. It is the question whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Leader of the Opposition in this House was right in supposing that the arms of our Army were so utterly inferior—I use his precise words—to those of Continental nations that no amount of courage can overcome the handicap which they sustain. I hasten to say at once, and without hesitation, after making the most careful inquiry into this statement, and having consulted every expert whom I can find, that there is not one particle of truth in it.
  So far from our Regular Army being less well armed than Continental nations, I shall ask the House to say that our Regular Army is better armed than any Continental nation. I hope that the House will forgive me if I go with some detail into the question, for it is important in view of the fact that whatever happens, even if the right hon. Gentleman opposite were to be Prime Minister to-morrow, a matter as to which I suppose he is not at all without hope, he would not be able to overcome that disadvantage for years. The re-arming of an Army, our own or any other, is such a long business that, speaking advisedly, I say that it is a matter not of months but of years. Therefore we ought not to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would light-heartedly inform the world that we are in danger of imminent and instant defeat if we are involved in war for a period of years to come. I am glad to think that his audience did not believe a word of it, for I read at the end of this alarming statement that "the Regular Army will suffer, in the inferiority of its weapons, a handicap which no courage can overcome," that striking comment of 10,000 people in the Albert Hall, "Hear, hear." We all know very well that as regards the process of national self-depreciation in which all audiences are apt to indulge on both sides, no audience in the Albert Hall or elsewhere would purchase a Tory victory at the price of a British defeat. So it is clear that they did not believe a word of it, and I do not believe oven that the right hon. Gentleman him-
  52
  self believed a word of it, but as some people may believe it, I think it desirable, to deal with the matter.
  The armament of our troops consists of course of heavy guns, field guns, that is Horse Field Artillery or machine guns, and of rifles, leaving out of account for a moment bayonets and swords, which I. think are not a subject of controversy just now. Take them one by one. Take first the heavy guns: Our Army is armed with a Howitzer, which is of the latest pattern, and I think by general consent, certainly by the consent of every school of thought in this country, and I believe by the general consent of everyone, it is the best heavy gun now in existence. It is the latest type; therefore it is not unlikely that we, who are not altogether a foolish people, will be able, if it is the latest type, to have the best. I suppose, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not demur to my statement, that so far from the heavy gun being utterly inferior to that of foreign nations, it is much the best. Now I turn to the Horse Field Artillery. After consultation with all the experts to whom I have access, it is a question as to whether ours is the best gun or the second best gun. The only question is as to whether our gun is inferior to the French gun. It is admittedly superior to all the other guns—I speak now of the great Continental Powers—because, again, it is the latest gun. It is inconceivable that this great nation, which has had to make war for so many hundreds of years, and which has all the previous experience of foreign Powers to go upon, should produce a very inferior gun. Nor can anybody contend that it is so. The only question is, is it, although better than that of the other Powers, inferior to that of the French?
  I have here a list drawn, up for mo by the Director of Artillery, of what he considers the thirteen essential points in a field gun, and I may say here that I sent all these to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition this morning. For a very obvious reason, when we are dealing with the French and English guns, the details of which are known, there is no embarrassment in talking in public about it, but when we come to compare different countries it is really better not to discuss the rifles of neighbouring Powers. They send us their rifles as an act of courtesy, and, in order to explain my case, I shall have to point out that many of our rivals are hopelessly inferior to us in vital respects. But I do not wish to give the names of those Powers, in order to avoid

  53
  giving offence. Therefore I sent this list to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, which contains full details of those Powers, and I will send confidentially to any Member of this House the same information: it is only confidential in the sense that we do not wish to create offence among friendly nations. The thirteen points of a field gun, in the view of our expert advisers, who will, I have no doubt, be the expert advisers of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, are rapid laying, rapid firing, the method of sighting, the ammunition supply, accuracy of the fuse, the smoke produced by the shell on impact or explosion, the muzzle energy, the weight of the shell, the mobility of the gun, the strength of the gun and its equipments, the shields to protect those who fire the gun, the actual sights themselves as distinguished from the method of sighting, and various others, some of them important accessories. The mobility of the carriage is included in the question of strength, and also in the question of accuracy.
  I am not going to go through all these points. I am not going into certain points; or, if I did, I might attempt to rival in length, though I cannot hope to do so in ability, the speeches of my Noble Friend on previous occasions. But I will furnish any hon. Gentleman, as I have furnished the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with the full opinion of the Director of Artillery, with that of his advisers, and of his able officers. I will just summarise his conclusions. There are four points in which the French are superior. I put those points first as a matter of politeness to a great and friendly nation. The first is accuracy of the fuses; so that if our weapons are utterly inferior we are in circumstances of extreme danger. But on the question of accuracy of fuses and the question of invisibility we are considered to be equal. The remainder of the points—7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13—seven points—our advisers think we are superior. Taking it all round, I think that for the purposes of war it is probably that our gun is at least as good as that of the French, and, by comparison with the guns of other Powers, it is undoubtedly superior. What the right hon. Gentleman had in mind when he made his speech I cannot conceive, but if it has anything to do with Artillery I suppose he would tell us. There is nothing we want to conceal, except where we have the advantage, that, we do not wish to communicate to the
  54
  public. In a matter of this Kind we have nothing to conceal, and I challenge him to say that I am overstating the case when I again assert that our mobile Artillery is certainly superior to that of any Continental nation, except possibly France, and in the case of France there is doubt.
  Our advisers consider that our gun is, better. The right hon. Gentleman and the party opposite are largely responsible, but I am not going into any recriminations as to whether it is a Unionist rifle or a Radical rifle, a Unionist gun or a Radical gun. Anything more absurd as a basis, for real argument could not be conceived. But it is perfectly justifiable to make a reply to so very flamboyant an address as, that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. We are merely trying to see what the truth is about this matter, and I say that, in the opinion of our advisers, our gun is superior to that of all Continental nations, though as to the French it is in doubt. Now we come to the machine guns. Machine guns are supplied to our Army on a very liberal scale—a more liberal scale than is the case with other Powers. We have got more in proportion. We have paid more attention to machine guns. There are obvious reasons for that. It is true that our Maxim is a very heavy gun. We are trying a Maxim very much lighter, one less than half the weight, only about 26 lbs.; but it is very doubtful whether the advantage will be very great, because as you lighten the Maxim it becomes so much more unstable. Anyone who has tried a Maxim gun must know how liable it is to jam, and make hopelessly erratic practice. Many people hold the view that the lighter the gun the greater the danger there is, and they are doubtful whether the lighter Maxim will have the advantages which some conceive it will possess. But in regard to the Maxim it cannot be said that, we are utterly inferior, because, taking this arm as a whole, we have rather more in proportion than other Powers. We did lead the way, and most other Powers have followed our lead, not only in the matter of the gun itself, but in many of its important details.
  The right hon. Gentleman will refer doubtless to the Territorial Force. In his statement he said that the Regular Army had weapons utterly inferior, and he said that was even more true with regard to the Territorial Force. The Territorial Force has only comparatively recently come into existence, and it was possible to arm them with what is the converted 15-pounder

  55
  breech-loader. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had been in office I should like them to tell us whether they would have converted the existing gun or would they have equipped the whole of this force with new guns at a cost of about £3,250,000, or whether they would have given them the guns available for conversion? So far as muzzle velocity and effective range are concerned it is superior to the German gun. If you have a gun almost immediately available, and if it is not inferior in the most important points to the German weapon, I think we were well advised to keep our three-quarters of a million for purposes even more vital, while giving the force the excellent weapon which they possess in the first stages of their career. I now come to the question of rifles. So far, I have dealt with the heavy Artillery, the mobile Artillery, and the machine gun, and I challenge any hon. or right hon. Gentleman to deny that according to expert advisers we are undoubtedly in these arms the best armed of Continental nations. And so it is with the rifles. The only other document I sent to the right hon. Gentleman opposite I am ready to send to any hon. Gentleman who wishes to see it. It is about the rifles, and the aspersions cast upon it in comparison with the rifles of foreign Powers. Let us see what the history of the subject is. Our rifle is a new rifle. The French rifle, "Labelle," was designed, I think, in 1886. The Lee-Met-ford was designed and issued in 1889. The German Mauser—I am speaking of the great Powers—was issued in 1898. The Lee-Enfield was issued in 1903. Ours therefore is the latest rifle.
  I would point out the inherent probability that ours is the superior weapon. Those who advised the Government in 1903, and the Government themselves were not all fools. In fact, in my humble judgment, they were very able men, with hardly an exception, and they could not have done anything so idiotic as to adopt a hopelessly bad gun. When I say gun, I use the word colloquially, or as one would speak of a sporting gun or rifle. Let us examine the rifle in the same way, point by point. I suppose that you may put the points necessary in a rifle in the following order. All officers agree that the first is reliability. If the rifle will not go off, nothing matters. Rifles do jam, we all know very well. The next point is rapidity of fire. That is vital. The next point is accuracy: that is vital. The
  56
  next is stopping power, and the next is flat trajectory for a further intermediate range; that is to say, a flat trajectory for 800, 900, or 1,000 yards. The next point is lightness, which is of very vital importance, as anyone who has read of any campaign must know. The next is handiness. As to the first point, reliability, our rifles are extraordinarily reliable. We know that, so far as reliability is concerned, the rifle we had in the South African war was extraordinarily reliable, and the jams were extremely few during that prolonged struggle, in which so many shots were fired. Our advisers report that our rifle is extremely trustworthy in this respect.
  5.0 P.M.
  Really it stands very high, and probably, for various reasons, stands first. I frankly put to the right hon. Gentleman before the House of Commons that to make such a statement as that which he delivered at the Albert Hall really does embarrass, not the Government of the day, but the defence of the country. What he said did not alarm his hearers, as we know from that "Hear, hear" to which I referred; but it might have alarmed, and it may have alarmed the British soldier, who has not got the opportunity, as everyone here would have, of comparing his weapon with foreign rifles. When it is said this weapon is greatly inferior, in order to restore confidence to the soldier we are obliged to give information which it is undesirable to impart in the interests of the State. It is a fact that in point of rapidity of firing, as I previously stated—though it is highly undesirable to draw attention to it except at a moment of this kind—we are twice as good as any foreign Power. Somebody said to me at the War Office in reference to this question of rifles, "It is like Columbus's egg trick." It is very simple when it is done, and if the right hon. Gentleman will come round to the War Office he will see our own rifle and those of the foreign Powers. Anyone who is interested in the question may see the rifles, already labelled, as they were brought to me by the responsible parties concerned; and I promise to place them in the Tea Room so that everyone can judge for himself. We have got an enormous and overwhelming advantage in the very simple fact of rapidity of firing. Accuracy is also an important thing in a rifle, and we stand first. A series of tests have been conducted with the rifles of five great Powers. The figure of a country is obtained by the firing of ten shots and then seeing the greatest divergence, and the figures

  57
  represent decimal points of feet. We are getting on with our "utterly inferior weapon." The figures are these: The British rifle stands at the top, .55; the next rifle, 61; the next rifle of a great Continental Power, .65; the next, .81; the next, 1.56. Our rifle is nearly three times more accurate than that of the worst of those five great Powers.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: At several ranges?
  Colonel SEELY: This is at a range of 600 yards, but at greater ranges and at extreme ranges, so I am informed, our rifle has a much greater superiority over all other rifles except the American. The reason for that, I am told, is that this is the only country except America where people go in for rifle shooting at long ranges. For that reason we have sighted our rifles up to 2,800 yards, and Americans sight up to an even greater distance, while other Powers sight much shorter. As to accuracy at 600 yards, the proof is the figures I have given. If anybody doubts them, I do beg of them to go to the range, and I shall make all arrangements as to the shooting. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go and shoot. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many foreign rifles were tried?"] I have mentioned five. I have in my room at the War Office altogether eleven, of which three are ours, the proposed new one, and the short and the long, and eight of foreign Powers. I do hope hon. Members will come and look at them and see for themselves, and if they do not choose the "utterly inferior weapon" I shall be very much surprised. As to stopping power, I say nothing except this. We have, as the House knows, adopted the new pointed bullet. We are the last Power to adopt it of all the great Powers, and I am very glad we were. We were obliged to follow suit, and the House need have no fear on that point should we go to war.
  There is then the question as to the trajectory. That is the one point I suppose on which the right hon. Gentleman must concentrate. Ours is less flat at those intermediate ranges than those of the other great Powers. There is in the Tea Room at present a diagram showing the trajectories of the different rifles. We could, I believe, make our trajectory as low. Our breach is probably not so strong, but according to some tests it does at the moment show greater pressures with the new cartridge than that of our great Continental rivals, but the Master-General of
  58
  Ordnance warned me that it is unwise to accept figures as to pressures unless they are checked again and again. It is a highly technical matter, but I would not like it to be said definitely that our pressures are greater than those of foreign; Powers, though that is the result which we have obtained at present. As far as the track of a bullet is concerned our bullet goes a little bit higher, a little under 9 ft.—between 8 and 9 ft.—compared to the German bullet, which is a little under 6 ft., and the advocates of the trajectory argument think it is the most important and the one that makes all the difference in the world. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the value of a low trajectory. It is an element, but it is not the most important element.
  To begin with, for very short ranges it makes no difference at all, and at very long ranges again the old-fashioned bullet goes, and goes further. The extreme range of our old bullet has been obtained by experiment at 3,600 yards. I myself was riding a horse in the South African War which was killed at an ascertained range of 3,000 yards from a mauser, and our bullet is able to go a little further. Thus there is no advantage either in very short ranges or in extreme lengths. There is a certain advantage in the flat trajectory at the intermediate lengths, but then only if you do not know the range, for if you know the range the difficulty disappears. I say nothing as to the possibility of overcoming the difficulty by adopting what is called the negative angle sight of Sergeant Ommundsen, which has received much notice in many well-in-formed quarters. It is too technical a matter to discuss now, but I admit it is an advantage, other things being equal, to have a flat trajectory, but other things are not equal. If we were to get a trajectory as flat as those of the French and German-rifles, it is almost certain we would sacrifice some of our rapidity of fire. As anyone can see, there must be occasional difficulties of extraction owing to the greater power of explosion in the chamber, and a greater chance of expansion of the gas with difficulty of extraction. It is for that reason that we have delayed somewhat, even after adopting the pointed bullet the issue of it, till we were quite-sure we could get a bullet and a cartridge which would avoid the great danger of a jam.
  An HON. MEMBER: Were the experiments with the pointed bullet?
  Colonel SEELY: Does the hon. Member mean those I referred to in the last paragraph? Those were carried out with the pointed bullet, but if they had been carried out with the other bullet, so far as we know, we should still have been at the top, because the difference of accuracy is very slight. I will not delay further as to the point about the trajectory, except to say that it is not the most important thing in a rifle, and it is not amongst the first four most important things in the rifle. We have the advantage in the first four. As to lightness, our rifle is lighter than the French and German, and it is the second lightest of the great Continental Powers. In handiness, ours being the shortest, and admittedly a well-balanced rifle, is presumably the best. Because it is the shortest and lightest, except that of Austria, and being well-balanced it may be presumed to be the best. We therefore arrive at this remarkable fact, and I am not now speaking in my own behalf or from my own point of view, though I have given close study to the subject, but of the views of every responsible man in the Army from whom I have been able to make inquiries. On those seven vital points we have the overwhelming advantage in the two most vital, rapidity of fire and accuracy. We are as high, at least, in reliability. We are better off than our great rivals in lightness. We are probably best off in handiness, and we are as good, and probably better, for we have a heavier bullet, in stopping power.
  I will not deny that in the trajectory they have the advantage. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman, if he had the chance, buying over a million rifles abroad, in spite of whatever views he may hold as to the desirability of employing home manufactories, as it would be the only thing he could do unless we were to be in our present condition for many years, since it takes years to make a new rifle. Suppose the British soldier were in battle with this foreign weapon he would find that he could not shoot so straight, he would find that he could not shoot so fast, and suppose the right hon. Gentleman were to creep up to him, for I know he would not be afraid to face any danger, and I fully admit his courage and patriotism, and suppose he were to say to the soldier, "But you have got a very flat trajectory." I know that the soldier would say, "Bother your trajectory: give me a rifle that shoots the straightest and shoots the fastest!" If anyone hears me who has had experience of War, I am sure
  60
  they will admit that any soldier would prefer the rifle that shoots the straightest and shoots the fastest rather than to have a rifle with a flatter trajectory, whatever advantages that flat trajectory may have. To sum up, our rifle shoots the straightest and the fastest, and it gives the hardest blow. At all ranges and over short ranges I claim therefore that on those points our rifle, although it admittedly has many defects, is the best rifle of the Continental Powers.
  Mr. JAMES MASON: In durability did our rifle compare favourably with the others?
  Colonel SEELY: That is the point as to durability. In referring to reliability I quoted the phrase of the Director of Artillery, that our rifle "practically never wears out." That was his phrase in making a report, but of course all these things are comparative. The point is an interesting one. It is not likely that our rifle will wear out as rapidly, for various reasons which it is not necessary to dwell upon, and one of which is the drawback in the high trajectory. There only remains the rifle with which the Territorial Force are armed. Is that the point? I do not know if it is worth while going through the question as to the relative merits of the long and the short rifles. Most people who were in this House at the time were, I believe, in favour of the long one. If the right hon. Gentleman does me the honour to come to the War Office and see the different rifles, as I trust he will, and as I think he is bound to do, I think he will probably prefer the long rifle; and, in fact, I am sure he will. There is one great advantage in the long rifle, and that is that if you were going to fire a great many shots it reduces the recoil. If the right hon. Gentleman were going to war he would find an enormous advantage, and so would the Territorial Force, or any body of troops who have to fire an immense number of rounds, or any man who has to do so, in reduced recoil. Especially is that proved of people who have had less practice than others. Otherwise there is no difference in rapidity of fire. Let me at once explain that the legend which has grown up that it will net fire the new cartridge is a complete delusion.
  There are two legends which I must really dismiss. The first is as to the shortage of ammunition. It has been stated publicly that there was a time when we were really short of ammunition a few months ago, and that there were only 150 rounds

  61
  per man. That is a most fantastic misstatement. At no moment during the past year, which is all I know about personally, have we not had ample stores of ammunition of both sorts, both pointed and the other, Mark VII. and Mark VI. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many rounds?"] It has always been considered inadvisable to state in public the precise stores of ammunition, but the moment I sit down I will give the Noble Lord the actual figures. If he then wishes to say it is not enough I hope he will get up at once and say so. It is very undesirable to state the precise number in the House; it has never been done; but confidentially I will give it to any hon. Member. But I assure them on my honour that at all moments there, has been an ample supply. I gave a comparison in reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Perthshire (the Marquess of Tullibardine).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I think the right hon. Gentleman explained that a considerable part of it did not fit the rifle.
  Colonel SEELY: I am coming next to the question of whether it fits or not. The store of ammunition designed for the rifle to be used, as I told the Noble Lord, was far in excess of the total number of rounds fired in the whole three years of the South African war. I repeat that statement, and I trust the House will rest satisfied with it. The next point is in regard to whether the two cartridges fit the same rifle. May I say at once that I have fired a great many rounds of Mark VII. ammunition from both the short and the long rifles, sighted for both sorts, and Mark VI. ammunition from both rifles. They are absolutely interchangeable. At short ranges the difference in sighting is small. Nobody proposes, nor is there the least likelihood that we should have to use the pointed ammunition, Mark VII., in what I may call the Mark VI. rifle, for we have ample stores of ammunition of both sorts. At any period of transition there may be a danger. We have minimised the danger by having ample stores of both sorts of ammunition, and in a very short time the whole of our Forces, including the Territorial Force, will be armed with Mark VII. ammunition and with rifles sighted for that purpose. In the meantime the cartridges are absolutely interchangeable. So that if by any chance there was a mistake, and they did get mixed, they would fire just as well, and the difference would only be a differ-
  62
  ence in sighting, which arises in an acute form at ranges a little beyond 670 yards. Up to 670 yards the difference is so slight that an ordinary man firing would not know which he was firing. Certainly you cannot tell the difference from the recoil. That finishes what I have to say about armament. I must apologise to the House for detaining them at such length, but the statement made that our weapons were utterly inferior was so emphatic that, with the full approval of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for War, I have made a full statement. I ask the House now to affirm that what the right hon. Gentleman said was absolutely remote from the truth, and that, if you take the armaments of the British Army as a whole, we are incontrovertibly superior to any Continental army. We ought to be, because we have a small Army, and we are, and we mean to remain, the best armed of any army in Europe.
  I turn now to less controversial matters, and I trust I shall not have to detain the House very long on these points, though I shall be glad, as will also the Financial Secretary, to reply at a suitable moment to any points that may be raised. I shall have to make a full statement on our aviation policy at the conclusion of my remarks. The House will see that the Estimates do not differ in any material degree from those of previous years. The total amount is larger, but the amount taken for aviation also is larger, and more than covers the difference. As regards the Expeditionary Force, there has been steady progress made. I have made a comparison with the year 1908, so as to avoid any idea that I was comparing it with the Expeditionary Force during the late Government. I find that the numbers available without Reserves are over 10,000 greater than they were four years ago, and that the numbers available for the Expeditionary Force with the Reserves are 50,000 greater than was the case four years ago, I think that is a satisfactory advance. The mobility of the Expeditionary Force has been increased also. Various shortcomings in organisation have been made good, though I fully admit that much more remains to be done. We have improved the signalling service and the intercommunication service. A question was asked today about travelling kitchens, which are a very vital element in our mobility. I am glad to say that we have sanctioned a certain number, and their issue will be commenced forthwith. The Regular Army, as a whole, has advanced steadily in efficiency

  63
  during the past few years. We need not, as a rule, go to any foreign country to get a testimonial to our own virtue, but I think a statement about the British Army that appeared in the French official publication is sufficiently remarkable to bear quoting in this House. In their last article in the "Revue Militaire," the French General Staff—and I presume they may be taken as impartial lookers-on at the different armies of the world, say this:—
  "There is no army which has made progress comparable with the British during the last few years. It is to-day highly placed among the best. Its Infantry is particularly remarkable and continues to improve."
  I believe that to be true of the Regular Army. There is a real spirit of zeal and energy amongst the officers, and, as I shall try to show later, a very real improvement in the men. This being assuredly no matter either for party or for any other conflict, I am sure we can all rejoice that there are signs of the continued and real progress of our great British Army towards even higher efficiency. With regard to the Reserves, there is not so good a tale to tell. The Regular Army, as anyone will see from the Report just issued, is practically up to strength. The shortage is so small on a fixed establishment of over 250,000 that it may be disregarded. Nor is there any appreciable shortage of officers in the Regular Force. In the Special Reserve, however, there is a real shortage. I regret to say that there are 1,800 men less, as appears in the Secretary of State's Memorandum, than there were last year. On the other hand, there are seventy more officers, which is an improvement. I am told that good trade tells very much against recruiting, and it may be that that has been the cause of the shortage of recruits for the Special Reserve. But, latterly, there has been a very real improvement, and since August last there has been an increase of 3,000. I would ask the House not to think that this is a very dangerous matter, for, as I have shown, the Expeditionary Force has got Reserves adequate to its need for a long time to come. That is far better provided with Reserves than it was four years ago. The Territorial Force shows an increase in numbers, and, I seriously believe, in efficiency. I have figures a little later than those in the Secretary of State's Memorandum. The total numbers now are 263,624 of all ranks. Nor is it discouraging that the increase since October last is very much greater than it was in the
  64
  corresponding period of last year—namely, 9,000 as against less than 5,000, or nearly double as large. On the other hand, more men are due to leave this year by the expiration of their engagements. In all, 80,000 can take their discharge if they wish. Therefore it behoves us to make every effort to keep the Force up to its present strength and to increase it to full strength.
  Earl WINTERTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there has been an increase in the Territorial Force since 1st January? His own figures contradict it.
  Colonel SEELY: I said from 1st October.
  Earl WINTERTON: But from 1st January last?
  Colonel SEELY: From 1st October, 1911. That is last year.
  Earl WINTERTON: These figures are later.
  Colonel SEELY: I think the Noble Lord is in error. It is not a material point, but there is no doubt that the increase from 1st October to now is approximately 9,000—it depends on what day you take whether it is a little more or less—whereas the increase in the corresponding period of last year was only 5,000. That is a feature which may give us some consolation, but the feature that there are 80,000 men to go must give us some concern. That is the whole point I am making. It is therefore necessary for us to do all we can to increase the numbers. We have decided to give separate allowance to all married privates, as well as non-commissioned officers, who attend camp for fifteen days. The criticism has been made that this separate allowance should have been given to all those who attend camp for any period, say for eight days. I think, however, it is better to give it to those who attend for fifteen days, because the whole object of giving separation allowance, as in making any other concession of this kind, is to prevent a man from being out of pocket by his service in the Territorial Force. Many men in practice do get leave and their wages paid them for a week, but cannot get leave for a fortnight; therefore it seems more urgent to give a separation allowance to married privates who attend for fifteen days. We have also made an increased Grant for those attending musketry, which I hope will somewhat mitigate a certain

  65
  hardship which men suffered in having to spend money as well as time in attending their musketry course. I do not propose to say anything now with regard to Sunday shooting, because a very full statement of the War Office policy appeared in the Press this morning, and I think most Members of the House are aware of the policy which we have pursued. There is nothing new in what we have done. Men have shot on Sundays for many years past—indeed for centuries past, as one of my hon. Friends reminds me. We were asked whether we would prohibit it, and we frankly said we would not, but that what we would do was to see, so far as it was possible for the Army Council to do so, that there was no compulsion on the men, and no inconvenience to the public of the neighbourhood, that the practice should be restricted to the necessary practice, and should not degenerate into a sort of rifle meeting for match shooting on Sundays, which might cause a scandal. I trust that the House will generally endorse the policy which the Army Council has adopted in this matter.
  There only remains for me to add one or two things which I will quote as to the Territorial Force, which may do something to counterbalance the rather unfavourable remarks passed upon it by some eminent and some not very eminent soldiers. I think one of the latter class has called the Territorial Force "a sham." Here is the opinion of General French, publicly stated. Speaking on 22nd February, General French said:—
  "During the last four years it has been my duty to inspect the Territorial Force. Therefore I claim to be in a position to gauge the effect produced by the drastic changes which were carried out by Lord Haldane and those under him, and to know of the progress which has been made I can only say that reality has taken the place of unreality—"
  That is Sir John French who is on one side, whilst those who think the Force a sham are on the other. I say that there are some eminent and some not very eminent men who have spoken on the matter; but the words of a man who has been inspecting the Force for four years, who has shown so great a capacity to lead troops on all kinds of field, whose opinion is rightly looked up to, not only in this country but in all Europe, as one of the most able soldiers this country has recently produced, are entitled to consideration when he speaks will full deliberation and in such emphatic language. General French concludes his remarks by saying:—
  "I have no hesitation in saying that the progress made by the Territorial Army in the period mentioned is quite wonderful."
  66
  That is the opinion of a very eminent soldier. I am aware that that which I have previously called a passion for national self-depreciation is a national characteristic. But I would appeal to the country to put a stop to this perpetual belittlement of efforts on patriotic grounds. It can do no possible good, and it may do infinite harm. Whether you belittle the Army or the Territorial Force, you are injuring your country, and all to no good. I have spoken of the whole Army as briefly as I could, but there is one point which I do wish to bring before the House: that is the physique and morale of the men in the ranks of the Regular Army. I do not think that the points which I am going to put before the House have been brought to the notice of the House during the last few years, but the results are so gratifying that I am sure the House will permit me to state them. It is not usual to quote, except in exceptional circumstances, members of the Army Council, but I think I may quote the opinion of General Miles, who was so long Director of Recruiting, and is now Quartermaster-General. He probably knows more about the British soldier in this respect than any man. He said to me that in this matter of the improvement of the health, conduct, and standard of the British soldier that
  "it is not a development, it is a revolution."
  From the figures which I will give the House I think hon. Members will see that that is not an overstatement. I will only take a comparison between the years 1903 and 1911. In the first year there were 10,747 court-martialled; last year that number had sunk to 5,301—a reduction to half. The sobriety of the Army has increased out of all knowledge. In 1889, 688 men were admitted to hospital suffering from alcoholism. In 1903 that number had sunk to 169. In 1910, the last year for which we have figures, the number was 37. That is a drop—from 688 to 37. The admissions to hospital for certain preventable diseases, which have done so much harm to the Army in many ways, have been reduced, I am glad to tell the House, in quite an extraordinary degree. During the last seven years they have been reduced by more than half, and the deaths have been reduced to a quarter of what they were seven years ago. Good conduct medals—and this is a real test, for the soldier cannot get a good conduct medal unless his conduct is good for twenty-four hours, whereas most people's conduct in a general way has to be good only during their hours of work—good conduct medals numbered 2,000 in

  67
  1903, as against 5,000, or two and a half times as many, in 1911. First-class certificates of education during the same period have more than doubled in number. There are 25,000 men in the Army Temperance Association; 21,000 are total abstainers. When we know the great danger that insobriety is to people in tropical climates, and when we remember that our Army is forced to dwell for service in tropical climates for half its time, whatever views hon. Members may personally have, I think everyone will rejoice in this extraordinary increase of sobriety in the Army. The same great authority, General Miles, wrote to me—
  "that the British soldier had improved out of all knowledge. He is no longer part of a machine; he is an intelligent unit in a great organisation. What the causes of these are I cannot say fully. There hare been so many. But it is a better appreciation of the work of the Churches, of the chaplains, and of the officers of the Army, who have shown so great an interest in the health of the men in many vital ways—"
  to which I have referred. We insist upon a man having a good character before he is allowed to enter the Army. There is the depot system, and the better attention given by the officers in the depots to the care of the soldiers. Altogether, it is a wonderful improvement. I may be permitted to say, as one who has served in the British Army in the field, and therefore has learnt to love the British soldier, that it is good indeed to be able to give this account to the House of Commons, seeing that the British soldier, while he retains all his great qualities, is rapidly getting rid of those drawbacks which have too often in the past marred his career. I shall doubtless be asked as to the condition of aviation, and possibly what we have done in regard to transport and horses. It is a very simple story. I think I can give the House all the figures which are obtainable. We may divide our needs for horses on mobilisation into those needed for the Regular Army and those required by the Territorial Force. On mobilisation the Regular Army require 44,000 horses, in addition to those we already have on a peace basis, or 52,000.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman classify them?
  Colonel SEELY: I was just coming to the classification; but it would take a long time to go into the whole details. We know from the census and the classification which has been carried out by the adjutants and remount officers in the
  68

  country during the last few moths that this number is available, and much more. There is one real difficulty in classification. There is an ample supply of heavy draught horses; but there are just enough, or possibly more than just enough of very light draught horses and Cavalry horses, both for mobilisation and for immediate purposes for which we need horses. When we come to the gun horses, however, although there are enough horses of that class there do not appear to be enough horses of that class in hard training. The reason is obvious, and that is the disappearance of the omnibus horse. During the last war this horse rendered valuable service; so much so that as somewhat of a joke it was suggested that the best way to get the guns forward was to ring a bell.
  In the disappearance of the omnibus horse, we are confronted with a very real difficulty. We are considering means by which we can overcome this difficulty; we shall very likely have to take steps which did not a short time ago seem necessary. We shall be glad of any suggestions the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) can give us to overcome this difficulty, which is a real one, owing to the fact that the disappearance of horses for purposes of peace has not been accompanied by the disappearance of horses for the purposes of war. While all horses may disappear from our streets in a few years, say five or six, we shall have to horse our guns, so far as we can see for the next twenty, thirty, or fifty years for the purposes of an Army in the field. As to the 40,000 that our Regular Army requires, though we have classified them, and the classification is quite complete, no arrangements have been made for their purchase or collection, but we are working on a full scheme.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Are the transport horses included?
  Colonel SEELY: In the 44,000? Yes, I think so. I am quite sure that must be so. because I have quoted the large number of 8,000 for mechanical transport. The Territorial Force requires 86,000 horses, and again I may say that these numbers are available. So far as classification has gone, we are pretty certain we have got enough horses in the country, but again, of course, there comes the difficulty of the condition of the horses. The same problem that faces the Territorial Force is the one that faces the Regular Army, though it is rather more acute. With regard to the mechanical transport, we have

  69
  divided it into eight supply columns, eight ammunition parks, two oversea depots, and one home depot. We have nineteen cadres—capable of expansion. We have established thirteen, and we very soon shall establish the whole of the nineteen. We have not yet got a satisfactory plan for getting all the vehicles required, namely, 900 motor lorries, which it is most desirable we should have of a similar pattern, if not of the same pattern, so that the parts may be interchangeable. We have decided upon a scheme of subsidies in order to get a similar pattern, but I am not in a position to make a full statement on the subject of mechanical transport, seeing it is engaging the most earnest attention of the Department. We will lose no time in making mechanical transport efficient for the purpose for which it is required. Now I come to what is called aviation—though I hope that detestable word may for ever be banished from the English language.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What will you substitute?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not know whether I care to make a suggestion on that point. The Prime Minister appointed a Committee to consider the subject, consisting of the following: Lord Haldane (Chairman), the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Esher, Prince Louis of Battenberg, Sir Charles Hadden, Commander Samson, R.N., Sir Robert Chalmers, Mr. O'Gorman (head of the Army air-craft), General Murray, General Henderson, and myself. They settled certain broad principles, and they devolved the working out of the complete scheme upon a technical committee composed as follows:—Generals Scott and Moncrieff, representing the Master-General of Ordnance; General Henderson, the first British General to learn to fly; Commander Samson, of the Royal Navy, whose exploits are familiar to the House as a daring sailor in the air; Lieutenant Gregory, of the Royal Navy, who is also an extraordinarily expert flyer; Mr. Mervyn O'Gorman, and myself as chairman. We held many meetings; during the whole of the last recess we were at work; we made a scheme, laid it before the full committee, which accepted it in all parts, except details as to pay, and it was this morning approved by the Prime Minister, and will now be carried into effect. I will state as shortly as possible what this scheme is.
  There is to be one flying corps embracing soldiers, sailors, and civilians, all who can fly, and who will undertake the obliga-
  70
  tion to serve their country in time of war in any part of the world. No man shall hold executive rank in the flying corps unless he is himself an expert flyer, and the great advantage of that only those who have helped to deal with the matter can realise. The present Aero Battalion ceases to exist, and part of it is absorbed in the new organisation. The corps will be one corps, and as far as possible all the officers will be paid alike and treated alike, because they will run the same risk and have the advantage of doing the same daring deeds. In a purely land war the whole flying corps will be available, and in a purely naval war the whole flying corps will be available for naval war. The headquarters of the flying corps will be on Salisbury Plain, for which a large tract of land has been purchased at a cost of about £90,000; it has been purchased for this special purpose, all other purposes being subsidiary.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: How many will be accommodated?
  Colonel SEELY: I could not say offhand, but I could approximately.
  Mr. SANDYS: Could the right hon. Gentleman give a general idea?
  Colonel SEELY: I will tell the hon. Gentleman in a moment. In the first instance accommodation will be provided for sixty officers at one time. There will be three terms of four months each, and we propose to pass through, all being well, 180 officers in each year. Therefore there will be sixty officers at one time. In addition there will be non-commissioned officers and mechanics of various kinds. If an officer wants to join the flying corps he has first to get the consent and approval of the military authorities; then he has to be passed by the doctor; then he has to obtain the Royal Aero Club certificate, and that he obtains at an aerodrome. We do not propose to use the Central Flying School for teaching officers; we propose they should learn the elements of the air elsewhere, and then come to the flying school for the more advanced course. They will have certain difficulties—
  An HON. MEMBER: At whose expense are they to be trained before presenting themselves at the flying school?
  Colonel SEELY: I will come to that. After receiving the Royal Aero Club certificate and before presenting themselves, each will receive £75, which will

  71
  cover the cost. This particular arrangement has been in force for some little time past, and between twenty and thirty officers have received £75 each already. They will then be attached to the Central Air School, and there they go through a course of four months. I will tell the Committee what it is proposed they should learn. They will learn progressive flying, mechanics, and construction in all its details, meteorological observations of the air, navigation and flying by compass, cross-country flights, photography from the air, signalling by all methods, and, most important, the types of warships of all nations. After this course, an officer—for he will be an officer of the Air Corps, whatever source they came from originally, whether Army, Navy, or civilians—will either join the military wing or the naval wing, or else he may go straight to the Reserve.
  The military wing will consist of seven aeroplane squadrons, each containing twelve aeroplanes and a suitable number of officers to fly them, and there will be an eighth squadron, consisting of balloons and kites. The balloons will consist of two dirigibles, which now exist, two flights of kites, and the present free balloons, so long as they last and possibly longer, because we are told on all hands that the practice of observation in the air is very conveniently carried out from the safe platforms of the free balloon. A man may go to the naval wing which is to be established at Eastchurch; there will be branches of the military wing established at points not yet settled, some at Aldershot, some on the coast. The naval wing will have its headquarters at Eastchurch. The particulars are not yet finally settled, but they will be suitable. In the Reserve there will be two classes—those belonging to the first, who perform cross-country flights and will receive a retaining fee, and the Second Reserve will consist of those who have passed through this course, but who do not want to go through these flights or receive a retaining fee, but will continue in the Reserve and be available in time of war. Both the Army and Navy wing of the Air Corps will be always on a war footing, and the peace and war establishment will be the same. The Army Air Corps Factory will cease to be called the Army Air Factory, and will be the Air Corps Factory for the whole corps. Its primary function will be experiments and building experimental machinery; making big repairs of machinery where it is thought desirable;
  72
  sometimes building machines, but its primary duties will be the training in expert knowledge of the numerous mechanics required for this new service. Now I shall be asked in regard to this ambitious scheme, what really is going to be the total number of men who fly, and how many aeroplanes have you got. The scheme involves the purchase of 131 aeroplanes.
  Mr. LEE: This year?
  Colonel SEELY: I am not sure whether we shall be able to buy all this year. This is not a matter of expense at all. In this the purchases of the Air Committee have been sanctioned already, and orders for a great many of these have gone out, and others are in process of negotiation. Not so many have been ordered from British manufacturers as we should wish, but that is because the technical members of my committee, themselves flying men, realised, with the full approval of the whole committee, that the first essential was efficiency and safety, and it is a fact that in many respects France has gone a long way ahead of us. We could not buy British machines—necessary though it is to encourage British manufacturers, because we cannot obtain machines for use in time of war—at the price of human life, and therefore we had to reduce the number of orders we had originally hoped to give to British firms. That difficulty will soon be overcome, no doubt, because there are a great many of the best brains at work upon orders to make aeroplanes, not only more speedy and efficient, but safe. The risks these officers will run will be very great. The insurance rates are very high, but it is some consolation to know that in France they have enormously increased the safety of learning to fly. I know one particular school where they have covered 60,000 kilometres without accident of any kind, and there may be others that will show similar records as good, or almost as good. It is to be hoped therefore that the risk will be reduced, but they will still be very great, and for that reason I trust the House of Commons will not grudge the expense involved in making adequate payment to those officers and giving an adequate scale of pension in the event of their being rendered unable to continue their service.
  I may take it I may rely upon the House for every assistance in this matter, if for no other reason than that of the dangers in this business. One hundred and thirty-three officers are required for the military wing, and for the naval thirty or forty; and

  73
  for the Reserve the number we shall work up will depend on how the science progresses in the near future. We have the 133 military officers, but we have no doubt many will volunteer who will, not only learn to fly, but will fly without accident. That brings me to the point as to why we suggested what is not settled, that these officers should learn to fly at private flying schools. There are two reasons. First of all, because it is so desirable we should encourage private effort as far as may be; and, secondly, we believe there is less risk of accident in the initial stages if we proceed by these methods. It is largely the feeling in France that it is greatly to the interest of the aeroplane to avoid accidents altogether. After learning the elementary art of flying officers will come to the Central Flying School, where they will not run the same risk, because they will have learned the elements already.
  Mr. LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any officer who chooses to qualify for learning to fly at a private school will get £75, or will it be only such as are invited to learn through the Government?
  Colonel SEELY: The answer is that for the moment any officer who is approved by his commanding officer and the proper military authorities, and is passed as fit and obtained his certificate, will obtain £75, because we are very short of members, but when we get up to our full number the phrase, "Let 'em all come!" which now applies, will no longer apply.
  Mr. MALCOLM: Will the officers learning be available for compassionate allowance or pension?
  6.0 P.M.
  Colonel SEELY: That is not laid down in the scheme, but I think it certainly should be the case. I am glad the hon. Member has brought it to my notice, because if these things are not laid down at the start they may bring hardship. I will see that that should be laid down. Now in regard to the encouragement of private enterprise, we propose to do it not only by getting officers to obtain their certificates privately, but also by the purchase of aeroplanes in this country as far as possible, and by renting sheds and landing rights in different aerodromes. We think it very desirable that there should be more aerodromes in this country in order to encourage cross-country flying, and the establishment of more landing places is
  74
  bound to be essential we are to keep in the first rank. Scientific research will be continued in co-operation with the Advisory Committee set up by the Prime Minister a short time ago. This is a very ambitious scheme, and it is an entirely new scheme for a new service. We have worked very hard to make a good scheme, and nobody is more conscious than I am, as Chairman of the Committee, that we must have made a great many mistakes and there must be a great many omissions from the very nature of the case, owing to the novelty of the science we have had to study. I think and believe that even with all those mistakes and omissions we have laid the foundation of a plan which will ensure that this country in the long run, and sooner rather than later, shall be able to hold her place in the air as she has done in the centuries past both on land and sea.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Perhaps I might, in the first words which I address to the House, be permitted to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the opportunity he has had for the first time of laying these Estimates before the House. I congratulate him also on the successful effort which he has made to keep his criticism of me within such moderate limits, because it was evident he was trying to be angry without very much success. I am sorry that it is necessary for me to rise now. I may say that I certainly have no intention of dealing with the general Army statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, but in the early part of his speech, which I am afraid in the interesting details which have followed since the House has largely forgotten, he criticised severely—that is, if strong assertion unaccompanied by any evidence can be called strong criticism—some remarks made by me in a speech I made outside in another place, and consequently I feel it is necessary for me to deal with that aspect of the subject. Now, Mr. Speaker, I did use language in that case which was fairly strong, and which would be unjustifiably strong if the case could not be made good. But I think it can be made good, and it will be my endeavour to show to the House that I had good reason for making the criticism which I then made. I am going at the outset to make the right hon. Gentleman a present of this admission, that when I spoke of the weapons of our soldiers I had in my mind only the rifles. I am quite ready to make that admission, but since the right hon.

  75
  Gentleman rather thinks it is going back, I am bound to say to him that if I were thinking only of a Parliamentary debating case, there would be no need to make that assertion. I wish to call attention to this fact. Look at the Artillery of our Territorial Forces. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider if that Artillery is ever used at all, it will be used against the best troops and the best Artillery which is to be found in the world. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."]
  Colonel SEELY: This is a very important point. It was a statement as to the "Weapons of the Regular Army, and that is what he said. He said the Regular Forces, and he also mentioned the Artillery Forces.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the right hon. Gentleman is not exact and his memory does not serve him rightly.
  Colonel SEELY: I have here the exact words.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: My recollection is that my criticism was not chiefly of the Regular Army. I know I said that the Territorial Army was very much worse. Is that not so?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes, that is so.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Very well, if I wished to make a debating case I could do so for this reason, that if the Territorial Artillery is ever required it will be against the very best troops the world has ever produced. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine for a moment that it would be adequate to meet an emergency of that kind? If I wanted to make a charge against the Regular Army only I have some ground for that. At all events, Lord Roberts only a day or two ago in the House of Lords—and after all the opinion of Lord Roberts especially on a question of Artillery, the branch of the Service to which he belongs is still of some value oven though he has the misfortune to differ with both the War Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite—used this language:—
  "Owing to the Artillery fuses, fuse setters and sights not being up to date, our field guns are not automatic firing guns."
  Colonel SEELY: Quite untrue.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That assertion was made in the presence of the War Secretary in the House of Lords, and the only answer he could give was the same kind
  76
  of reply we have had to-night from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that our weapons are the best the world. That is the only way in which it was answered. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made this attack unnecessarily. Every man who is making a speech has before his mind a picture. I had simply the picture of our troops with what is distinctively regarded as a soldier's modern weapon, the rifle, and if I can show that what I said is true about the rifles—especially when it is remembered that 90 per cent., I think I am within the mark, of all the damage inflicted in time of war is inflicted by the rifle—if I can make that statement good, then I think that not very much is gained by the admission I have made to the right hon. Gentleman. I am going to try and make it good. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman feeling the responsibility of his position today upon something else. He must have felt, as we all have felt, the charm that used to be exercised over us by Lord Haldane—I do not want to put it in a way disrespectful to him—but it is quite evident that evil communications do corrupt good manners. We all remember how the War Secretary used to paralyse the House by a multiplicity of illustrations and figures and details which hid from us altogether the point which we were criticising. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been a good pupil, but it takes some time to learn that sort of thing, and he has not learned it very well, if he will excuse me saying so. I am going to show how little there was in the whole defence made by the right hon. Gentleman, which lasted half an hour. I think I can knock the bottom out of this case by asking him one question. He told us that for all time ours is the best rifle to be found anywhere. This is the question I put 1o him: Why are you getting a new rifle?
  Colonel SEELY: Because we have reason to believe that other nations will soon be adopting a new rifle, and we want to be the first.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a most extraordinary statement, but if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he has restored the bottom to the edifice he has built I will take the liberty of knocking it out again by another quotation. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is the best rifle in the world. What did the War Secretary say in this House two years ago? He

  77
  did not then think it was the best rifle in the world, because this is what he said:—
  "We shall never have a proper rifle until we have one which will stand a much greater degree of breach pressure than the rifle of to-day."
  If we have the best rifle in the world Lord Haldane would not have described it as an improper rifle. I am going, I hope, to make out a better case in the statement I am making than the right hon. Gentleman has made a defence of the case he has presented to the House. To justify what I have said, I have got to make good two propositions. The first proposition is that the rifle is bad, but that is not enough. I recognise as fully as anyone that we cannot be changing our armaments every month or every year, and therefore it is necessary for me to make good not only that the rifle is bad, but, secondly, that it was known and recognised, and declared to be bad by the Government so long ago that it ought to have been remedied long ago. That is my case. The right hon. Gentleman, in that process of hiding the wood among the trees, mixed up our rifles, so much that I am sure no one who followed him could understand exactly what he meant. As a matter of fact, in dealing with this question of the rifles supplied to the Regular troops, without any reference to the Territorial Forces, taking not only the rifle itself, but its efficiency and ammunition into account, we have actually three different rifles to consider at this moment. We have, first of all, the rifle with the old ammunition which is still supplied to a great many of our Regular troops, and until the other day it was supplied to the whole Army. Secondly, we have to consider the same rifle adjusted to suit the new ammunition. And, in the third place, we have to consider the new rifles which we are going to get some day, and which Lord Haldane told us is to be the best rifle in the world. Every producer of a new rifle thinks it is going to be the best rifle in the world, and I hope it will be.
  Consider what is the position of these three rifles, as I have described them. The first charge which I make against the Government is that they ought to have made arrangements for getting a completely new rifle long ago, because the new ammunition, valuable as it is, is only a makeshift, and is recognised as a makeshift. In making that charge I have very good ground for the position I take up. Lord Haldane two years ago used the words I have quoted, for he said that we cannot get a proper rifle until we get a
  78
  new one. The reason for that is that our breech action is so weak that we cannot do what other countries have done—that is, adapt the new ammunition in the proper way. That was known and recognised and stated to the House by Lord Haldane two years ago, and the fact that he knew it and recognised it is the justification for the statement I made that we ought long ago to have prepared for the new rifle, which is only being thought of to-day. I admit at once that the case against the Government would not be nearly so strong if they had, as soon as they could, made the adaptation of our present rifle to the new ammunition, which is only coming into operation to-day. I ask the House to consider what the position is. An army is not kept as something to talk about, and it is not kept, as someone in another place said the other day, as a peg on which to hang beatitudes. It is there for work, and the way we have to judge the Army and the administration of the Army is the extent to which it would have been fit for its work at the time it was called upon to do that work. That is the test. As the House knows, it is common knowledge, or perhaps I had better put it common belief, that we were in danger of war last summer. Will the House believe that in spite of all Lord Haldane has said over and over again about the new ammunition, if we had gone to war at that time our troops would have been armed with the old rifle and the old ammunition, in precisely the same way as it was four, five, or six years ago. That is admitted. Now consider what a handicap that would have been. The right hon. Gentleman went over a list—and he has kindly sent me a statement prepared by the head of the Artillery Department comparing different rifles—of points in which our rifle was superior to the rifle of other countries. Every one of them is a mere assertion on the part of people who have never used the German rifle as a regular weapon.
  Colonel SEELY Colonel SEELY indicated dissent.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: "Never used it as a regular weapon." We get copies of these different rifles and our riflemen use them, but they are accustomed to our rifles, and surely no one will pretend we can claim to get the same results from a foreign rifle as the men who use them and use no other kind of rifle. Then he made other kinds of statements. I cannot imagine anything more misleading than what he said about the accuracy test. He spoke of it as if it was applied to the rifle with which our

  79
  troops were armed, but it was applied to the new ammunition, to the kind of ammution our soldiers would not have had if they had gone to war. Then the right hon. Gentleman, with an amount of faith in the ignorance of his audience which was not justified, spoke of the trajectory as if it were of comparatively little importance. Why, everyone knows it was the defect in the trajectory which made Lord Haldane say our rifle was not proper, and which made it necessary to get the new ammunition; and for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that is a matter of no consequence which can be got over in another way is really an absurdity. Let the House understand what it means. One does not need to be an expert to understand it. The difference is this: The British rifle at 800 yards, which, let the House remember, in all military text-books is described as the decisive range, fires a bullet which has a trajectory of nearly thirteen feet. That is to say, that with an army advancing to the attack over a large part of the surface the bullet flies right over their heads, and does not touch them at all. In the case of the German bullet, its highest trajectory is six feet, as the right hon. Gentleman said; that is to say, covering the whole line, it does not go above the head of a tall man, and for nearly the whole distance it sweeps the whole ground. In other words, our soldiers would have been using a weapon which, in comparison with the German weapon, has this difference: The German soldier would have been firing point blank practically for the whole distance of 800 yards, and we should have been firing point blank for little more than half that distance. I put it to anyone in this House, whether he is a soldier or not, I put to anyone who has the capacity for thinking: Is it not evident that if we came into action and our soldiers found they were subjected to an attack, not of targets at which they might aim low, as Lord Haldane said the other day, but of targets which would hit back, and hit with disastrous effect, would it not have a demoralising effect on our troops?
  I think I have justified the fact that we have a bad rifle. Let me make good the other point. "We ought to have had it remedied." So long ago as 1909, in introducing the Estimates—and this is the first reference which I can find to it in Lord Haldane's speech, but I am sure he must have known about it long before, or, if he did not, he ought to have done—Lord Hal-
  80
  dane pointed out the very defects I have named. He pointed them out to the House, and he told us he was getting a new ammunition which would remedy these defects. He said experiments were being made, and he led us to suppose the change would take place pretty soon. A year later, in 1910, he made the same kind of statement. He led us to believe that experiments had gone on on such a large scale that the Army would have the new and improved ammunition in a short time. In 1911 we had the same kind of story as was told us two years before. What happened? The crisis came in the autumn, and the thing talked about being made ready nearly three years before is not ready now, and we should have gone to war with a handicap which deserves every word I used about it. If the House wishes still better to realise the position, I think it can do so if I read the answer to a question given by Lord Haldane, I think in March, 1910. He was asked what foreign countries had adopted the new ammunition, and at what date they had adopted it. This is the answer of 2nd March, 1910:—
  "The following countries adopted a pointed bullet at the dates shown: France, 1904; Germany, 1905; United States. 1906: Denmark. 1908; Holland, 1908; Turkey, 1908; Japan, 1909; Switzerland, 1909"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1910, col. 951.]
  I do not make an unreasonable demand upon our Army authorities. I recognise that with us the Navy comes first, and that we must lead all other Powers in improvements in regard to the Navy. I do not make that demand in regard to the Army, but I do say there is some limit to reasonable delay, and we might at least expect we should not be much behind Turkey in making an improvement which had been made by all other foreign countries. We were. Turkey did it in; 1908, and we are only doing it now, and it is not yet completed in 1912. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, as I know he will understand, that I have now, thanks to the position I occupy, opportunities of discussing these sort of things with men who know as much about them as anyone in the world. I wish to say to him also that if I thought there were any truth in his suggestions that I have said something which would injure the Service I should regret it extremely, and I should be the last knowingly to do it. But there is something else to be said. If I find out, as I believe I did find out, and as I believe still more strongly after the defence I have got this afternoon, that there was in our Army a defect which of all others ought

  81
  not to exist and which we of all Powers should remove, then it is my duty to call attention to that defect and hope the result may be to remedy it. I can imagine no excuse for culpable delay. What is the excuse which is given? The right hon. Gentleman said he was not going to use that kind of argument, but he forgot and used it. He said we introduced the rifle which I am criticising. Yes, but how long is that plea going to serve them? It has served them for six years; is it going to serve them for sixty? Are they not responsible now for the Army as it stands to-day? If an answer were needed, and I do not think it is, there is a much more complete one than that. When we went out of office our rifle was not appreciably inferior to that of other armies. It is since they came in that everyone of these Powers has adopted the new ammunition, which means enormously increasing the efficiency of the rifle. They knew the change had been made, and it was their duty to see we did not lag behind, and that our soldiers were armed as well as the soldiers of any Power.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE).
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words, "in the opinion of this House the conditions of service of Government employés should be in every respect at least equal to those observed by the best private employers or by local public authorities doing similar work, and that, in interpreting the Fair-Wages Clause in assigning contracts, responsible officials should be instructed to see that the spirit of the Clause is properly carried out when the actual wording gives room for some doubt."
  It was not very interesting to some of us to listen to the speeches that have just been delivered. They have talked about the guns for the soldiers, about flying machines, and about other questions, but not one single word has fallen from the lips of either of those two right hon. Gentlemen about the men who make these machines or the people who make the clothes for the soldiers. The House will notice the Resolution is a very broad and elastic one. It was put down so that we might have an opportunity not only of discussing the work that is done for the War Office, but also the work done by outside contractors. This question has been before the House for many years, and it has been
  82
  before the Trade Union Congress time after time, and I do not think there is any solution until we arrive at a minimum wage of 30s. per week. It is very desirable that not only labourers, but all those working for the War Office should receive nothing less than 30s. per week. I do not think the Government have moved very far in the matter since we gave consideration to this question in 1910. When the War Office Estimates were under consideration in 1910 the Government, in consequence of a very unsatisfactory statement made by the Secretary of State for War, put up the President of the Board of Trade, and he said it was the intention of the Government to be amongst the foremost employers and to pay the best wages, or at least the best wages in the particular district where the work was done. The Government from that time to this have done very little. It is quite true they have increased the minimum for a number of employés at Pimlico, but there are many working there for rates of pay very much below those paid by the ordinary contractor. Last year the chairman of our party brought this matter before the House and pressed for the Report of the Advisory Committee promised in 1910.
  The statement made by the Government was that they were not prepared to publish this Report in consequence of the information they had received from the employers being of a private and confidential character. As a matter of fact, if the workers had only known it was not the intention of the Government to have printed the Report of the Advisory Committee, it is questionable whether they would have been prepared to give the evidence they did. It appears to me it ought to be possible for the Government to publish the Report without divulging the names of the contractors or employers who gave the information, and if the Report is printed, and its recommendations acted upon, no doubt many employés working in Pimlico will have their wages increased to a very great extent. I understand that when they got this information from a number of factories adjacent to Pimlico it was found that the average for a similar class of employment worked out at 25s. 6d. They do not state how the average is arrived at: whether they took a number of factories or only just one factory. They might have taken a number of factories where the rate varied from 14s. up to 28s., and I think it is very questionable if they could there have got an average of 25s.

  83
  I think I am right in stating that the Pimlico people would like to be placed on the same footing and under the same working conditions as a similar class of men working in His Majesty's Stationery Office. There you have men starting at 25s. and rising by annual increments to 30s., and receiving, in addition, sick pay and annual holidays. Surely if it is advisable for the Stationery Office to pay their men, who are on a similar class, 25s., it should be possible to pay a similar minimum at Pimlico. In face of what has been going on recently—in face of the fact that during the last six or eight months, the wages of thousands of workmen in many parts of the country have been increased, the least the War Office and the Government could have done was to have increased the wages of many more of their employés at Pimlico. I understand there are a number of leading storehouse men at Pimlico receiving 20s. per week.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): No, no.
  Mr. W. THORNE: That is the information I have received. I was looking at the report of the Debate which took place in 1910, when my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Labour party (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) brought a number of cases under the notice of the Government. Two years have elapsed, and there has been but little rectification. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us what has really been done in these matters during the last two years. There is the class of men known as packing bale men. They receive 21s. per week. Surely there is no one in this House who is prepared to defend that wage.
  Mr. TENNANT: We are not paying it.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Are the Government prepared to grant a committee of inquiry into the matter, so that we may get at the facts. The information I have from the men at the work is to the effect I have stated, and I must take it as correct until proof is given me to the contrary. Then I come to the case of the crane men and the slingers. The crane men start at 27s. per week, and go up to 32s. The slingers start at 26s., and rise to 36s. Surely the Government will not say that a minimum of 27s. per week is a proper wage for the crane men, when a similar class of men working outside for ordinary contractors can command anything between 35s. and £2 a week. Then there are the barge
  84
  loaders and the van men. They get 24s. per week, without any chance of promotion. These men are doing a similar class of work to that for which, in the docks and on the wharves on the river, 8d. per hour is paid, with 1s. per hour for overtime. Yet these men are being given the magnificent sum of 24s.!
  The case of the women is more glaring still. Hosiery trimmers start as girls at fourteen years of age, with the magnificent sum of 6s. per week. If they stay until they are eighten they receive 12s., and if their services are further required they may possibly get 15s. In the tailoring trade the wages are a great deal worse. I am very pleased to say that, in consequence of thousands of the men joining their respective trade organisations during the last six or nine months, we have been in a position to find out the rates of wages paid to a large body working under outside contractors, and I have here some very glaring cases. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether, before the Government give out a contract, they make inquiries as to- the wages paid and the hours worked under the contractors, because it does seem to me it should be the duty of someone before a contract is given out on the part of the Government to inquire into these points, and that, if it is found out that the wages are exceedingly low or the hours of labour exceedingly long, the Government should refuse to give a contract in such cases.
  I have here the case of Clarke's Biscuit Works at Stepney. I am told they pay 19s. 6d. per week for sixty hours' work. These people are biscuit, makers to the War Office. Then I come to MacNeill's Patent Felt Works. They pay some of their men 14s. per week for fifty-six and a-half hours' work. Surely the Government ought to try and prevent contractors of that kind getting Government contracts. I have the case of Burgoyne and Burbidge's, who do work for the War Office. They are paying some of their men 17s. and 18s. per week for fifty-four hours' work. Again, at Rushton, where boots are made for the War Office, the Fair-Wage Resolution is absolutely evaded, and they are very much behind the rates paid by local bodies. I have another piece of information coming from the Aldershot Liberal Association, which is complaining very bitterly because the food supplies of the soldiers are given out to one or two fancy contractors, without any advertisement. I think that system is strongly to be deprecated. I do hope the Government

  85
  will take this Pimlico case into very serious consideration, and carry out the pledge given by the Prime Minister when he said some time ago that the Government ought to be in the first flight of employers. I believe the same declaration was made by the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and bearing in mind what is now going on in many parts of the country, in consequence of the state of unrest and the economic difficulties arising from the payment of low wages, surely it is incumbent on the Government to put their own house in order. This afternoon we had a very interesting statement from the Prime Minister in regard to the coal strike. The right hon. Gentleman expressed deep sympathy with the men. I would like to point out that the minimum asked for by these people at Pimlico is very much below that which is asked for by the miners. We are looking to the time when every employé working for the Government shall receive not less than a minimum of 30s. Of course, that depends on the will of this House. If the majority declare in favour of it it will have to be carried out, and, later on, we shall have to inquire into the hours of working, and see if we cannot get them reduced to forty-eight per week. I see the Estimates for the War Office this year show a considerable increase. Surely it is only fair that the wages of these factory workers should also be increased, even if it involves an addition to the Estimates.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: There is no doubt a great contrast between a discussion on the wages paid by the Government to their employés and one on the matters contained in the speech of the Under-Sectary for War and the Leader of the Opposition. Still these matters which my hon. Friend who spoke brought forward have to be dealt with. I may, in passing, speaking with some knowledge of rifles, suggest, in reference to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, that there is something more than the question of trajectory required to be considered in connection with the rifle. In 1910 the then Secretary for War said the War Department paid the same wages which were paid by employers in the neighbourhood. They had not only laid down that principle, but had amended the Fair-Wages Resolution accordingly. That was to lead the House and hon. Members on this side to believe that the Government really intended to adhere to the conditions set down in the Fair-Wages Resolution. But I do not think they have done so. He also said the War Depart-
  86
  ment is bound, both by its promises and by general considerations, to aim at being a model employer. I think my hon. Friend has shown that it is not a model employer. I wish to supplement his case by one or two instances which have been given to me, and by one or two which I have investigated personally, and I hope the Financial Secretary to the War Office will make a note of them. I think it is generally admitted that the cost of living has considerably increased during the past few years, and the question we have to consider is whether wages have increased in proportion. I do not think they have. We are told that the result of the Advisory Committee's inquiry was that the Government decided to raise the average pay of Government employés to 25s. per week. That is the average; it is not the minimum, remember. It is not a very high rate of wages, particularly for those who have a wife and family dependent upon them. I hope in that connection that the Government will try to increase the average rate of pay.
  One of the cases I have is that of the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich. Up to last year boys were kept there until they were twenty-one years of age and then discharged. I understand there is an improvement in connection with that matter and that a new rule has been brought into operation whereby the boys are discharged at seventeen years of age, which gives them a better opportunity of securing employment elsewhere. I want also to refer to the question of bonuses. Under the bonus system men who leave the service without a certificate cannot get a bonus, but other men on being discharged get what is sometimes a considerable sum. I have had a case given to me where a man was employed at Enfield factory for forty-two years. He went home in his usual health one night during the last month and died suddenly. If he had lived a week or two more and the doctor had attended him and given him a certificate he would have been entitled upon discharge to something like £80. He died before the doctor could give a certificate. No bonus was paid; the wife and family got no bonus, and we think, and they think, that they are entitled to it. There were three cases at Enfield in the last few weeks in which workmen died suddenly after being in the employment of the Government for a long time, and no bonus was paid. We think that is a great hardship. If these bonuses are really a deduction from pay, we think the men are entitled to the

  87
  bonus though they may have died before the doctor could certify that they ought to be discharged from the service.
  Another case is that of the store men in the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich. They presented a petition in December last asking for a minimum of 26s. per week. Some of these men are promoted to the position of foremen and underforemen without having their wages increased. Very often they have men working under them whose wages are higher than theirs. Now I think it is a fact that every private firm when it promotes a man to a position of foreman arranges that he should receive higher wages than the men under him. I think the Government ought to see that the men in their employ who act as foremen are treated as liberally, if not more liberally, than men in private firms. That is a matter I would like to impress upon the Financial Secretary. The increments in this Department are only paid triennially, and, in our opinion, that is too long a time to wait for an increase of wages, and to reach the maximum. They do not get the maximum in some Government Departments until the time comes when, owing to age, they have to submit to a reduction of wages. We think that these men should have their increment yearly until they reach the maximum. Is there any reply to the petition of these men? If not, when may we expect to receive it? At Waltham Abbey things have improved somewhat during the last six years, and the minimum is now 24s. per week. But the work is very injurious to health. The materials employed get into the system, affecting the heart, particularly the nitro-glycerine, and this is a kind of work at which men do not live long. In view of the fact that it shortens their lives, some consideration ought to be made to men who are engaged on work of this kind. The men who are employed in making cordite are men whose lives very often cannot be certified as sound, and I think the conditions should be made better than they are at the present time. Towards the end of last year notices were issued that flannelette shirting was not to be worn by the men who were employed in dangerous buildings. That Regulation, I believe, has been amended, but in certain cases the Government supply clothing to men on account of the nature of the work they are engaged in and I think that if they provide clothing in some departments they ought to pro-
  88
  vide clothing in all departments for those men. Of course, all this will cost money, but if we can find the money for testing aeroplanes and other devices, I think we can also spend the money in seeing that the men who are doing the work are well paid, and that the conditions under which they work are good conditions.
  I have a special complaint with regard to Weedon. When the inquiry was held it was the only factory or the only department that supplied full information with regard to the wages paid by local employers of labour, and it also supplied full particulars of the cost of living in that particular district. I do not know whether it was because it supplied those particulars, but as a result the labourers, who got an increase of 1s. per week elsewhere, only got 6d. per week at Weedon. I do not see why there should be this differentiation in the treatment of workers with regard to the minimum wage. They have some unskilled workers who got an increase of 1s., from 19s. to 20s. The skilled labourers get 19s. per week and 2d. per day extra duty pay. They have not received any increase at all. I would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in a position to make his promised statement with regard to these men. It has been promised, and promised again, that a statement would be given with regard to them. I would like to know whether an increase is going to be given, and, if so, when it is going to commence. I believe it is intended that the increase shall date from last April if any is given.
  I now come to Enfield. There the minimum is 23s. 6d. The local employers of labour pay 6½d. to 7d. per hour. If the Government wish to carry out the promise made by the Secretary for War in 1910 that they will be model employers, surely they will pay wages equal to the wages which are paid by local employers, and they will raise the wages of these men to 6½d. or 7d. per hour, and not pay merely a minimum of 23s. 6d. per week.
  There are also cases of hosiery firms who are supplying the War Department for the wear of soldiers and other servants, and some of these firms have said themselves that they do not intend to pay the standard wages except in Government contracts. Some are paying 2s. to 7s. per week less than the standard rate of pay to workpeople engaged upon other contracts than Government contracts. We say that a firm of that kind should not be

  89
  patronised by the Government, and I ask the War Department to make more particular inquiries with regard to the firms that they give work to. There are other firms at Carlisle and Sheffield who pay a fair rate of wages for Government work but not in other contracts. In our opinion the Government ought to say that these firms pay the standard rate of wages to all employés, and we believe that if a statement or instruction were issued by the Government that they would not employ firms who did not conform to the Fair-Wages Resolution in all contracts, it would be very useful. I know some inquiries have been made by officials sent by the Government with regard to these firms, and I ask the hon. Gentleman, if it is in his power, to give instructions to those officials who make inquiries as to the carrying out of the Fair-Wage Clause and to inquire of the men as well as from the employers. Some may say it is only a halfpenny or a penny an hour and that is not very much. But it is a great deal to the poorly paid workman. It means 2s. 2d. or 2s. 3d. per week. It means the food and clothing for a child. It is the difference between living with some amount of comfort or being deprived to some extent of the necessaries of life. A penny or two pence per hour means a great deal more. The War Office and other Departments allow firms to pay considerably less than the standard rate of wages to their workpeople, and at the same time there are other Government Departments which prosecute people for overcrowding, for want of sanitation, and for slum property. One Government Department is trying to stamp out disease and to make people live under better conditions with better housing and better food, and other great Departments—like the War Office—are doing their utmost to compel people to live in the slums, and to be badly fed and clothed, because they have those low wages. We appeal to the Government to carry out the promises of the War Secretary and the Prime Minister and to do all they possibly can to make the conditions of the men working directly under them and indirectly employed for them by contractors to whom they give the work better and brighter than they are at the present moment. With that appeal, I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for West Ham.
  7.0 P.M.
  Mr. TENNANT: We at the War Office are as anxious as any hon. Gentleman can be in any part of the House to see the Fair-
  90
  Wages Resolution carried out, not only in the letter, but in the spirit. We are always ready to receive complaints, and I invite the hon. Member (Mr. W. Thorne) to give me that list which he read of cases in which he maintained that we had not done that which we ought to have done in thoroughly carrying out the Resolution. I was a little disappointed at one observation which he made, that the Government have not done very much since 1910 to carry it out. We have referred many cases since then to the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee, and we have invariably acted upon the suggestions which we have received from that Committee. We have raised the minimum wage from 23s. to 24s. or an average of 25s., which, if you calculate the privileges as well, brings the average to 25s. 6d. for unskilled labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "What privileges?"] The well-known privileges of medical attendance, holidays, sick pay, and gratuity. The hon. Member (Mr. Thorne) asked whether I would consider the publication of the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee's Report. That is a matter which is not in my hands. It was delivered to us on the distinct understanding and stipulation that it should not be published, and it is not possible for me to go behind that or in any way to hold out a promise that there is any likelihood at all of these reports being published. The hon. Member went on to say he wishes we would take into consideration the condition of affairs at Pimlico. He rather implied by that that we had not given it any consideration at all. I do not believe he really thinks we do not consider these matters. I have paid visits to Pimlico myself, and these matters do engage not only our consideration, but our most earnest attention. We invite hon. Members below the Gangway to give us facts, or what they believe to be facts, in regard to breaches of the Fair-Wages Clause, and we wish particularly that the contractors outside should realise that that is our attitude. We are determined to the best of our ability to put this Fair-Wages Clause into operation, and if they do not conform to it, the serious step will be taken of striking them off our list.
  I should like the House to know that I have to-day received Treasury sanction to raise the wages at Enfield and Waltham to the level of Woolwich and Pimlico. Deeds are better than words, and I hope the House generally will believe that that is a real gratification to me.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: In what direction at Waltham Abbey?
  Mr. TENNANT: I believe at Waltham Abbey there are very few persons working on the actual minimum, so it will really not affect them; but at Enfield it will apply to a considerable number. I have also, by Departmental action not requiring the same formalities, been able to raise the wages of the crane-drivers and slingers by 1s. a week at Woolwich. I informed the secretary of the trade union the other day:
  "I have to inform you that it has been decided, after careful consideration, that the minimum rate suitable for crane drivers in the department should be at least 27s. instead of 26s. In cases where special skill is required the rate may rise to a maximum of 31s. 6d., each individual being paid according to skill. As regards slingers the rates will normally run from 27s. to 30s. a week, according to skill. In exceptional circumstances a higher special rate may be paid."
  The hon. Member (Mr. Thorne) referred to the crane-drivers and slingers, and I thought perhaps he would be glad to know that I had been able to raise their wages by 1s.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I referred to the slingers and crane-drivers of Pimlico, and not Woolwich.
  Mr. TENNANT: The same will be done in Pimlico.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is about 5s. below the usual rate?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, I am not aware of that. If the hon. Member informs me of it and will bring a case to my notice, I will have the investigation made. Another proposal I have been able to make in my short period of office is that I think it is a good thing that members of the Army Council should from time to time visit the factories and the establishments which we conduct, and I propose to make it an annual practice that one or two members of the Army Council should go down, myself and another, and should advertise these meetings, and should have any complaints, of which due notice has been given in accordance with a scheme which I shall draw up, submitted to us on these occasions. In accordance with the promise made by Lord Haldane to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress we have put up a notice in all our factories in the following terms:—
  "The wages paid and the hours of labour worked in this department are regulated in accordance with a Resolution passed by the House of Commons on 10th March. 1909, relating to Government contracts."
  There follows the Fair-Wages Resolution, as passed by this House. I want the
  92
  House to realise to some extent the steps which we actually take to see that the Fair-Wages Resolution is carried out in contracts. In the first place, there is an annual advertisement of contracts, which says that those who are invited to tender must give an undertaking to comply with the Fair-Wages Resolution. The second step is that before the firms are noted on our list at all their works are inspected, in order to ascertain their capabilities, and attention is paid, of course, to the conditions which are found inside the factories, also as to whether they have or do not have an excessive number of apprentices. Furthermore, the contractor is obliged to sign a pledge to observe this Resolution. The next step is that lists of firms are sent to the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress, so that they may make any observations about them that they feel are deserved. When the tender is called for, a copy of the tender form is sent to such local officials of the Union as may have been arranged with the Parliamentary Committee. We also exhibit patterns of the articles and specifications to the trade union official for him to see. After that, regard is had to the general reputation of the contractors as employers of labour before their tenders are accepted. That was a distinct promise given by my predecessor, Mr. Mallet, from this place All the contracts, of course, contain the-Fair-Wages Clause and a stipulation that proper wages will be paid, and that books shall be kept which shall be open to inspection by the department. Further, in the case of unorganised or partly organised industries, clauses are inserted requiring direct payment of the workers in order to eliminate the middleman. In the cap and clothing trade there are special rates for women mentioned actually in the contract.
  We require all contractors to put up these posters such as I have just indicated we put up in the Government factories ourselves. All complaints are received by the Director of Army contracts, and if there is any special difficulty it is brought to the Financial Secretary. I am now arranging that more of these complaints shall be submitted. If there are real cases of difficulty which we are not able ourselves to settle, we send them to the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee, who give us advice upon the subject. If the complaint is substantial we demand of the contractor that he shall give an undertaking that in future he will abide by the terms of the Fair-Wages Clause. I think this is a pretty long list of what might be called

  93
  obstacles which the contractor has to get over, and yet I know that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway think that the contractors constantly get round them in some way. I know, as an old student of the Chief Inspector of Factories' Report for years and years, that such obstacles can be got over, and the law is constantly evaded. In fact, it would seem that they are extraordinarily skilled in the art of evasion. Directly we ascertain that they do such things we shall strike them off. It is not always easy to detect such evasion, there are two or three methods which I may bring to the notice of the House. There is the employment of learners and apprentices, and they get round the Fair-Wages Clause by employing too many of these. Then there is the method of confusing the Particulars' Section of the Act of 1901. If an employer gives his employés a wrong account of the statement of particulars he is able to give less wages than he ought to give, but these are not so common as the method of deduction, and it is deductions which I really fear are the greatest evil in the whole matter. Hon. Gentlemen may say, "Why do you not see that they do not make deductions?" Of course, directly we find out that they make deductions which do not comply with the Fair-Wages Clause, at once we say, "You must come off the list." Clearly this is a case for an alteration of the law relating to truck, and if the hon. Gentleman can succeed in getting that done he will have achieved a great step in advance.
  I would like to give an illustration of the deductions that are made, because the House may not believe that these deductions do take place. A complaint reached me that, although the girls working on Government clothing contracts are paid the regulation rates of 2¾d. and 3d. per hour, they had deductions from their wages of 2s., 2s. 6d., and 3s. per week made for sewings. We had an examination to find out whether that was true or not, and the inspector reported that the wages paid, after the deductions had been taken off, were well over the minimum rate. I mention that as an illustration of the lamentable fact that, although the contractor complied with all that is required by the Fair-Wages Clause, the wages paid are still deplorable. The wages are in accordance with the Fair-Wages Clause in this case, and yet the pay is at this low rate. The remedy for this lies along the lines of a measure I had the honour to introduce in this House—I mean the
  94
  Trade Boards Act. It is too early to consider the extension of that measure to any trade other than the four scheduled. The Act is still in an experimental stage^ and, though much progress has been made, there are only two trades in which rates have been compulsorily fixed, and only one in which we have any experience of the results. When the time comes for considering extensions the claims of cap making will be carefully taken into account with those of other trades. It must be remembered that the schedule of the Act cannot be extended without the authority of Parliament. I would like the House to realise that in the Fair-Wages Clause exhibited in clothing factories it is specifically mentioned that the Clause setting forth the amount of money to be paid per hour will remain in force until the minimum rates applicable to the branch of the tailoring trade concerned are fixed by the Trade Boards. As soon as such Trade Board rates come into operation the contractors will be required to pay not less than these rates as a minimum.
  I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House realise that the Advisory Committee is not an Administrative Committee, and that it is not even a deciding body. Its only duty is to look into the facts, which, of course, are of very great importance. They are of enormous importance to us. There is often vast difficulty in ascertaining what fair wages are in a particular district. I wish the House to realise that the duty devolving upon those who have the responsibility of fixing the rates of wages is not a light one. We have 15,000 men in our employment in and around London alone, and we are paying £1,340,000 a year in wages. I do not myself shrink from this responsibility, but I should like hon. Gentlemen to believe that it is an onerous responsibility. I wish to impress upon the House that admirable though the advice given by the Fair-Wages Advisory Committee is, it does not relieve us in the least of the responsibility we have as the Department concerned in actually fixing the rates of wages to be paid. I ask hon. Gentlemen to believe that we are duly seized of the responsibility that lies upon us. We know, first of all, of course, that we are the trustees of the taxpayer, and, as such, are bound to consider the national purse. If the Financial Secretary is not going to be an economist in these days of expanding, expenditure, who is?
  Mr. W. THORNE: The fair wages will have to go up.
  Mr. TENNANT: We are in the War Office the trustees of the taxpayer, and although we are great employers of labour, and desire to enjoy the reputation of being good employers of labour, we feel the responsibility that is laid upon us. I think the House will agree with me when I say that we are in a wider sense the trustees of the national well being.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the minimum wage paid to labourers at Enfield and Waltham?
  Mr. TENNANT: I believe the minimum is 25s. a week in the danger buildings.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to answer my question with respect to contracts for food supplies to the soldiers.
  Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will bring the matter before me afterwards I shall be glad to investigate it.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I heartily associate myself with what has fallen from hon. Members opposite as to the necessity of contractors observing not only the letter but the spirit of the Fair-Wages Clause. I hope the result of this Amendment will be that something will be done to make contractors do so. I feel particularly strongly on this subject myself, as there are a great number of workmen in my Constituency who are losing employment on Government contracts through their employers having been undercut by others in the hosiery trade outside who are not observing the Fair-Wages Clause in its proper spirit. I hope I shall be in order if I draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to another branch of this subject, namely, the irregularity of the employment caused by the manner in which Government contracts are given out. The House well knows that there are irregularities of employment in connection with various trades, and that there is a growing body of opinion that it is possible these irregularities might be avoided by more goods being ordered during slack times and minimising rather in good times. I do not know what the official mind thinks of this, but, so far as the contractors themselves are concerned, especially those who are employed in connection with goods of a non-perishable character, there is a feeling that this is a possible policy. I hope my hon. Friend will give this matter
  96
  his consideration. I do not wish to dogmatise on the point, as I have not given it, as a matter of fact, very much investigation.
  On the point of the possibility of regularising employment in seasonal occupations when there are variations in the amount of employment from month to month within the year, I feel on firmer ground. I think the House will agree with me that the Government ought to do all in their power to make the work as regular as possible and to help contractors to keep their staffs together and not to lose them. When the staff are dismissed employers have to take on casual labour in a hurry. There is every reason to believe that, although the War Office may be most conscientious guardians of the public purse, so far as the workmen engaged on its contracts are concerned they have not given the matter such full consideration as they might have done in view of the possibility of making arrangements which would result in the regularising of employment. I have been in correspondence with several contractors, and there is a strong opinion that if the gaps which exist between the expiration of an old contract and the commencement of a new one were eliminated, if orders were distributed more over the whole year, and if contractors were given a longer time to execute their orders, they would be able to keep their staff more together and to give regular employment to their workers. I have in my hand a letter from an Army and Navy contractor in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in which he says that his contract has expired, and that it will be six weeks or two months before he gets another. His workmen are either on short time or leaving his employment, so that when he gets a new contract he will have to get new workers and train them, and that will cost a great deal of money. I asked another contractor what should be done in the way of getting greater regularity for the workers, and in his reply he said that the War Office is especially bad in this respect, as they appear to have no regular or stated periods for distributing tenders. This causes spasmodic employment, and much suffering and distress among the workmen engaged on Government contracts. He points out that greater regularity in the giving out of contracts would be mutually advantageous to the Government Departments and employés. Another employer says:—
  "I find that the Admiralty find the General Post, Office are fairly regular with their contracts, and

  97
  endeavour to spread the deliveries over the period for which they will be required for use, but the War Office is very irregular in giving out orders. I think regularity is most important, as it enables a regular staff, of experienced workmen to be kept together, instead of having to take on inexperienced men at a time of rush."
  I would point out also that irregularity of employment is caused by working overtime to give delivery at the time specified in the contracts. When a time for delivery is specified the contractors naturally jump to the conclusion that the War Office wants delivery as quickly as possible. That means that the contractors have to rush their orders as quickly as possible, and their employés have to work overtime, and after it is all over the workers have to be dismissed. There is another point to which I would call attention. It would be a great convenience if orders were placed in December rather than in January, February, or March, because employment is much slacker in December than at the beginning of the year, and they would be able to contract more cheaply if the orders were to be given then, because they could get raw material more cheaply in December than in the spring of the year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give attention to these points. If more trouble were taken to give out these orders more regularly a great deal of unemployment might be prevented and a great deal of overtime might be saved.
  Mr. HOHLER: I listened to the Financial Secretary to the War Office with some surprise, because I am accustomed to the speeches which conclude by saying that we are trustees for the taxpayer, trustees for the War Office, and trustees for every virtue. The taxpayer is not even considered by the Financial Secretary. He said, as I understood, that from 24s. to 25s. 6d. is the bedrock of the wages which the War Office paid. This is not the case. His only excuse for saying this can be that he has only recently entered upon the office, which I congratulate him on holding. I shall certainly support the hon. Member for West Ham if he goes to a Division, which I strongly urge him to do. It was only by reason of the Labour party not supporting this Resolution when they moved it in the year 1910 that this matter has not been remedied long ago. After the Resolution was passed I well recollect that the Financial Secretary to the War Office was in some difficulty, speaking from the Treasury Bench, and communications went on in order to induce the Labour party not to hold to what they proposed to do. The result was they, I suppose, took the advice given to them, with the further
  98
  result that for at least two years these men have been deprived of their just and legitimate advance. Founded upon what the Secretary for War said as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the Fair-Wages Resolution, I thought it better than putting a question on the subject to him to write him with regard to the men employed by the War Office in the Army Ordnance Depot at Chatham. I pointed out that the wages paid were 2ls. and, in the case of a few favoured men, 21s. 6d. I suggested that in my opinion that was quite inadequate, that the rents there averaged from 5s. to 5s. 6d. per week, and I respectfully submitted that those wages should be increased. Further, I gave cases in which they were paying more for ordinary labour outside. That was in May, 1910. I received a reply from the Secretary of State for War that he would put the matter before the Advisory Committee. I wrote again, and he said that the matter was then going before the Advisory Committee. I kept pressing them, with the result that he said the matter was before the Advisory Committee, and he would write me what their Report was. I continued to press the matter in the year 1910 until the Army Estimates were discussed here last year, when the Financial Secretary to the War Office announced that an advance in wages had been made in regard to Waltham Abbey and Woolwich and some other places, and he never mentioned Chatham at all. When I asked about Chatham he looked surprised, and did not seem to know that these people existed, and I believe that that was his then state of mind. I want to press upon the Financial Secretary that it does exist, and that these men are employed at the rates which I have mentioned, and that when he states the bedrock at 23s., 24s., or 25s. 6d. wages, it is no such thing.
  Mr. TENNANT: I meant to say, and I ought to have said, in Woolwich, Pimlico, Waltham, and Enfield.
  Mr. HOHLER: That is not what the Financial Secretary said. He said they proposed to increase Waltham and Enfield. Why is Chatham not going to have it? Because the Member for Woolwich sits on those benches and he controls some thirty votes. Can the Financial Secretary give any other explanation? I suggest that it is nothing but pressure can drive this Government to do justice of any sort. They often get pressure which they do not like and yield to it. I have in black and white the statement of the Secretary of State for

  99
  War that the case of these men was under consideration, and that he would let me have the result of the inquiries of the Advisory Committee in regard to every question I put before him. I have pressed for this information, and I have never been able to get it. Are such promises as these when they are made intended to be kept? I want to know why the Division of the hon. Member for Woolwich, who has thirty votes behind him, gets these concessions, while Chatham, which returns an opponent of his party, does not. It ought not to be a question of party at all, but a question of doing justice with regard to these men. The workers of the corporation of Gillingham, in my Constituency, who had a forty eight hours' week, are now about to have, from the 1st April, a wage of 25s. per week, while the Government are giving 21s. to 21s. 6d. to the men in the Ordnance Depot. In Chatham they are not getting a forty-eight hours' week, but they are increasing their wages to 26s. Here you have two examples from municipal corporations which you are slow to follow.
  I shall press this matter upon every possible occasion. I do not see why His Majesty's Government should ignore the condition of these men in Chatham. It is not that I am standing for the minimum wage. However that may be in the future, I think that what would satisfy these men would be to let them have the bedrock wages paid in other places. Give my men 24s., and I promise I will let you alone next year. Under the present system the petitions by the men are never answered until the Debates on the Estimate are over. You get men to send in a petition and say you are dealing with it, and you allow it to be slept upon until all chances of effective action in the House of Commons has passed by. Then it goes on for another year. If meantime I put a question in the House to anybody responsible in the Department with regard to this matter, they say that it is under consideration. We have had this matter under consideration since 1910, when the Financial Secretary made the promise, which has not yet been fulfilled. I trust now that it shall be fulfilled, and that the men in Chatham will be given the same increase as has been given in Woolwich and other places. The expenses of living are just as high, and when His Majesty's Government tell us that they are trustees of the taxpayers, may I remind them that they have put taxation on these men which will begin
  100
  next July under the Insurance Act. The cost of living has gone up, and there is no excuse for the Government not redeeming the promise which was made in 1910 to give them an increase of wages to which the men are entitled at Chatham.
  Mr. NEWMAN: As representing the workers in the factory at Enfield, I beg to thank the Financial Secretary to the War Office for the statement which he has made. We at Enfield could never understand why the rise was not given to us before this, and why Woolwich got it and we did not. We made our case out and failed to get it admitted. Now I am glad to see the Government are determined to give us this rise. I had no opportunity of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, and I have some diffidence in intervening in this Debate. We represent a Division where there are these Government factories. As I understand, hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway do not like us to take part in these Debates at all. During the long discussion on the Insurance Act last Session I, as representing Enfield, on more than one occasion asked where did the employés in these factories come in under the Insurance Act. They had asked me and I could not tell, so I had to ask the Government to let me know. I have in my hands a copy of the "Government Workers' Advocate," the organ of the Federation of Workers, which contains correspondence between the hon. Member for Leicester and the secretary of this federation in which my name is mentioned. I call attention to it because it deals with a difficulty which I have felt in this case, That is a difficulty in which those who represent these taxes committed, and yet hon. Members opposite do not think I have a right to speak on behalf of the men employed at those factories. Hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches cannot for a moment imagine that every man employed in those factories is a labour man. The majority of the employés are Conservatives, and will be seen coming out of Enfield Factory wearing my colours, and therefore I have a perfect right to speak on their behalf. This is the correspondence which appears in the journal of the Organised Government Workers. It is headed—" Mr. J. Ramsay Macdonald, M.P., and Government Workers." The first letter:—
  "Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P.
  "Dear Sir,—I am desired by my Executive to ask whether you intended to include the members of our

  101
  Federation, whose objects are to make the Government the model employer, in the description 'spongers' applied to Government workers in a speech made by you in the House of Commons last week during the Debate on the National Insurance Bill? As representing the organised Government workers, we feel that we cannot too strongly protest against such an undeserved charge being made against them; and in view of the sympathy that yon have always shown to our movement, we feel that there must be some explanation you can give us.
  "Thanking you in anticipation,
  "Yours sincerely,
  "JAMES G. KING."
  The reply was:—
  "28. Victoria Street, S.W.
  "1st December, 1911.
  "Dear Mr. King,—Mr. MacDonald asks me to say, in reply to your letter, that the whole thing is a 'mare's nest.' A Conservative member read out certain demands which had been put in his hands by Government workers in his constituency, and they were so unfair, and the member was so reckless in his willingness to advance them, that Mr. Macdonald applied the epithet 'sponger' to these men. There is no doubt but that an irritation exists amongst some members of the Labour party in view of the action of such members as Sir Kinloch-Cooke being regarded by Government workers with approval, and outside Trade Unionists are following the matter with a good deal of suspicion.
  "With kind regards,
  "Yours very sincerely,
  "J. S. MIDDLETON,
  "Asst. Sec."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I fail to see the relevancy of this to the Amendment now before the House. The matter seems to me to be some quarrel between the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Leicester in reference to something that happened last year.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I was going on, in the few remarks I have to make, to refer to the position which the employés in the Enfield Small Arms Factory occupy under the Insurance Act.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment has nothing to do with the Insurance Act, as the hon. Member will see if he looks at its terms. He must confine himself to that to be in order.
  Mr. NEWMAN: In that case, I am afraid the remarks I have to make had reference to what the Government were going to do in regard to the employés in the Small Arms Factories under the Insurance Act. Therefore I will not proceed with the matter further.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat need not entertain the opinion that we on the Labour benches offer any objection whatever to his taking up cases affecting his constituency. If we did offer any such objection I fail to see how it could be upheld at all, because, after all, the people of Enfield have certainly a right to elect
  102
  whom they will, and, having made their choice, the hon. Gentleman has to represent them in this House. For my own part I should have liked them to make some other selection, but that is beside the point. The constituents have to choose; they have made their choice, and it is not for us to deny the right of their representative to voice their opinion in this House. If he in any way entertains that idea from any utterances of my hon. Friend I beg him to accept the assurance that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as I understand the hon. Members with whom I am associated are concerned, he totally misapprehends our view of the matter. Since 1906 the party with whom I am associated constantly raised the question of the employés in various Government Departments as well as those who are engaged under Government contractors. We are pleased to know that some small concessions have been made, but we are bound to confess that we had hoped the Government would have gone a good deal further than has been shown by the speech of the Financial Secretary to the Department. Nobody can view with complacency certain cases submitted to us as illustrations this afternoon.
  If it be true that there are men engaged in the Government employ at 19s. or 20s. a week, then I feel that the Government ought to recognise that it is not a living wage, and that it ought to be materially increased, despite what may be the rate prevailing in other centres. I have been interested in the broad question of the Fair-Wages Resolution, because I can well recall the discussion we had in this House on 10th March. 1909. The Resolution was then undoubtedly amended and strengthened; nevertheless, we feel that it is quite within the competence of the Government Department to administer that Resolution in stricter accord with its spirit if not its precise wording. I feel that the Government ought to lay down the condition that not only shall firms undertake to pay fair wages on actual Government work, but that they ought to have the assurance from those who receive Government contracts that they will pay fair wages all round. One of my hon. Friends cited a practice prevailing in the case of one of the Leicester hosiery firms, who undertook to pay fair wages for actual Government work. In our opinion that is not satisfactory; we feel that at least the Fair-Wages Resolution demands that those firms shall be fair in respect of all work that they perform.
  Mr. TENNANT: There have been cases in which the War Office have struck off the list firms who have been giving wages below the rate of fair wages, though not in connection with Government contracts at all.
  Mr. G. ROBERTS: I am glad to hear that the Government contemplate a departure in that direction. The Government should compile lists of firms from whom tenders can be invited, and no firms should be placed on that list unless it has previously given the Government a promise that it is fair in all particulars in relation to its employés. I cannot see how we shall ever have satisfactory administration of the Fair-Wages Clause unless the Government do adopt that particular point of view. It is all very well for a firm to enter into an undertaking. The hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that some firms are not beyond evading their responsibilities, even after they have engaged to recognise fair conditions and conform to the Fair-Wages Clause. We feel that something more is required, and that the Government should adopt the suggestion we have often made, that lenders should not be invited from firms unless they are satisfied that those firms are fair in every particular. We are glad to recognise that improvements have been made because of the extra supervision we are enabled to exercise in consequence of the action of the Government in supplying the various trade unions with particulars of tenders that are being invited, even to the extent of submitting samples of work to be done by those various contractors. We feel that while some improvement has I hereby been effected, nevertheless we still have tangible cause of grievance, inasmuch as the wages, so far as our information goes, do not come up to the standard generally recognised by the fairest employers in the districts. In some departments the minimum I am told has been raised from 23s. to 24s. a week. Everybody is glad of course even of a slight advance that may be made, still, having regard to the enormous advance that has taken place in prices, the ultimate value of wages is affected, and the standard of remuneration does not mark any tangible elevation in the standard of life of Government workers.
  Therefore we feel that the men have a legitimate claim to ask that a higher minimum wage be established. We have urged the Government to lay down the
  104
  standard of 30s. a week. Certainly nobody will deny that 30s. is a small sum for a man to maintain himself, wife, and family anywhere near or round and about London. My hon. Friend who seconded the Motion gave an instance, cited from the evidence which was given before the Committee, in which the Government increased the weekly wages by 1s., which means that the workers receive 20s. instead of 19s. a week. A man cannot decently maintain a wife and children on a miserable 20s. a week, and, whatever may be the case with the private employers, our suggestion is that the Government ought to ensure that everybody in their employ shall have a standard of remuneration which would permit of each employé and his dependents living decently and comfortably. We are glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to assure us that the Army Council now adopts the practice of a periodical visitation to Government factories, and presumably also to the factories of those firms who are engaged on Government contracts. That is very good; nevertheless, I would like to know whether any particulars of that work are available for Members of this House? [Mr. Tennant was understood to assent.] Furthermore, we understand it is the practice of the Government, when complaints are made through hon. Members in this House, to prosecute inquiries into the wages paid and the conditions recognised under Government contracts.
  8.0 P.M.
  The hon. Gentleman has assured us that at least one firm has been struck off, because the Government was convinced that they had not conformed to the Fair-Wages Resolution. In our opinion, so far as the evidence supplied to us goes, there are quite a number of firms that ought to be struck off, and we trust that the action of my hon. Friend will have the effect of stimulating the Government to closely look into the conditions which prevail in connection with Government contracts. I am perfectly certain that if the Government were to take drastic action now and again against contractors they would remove many grievances which we have constantly to submit to their consideration. We are pleased to recognise that the wages of Enfield and Waltham are to be raised to the level of Woolwich. Whilst we are pleased to acknowledge the concessions, however small they may be, which the hon. Gentleman is able to announce to us this afternoon, we feel that they are not altogether satisfactory, and that the Government ought to pursue this policy much

  105
  more rapidly and much more extensively. There is one point which we have constantly brought under the consideration of the Government Departments. It is quite a common practice for firms located in large centres to secure a Government contract, and then to go to works outside those large centres and fix their own rates, thus, in our opinion, evading both the word and the spirit of the Resolution. We should like to know whether the Government has been able to devise any means yet of meeting those cases which apply in connection with many trades and constitute one of the most substantial grievances with which we have to contend. I do not know what is in the minds of my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Resolution, but we take advantage of the facility of the ballot for the purpose of raising certain matters which we feel to be not only of interest to Members, but also to a considerable section of the general public. I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government will not complain of the method or the manner in which my hon. Friends have drawn attention to a number of grievances this afternoon. Whilst we are pleased to acknowledge that some concessions have been made and some more are contemplated, we trust that the investigation that has been pursued this afternoon will have the effect of inducing the Government to recognise that substantial grievances do exist, and we respectfully request that they will exert themselves to the utmost, so that on a subsequent occasion the number may be diminished, and that we may be in the position to congratulate the Government on being, what I believe we all desire they should be, the model employers of the land, and that at least it cannot be said that any private employer treats his workpeople better than the Government.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: There is one point in connection with this Vote which I think should receive a little attention, perhaps not so much at the hands of this particular Department, but of the whole of the Departments administering the contracts. The Amendment which has been moved declares that in interpreting the Fair-Wages Clause in assigning contracts the responsible officials should be instructed to see that the principle of the Clause is properly carried out when the actual wording gives room for some doubt. It seems to me that the great difficulty in
  106
  the carrying out of these contracts is this, that the Government themselves have no very clear ideas as to what the Fair-Wages Clause should mean. They have no definite figure in their own minds with regard to the wages which should be paid to the various sections of men employed on a Government contract. A case in point may be helpful in elucidating the matter. The Government itself certainly sets the pace with regard to the rate of wages of unskilled labour, and which, roughly, is between 24s. and 25s. per week. On the other hand, we have millions worth of Government work going to large firms in this country who employ thousands of unskilled men who are in receipt of wages as low as £1 per week of fifty-four hours. If 24s. or 25s. is low enough as a fair wage for the Government labourer, then I cannot understand how it is that Government work should be given to a Government contractor who is only paying from 17s. to 21s. I think that the Government may very well make up their minds on this matter, and, at any rate, establish the principle and fix a minimum for the poorest paid and the unskilled men below which no person employed on a Government contract should be paid. If we could once get the Government or the Advisory Committee covering the whole of the Departments to make a beginning in this direction we should, I believe, be getting on to some thing like right lines, and there would be considerable progress made in gradually levelling the conditions of the persons employed in Government contract work if we only began at the bottom. Their practice, however, seems to be to jump from case to case as they arise, without any principle, or method, or system. The Government wait practically until some person makes a complaint, and they invite that person to supply the whole of the facts. They then deal with that case, and sit down and wait until the next case arises.
  I think the time has arrived when the Government should lay down a minimum, beginning with the unskilled men, and that they should enforce that minimum upon the whole of the contractors doing Government work in this country. I am confident unless that principle is adopted that the Fair-Wages Clause in all those contracts covering millions of pounds worth of work is of no earthly use so far as the unskilled labourer is concerned. We are all aware that the wages of the unskilled labourer are very largely fixed by competition, and competition which is brutal and ruthless.

  107
  We know that the wage those men receive is not a living wage. There is not a man, either in this House or out of it, who would suggest for a moment that the wages that thousands and hundreds of thousands of unskilled labourers are receiving are sufficient to enable men of the kind with a wife and even one or two children even to exist; they cannot exist. Everybody who has studied the matter knows that it is simply a matter of slow starvation until that man's family grow up and enable him by bringing in a little money to face his responsibilities. I say that the Government should be the first party to make a move in this direction, and that it will be a direction that will reflect the very highest credit upon them. I am confident if they were to set the example to others, and if the workers were able to get the backing of the Government behind the Resolution, it would go a very long way towards wiping away some of the vicious conditions that exist, particularly with regard to unskilled workers. This is the first time I have mentioned this point,
  and I think it is an exceedingly important matter. It starts, at any rate, at the bottom of the social ladder, and with the worst paid, and with the people who are least able to defend themselves. It cannot be said that large numbers of those men are in trade unions. A very large percentage of those men are so poor that they even cannot afford to pay the small and paltry contribution that a man requires to join some of the organisations in this country. It is because I know and feel, and my experience teaches me, that a very large number of those people are in an absolutely defenceless position that I think the Government might themselves, either through the various Departments or through the Advisory Committees, set up some such standard as I suggest covering the whole of those contractors who do Government work. In that way I think an excellent work would be performed by the Government.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 99.

  Division No. 31.]

  AYES.

  [8.15 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Hinds, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Holmes, Daniel Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Agnew, sir George William

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Barton, William

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, George Heynes

  Black, Arthur W.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Raffan, peter Wilson

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Keating, Matthew

  Reddy, Michael

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Leach, Charles

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Clyde, James Avon

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cotton, William Francis

  McGhee, Richard

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

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

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Scanlan, Thomas

  De Forest, Baron

  M'Callum, John M.

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Delany, William

  M'Curdy, Charles Albert

  Sheehy, David

  Donelan, Captain A.

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Doris, William

  M'Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Waring, Walter

  Field, William

  Meagher, Michael

  Webb, H.

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Trodeston)

  Furness, Stephen

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

  George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd

  Molloy, Michael

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wiles, Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)

  Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Haslam, Lewis, (Monmouth)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Dowd, John

  NOES.

  Archer-Shee, Major Martin

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nield, Herbert

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Goldstone, Frank

  O'Grady, James

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

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

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rowlands, James

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bird, Alfred

  Hill, Sir Clement L. (Shrewsbury)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Hodge, John

  Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Boyton, James

  Hudson, Walter

  Stanier, Beville

  Brace, William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hunter, Sir Charles Redk. (Bath)

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jackson, Sir John

  Stewart, Gershom

  Butcher, John George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Campion, W. R.

  Kinloch-Cooke, sir Clement

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Lansbury, George

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Wor., Droitwich)

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cave, George

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Valentia, Viscount

  Clynes, John R.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Croft, Henry Page

  Macmaster, Donald

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Dixon, Charles Harvey

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

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

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Moore, William

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Morrison, Captain James A.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Newman, John R. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Roberts and Mr. Pointer.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The speech delivered by the Under-Secretary of State earlier in the evening was somewhat shorter than usual, but perhaps this was owing to the fact that his remarks were more in the nature of continuing the policy which up to now has been carried on by the Government. In only one respect did the right hon. Gentleman touch on a new subject, and that was in. regard to aviation. Although the right hon. Gentleman, in a very plausible manner, endeavoured to support the policy of the Government, even his well-known ingenuity was hardly equal to the occasion. He endeavoured to explain that in regard to the weapons with which the Army at present is equipped we were in a position of great strength in comparison with other nations of the world. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman almost entirely in every statement he made in that connection. With regard to the Artillery, he apparently is of opinion that the gun with which they are armed is superior to the weapon with which foreign armies are equipped. He argued the point by dividing the excellencies of the weapon into so many different points, and taking the majority as being in our favour. I do not propose to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman on that score on this occasion; I would only say that, though our weapon may be as good as the French, if he says
  110
  it is superior I think his statement is a little wide of the mark.
  I wish to devote myself in particular to the question of the rifle. I do not think that we can for one moment claim to have, a rifle as good as either the French or the German. It is all-important that we should arm our Infantry with the best possible weapon. We have the advantage of having a much smaller Army, and consequently are able to arm our troops at a far less cost than is possible for a foreign Power. It should be our prime consideration to find a weapon which is superior to all others. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to persuade us that we were in no sense in an inferior position from the fact that the trajectory of the bullet we employ is higher than that of the bullet employed by foreign countries. He also told us that it was not of such very great importance to aim at an exceptionally rapid muzzle velocity. These are two points to which all experts in different parts of the world have devoted their attention. They have been desirous of providing a rifle combining with a very flat trajectory an exceptional muzzle velocity; but the right hon. Gentleman tells us that that is not so material. He told us that in the course of his experience in South Africa a horse which he was leading was killed by a bullet at a distance of 3,000 yards. Nearly all modern

  111
  rifles, if held at a certain angle, are capable of killing a horse or man at that distance. What we want to devote our attention to are the occasions on which we might come into what may be called close quarters with the enemy. The conditions of service in the future in any European war will be different from those that were experienced in South Africa. If troops are pitted against each other in this country a range of 3,000 yards would very seldom be effective. The effective range would be, I venture to say, at something about 1,000 yards. The troops would be called upon to meet each other at ranges under 1,000 yards, and it is all important on those occasions that our rifles should be able to fire at what is called "point-blank" range. Lord Haldane has told us already in the House of Lords that the bullet which we use at the present time is practically the same as used by foreign countries. The word "practically" covers a multitude of sins. It may mean almost anything. The trajectory has been lowered to a certain extent, but at the present time—I think I am quoting accurately—the trajectory of the bullet is 2 ft. higher than the trajectory of the bullet of the German or the French rifle. When we consider the conditions under which troops will fight in the future, at ranges certainly not of the same extent as in South Africa, but in enclosed countries like this country, and also those on the Continent of Europe, surely the nation which employs a rifle with a flatter trajectory has an insuperable advantage over the armies of the nation which uses a rifle with a higher trajectory. The matter is one of supreme importance. It was passed over by the right hon. Gentleman as if it was not a subject of that great and vital importance which we on this side of the House think it.
  I should like to say a few words with respect to ammunition. The right hon. Gentleman took a very optimistic view in respect to that. He told us that it was true that there are two kinds of ammunition which are being employed. The ammunition in one rifle, he said, does not make very much difference in its accuracy at 670 yards. He did not go further, and enlighten us as to the exact inaccuracy after that point. I am not in a position to say exactly what effect the different ammunition has on the different rifles, but I think I am correct in saying that the extra ammunition has entailed an alteration of the sighting of a certain portion of
  112
  our rifles. I do not know in what Department this particular matter rests—
  Mr. TENNANT: If the Noble Lord is asking whether both kinds of ammunition can be shot from the same rifle, I say "Yes." It makes some difference in the sighting; but our rifles have been re-sighted for the new ammunition.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: That is exactly what I wanted to hear. All our rifles, or a certain proportion of our rifles, have been re-sighted for the purpose of employing the new ammunition. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me at what period these rifles were being re sighted, because that has a very important bearing upon the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: They have just been re-sighted.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: That appears to me to open up a very serious situation. During last September the country considered itself to be on the verge of war, or there were great possibilities of it, and it would appear then that the rifles belonging to four Divisions in this country were at that time in the factory, being re-sighted.
  Mr. TENNANT: Oh, no.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Well, I am very glad to hear it. It seemed to me that the rifles had been out of the hands of those who would know what use to make of them if necessary.
  Mr. TENNANT: There are always a certain number in the factory.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The hon. Gentleman has enlightened me on the point that I desired. Now, about the range facilities in this country. It is a matter of grave concern, or ought to be, to everyone in this country. They should realise that we are very deficient in range facilities. On this question we can take an example from foreign nations. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us if there are to be additional facilities for the provision of ranges in this country. I do not think he will deny that at the present time we are singularly deficient in adequate ranges. By that I mean ranges in which the different distances are very clearly and definitely marked. I do not know whether any money has been put aside for the purpose of establishing more ranges. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a new rifle as within the possibility

  113
  of being introduced. If he really considers that our present rifle is of such an excellent character, why does he consider that there is any need for a new rifle? Is he aware of the fact that foreign nations are bringing in a rifle of superior quality to ours; or does he believe that after so many years service it is necessary to introduce a new rifle in this country? He told us in his speech this evening that the present rifle was introduced into this country in 1903, and that it is the most modern of the rifles used by the European nations. Will this introduction of the rifle of which Lord Haldane spoke in another place take place in the near future?
  Before the right hon. Gentleman came in again I went so far as to say that I did not share his optimistic view that our rifle was superior to the rifles used in foreign countries. I think all he said was most comdemnatory of the view that our rifle was the best. He told us that in respect of the breech that it was not strong enough for the purpose of carrying the stronger ammunition made use of by foreign countries. I do not know whether we are going to receive any further enlightenment from the right hon. Gentleman, but we are entitled to it. In respect to the Territorial Force, I do not feel that we in this country can look with satisfaction on the system which we are employing. That Force is still something of an exotic. It is a delicate plant, which we are told to assist in all practical ways that we possibly can. But we are told that at the present moment it hardly fulfils the requirements that we expect of it. I do not think that it does fulfil those requirements. It is believed to be in existence for the purpose of repelling a raid. It is the third line. We are expected to call upon the Territorial Forces to save us in our distress. The Force is armed with an inferior rifle. The right hon. Gentleman does not admit it. Does the right hon. Gentleman maintain that the rifle used by the Territorial Force is the same weapon with which the Regular Forces are armed?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: It is the same weapon then. Lord Haldane's words were, "It is practically the same." I hope he is right, because I venture to say that if any portion of our defensive forces should be armed with an excellent and first-class weapon it is the Territorial Force, especially when we consider their
  114
  position. They are to be called upon to repel a raid of 70,000 men. It is not likely that these 70,000 men will be any other than the best picked forces of the enemy. The enemy will send their best armed force and their best trained force. Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that, from the training which the Territorial Force receive, that they are in any way fitted to cope with the forces of an enemy which may be landed upon these shores? I venture to say that any suggestion in that direction is a great fallacy, and that it is absolutely impossible that troops trained as they are at present should be able to cope with the Regular forces of the enemy. I know there are great difficulties in connection with the training of the Territorial Force. The Government has to compete with labour. I do not know that all the employers are desirous of coming forward and giving the assistance to the Government which they ought to do. But even with that, is the training vouchsafed to the Territorial Force in any way sufficient or adequate to enable us as a nation to rely upon them for our defence? I believe the Government are endeavouring to place facilities in the way of the Territorial Force. I always felt, and I felt when the scheme was brought in by Lord Haldane, that he was endeavouring, and a great many other people were endeavouring, to trust too much to what is called patriotism.
  Of course, we know very well there is a great deal of latent patriotism in everyone in this country, but in the piping times of peace that patriotism does not always come to the surface, and to enable the Territorial Forces to obtain the training they desire and are entitled to obtain it is necessary that the Government should hold out some inducement. I think it is the intention of the Government to do something in the way of separation allowances. Of course, there are a certain amount of allowances given to the Territorial Forces in respect of drill which that Force is called upon to carry out in different parts of the year. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to pay a special remuneration to all those who come up with the intention of making themselves efficient and making themselves useful in the various duties to which they belong. I think that is a matter of great importance, and one to which the Government might very usefully give their attention. There is one subject to which I have always devoted as much attention as I possibly could, and that is in respect to the horses for the Cavalry in this country. I

  115
  understand the Government have found it possible to increase the establishment of the horses by twenty in the various Cavalry regiments. That is a matter on which most of us feel a certain amount of satisfaction, but the numbers are not nearly what the Government would like, and are not nearly the number that would be satisfactory to us who attach a great amount of importance to that branch of the subject. Perhaps it may be the desire of the War Office to remedy that this year. I only rose for the purpose of drawing attention to the remark the right hon. Gentleman made in respect to the rifles, and I certainly hope that before this Debate is ended we shall receive some more adequate assurance as to the weapon with which our forces are armed than that which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary.
  Mr. CAMPION: I desire to congratulate the Government and to express my gratitude to them for the action they have taken with regard to separation allowances for privates in the Territorial Army. They are removing what has been a considerable grievance. Promotion in the Territorial Army does not come altogether in the same way that it does in the Regular Army A man is promoted generally, of course, because of efficiency, but it does happen on more than one occasion that the man you wish to promote will ask not to be promoted, because either he feels his education is not quite as good as it might be, or that he is in another walk of life employed by some of those men whom he would be asked to lead as a soldier, and these men very often for these reasons cannot be promoted. He is a good soldier, he attends camp regularly, and he feels a grievance that his non-commissioned officer, who is very often better off than himself, should receive a separation allowance of which he is deprived. I very much hope the Government will adhere to their present intention of giving the old separation allowance only to those men who attend the whole fifteen days in camp. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech said very truly that at the present time the Territorial Force is approaching a very critical period. At the end of this month the time arrives when the terms of service of numbers of men who engaged four years ago will have expired. If the Territorial Army is to maintain its numbers and be a success it
  116
  is essential that these men should reengage. One is glad to see that there is some increase in the numbers of the men of the Territorial Army. These numbers are kept up with very great difficulty. The employment difficulty has been alluded to and it is a difficulty that really exists. As a rule, I think, the employers do their best to help, but we have very great difficulty in meeting managers of works, or of firms, or bailiffs, or worst of all, the head gardeners of private establishments. A man who belongs to the Territorial Forces, very often finds that although leave is given to attend drills and to attend camp yet when it comes to a question of promotion in his work, or particularly in the garden, he finds he is not the man who is selected, but when it is a question of reducing the staff he very often finds he is the man selected. That is a very real difficulty, and it is a very hard one to overcome. It is not a question of the employer or the master, but it is the difficulty with the foreman, the bailiff, and so on. The position at the present time does not strike me as altogether satisfactory, particularly when regard is paid to the attendance of the Territorial Force in camp. I notice from the figures that 44,989 men did not attend camp at all last year, and that is practically between one-seventh and one-eighth of the whole Force. When one considers that the only real training in the whole year a Territorial receives, and such a large percentage of the Force is absent, one realises what a drawback that must be on the efficiency of the whole Army. I regard as even more serious the shortage in the officers. Men can be replaced and can be trained to a certain degree of efficiency fairly quickly, but it takes a long time to train an officer thoroughly in his duties. When one sees that the Force is no less than 189 officers short, and that out of 9,381 no less than 1,336 officers did not attend camp, and 1,074 only attended for eight days, I think one needs to pause considerably in one's appreciation of the efficiency of the Force.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped we would not belittle any portion of His Majesty's Army, whether Regular or Territorial. I think most of us on this side of the House, whatever our opinions may be, are always prepared and do our best to get recruits and endeavour to maintain the efficiency of the Territorial Army. Some remarks have been made with regard to the action of the National Service League, and from my own experience I

  117
  am able to repudiate the accusation, that that league limits the recruiting in this country. As a matter of fact, circumstances have come to my notice during the last few months which lead me to an opposite conclusion. A certain village which I know, which has so far been left out in the cold as regards recruiting for the Territorial Army, is six miles from the company headquarters, and it was proposed that that village should be taken into the area of that Company, and that a separate drill station should be established there. The War Office have a very good rule that for a separate detachment with a separate drill station there should be no less than twenty members in that detachment. It was represented to the War Office that if eight or nine men could lie sworn in on the first occasion when a visit was paid to that village they would be practically sure of getting the remainder, and so getting the twenty men, but unless one could swear in those eight or nine on the first visit one would not be able to get them, and then, one might not be able to get the detachment of twenty men. The War Office reduced their number to fifteen, and even then they would not allow any men to be sworn in until the whole fifteen men were forthcoming, although it is obvious that, had eight or nine been forthcoming, the balance of seven or eight would easily have been obtained. A committee was formed, and the march out was taken to that particular village. Certain preparations were made. The village band received the Company marching in. There was a supper arranged for those who joined the force. Something of that sort is always necessary if you want men to join the force. The result was that on the first visit no less than twenty-two nien were sworn in, and there have been ten more since. The point I wish to emphasise is that the committee who organised that affair and canvassed the whole village and secured the whole of those recruits were almost entirely composed of National Service men. Practically we had the position that the War Office were, by too great an adhesion to the principle of red tape, interfering with the getting of recruits, while the National Service League helped us to get them. I am afraid I have let the cat out of the bag by saying "us." This had to do with the Company which I have the honour of commanding myself.
  I wish to say a word or two on the classification of horses by the adjutants of the Territorial Army. I do not mean only
  118
  adjutants of Yeomanry, who might possibly be well qualified to carry out this, work, but adjutants of Infantry regiments in the Army Service Corps. At present they give four days a week during the months of February and March to this work of classifying the horses. I contend that in a country regiment, if an adjutant of the Territorial Force is to do his work properly and efficiently, he has not time to give four days a week for two months in the year to the classification of horses. I think that interferes unduly with the ordinary duties of an adjutant of a regiment, and I cannot believe that the work in many cases is really efficiently carried out by adjutants of Infantry regiments. I am sure that in order to classify horses it requires a man of very considerable experience with regard to horses. I put a question, to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he thought Infantry adjutants could satisfactorily discharge this duty on the 26th February, and his reply was:—
  "It is considered that, with the aid of the memorandum recently issued on the type of horses suitable for Army remounts, the officers in question will perform those duties efficiently."
  I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Memorandum was issued by the Board of Agriculture dealing with the types of horses suitable for Army remounts. I have a copy of it here, and a very interesting document it is. It contains ten pictures of different types of horses suitable for different branches of His Majesty's Service, and I can just imagine the adjutant of an Infantry regiment, having no particular knowledge of horses, going round looking at the horses, turning over these pages and trying to fit the horse to the picture, perhaps without any great efficiency or any satisfactory result. In these instructions the adjutant is informed as to the general conditions applicable to Army remounts, and here is an example:—
  "Soundness.—Entire, unmanagaable or vicious horses, crib-biters, windsuckers, parrot-mouthed, or undershot horses, or horses with capped elbows, damaged knees, injured or deficient teeth are not admissible. …. Soundness in eyes, wind and limb, is essential; no animals with worn, upright or overshot joints, and none with curby hocks are passed."
  He is also informed that the horses he is to classify are to be horses that, in his opinion are, from general appearance and soundness, fit for active service oversea. I have some little knowledge of a horse, but I should be very sorry to undertake to efficiently carry out that work without very much more skilled knowledge than I possess or that I think the majority of

  119
  Infantry adjutants possess. I do not believe this work can be properly done, and if it is not properly done it is not worth doing, unless either the inspection is compulsory or the obligation to allow one's horse to be inspected is compulsory. There are cases where a man objects to having his horse inspected, and in that event the adjutant has no power to go and inspect the horse. We all know people do not always strictly speak the truth when they are talking about horses, and, if the adjutant were to turn to the owner and say, "I suppose that horse is sound in wind," we may be quite sure the owner would not say he is unsound. The only way in which the adjutant could ascertain whether he was sound or not would be to have a trial, which we may be quite sure the owner would not allow. I think these points are important. I cannot conceive that the work can be in many cases efficiently done merely by the aid of this memorandum. I am afraid if unhappily at any time we had to undertake mobilisation in this country the remount officer, when he took over the list that these different adjutants had left behind of the horses they had classified, would find that the whole work had to be done again, and that either the horses were unfit for classification at all or that they had been put into the wrong class. I cannot help feeling that the fault lies in our system of running our remount staff during peace time at too low a strength. Surely, if we are to carry out this work satisfactorily, and if we are to have a proper scheme of organisation, that organisation should take place during the time of peace. If the remount staff was manned to its proper strength, and if the organisation was properly carried on, it would not be necessary, the moment there is any suggestion of war, to add considerably to the staff, and to do the work in a hurry. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to this question, and consider the advisability of having a thoroughly manned remount staff, and having the work performed by competent and skilled officers.
  9.0 P.M.
  Sir C. HUNTER: A very strong indictment has been made against the Government. We have heard of the shortness of officers and of the shortness of the Special Reserve of officers, and we have heard also of an inadequate rifle; but I think there is another shortage just as important. It would only come out in case of war, which
  120
  usually means a case of panic. There would be a considerable shortage in the number of staff officers available. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for War to tell the House where, in case a Territorial Division is mobilised for war, he would find staff officers to fulfil the duties that would be required of that division. Everybody knows that an ordinary regimental officer can be made out of the man of ordinary ability, but the position of a staff officer requires a man not merely of extraordinary ability, because very often when he has the ability he has not the aptitude which fits him for staff work. I questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, I think in March last, as regards the number of staff officers available for an ordinary division of the Regulars in case of war, and the number of staff officers available for a Territorial Division on mobilisation, and his answer was a very peculiar one. He told me at that time that there were six officers on the personal staff in a division, and also thirteen staff officers in a Regular Division; and he went on to say that in the Territorial Division there were six staff officers available at the present moment, but that it was the intention of the Secretary of State for War to bring that six up to thirteen.
  When I saw that statement I turned to the Army List to see who the staff officers were, and I found there is a second-grade officer with every Territorial Division. There is the deputy-assistant-adjutant and quartermaster-general; there are three Brigade majors, who ought not really to rank as staff officers, because they are really concerned with the detail work of the Brigade; and, besides that, there are the medical officer and the sanitary officer. I should very much like anybody to say whether either the medical officer or the sanitary officer is a proper staff officer. It is perfectly ridiculous to give answers like that and to expect people to be deceived by them. Certainly, nobody who has ever served in the Regular Army was deceived. An Army without a staff certainly marches to death and destruction, and the damnation which ought to come to those people who sent it to destruction is not often meted out in the proper quarters. History repeats itself in these cases, and to make my point clear I must go through a little military history. There are three comparatively recent cases where large bodies have been used in the field with untrained staff officers. There is first the great war

  121
  between North and South America; there not is, secondly, the Franco-German War, and there is, thirdly, our own Boer War. In the first case, undoubtedly the great success achieved by the small body of men from the south in the early days of the war was entirely due to the fact that all their officers had staff training. No doubt enormous losses were caused by men getting into positions where the staff officers led them, and being unable to get out. Everybody knows that great wars produce great geniuses. Nobody in this House will deny that Ashby and Stewart were great geniuses produced by a great war, but is there anybody who will say that these men, good as they were, would not have been better, and much better, if they had had a staff training? Another lesson to be learned from that war—they were all irregular, untrained men, very like our Territorial troops, with little or no staff—is this: the war lasted two and a-half years. In the Army of the North alone there were 39,320 officers dismissed for disgraceful conduct in the field; and 202,410 men deserted during the course of that war. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these were not men who were unwilling to fight, for this army sustained tremendous losses, losses just as heavy, if not heavier, than those sustained in the great Napoleonic battles.
  I come now to the time of the Franco-German war in 1870. Perhaps I should more accurately say in January, 1871, when General Bourbaki was entrusted with the duty of relieving Belfort, and cutting through the German communications with an army which was really a body of untrained men. In a certain measure it consisted of trained men—men who had been broken up in the early battles of the war and scattered themselves over France, but were reunited in order to form a great army. It was estimated by the staff it would take seven days to form an army of 320,000 men. It actually took fifteen days. The army was formed without food, or shelter, or clothes; the weather was extraordinarily cold, and the men died by hundreds and thousands. When it came to fighting they fought heroically, as I believe our untrained men and unstaffed men would, but, at the same time, what was the result of that fighting? I am only quoting from the French official dispatches. At one period Bourbaki, for a very short time, and with only 32,000 men opposed to him, was within four miles of Belfort, but
  122
  not a single staff officer in his whole army was aware of the fact. If anybody reads the German official account, they will find General Von Werder, when only 32,000 men was in front of him, and the messages sent to him were to the effect "You have only so and so in front of you." Does anybody imagine, in case our Territorials, with an inefficient staff, had to go to war against highly-trained staff officers, the word "only" would have been used?
  The third and last case is that of our war with South Africa. It is a well-known fact—I do not think anybody will deny it—that when Lord Roberts captured Pretoria the Boers were perfectly willing to enter into peace negotiations. But what happened at that moment? There were two disasters at Roodeval and Rhenoster Spruit, and from that moment the Boers became encouraged and the war continued a considerable time afterwards. Why did those disasters occur? Because you had entirely untrained troops sent to the front without any staff officers at all in charge. We were not the only people to suffer in that way. The Boers suffered just as much as we did during the war. General Botha was unable to keep his men together around Ladysmith, and they were always deserting, as they were in the case of the Armies of the North. Wherever you look at history, I do not care how far back you go, you find that an untrained army of men with untrained staff officers is always in danger of destruction. I hope and trust that before this Debate closes the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War will be able to tell us that some steps are being taken to put our Territorial Army in such a condition as regards staff officers as that if it ever should have to take the field, it will not only do so on a basis of equality, but that, at all events, it will have some chance of success thereon.
  Mr. SANDYS: I should like to make one or two remarks with reference to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which he devoted to the subject of military aviation. I am obliged to use that term, although I know it is objectionable to the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot think of any better one to describe it. I was very glad to know that under the present Estimates we are going to have much more generous provision for this important branch of military science than last year. The Government have now at least abandoned what I may call the Micawberlike attitude of waiting for something to

  123
  turn up, and have decided to do something for themselves. I think the right hon. Gentleman is not devoting too much time to this question of military aviation. Our Army is a small one, and, because our Army is so small, it is all the more necessary that these technical branches should "be the more highly developed. Especially so is this the case when we remember that, in time of war, our small Army has to be enlarged by improvised troops. In case of serious war I am inclined to think this is a very undesirable policy, but, as it is admittedly the policy of the Government at the present time, I suppose we shall have to do the best we can, and under these circumstances it is quite evident, so far as the technical branches of our Army are concerned, we must make provision, not merely for our Regular Army as it exists, but for that additional Army coming from somewhere or other if we are involved in serious military operations.
  I am glad the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have appreciated the importance of this development of the science of military aviation. A great deal of attention was attracted to the French manœuvres last year. I will not deal with that point now, except to say it was evident, as a result of those manœuvres, that an army which went into the field unprovided or inadequately provided with efficiently trained officers and the best class of machines for the purpose of gathering information, was courting risk and almost certain disaster. As one result of those manœuvres, the French Government, which voted £750,000 for aviation last year, on the 13th February last decided to allocate another £1,000,000 for similar purposes this year. I only mention those figures because of the comparison I wish to draw later on with the sum asked for by the right hon. Gentleman. So far as the scheme of organisation which the right hon. Gentleman outlined in his speech this evening is concerned, I will only say it seems to me an admirably thought-out scheme, and one which certainly is going to get an aviation service for our Army and Navy far and away beyond what we had reason to anticipate a year or two ago. There are one or two points the right hon. Gentleman did not make clear. I would like to know whether this new flying Corps is to be an entirely separate organisation, or will it be to a certain extent under the Royal Engineers?
  Colonel SEELY: No.
  Mr. SANDYS: I am very glad to hear that. I think it will give us a much better organisation than could have been secured under the old system, which was largely under the management of the Royal Engineers. I understand that in this new organisation soldiers, sailors, and civilians are to take part, and it is very satisfactory to have the statement by the right hon. Gentleman that all those officers who hold executive positions are to be themselves qualified flying men. I also understand that after to-day the Air Battalion ceases to exist. That is not a very great loss, because although the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to give me the particulars for which I asked the other day, the Air Battalion, I believe, only consisted of five officers, twenty-five, non-commissioned officers and men, and five modern machines suitable for Army purposes. I think, although I agree with him in the high opinion expressed of these five officers and these men who have been able to play such an important part in the development of our Army aviation, it was not a very big contribution towards the somewhat ambitious scheme which he has outlined. As I understand, the right hon. Gentleman was not yet in a position, I hope he will soon be, to settle the question of the pay of aviation officers. I am glad that the Government have adopted the scheme which has been carried on for some time in France—at least, I understand that that is the opinion of the Government, that officers irrespective of rank should be paid a fixed additional sum in recognition of the dangerous service which they are undertaking in joining the aviation branch. I am sorry the question of pay is not yet definitely settled. I hope when it is settled it will be upon an adequate basis with full recognition of the hazardous service which these officers are engaged in.
  As I understand from the right hon. Gentleman, during the course of the year sixty officers, during three terms of four months each, will pass through the school—that is, 180 officers in the course of each year—and after this course they will go to the military or the naval wing, or else to the Reserve; but he did not make it quite clear whether the military or naval officers are to go to the Reserve or whether the Reserve is entirely for the civilian portion. Perhaps he will make that clear in the course of the Debate. I should like

  125
  to make one more remark with reference to the military wing, which he told us was to consist of seven air squadrons, each of twelve machines, eighty-four machines in all. He also referred to an eighth squadron of balloons, kites, and dirigibles, and referred in particular to two dirigibles which he considered were available at the present moment. I should like to have some further particulars as to our position with regard to dirigibles. I think the whole situation wants clearing up. We want information with respect to the Clement-Bayard and the Lebaudy, and also with reference to the Beta and Gamma, which are only, I think, for purposes of instruction, and not for actual military work, and we have also been a good deal exercised with regard to the Delta, upon which, I understand, a considerable amount of money has been expended. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his reply, give us some information with regard to dirigibles? I am sure it will be of great value. With reference to the naval wing, he told us it was to be situated at Eastchurch, where some naval aviation has already taken place, and I should like him to give some indication as to where the military wing is likely to be stationed, and as I gather that the sum of £15,000 is allocated in this Estimate for the purpose of constructing a dirigible shed, I conclude that dirigible shed will lie constructed upon the place where the military wing is actually to be situated, and I hope that there will be some definite plan in regard to it. There are two other points. The Air Craft Factory expenditure has gone up from £85,000 to £161,000. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that this factory was to be for experiment and construction of experimental machines, and sometimes for building. I hope he will stick to that word "sometimes." There was built in that factory a new aeroplane about which there was some discussion some months ago, and which has turned out a complete success; but I hope he will not adopt the policy of having machines built only in this factory, but that he will follow the sounder policy which has been adopted in France of giving some encouragement to manufacturers who are building these machines, so that we may have a large number of independent factories available for the production of these aeroplanes at a time of national crisis and danger.
  Another point I would like to have cleared up was referred to by the right
  126
  hon. Gentleman when he said we should want 131 aeroplanes and 167 officers; I am including the thirty-four naval officers to whom he referred. Looking at that from the financial standpoint of view, I find that, last year we had a sum of £131,000 allocated to aviation. That gave us in the most flourishing period of the Air Battalion, six efficient machines, and six officers engaged in aviation in that Battalion. For these six machines and six officers an expenditure of £131,000 was required, and for 131 aeroplanes and 167 officers it is suggested that a sum of £320,000 will be sufficient. I think the finance of that requires a little examination, especially as the right hon. Gentleman indicates that considerable sums are going to be allocated for rent of sheds and landing places, which are very desirable, I agree, in different parts of the country; and also that out of that £320,000 no less than £90,000 is going to be spent upon the purchase of this property, the extent of which the right hon. Gentleman is not yet in a position to tell us. If this £90,000 is to be expended on land, and £38,000 on buildings, we have really to deduct from that £320,000 a sum of no less than £128,000 for what are really capital charges, and then the right hon. Gentleman suggests we shall still be able to get 131 aeroplanes and 167 officers. One other point is with regard to the mechanics. The right hon. Gentleman did say something about the mechanics and the necessity of getting a larger number of highly trained mechanics for this particular service. I hope he will do so, and I do not think he will have so much difficulty as some people expect may be the case, becaiise you can get a reasonable number of skilled men for this work. At the present time I believe there are only twenty-one men available as mechanicswho are all members of the Royal Engineers. It is not quite evident how many more will be required, and it may be difficult to get them in a hurry. I hope that suitable men will be able to apply direct, not only from the Royal Engineers, but from any other regiment. I would suggest that suitable mechanics who are at present in other regiments should be given an opportunity of transferring into the Air Corps. In fact, volunteers might be got from all round. But it is absolutely essential that these men should receive an adequate rate of pay. At present some of the men who are doing this arduous work, which entails getting up at all hours of the morning, and is of a very responsible character, because the lives of these aviators depend

  127
  on the efficiency with which these mechanics do their work, are only being paid at the same rate as men who are engaged in digging trenches. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and I hope the right hon. Gentleman in his new scheme will provide for proper pay for these men who occupy a very responsible position indeed and upon whose integrity the safely of men's lives depend. I am glad to hear that it is going to be the policy of the Government to encourage cross country flights far more than has been the case in the past. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is going to expend a considerable sum of money immediately on the purchase of further aeroplanes. I hope he will do this in time so that we may have a proper aviation service, or at any rate a certain aviation service, ready for the manœuvres next summer, because it is highly desirable that our officers should become accustomed as soon as possible to the new conditions which prevail.
  With reference to the purchase of this ground, for which the very large sum of £90,000 is being allocated, that is to say between a third and a fourth of the whole sum which is put down for aviation, the property is either land of a very valuable character indeed or else is of very considerable extent. I am told it is about 12,000 acres. That seems to me a very large property indeed for the purpose for which it is supposed to be required. I believe it is situated in the neighbourhood of Upper Avan village, and I have been told it is really not altogether an ideal place for this particular purpose on account of the unevenness of the ground, which consists largely of spurs and ridges, and is really in some respect most undesirable for this purpose. But I do not think such a very large property is desired. I am told that about 1,500 acres is all that is wanted for aviation purposes and, at any rate, I shall be glad of an assurance that this property is entirely for aviation purposes and is not going to be used as a camping ground, for instance. The right hon. Gentleman has outlined to us what, I think, is a very satisfactory, but, we must admit, a very ambitious scheme in view of the actual sum which he has allocated to himself for carrying it into effect. We must congratulate him on having recognised the importance of the development of military science and on having recognised the fact that we are behindhand, and that we have to make up for lost time. When I consider his scheme,
  128
  without having seen it actually in print, I am inclined to think that additional money will be required in order to carry it into effect, but if it is required I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will have every support from Members on this side of the House, because I know we are determined, as I think the right hon. Gentleman himself is determined, that we shall have an aviation service which shall be adequate for the needs of our Army and for the safety of the nation generally.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: I should like to congratulate, the Undersecretary on the success of his endeavours so far as aviation is concerned, and also on keeping the Debate out of politics so-far as it was possible for him to do so. So long as he takes that line and does his best to keep the Army up to the mark he will certainly find no better friend, talking from the Army point of view, on either side of the House than myself. The question of armaments has loomed rather largely in the Debate, and it is one in which I have been interested for some considerable time. It is a question also on which I think he wished to meet our Leader on the floor of the House, which he has done to admiration to-day. I am not at all certain that the floor that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about when he issued that challenge, quite unsupported by any other word, was not probably that of the War Office, where he might get some of that expert advice about which he has been so unkind as to say that only the more intelligent people at the War Office agree with him. The right hon. Gentleman anyhow has come here armed with a bundle of statistics and figures with regard to the bullet, and, from my own point of view, they are not as pointed as perhaps the bullet itself. I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell me how the extraordinary inconsistencies have occurred which have been made by his distinguished chief in another place on various occasions. I think he will see the extraordinarily vacillating policy which the Government has pursued with regard, first of all, to the new bullet and afterwards with regard to this present rifle and the future rifle. I think we have some reason to complain either that the Secretary of State for War has not been giving us the full facts of the case or else that he has changed his mind on several occasions, and has really no policy of any sort at all. On 28th February, 1910, in reply

  129
  to the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood), he stated with regard to the new bullet:—
  "Experiments have been so far successful, and an extended trial will shortly be made by troops, and ammunition is now being manufactured."
  That means they have had several technical experiments, and it has been served out to the troops obviously more to try the rifle than the bullet, because technical experiments had already been made which untrained troops who are not experts would probably not be able to appreciate. In 7th March of the same year he said:—
  "As the result of four years' work we have produced ii new bullet which very satisfactorily responds to the tests we have made, and weighs 160-grains …. We are going to proceed experimentally by arming a certain number of companies, and making a test on a large scale."
  Here, again, we have the right hon. Gentleman repeating it, and calling it the 160-grain bullet. Then he went on 15th March to say:—
  "What we have done promises to fill the gap very satisfactorily."
  And he spoke very highly of this 160-grain bullet, and told us of the various tests which had been made. Perhaps he can tell me what company carried out these tests prior to March. Then on 14th June, 1910, in answer to me, he began to hedge rather, because he said:—
  "The trials are still progressing. I do not want to jump to conclusions."
  So that he was not quite so certain as he had been when he told us what a magnificent bullet this 160-grain bullet was. Then again, to another Member, on 18th July, he said:—
  "The manufacture of the new cartridge is proceeding, deliveries are being made, and extensive trials are in progress."
  I presume that was with the 160-grain bullet, because on 19th July curiously enough an hon. Member on this side applied for a heavier bullet—a 175-grain bullet. He was laughed at, and told there was no idea at all of having a heavier bullet. Lord Haldane said, two days afterwards, that no trials are being, or have been, made with the 175-grain bullet. It is a curious fact that if there was no intention to touch the 175-grain bullet he, during August, should have sent to some people in the country, not only the 160, but also a 174-grain bullet, and rather recommended the heavier of the two. It was rather curious that, although he told us that no trials had been made, they should have been manufactured and that they were in store a fortnight later. On 28th February, 1911, he said that the experiments with the new bullet, were satisfactory, but that no issues would foe made until a sufficient stock was accu-
  130
  mulated. In March he confessed that the 174-grain bullet was the one which had been chosen, and so we are entitled to say that all the extensive tests with the 160-grain bullet represented almost a waste of money. The effect of the whole thing is that the tests could not have been satisfactory. Otherwise why not adopt it?
  Colonel SEELY: We got a better.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Exactly, the other one was better, and the tests Lord Haldane said were satisfactory were not so. I come to another point, and this is rather a serious question to which I wish to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because it is one on which he challenged me a few months ago—namely, the situation of this country during July last. At that time I refrained, for reasons which he will appreciate, from asking any questions about this matter. I did not ask any questions until 11th December, and then I asked the Under-Secretary of State for War:—
  "Whether on the 1st July last the stock of reserve small-arm ammunition of the present pattern, and not more than five years old, was depleted or up to the full quantity usually stored; and whether there was a large or small quantity of the new pointed ammunition in store at that time?"
  The Under-Secretary replied:—
  "It is not in the public interest that any details of stocks of reserve of small-arm ammunition should be disclosed. It may, however, be stated that during this year prior to 1st July the new pointed ammunition was manufactured in lieu of the old pattern, so as to obtain a sufficient stock to allow of a rearmament at an early date, and the stock of the old pattern was in consequence gradually reduced, though always remaining at an adequate figure."
  I then asked:—
  "Can the right hon. gentleman give me any reply as to the old pattern ammunition? I may take it that it was easy to say it was satisfactory if it was actually satisfactory With regard to the pointed bullet, what was the object of having a large stock if you had not rifles to fire them?"
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:—
  "With regard to the first part of the question as to whether the ammunition was satisfactory, I have said that it is not in the public interest that details should be issued I may say at once, if the Noble Lord is anxious, that on the date named there was more than twice as many cartridges in this country alone as were fired during the whole of the South African War, a period of two years and three-quarters. With regard to the pointed bullet, there is always inconvenience in a transition period, but we endeavoured to see that no risk was run during that period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1911, col. 1895.]
  Surely it would have been in the interest of the Service to say that it was satisfactory, and his answer could only have meant that it was not satisfactory. Really when you summarise these questions it comes to this that in July, at a time of national crisis, the stocks of ammunition, were reduced. That is admitted.
  Colonel SEELY: No. It would be very inconvenient to discuss the stock of ammunition at any date, but the moment any statement of that kind is made it is desirable to put it right. The total stock of ammunition is not reduced.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Then what did the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that the stock of ammunition for the old rifle was gradually reduced? I am talking of the ammunition that fitted the rifle. A large proportion was pointed ammunition, which did not suit the rifle with which the soldiers were armed. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that if it did suit the rifle it would be perfectly unnecessary to alter the whole of the sights. I will put it to the right hon. Gentleman in another way. Does he mean to say that a proportion of it was not ammunition that had been cast during the South African war? I think he will find on inquiry that some of it was, and also that it was not sufficiently good for the soldiers to shoot with in this country. Many of the Territorials also refused to have it. May I also ask if he did not withdraw some stocks of ammunition from Malta. That is really the situation we had at that time, and I do not think it was a healthy situation. I do not think it was one creditable to His Majesty's Government.
  I will leave the ammunition for a little, and go on to deal with the rifle. Here again you find exactly the same extraordinary process—the same vacillating policy right through. Before I deal with that I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman with reference to another point. A statement was made the other day by the Secretary of State for War in another place that Noble Lords need not be the least bit afraid, because the old ammunition was still of considerable use to us because we could always fire it out of the new rifle and it would be useful up to 500 yards.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Well, that is no use at all.
  Colonel SEELY: If the Noble Lord will refer to what the Secretary of State for War said he will find that it was never intended, nor is it the least likely, that it would be any good except with a suitable rifle. He was very rightly pointing out that a scare had been got up by certain newspapers. There is no intention what-
  132
  ever that it should be fired out of rifles not properly sighted.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I can only go by the statement of the Secretary of State. He said that "it was not uninteresting to know that in the re-sighted rifles the old ammunition—he was not going to suggest that it was going to be done—in an emergency would work up to 500 yards." I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that if it comes, to that it will be better to trust to bayonets than wait until the enemy comes to within 500 yards. There have been a great many changes in the rifle going on. The first small bore rifle, when it was introduced in 1888, was a very good rifle, and perfectly well up to the requirement. I myself saw it the first time it was used in action, and there were no complaints against its powers. Since then, in 1903, the same rifle was converted into a short rifle. I think the chief reason was that we found that the carbine in South Africa did not suit the mounted troops, and was not as good as the weapon brought against us. So then we had the short rifle with which the troops are armed at present. At that time—I still think that the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out—that rifle was, to all intents and purposes, as good as any other military rifle in the world.
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: In that case does he mean to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the Army is going to stand still for twenty years. It is only since 1903 that the great improvements in the bullet came in. In 1903 Germany introduced the Spitzer bullet secretly, and she sprang it on the world in 1905. So I do not think you could really blame the War Office at that time for not, when they converted the rifle, thinking of making it a magazine, because they had no idea of the new inventions that were likely to come on. But I do think that once it was known that this bullet did exist something ought to have been done to try to come up with the times. Lord Haldane stated last year that he had been making experiments for four years. They ought to have been making experiments from the end of 1905. We all said at that time, "No doubt the acme of a good military weapon will be the automatic, but that is a long way off." It would have been wiser if now he had introduced a better magazine rifle than the present one, one that would take the

  133
  pointed bullet. I do not think there would have been any great difficulty in finding such a rifle. The difficulty is not to find a rifle to shoot well with small bores; the difficulty is in getting an automatic rifle. It is a waste of money, if you are not going to get an automatic rifle, not to have gone in for a magazine rifle and introduced that instead of going to all this expense of converting the present rifle. If that had been done there would have been a new magazine rifle probably ready by now for the whole of the troops instead of putting off the question, whether in the hopes that we should have to do it or for motives of economy I do not know; but it would have been wiser to have adopted that policy.
  I must say, however, that I am a bit mixed up myself as to what has been done, but there are some extremely clever Liberals opposite, and no doubt they can explain to me what Lord Haldane meant when he made some of these statements. On 9th March Lord Haldane, in introducing the new bullet, said:—
  "I do not doubt that when Germany and France have got a new automutic rifle they will get better results, but we shall try to get a better automatic rifle."
  Then an hon. Member on this side suggested that we should get another magazine rifle. He said it would be easier to get, and would not be so very expensive, and that we should have to wait for the automatic, and what was the reply? The Secretary of State for War said:—
  "I venture to say that it would be the height of folly to take the advice given me."
  The same day he went on to say this:—
  "One thing that struck me in this Debate is the concensus of opinion against an automatic rifle. Ah automatic rifle! What a retrograde thing! This attitude is something quite new. I can only remind the Committee that there is not a General Staff in Europe or anywhere which has not set before it this problem of an automatic rifle, and which is not working at it at this present time, and as far as one can judge all the Powers seem to be on the verge of discovering an automatic rifle, and I do think it would be a very serious responsibility for any Minister to take, even on the request of this Committee, if he were to abandon the prospect of securing for the country an automatic rifle by turning his money to something else, because abandonment it would be."
  On 14th March, 1911, he turned round and told us "the rifle you are going to get is a magazine, and not an automatic." A magazine, which he described a short time before as the height of folly. He now confesses that he is an abandoned Minister. Even now he is talking about the best rifle in the world. That statement is only a little bit of window-dressing, because he knows perfectly well that we have not got the best rifle yet, that it is really all in embryo or in the right hon. Gentleman's brain.
  Colonel SEELY: It is in the War Office. If the Noble Lord will come to the War Office to-morrow, at half-past ten, he can see it and take it to the range and look at it.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I want to know is it the rifle which the right hon. Gentleman is going to introduce? Why not introduce it if it is the best in the world?
  Colonel SEELY: I do not wish to interrupt the Noble Lord, but in the matter of the automatic rifle it is, of course, a very difficult thing to discover one which is satisfactory. Two years ago we were told that every other country was going to find one, and we now have a magnificent rifle, which the Noble Lord can see, and if nothing better comes along we are going to manufacture it.
  MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: In view of the whole of the facts, I would observe that the advice generally given on this side of the House was not the height of folly: it was wise advice, and it has turned out to be wise. We do not bring these matters before the right hon. Gentleman in order to make any difficulty in his work; we want him to get the best rifle in the world. If he does introduce this magazine rifle it, of course, cannot be obtained until after three years. It is not now on the Estimates, and it is, as the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to the Albert Hall Speech, always a useful reply for the moment, and does not really stand criticism. We really want to help the right hon. Gentleman whenever we can, and I would suggest to him to be very careful that the rifle is of the calibre which would suit an automatic rifle afterwards, in order that we may not have this unfortunate chopping and changing of ammunition. In regard to the question of officers, the right hon. Gentleman may make as many "Sandhursts" as they like, but until the Government—it is not his fault, nor is it the fault of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and both sides of the House, are prepared to pay British officers the ordinary standard rate of wage they need not expect them to flock to the Colours in any great numbers. They are the only class in this country since the time of Waterloo whose pay has remained exactly at the same rate it was then. If you want to meet competition in other directions you must pay the market rate of wages. Probably it would not be very high in the case of

  135
  the younger officers, but there should be an endeavour to meet the case of those of the rank of captain and senior lieutenants.
  10.0 P.M.
  As to the Cavalry, I have not really thought the question out, but I was very touch struck by an article I saw in the paper the other day by that somewhat abused individual at the present moment, the correspondent of the "Times," in regard to the Cavalry Division. I think it is a matter that the War Office might well look into. There is a great deal to be said for altering the somewhat unwieldy division that there is at the present moment, and without much expense being incurred we might possibly create two divisions out of the one. I do not say that I agree with all the points that appeared in the article by the "Times" correspondent. Then there is the question of horse registration. Why should there be all this trouble and expense before getting people to register their horses? I strongly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is really a good thing to put under compulsion. People like myself have to register the motor car, the gun, and the dog, and have to pay for them, and I certainly should be very proud indeed to register my horses for the national service. As to the Special Reserve, I get rather muddled about them and the Territorials when I try to compare the "states." This year's statement is different from that of last year. Last year it was said that we were 15,222 short, and a panacea was found, the excuse being that last year the numbers were short because they had lowered the age for soldiers. This year the excuse is that you have raised the age. I think it would have been fairer to the Committee to have submitted it in the way it was put last year, and not as it has been placed before us this year. Last year the result was described by saying we were 1,800 less. It would, I think, have probably been more instructive to the Committee to say that the shortage was 17,022 according to figures given last year—the real shortage according to figures given this year being over 28,000. Arguing on the figures of last year, instead of being 1,800 short this year, we are 17,022 short. In regard to the officers, there are seventy more than last year, but would it not have been still better to say that we are 760 short?
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about active emigration and good labour
  136
  markets. I am not one who is good at conundrums, but I should have thought that one did not take place when we have got the other. Coming to the Territorials, exactly the same process has come on. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the numbers in the Territorial Force, and, as regards the officers, I think they are thoroughly unsatisfactory. The officers are splendid men and are doing their best under difficulties, working very well, but their numbers are thoroughly unsatisfactory, being 304 less than last year. But if it is worked out in another way, the deficiency is that out of 11,249, instead of being 304 short of last year, why not have put it that we are 1,864 short? That would make people realise the trouble and difficulties we are in. Then it was not mentioned that out of 11,218 only 8,009 attended camp. It makes it very much worse when we find that the deficiency of the men is 42,947. I should not mind that deficiency personally, because I would far rather have a smaller number well trained and properly trained, and probably the right hon. Gentleman and I agree there. The attendances at camp were slightly better last year; 75,821 only attended for half the time, but I will give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, and call them fully qualified as far as drill is concerned. Then out of 224,103, actually 34,888 of the men did not attend camp last year. That is far too great a proportion. So, for any practical purpose, those men must be deducted. That leaves us 224,103. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the only effective soldier is the soldier who knows how to use his weapon. Of those 224,103 only 142,435 qualified for musketry. There is still another deduction. There are 19,481 who are marked down for Imperial service. Those will probably go abroad so that you cannot, have them for garrison in this country. Thus you have only 123,954 out of the whole of the Territorials efficient for garrisoning in this country against a raid of 70,000 men, and that total would be scattered from John o'Groats to Land's End. Out of the 259,000 there are 116,000 utterly inefficient, and if they are not efficient, what is the good of their training at all. Speaking of the Territorial Reserves, the right hon. Gentleman said that he looks forward next year to the Territorial Reserve being increased. Is that a matter of congratulation for the right hon. Gentleman when he cannot get recruits into the ranks. He knows that the Territorial Reserves is not

  137
  full because if they go to the Reserve we cannot get recruits for the ranks.
  I would like to ask one or two questions of the right hon. Gentleman. What is the Territorial Force meant for? It is obviously intended for the defence of these shores. No one, I think, will quarrel with that. Who is it going to fight? Is it going to fight civilised or uncivilised troops? It is not likely to be going to fight niggers, and it would probably have to fight the best picked troops of the Continent. Is there any chance of a raid? A great many of us think not, but some experts say that under certain conditions we might have a raid of 70,000. The question then comes to this, are 259,000, of whom 116,000 are inefficient, and who are scattered from one end of Great Britain to the other, likely to be able to encounter such a raid with success. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, must adopt the answer of his chief, that it will be all right in six months after they had had six months' training. Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that first of all during that six months the whole of the people of this country will get nervous and they will anchor the Fleet round the island instead of letting it go away on its other duties, or else you would have to keep a great part of the expeditionary force. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks you cannot have a raid until the Navy has been disposed of—that is to say, at the end of six months—and that by that time something may have happened. May I put this proposition to him. I am no scaremonger, and I am going to give a fictitious instance which may be founded a little more on fact than some people imagine. Suppose our Fleet was only about five ships mobilised ready for service at Cromarty, and that the rest was at Portland and Berehaven, and suppose the whole of the rest of the coast undefended, and that the ships there had nucleus crews and were demobilised, then I do not think he would call that a very happy position from a soldier's point of view.
  Colonel SEELY: Why not?
  Colonel SEELY: You said from a military point of view.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The two go together, and that is the thing I am trying to point out. You also talk about
  138
  an expedition, but if that is the situation of your Navy you would not be able to spare an expeditionary force. I will try to take a fictitious fleet of the enemy. We are always talking about the German fleet, but I will not. Suppose we had a fleet of twenty-two ships of an enemy at Bergen, does he think there would be no chance of the possibility of a raid? If there were, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman does he not think that that raid would cause a great deal more trouble than if we were to work together and try and put our Territorial Force firm on its legs? It is no good trying to hide our head in the sand and say that our Territorial Force is fit to cope, and armed as they are at present, with foreign countries. In any case if there had been war there would have been a tremendous mix up, and even now you would have three rifles and two ammunitions and the very great danger of mixing them, and the promise of a fourth rifle and a third cartridge to complete this mixed armament. I think we ought to say frankly that if any party or any Member does not think the training of the Territorial Force, and the method of recruiting is satisfactory, that something ought to be done, and that the two sides ought to work together to try and work a solution, and take the Army and the whole question clean out of party politics, because, as the Secretary of State said the other day, the party that goes away from the voluntary system is bound to be condemned, and that means as big a handicap for hon. Gentlemen opposite as for this side.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: I follow the Noble Lord in his very proper condemnation of the War Office in reference to the shortage of horses, and also in reference to the parsimonious treatment of the junior regimental officers, but I am bound to say that I think the Noble Lord rather spoiled a very good speech by taking up more time than he should on a Debate of this kind when there are at least a dozen Members who wish to speak before eleven o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have three days for it."] I rise especially to deal with the charges made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in a recent speech, which charges he has attempted to justify here in the House to-night. In my opinion most of the Estimates, and they are most important, are rather overshadowed by the fact of those charges made by the right hon. Gentleman out of the House

  139
  and justified in much milder language inside the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in that speech said:—
  "Our Regular Forces are armed with weapons, but it is still truer of the Auxiliary Forces, which are utterly inferior to those of the armies of other nations."
  He says when he used the word "weapons" in the reported speech in the House as his explanation, and I accept it, of course, that he had in his mind rifles only, although I am bound to say he must have had in his mind all those armaments that go to make up the weapons of an army. In reference to that speech I do not apologise for quoting from the very well-informed and experienced military correspondent of the "Times." If there is a Member of this House with more military experience than that gallant gentleman, I hope that he will give of his experience to the House. The military correspondent of the "Times" says:—
  "Never at any modern period of our history were we more formidable as a military power than we are today. We have the first Army led by soldiers the country has ever possessed since the middle ages, and we have every reason to he proud of it."
  [An HON. MEMBER: "He is employed at the War Office."] It may be that this distinguished soldier is also employed in an editorial capacity at the War Office. But is it to be maintained that because a soldier is in the War Office he is therefore to be reckoned as of no account, to be condemned and insulted by Members in the House and other gentlemen out of it, who have nothing like the great experience of this military correspondent, or that of any of the great soldiers in the War Office? I prefer the opinion of the military correspondent of the "Times" to the military opinion of the Leader of the Opposition. Moreover the opinion of the military correspondent of the "Times" is borne out by the "Army and Navy Gazette," which has nothing to do with the War Office.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is not the editor of the "Army and Navy Gazette" on the "Times" staff?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Not as far as I am aware. The Leader of the Opposition says that the word "weapons" in his Albert Hall speech referred only to rifles, but in ths House he could not forbear criticising the Artillery. I noticed, however, that the Noble Lord the Member for Maidstone (Viscount Castlereagh), who is himself a soldier, refrained from criticising the Artillery and accepted the state-
  140
  ment of the right hon. gallant, and, I believe, learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War. I have yet to hear from any soldier on the other side of the House any criticism tending to show the utter inferiority of the Artillery of the Army. I will sit here from day to day through the Debate to see if any well-known soldier on the other side—and there are many of them there—will get up and condemn the War Office for the inferiority of its Artillery equipment. The Leader of the Opposition also quoted from a speech, which I do not remember, in which Lord Roberts is stated to have said that owing to bad fusing the Artillery was not automatic. I do not understand what either Lord Roberts or the Leader of the Opposition meant by automatic Artillery. Those were the words the Leader of the Opposition used. [Several HON. MEMBERS: "The fusing."] He said automatic Artillery. That is the whole point. It shows the difficulty of even an able man like the Leader of the Opposition, who knows nothing about rifles and armaments, trying to get up his case from a brief. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are you doing"] I have had more experience than the hon. Member, and I claim to speak as I feel from such experience as I have had, I trust with becoming modesty; if not with modesty, that is my calamity.
  With reference to the rifle, I submit that, the Leader of the Opposition, like many other men, has gone wrong by emphasising the importance of the trajectory and leaving out of consideration of the essentials quite as important in the making and the using of a rifle. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a description of a possible battlefield which I thought ludicrous. His view was this: If you take the British rifle at 800 yards range it has a trajectory of 13ft.; the German rifle at the same distance has a trajectory of 6ft. Therefore, says the right hon. Gentleman, it is plain to anybody that the German rifle would be able—this is the effect of his words—to mow down the British soldier before he was able to shoot at his German opponent. I submit that such a description of the use of the rifle in modern war will not, and cannot be made by anybody in this House or out of it who has ever taken any serious interest in the study of modern armaments or modern war. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition presupposes a battlefield which is as flat as a prairie or a billiard table; he presupposes that armies march to meet each other in the mass; he presupposes that the foreign

  141
  soldier "will get the maximum out of his rifle." These are three things that, I submit, cannot be presupposed in calculating the effect of any Army rifle, be it German or British. The right hon. Gentleman made fun of one of Lord Haldane's expressions about "aiming low," which again shows that the Leader of the Opposition has not studied the matter seriously. Of course soldiers aim low. It is one of the essential maxims of fire practice for the rifle that the soldier must keep his aim low.
  The Leader of the Opposition referred to butts and targets. Lord Haldane made no such reference. There are no such instructions to any soldier to aim low here as he suggested. A target is a fixed thing. Certainly, unless the School of Musketry at Hythe or anywhere else is teaching the wrong doctrine the soldier must be instructed to keep his aim low. The Leader of the Opposition leaves out of his description of the modern battle British courage. He leaves out of account generalship. He leaves out of account the ground on which these troops are manœuvring for position. He leaves out of account all the preliminary practice by the Artillery. He leaves out of account a consideration of those excellencies of the rifle, like reliability, rapidity of fire, accuracy, and so on, that, although not more important in turn than the trajectory, combined, certainly tend to make the English rifle, even the rifle with which the Army is armed to-day, superior to the German rifle with its flatter trajectory. I submit that the description of the Leader of the Opposition as to what he considers will be a battle in the next war with Continental troops shows first that he cannot and does not know anything about fire practice on a modem battlefield, and does not know anything about the work of the modern rifle. His description of the field shows next that his idea of a battle is the idea that we all of us have or had from reading a description of the battle of Waterloo. His idea of a battlefield does not take into account scientific soldiery Further, his condemnation of the weapon with which our troops are armed is to my mind a condemnation that he has not substantiated in this House. I think his speech at the Albert Hall is a most unworthy utterance of one of the distinguished leaders of Parliament.
  Mr. MARK SYKES: I should like to draw attention rather in detail to what I cannot but describe as the deplorable
  142
  condition at the present moment of the Territorial Force. I want to keep as close to that point as I can. I hope the Under-Secretary for War will realise that from the very inception of this scheme I in my small way and in my private capacity tried to make the scheme go locally as well as I could. I say with the greatest regret to-night what I feel absolutely obliged to say, because the Territorial Force gives me my chief amusement and pleasure in the summer months. I do not say the Force at the present moment does not contain germs that could be made a reality, but I cannot say that since its inception the Government has done anything to make it a reality. I consider as the Force stands at the present moment it is more of a danger and a peril to the public than anything else, because it gives a sense of false security. I hope it will not be considered I am wasting time in saying that I am not a member of the National Service League, and I have no hopes from compulsory service. My reason is perhaps not the ordinary reason; it is this. That on the Continent of Europe they have a large number of men pressed into service unwillingly, and to make unwilling men into presentable soldiers takes two years. I cannot see that, the National Service League proposes such a scheme as that, and if we have to choose between untrained volunteers and untrained conscripts, untrained conscripts would be too terrible to think of.
  As a practical man I suppose we have got to find by a voluntary draft-making machine men for foreign service and men for a voluntary defence force at home. We have anything from three and a half to five millions of money to do that job, and we have 50,000,000 people to draw from. The question is the money that is spent upon the 269,000 men—the approximate figures given were £3,500,000 or £3,200,000—is that going to continue to be spent upon this Force? I am not going for a moment to dwell upon the weakness of the Force. We were told some years ago we ought to have 316,000 as a, minimum. For one million shillings I would guarantee an army of one million men. That is by offering every man a shilling who was not to be asked to come forward in the event of war. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman opposite would tell me that that army would not be worth one shilling. If the Territorial Force costs £3,200,000 that is a considerable sum in our national

  143
  finances. It would represent some hundreds of thousands for old age pensions; a serious reduction on debt and a serious increase for our Fleet. Whether you attack it from the point of view of the social reformer, a parsimonious financier, or a sailor, I believe the country would be better off if we spent the money on any one of those scores. What can the Territorial Force do? Can it find drafts for foreign service? It cannot do it in any greater proportion than the old Volunteer service did. Is it capable of meeting a hypothetical invading force of 70,000 men? If we have to meet 70,000 well-trained troops we do not want to do it with an enormous horde of untrained troops. Even if the six months' training argument is brought forward I do not believe at the end of that time the Territorial Force would form either a good Army or a good draft-making force. Very eminent officers and great generals have said that the Territorial Force baffles them by its efficiency and makes them astounded, and so on, and I can quite understand it. There is always the good-natured feeling of the professional for the worthy amateur, and they admire the Territorials as Dr. Johnson admired a dog that walked on its hind legs, not because it was well done, but because it was done at all. When these officers praise the Territorial Force indirectly they are praising themselves. Everybody who has had any military experience knows that when a general is taking over a corps or a division, it is always said to be in the worst possible state, and when he leaves it, thanks to his great work, it has become most efficient. It is not to their interest to say that the thing is not a working success.
  You will never find generals criticising if criticism has an unpleasant effect on their future. I have seen enough of this kind of thing. Supposing a general who is enjoying £1,500 a year for three months' active work—if you can call signing a paper active work—was to parade his Territorial Division and say to them, "I have done my best, and you, under the circumstances, have done your best, but you are not fit to take on Continental troops, and the only military service you could satisfactorily and efficiently do is to grace a civic procession." Would that general retain his office or have any chance of promotion after that speech? They have got to report. They may even make speeches in public; they may even write pamphlets, but it must be
  144
  one particular kind of pamphlet and speech. In doing that they may do it either like Sir Ian Hamilton—that is, lay it on with a trowel or gracefully qualify by being astounded at such extraordinary progress in so short a time. It is certainly necessary, if they think at all when they make those speeches, that they should salve their consciences, because they are leading the country into a dangerous situation by getting the democracy to believe that they are in a more secure position, than they really are. The right hon. Gentleman cannot find rue an Army in the world, not even in Bulgaria or Servia, which has so little training, which is so poorly equipped, and so unfit or unready for war as the Territorial Force. Yet the public is only exercised and only troubled about one thing, and that is the question of numbers. It is a matter of detail whether we have 250,000 untrained troops, or 300,000 or 500,000; the fact is they are untrained, and I cannot think of any general or of any strategist since Thermopylae who has relied upon crushing a smaller and an effective force with masses of inferior material. That is absolutely unsound. To count upon large numbers of inefficient men against smaller numbers of efficient men is military madness and nothing else. If you carry that argument far you will be saying two hundred armed merchantmen are equal to one "Dreadnought," and so save a good deal on your naval Estimates. What has a soldier to be? He has got to be a man who can walk, who can carry weights, who can shoot straight, and who can obey orders Is the Territorial Force, owing to the Government, really effective under any one of those heads? I take the musketry, for example. Is the right; hon. Gentleman prepared to take at random the average Territorial Battalion as a whole to Strensall or Aldershot, give them twenty rounds a piece, and ask them to do field firing exercise as a battalion? The risk would be immense. I think the right hon. Gentleman follows me.
  Colonel SEELY: If the hon. Gentleman asks me, perhaps he will allow me to answer, Yes.
  Mr. MARK SYKES: At random, twenty rounds, field fire? Very well. Is he going to have the recruits in the battalion who have never held a rifle in their hands before? Is he going to have the old hands who never shoot and whose kind friends shoot for them? Is he going to have the man who bobs and whom I have seen in

  145
  the Butts? I have seen a man being held while his rifle was let off and the sergeant squeeze the trigger. Is the officer who is continually losing his direction going to be eliminated, or is it going to be carried out by the adjutant and permanent staff? Is the colour-sergeant who is kept merely because he is popular and good for recruiting going to take part? Is he going to risk doing that with twenty rounds with a battalion which has never fired as a whole, and whose men have always fired in individual practice? I think he is taking enormous risks, and I hope he will do it after he has given that battalion due warning, and not take a battalion and do it suddenly. Personally, I think he is rash and bold to accept the challenge. All I can say is I should not like to do it with the most efficient battalion I have seen. I think this: if you consider the average state of the average Territorial battalion, if you consider what it would be if called upon to do field firing in peace, then you must consider what would be the result if a whole division of such troops were suddenly called upon to repel a night attack in war.
  With regard to physique we shall probably know to-morrow the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the question what is the physique of the Territorial. Of the men presenting themselves for the Line this year—a good year—27 per cent, were rejected. In the Territorial Force I know from personal experience the medical examination is not rigorous. A great many battalions are pressed for numbers, and take what men they can get so long as they are of good character. But what is the real state of the Territorial Force? How many men have weak sight or adenoids; how many are really examined for rupture; how many suffer from flat feet, deformed toes, varicose veins, bad teeth, asthma, or chronic dyspepsia? I have seen all such cases myself among the men serving. The War Office does not know, and in my opinion does not want to know, but if you have to take the field with that force the War Office and the right hon. Gentleman soon will know, and the doctors hospital sheets will tell the tale. But take the smallest point. Is the average Territorial brigade ready to march seventy miles in three days and fight a battle at the end? What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the road losses; what would be the state of the battalion at the end of the march?
  Take the equipment. It is showy superficially; the badges are accurate, so too
  146
  are the buttons; the cut of the clothes is pretty good, and the walking-out dress is even richer than that of a private in the Line. That may be explained by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman at Leeds said that making love and making war were much the same thing. That is why the walking-out dress is of such good quality. But what about the boots, the socks, and the shirts? These are provided by the men themselves, and in many corps the allowance for them, given as an inducement, is really looked upon as a little extra pay. I know it is said these will be found on mobilisation. But if the right hon. Gentleman at that time is going to find these things he has forgotten everything we learned in the South African war, every lesson the Americana learnt in the Cuban war, and every lesson, everybody has learned who has gone into war unprepared with proper material. What the troops have in peace they have in war: if they do not have it in peace it is never really made up in war. There is always a shortage; there is always a difficulty in regard to delivery, and the Department is too busy getting the expeditionary force ready to see to these things, while the commanding officers have too much to do in looking after bread and billets to think of socks and shirts. But if you get the articles delivered is that the time to begin fitting them on? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to start marching his battalions in new boots? If so, he will lose 20 per cent, of his men on the first thirty-mile march. The boots worn by the working classes of England are not fit for campaigning. Those of the ploughman are too heavy: those of the town artisan are too light, and very often they are in bad repair. They are not usually shod in new boots. More than that, flannel shirts are not a commonplace thing among the working classes. They generally wear cotton and flannelette or some lighter material. Their socks are nearly always coloured or dark. The men in towns very seldom wear undyed socks. What will happen if you have cold weather—you will have dysentery and pneumonia. Every sore foot means a danger of blood poisoning and gangrene in the case of men wearing dyed socks. What about carrying weights? If we are to have war, are the men then to be laden for the first time with their full burden of ammunition and equipment, which they have not even got at the present time? Are you going to harden your men then and to let them find out for the

  147
  first time what a Service march really means, when it may be a wintry night, in frosty air, with snow on the ground? Much has been said already about the rifle, and I will only say a word or two on that. It is a long, straight shooting weapon, I agree; but the right hon. Gentleman will perhaps differ from me when I say that the back-sight is too delicate and not fit for service. It is made simply in order to enable the bad shots to do some decently high scoring at the range, to shovel more men through; at least that is the appearance of it.
  Colonel SEELY: It did two and a-half years' service during the South African War.
  Mr. SYKES: That is not the identical rifle.
  Colonel SEELY: It is the same. It did more than two and a-half years' service.
  Mr. SYKES: Not the same back-sight; not the one to which I am referring with the wind gauge. It is the same type of back-sight, but the wind gauge has been put on and it is a delicate thing. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we had no wind gauge in South Africa. It is a very delicate thing to put into the hands of a man who does not know much about arms; to leave out in the wet or to drag through a fence. The bayonet is an excellent one in the hands of a man who knows how to use it, but what if he does not even know how to fix it? How many of the battalions here have ever charged a flagged position? It takes more than three days to get a battalion trained so as to run in a straight line with fixed bayonets without danger to itself. It is not a question of skilful bayonet fencing, but you have to get 700 men who have never done it before to run in a straight line with fixed bayonets without danger of running it into each others legs or back. Such a battalion does not know how to hold a position, and will not be able to carry one when the time comes.

  Lastly, I come to a most important point. I know that enthusiasm is immense, but enthusiasm is not discipline, and the right hon. Gentleman has not done much to enforce discipline. How many men absent without leave have been prosecuted? Of course very little is done, for a very good reason. The right hon. Gentleman goes to the working classes of England, and asks them to find him a voluntary Army in return for a fortnight's out and no pay.
  148
  So long as there is no pay there can be no discipline. There is no case against indiscipline, for the workman usually gets, or ought to get, 25s. a week, and in this case he is cut down to 14s. for two weeks. So long as a man is fined £l for his patriotism, there will not be much discipline in this force. You cannot fine a man £l for joining, and send him to gaol because his manners do not suit you afterwards. It is an absurd proposition. There is not in this force the discipline of an Army, which is sergeants' discipline; there is not the discipline of a trade union, which is committee discipline; there is not the discipline of a public school, which is conventional, antique discipline, there is not the discipline of a factory, there is not the discipline even of the Baden-Powell boy scouts, which is a personal matter. But behind this force there is one thing that the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor has not destroyed. These are the bad traditions of the volunteers of 1864, the billiard taible, the bar, the Christmas dinner, prizes, the reluctant employer, all these bad traditions which have been the curse of the volunteers in the past, are still the curse of the Territorials, because you have an unpaid force, which really has the usual accompaniments of sweated labour. I verily believe if the right hon. Gentleman has six months to train his force in he will find these things recoil upon his head, and he will wish he had six months to raise an Army with which he might have started with a clean slate. Of course, the staff is excellent, because it is efficient and paid. The Artillery is open to many criticisms, but one need not be so nervous about Artillery, because the hypothetical enemy of 70,000 would not bring artillery; whoever wants to use Artillery will have to go to Salisbury Plain or the Cheviots to use it. But there is the Cavalry. The Yeomanry, because it is better paid, more consecutively trained, because there are more Regular officers serving in it, is more efficient But the Yeomanry has this drawback, that it is irregular horse, and irregular horse cannot screen and protect irregular Infantry. If Irregular Infantry are to be screened and protected they must be absolutely efficient, old, steady soldiers, because with the best will in the world the most intelligent men with a great number of Regular officers of war experience cannot learn in fifteen days on a road when the country is under crops, what can be learned only in the field in six years. What is this Territorial Force? Is it a

  149
  paper dragon merely to stifle public clamour? Because if it is it is costing a great deal. It has cost £3,000,000. Professor Max Reinhardt would give a better paper dragon for a much less sum—that is, if we are going in for paper dragons. If it is for the purpose of meeting 70,000 hypothetical invaders, 70,000 well trained regular, disciplined troops, which could be got for the same sum, would be safer to rely upon. The public would know how many cictual fighting men there were. I know it would be taking risks, but to take on 70,000 conscripts with 70,000 professional men is a much better proposition than to take on 70,000 conscripts who are well trained with 200,000 untrained men, because to take on 70,000 professional men with 200,000 or even more untrained men is to meet certain disaster. What I have said is painful to myself, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will believe I have only said it because I felt it was my duty.
  Colonel SEELY: May I suggest, for the convenience of the House, that the Motion I made at the commencement of the sitting might be agreed to, and that we should then proceed to the consideration of Votes A and 1 on the distinct understanding that the general discussion should continue. We must get Votes A and 1 in a reasonable time in order to be able to carry on the business. I think it would be more in accordance with the general custom if, on the first day after a very careful discussion extending over the whole day, we were to agree that you "hould leave the Chair, and then agree to continue the general discussion on Votes A and 1. That would be in accordance with precedent.
  Earl WINTERTON: I would venture to point out that the right hon. Gentleman is hardly correct in saying that we have had a full day's discussion. It was due to circumstances over which we have no control, and we make no complaint of that. I would point out also, in no party spirit, for the consideration of the House, that we have had what always happens on this occasion—instead of having a general Debate on the interesting and important question, of the whole policy of the Army, we have had a discussion on a comparatively unimportant point in regard to wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am aware of the importance of the question of wages, but I mean that it is unimportant as compared with the general policy of the Army. There are about twenty Gentle-
  150
  men, some of them on the right hon. Gentleman's own side, who wish to speak, and, although we can speak on the general question on Votes A and 1, I think it would be more convenient to have the Debate with you, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair. I understand that my right hon. Friend below me intended to speak to-morrow, and I think the House should not agree to your being voted out of the Chair to-night. I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Colonel SEELY: The fact that the Prime Minister took up a certain amount of time in discussing a matter of vital importance to the State had the effect of setting aside for a little the discussion on the Army Estimates, and that will, of course, be taken into account in the allocation of time. I am authorised to make that statement, and again I venture to make the appeal that, in accordance with custom, we should now get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair.
  Question put, and agreed to. Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Tuesday).

REGISTRATION (PLURAL QUALIFICATIONS) BILL.
Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES.
11.0 P.M.
Ordered, That the Attorney - General, Mr. Bonar Law, Colonel Lock-wood, Mr. Swift MacNeill, Sir Gilbert Parker, the Prime Minister, and Mr. Eugene Wason be Members of the Committee of Privileges:
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—[Mr. Gulland.]

VISITS TO PRISONERS ON REMAND.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr.Gulland.]
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: There is a matter as to which I desire an explanation from the Home Secretary. This morning a Gentleman whose wife is in prison in Holloway

151
in connection with the disturbances that occurred the other day inquired over the telephone from the Governor of Holloway as to what hour he could see his wife. Under Prison Rule 207, Section (2), each prisoner awaiting trial shall be permitted to be visited by one person for a quarter of an hour on any week day during such hours as may be appointed. Relying upon that rule, the gentleman in question made the application, and was informed over the telephone that the visiting list to remanded prisoners is suspended, except to solicitors, by order of the Home Office. I desire to ask in what circumstances this prison rule was suspended in respect of this particular lady, and under what authority the Home Office has power to suspend rules and regulations laid down for the guidance of the prison authorities? Those are the two questions on which I hope the Home Secretary will give us a satisfactory explanation.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): With regard to the first question raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, the circumstances under which this gentleman was refused permission to visit his wife were these: The prisoners, I believe the whole of the prisoners who were recently sent to prison on remand in consequence of the destruction of property in the streets, were guilty of insubordinate and riotous conduct in the prison. In consequence of their misconduct it became necessary, in the judgment of the Home Office, to suspend the ordinary allowances which are permitted under the regulations with regard to receiving visitors. I conceive that the House will agree that the Home Office acted quite properly in punishing the prisoners who were guilty of riotous misconduct. As regards the power of the Home Secretary, I may inform the hon. Member that the Home Secretary in his discretion can suspend the rules according to the circumstances of each particular case. The Home Secretary of course, has to defend his conduct on the floor of the House, but I shall appeal to the judgment of the House that I acted quite rightly in refusing to allow the ordinary indulgences to prisoners on remand when those prisoners are guilty of riotous and insubordinate conduct.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority he suspended the rules?
Mr. McKENNA: I have done it under my own authority.
Adjourned at Eight minutes lifter Eleven o'clock.

DEVELOPMENT FUND COMMISSION.
  TRANSPORT (RURAL DISTRICTS).
  TRANSPORT (RURAL DISTRICTS).
  IMPROVEMENT OF HARBOURS.
  IMPROVEMENT OF HARBOURS.
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Department).
  Customs and Excise (Statistical Department).
  Irish National Teachers.
  Irish National Teachers.
  Grant for Medical Treatment.
  Grant for Medical Treatment.
  Stamp Duty on Civic Compliments.
  Stamp Duty on Civic Compliments.
  Profits from Coal Mines.
  Profits from Coal Mines.
  Coronation Medals.
  Coronation Medals.
  Irish Land Stock.
  Irish Land Stock.
  Payments to Insurers.
  Payments to Insurers.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE FUND.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE FUND.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  "LITTLE RED BOOK."
  "LITTLE RED BOOK."
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Kenmare Boys' School.
  Kenmare Boys' School.
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Parteen Schools.
  Parteen Schools.
  Prosecution of Mr. P. T. Daly.
  Prosecution of Mr. P. T. Daly.
  Extra Police (Athenry Sub-District).
  Extra Police (Athenry Sub-District).
  Irish Land Commission.
  Irish Land Commission.
  City Jurors (Belfast).
  City Jurors (Belfast).
  Small-Pox (Pembroke Urban District).
  Small-Pox (Pembroke Urban District).
  Fish Landing Pier (Bulbawn).
  Fish Landing Pier (Bulbawn).
  Extra Police (Wexford).
  Extra Police (Wexford).
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Public Health Act Inquiries (Ireland).
  Public Health Act Inquiries (Ireland).
  Petty Sessions Clerk (Athenry).
  Petty Sessions Clerk (Athenry).
  Attack on Police Sergeant (Clonboo).
  Attack on Police Sergeant (Clonboo).
  "Dreadnoughts."
  "Dreadnoughts."
  Greenwich Hospital.
  Greenwich Hospital.
  New Army Rifle and Amunition.
  New Army Rifle and Amunition.
  Fighting Formations (Proportion of Guns).
  Fighting Formations (Proportion of Guns).
  New Flying School, Salisbury Plain.
  New Flying School, Salisbury Plain.
  Army Reserve.
  Army Reserve.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Australian Agricultural Company. [H.L.]

London and North-Western Railway. [H.L.]

Manchester Royal Exchange. [H.L.]

Midland Railway (London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Purchase). [H.L.]

Working District Gas. [H.L.]

Gas Companies (Benefit Funds). [H.L.]

North Eastern Railway. [H.L.]

Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:

Swansea Corporation.

London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the Petition for the following Bill have not been complied with:
Manchester Ship Canal.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NOTTINGHAM MECHANICS INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.]
  TEES CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
  Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.
BAWTRY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]

    BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    BRODSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
    [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

CENTRAL ARGENTINE RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  CREDIT FONCIER OF MAURITIUS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a, and committed.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
    HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LEATHERHEAD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    WANDSWORTH, WIMBLEDON AND EPSOM DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

WIRRAL RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME, BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
PRICE'S PATENT CANDLE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    PENWORTHAM BRIDGE BILL. [H.L.]
    EVERTON, &c., DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
    SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE ASYLUMS BILL. [H.L.]
    BAWTRY AND TICKHILL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    BAWTRY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    V. Gough,

    L. Zouche of Haryngworth,

    L. Biddulph,

    L. Ritchie (Chairman),

    L. Charnwood;

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 12th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel fur the Bills.

NORTH ORMESBY, SOUTH BANK, NORMANBY AND GRANGETOWN RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
  BRODSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]

    DERWENT VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    HOVE CORPORATION RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
    BRIGHTON, HOVE AND DISTRICT RAILLESS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.),

    E. Eldon,

    E. Lovelace,

    L. Hastings,

    L. Kilmaine,

    L. Newton (Chairman);

    agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 13th instant, at Eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

CANVEY DEEP WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report of the Board of Trade respecting: Ordered to be laid before the House (The Lord Granard (E. Granard)).

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 2 of the Act—
1. That the provisions of—

The County of Lanark Tramways Order;

The Glasgow Boundaries Order;

The Glasgow Water (Charges) Order;

The Lord Ericht Water and Electric Power Order;

The Lothian Railways Order; and Part III (Water) of the Glasgow Corporation Order

are of such a character that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order;
2. That, having regard to Section 16 (2) of the Private Legislature Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the provisions of Clause 20 of the Clyde Valley Electric Power Order ought not to be dealt with by Provisional Order under that Act;
3. That, save as aforesaid, the Draft Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as may hereafter be made with respect to the several Orders:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1863.
Return of proceedings under the Lord Chancellor's Augmentation Act since the same came into operation (1st November, 1863) up to and inclusive of the 21st February, 1912: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 7.)

THE COAL STRIKE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House a Question of which I have given him private notice. I should like to know whether he is able to add anything to the information which we already possess as to the progress of the strike in the coal trade. I may say that in asking this Question I imply, of course, that we should be glad of any information which the noble Marquess is able to give us as to the further action which may be contemplated by His Majesty's Government. At the same time the noble Marquess is aware that nothing could be further from our thoughts than to press for any information which it would be undesirable in the public interest should be made known at present.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Before the noble Marquess replies, I also have a Question to ask of which I have given him private notice. It is whether his attention has been drawn to a speech delivered at Ebbw Vale by Mr. George Davies, one of the delegates at the Miners' Conference, in which he is reported to have declared that Mr. Asquith said something in his speech to the miners last week which had not yet appeared in the Press, to the effect that "the day was not far

285
distant when His Majesty's Government would make themselves responsible for getting a minimum wage for all workers in the country"; whether Mr. Asquith's speech on the occasion referred to has been fully and accurately reported, or whether any part of it has been deleted from the official report.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am much obliged to both of the noble Marquesses opposite for giving me notice of the Questions which they desired to put. With reference to the Question asked by the noble Marquess who has just sat down, it is quite clear that there has been complete misunderstanding on this matter. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the Prime Minister in his speech made any statement with reference to a general minimum wage. The story is altogether without foundation. As regards the latter part of Lord Londonderry's Question, the speech was reported in the ordinary way and was subjected to the kind of general correction which speeches of that sort receive, but no material deletion of any kind was made and the substance of the speech was accurately reported in the daily Press.
With reference to the more general Question asked by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, it is clearly not necessary for me to go into any detail with regard to what has passed, because all the circumstances are quite familiar to your Lordships through the means of ordinary information up to the time when the deadlock occurred. It would be, I am sure, a mistake to speak of the deadlock as necessarily involving a permanent stoppage of negotiations, because the differences so far as they relate to facts are by no means necessarily insuperable. But the deadlock has occurred, and in the meantime the Government are not taking any active steps as between the two parties. But that is not to say that the Government are idle. They are taking such steps as are possible to form an independent opinion on the figures which have been put forward with reference to a possible minimum wage in various districts in order to see how far those figures as published form a basis for possible agreement between the two parties. That is all that I am able to tell your Lordships at present. I under-
286
stand that the Prime Minister is making a statement in another place, and though he may, perhaps, develop his reply somewhat more fully as regards matters of which he has special cognisance he will not be able to make any statement with regard to the future of a fuller character than I have been able to make.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Am I then to understand that the statement made by Mr. Davies, which I quoted, and the statement made by Mr. Hartshorn of a similar character, are without foundation?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: So far as I am aware, on the Prime Minister's authority, there is no foundation whatever for the statement.

IRELAND AND GREENWICH TIME.
LORD INVERCLYDE: My Lords, I rise to ask his Majesty's Government, in view of the generally expressed desire in commercial circles in. Ireland in favour of the extension of Greenwich time to Ireland, whether any action is proposed to be taken. I will first give my reasons for saying that it is generally desired that a uniform time—namely, Greenwich time—should be adopted throughout the United Kingdom, and will begin by quoting the views of two Cabinet Ministers on the subject. The Postmaster-General, on November 7 last, wrote—
"I find that the change would be of some advantage as far as Post Office arrangements are concerned, provided it was made general throughout Ireland."
And last year the Chief Secretary for Ireland said in the House of Commons—
"Personally he was in favour of the proposed change, but it could not be effected without legislation, which the Government could not undertake unless it was non-contentious."
He stated that he had received twenty-five petitions from Ireland in favour of uniform time, and none against.
This question has received considerable attention throughout Ireland and the proposal has met with support wherever it has been raised. The Association of Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom have passed a resolution in favour of it. The Chambers of Commerce of Dublin, Belfast, and Londonderry have also done so, and all the big carrying com-

287
panies have expressed themselves in favour of it. Nowadays transit between this country and Ireland is so frequent and has increased so much in speed that the two countries are now so close together that the difference in time is a matter of great inconvenience. Again, those of us who are engaged in business with Ireland communicate almost daily by telephone and telegraph, and if one is not careful inconvenient questions are apt to arise through blunders being made owing to the difference in time. Therefore commercially we all earnestly desire that the Government should see their way to deal with this question, so that a uniform time may be arrived at.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS): My Lords, the facts are as the noble Lord has stated. Greenwich time prevails throughout almost every country in Western Europe, and there has been a movement for some years to have Greenwich time adopted in Ireland. Under the Act of 1880 Greenwich time is the standard time in Great Britain, and Dublin time is the standard time in Ireland. So far as the Irish Government are concerned, the question was first raised in 1898, when a communication was addressed to them by the Scottish Geographical Society. The Royal Astronomer in Ireland was asked to report, and he reported strongly in its favour. He pointed out that the difference between Greenwich time and local time in Ireland varied from 22 to 42 minutes. He did not think that even the 42 minutes would be excessive, in view of the fact that a greater difference of time prevailed in Austria and Sweden without raising inconveniences; and there is, of course, the further point that it is the eastern point of Ireland which is far more important from a commercial point of view and there the difference is least. It is also true that various Chambers of Commerce have petitioned for the adoption of Greenwich time—those of Belfast, Cork, Dublin, Limerick, and Waterford; and last year the Association of Chambers of Commerce, which met under the presidency of Lord Brassey in Dublin, petitioned in favour of this proposal. It has also met with the support of local authorities and railway companies in Ireland.
There is a good deal to be said in favour of the proposed change. Uniformity is one of the considerations of the moment. Another result would be something in the
288
direction of daylight saving. It is computed that nearly 100 hours would be gained in Ireland. Of those hours a very large proportion would be available for recreation by those classes who leave work at, say, six o'clock. There is also, of course, the argument of economy. In view of those facts the Chief Secretary said in another place on October 26, in answer to a Question addressed to him, that he personally was in favour of the change. I may say that a Statute would be necessary, because the Act of 1880 would have to be repealed. The Chief Secretary added that if it could be regarded as a non-contentious matter he personally would have no objection whatever, and would be glad enough to see it adopted; but he pointed out that, in the then state of affairs in the House of Commons, he could not see his way to be responsible for a contentious measure. The position remains unchanged in that respect. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that this matter might well form the subject of a Private Bill? If the noble Lord is sufficiently interested, there would be nothing to prevent him introducing a Bill dealing with this subject. He would then be able to see what support it got in this House and in another place, and even if he was not successful this year it might possibly lead to the achievement of his object in the future.
LORD INVERCLYDE: I desire to thank the noble Lord for his encouraging answer, and I will consider the suggestion which he has thrown out.

MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCES BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, fortunately for me, perhaps, this Bill does not in any way touch the thorny question of the censorship. It is merely a Bill to amend the law under which licences to hold entertainments of music and dancing are granted in respect of buildings in London and parts of certain adjoining counties. The principal object of the Bill is to enable licences for music and dancing to be granted at any period of the year instead of only at the Licensing Sittings held at Michaelmas, which is at present the law with regard to London and its immediate neighbourhood. Other parts of the country have already, under the Public

289
Health Amendment Act, 1900, the powers which are sought for under this Bill; but the cities of London and Westminster and within twenty miles thereof still come under the Disorderly Houses Acts, 1751 and 1818. Under those Acts any house, room, garden, or other place kept for public dancing or music or for other public entertainment of a like kind is deemed a disorderly house unless a licence for the purpose has been obtained, and may be proceeded against by any two inhabitants "paying scot and bearing lot." who, under the Act, receive £10 each for their services if a conviction is obtained. It is obvious that such a procedure is entirely obsolete. I think it is also obvious that it is an absurd situation that a great city such as London should be in the position of not being able to grant licences to buildings for possibly ten or eleven months. If an application is made now for a licence for music and dancing, that licence cannot be granted until the Licensing Sittings next Michaelmas. The county of Middlesex has already, under the Music and Dancing (Middlesex) Act, 1894, cleared itself from the limitations imposed by the Disorderly Houses Acts. Generally this Bill is on the lines of the Middlesex Act of 1894. It has received the unanimous countenance and support of all the county councils concerned, and particularly of the London County Council, whose Bill this is and on whose behalf I am acting.
I now turn to the clauses of the Bill. Your Lordships will observe in Clause I that the area to which the Bill applies embraces the whole area covered by the Act of 1751 with the exception of the county borough of Croydon, who have already made other arrangements which they desire should continue to stand. There is also a small part of the county of Buckingham to which the Act of 1751 has never been applied, and they naturally see no reason why they should have an amending Act. Clause 2, as to definitions, maintains the present position under the Acts of 1751 and 1818. Clause 3, which is, I think, the important clause in the Bill, is on the lines of the Middlesex Act, and it also re-enacts some of the provisions of the Act of 1751, which it is proposed to repeal. There is one exception to that general statement, and that is in subsection (4). Your Lordships will observe that by that subsection a person to whom the licensing authority has refused to grant
290
or transfer a licence shall not be entitled to again apply for the grant or transfer in respect of the same premises within three months from the date of such refusal. The clause also ensures that ordinary applications shall be made at the annual meeting of the licensing authority, but it does give power in exceptional cases for a licence to be granted at any other time.
Clause 4 lays down the fees which are to be charged for licences. They are considerably higher than those which have been put into similar Acts, but I think your Lordships will agree that they are not too high, at any rate as regards the county of London, when I say that it is estimated that these increased fees will not even cover one-half of the estimated cost of the inspections. The remainder of the cost, of course, will have to be borne by the ratepayers. The fees are 5s. a month under the Theatre and Cinematograph Acts and also under the Middlesex Act, as against the larger fees in this Bill. But, on the other hand, I might mention that in New York the fees charged are 500 dollars, and that in Chicago they range from 500 to 1000 dollars. Clause 5 imposes penalties for keeping open premises without a licence. Subsection (1) imposes the same penalty as is now charged under the Metropolis Management and Buildings Act. 1878, with regard to protection from fire in buildings of a similar character. It is felt that it would be unwise to have a lower penalty under this Bill, as it would lead to considerable inconvenience and houses would naturally desire to come under this Bill rather than under the other Act. Subsection (2) is on the lines of the Middlesex Act, the only difference being that the date of the offence is taken as the date from which the fine shall commence, instead of the date of the conviction. Clause 6 is merely a re-enactment of Clause 4 of the Act of 1751. Clause 7 is similar to the clause in the Middlesex Act. The exceptions to buildings coming under this Bill are proposed to be the same as at present exist. There is no desire to include buildings which are not already under these licensing authorities. Clause 8 lays down the date of the commencement of the operation of this Bill should it become law, and fixes the date at November 1 in order that the next meeting of the licensing authority should be held under the provisions of this Bill. Clause 9 merely repeals the enactments mentioned in the Schedule

291
which are either re-enacted in this Bill or have become unnecessary owing to its provisions. I do not think the House will consider the Bill a contentious one, and I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will see fit to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, with the general principle of this Bill the Government are in agreement. It is very desirable that the licensing authorities should have power to grant occasional licences and to transfer licences at other times than at the Michaelmas sittings. This was recommended by the Select Committee on Stage Plays which sat in 1909. The Committee said—
"The licensing authority should have full power to grant occasional licences and to transfer licences from one person to another during die twelve months for which the licence has been granted. On both of these points the present law needs amendment."
This Bill is founded, I believe, on the Act of 1891, under which the county of Middlesex got what the noble Lord desires should be extended now to the whole of the metropolis.
When this Bill reaches Committee, if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, I shall move one or two Amendments. In the first place, it is desirable to bring Croydon into line with the other authorities. Unless there is very good reason why it should be left out of the arrangement, I think it would be much better that there should be a general uniform method applicable to all. The only other point I will mention to-day is with regard to Clause 5—the penalties clause. It is the universal practice, I believe, to make fines date from the conviction and not from the date of the offence. I hope that in Committee the noble Earl will agree that it will be much better to adopt the universal practice with regard to penalties, and not set up a new system as is done by this clause. Subject to these Amendments and one or two others on small points which may occur to me before the Bill goes into Committee, the Government have no objection to the Bill and will give it their support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 12th instant.

THE ARMY RIFLE.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in the event of the Expeditionary Force having been called out for service abroad last September, the rifles of that Force would have been inferior to those of the German Army. This question is to my mind of such vital importance to that branch of His Majesty's Forces with which I have been connected for so many years that that must be my excuse for bringing it forward again this evening. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that when we had a debate upon armaments about a fortnight ago I put this same question to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for War, and, as your Lordships are aware, I failed to receive any reply. Since that time the Under-Secretary for War has stated in public, at a meeting of the London Rifle Club, that this subject of the new rifle is of the greatest importance, for not only are the leading armies of the world better equipped with small arms than our own troops, but several of the smaller nations have adopted rifles which are claimed to be superior to those of the leading Powers. If that statement is true, I do not think it will be difficult to understand why the noble Viscount refrained from answering my question. I trust that in the circumstances your Lordships will consider that I am justified, in the interests of the Army, in bringing this question again before the House, and I hope that the noble Viscount will give us far more information on the subject to-day than he did on the last occasion. If the noble Viscount agrees with Colonel Sealy as to the rifle, it appears to me that the issue of the new rifle brooks no delay.
I venture to think that most of your Lordships will agree that an important subject such as this should not be lightly passed over, at any rate by this House, for this is not a Party question. It is a national question. It not only affects the safety of our troops when on the field of battle, but it also affects the security of our shores. When the noble Viscount on February 20 rose to deal with the points that ware brought forward on that occasion, he said—
" I think it will be convenient that I first deal with the question of armament."
As your Lordships are aware, instead of doing so he proceeded to make a somewhat lengthy defence of the Military Correspondent of The Times. We were told

293
that this gentleman received £500 per annum from public funds as editor of the Army Review, which I would like to point out to your Lordships is only published quarterly, and that at the same time he was permitted to write independently for papers such as The Times. Therefore this gentleman is not only a paid officer of the War Office, but also a paid servant of a public newspaper. I venture to think that such an appointment has never hitherto been known in the history of the War Office, and, as I said the other day, it is not surprising that the majority of the officers in the Army regard the articles of the Military Correspondent of The Times as simply written to champion the present administration of the War Office, and, therefore, as of no value at all. The noble Viscount pointed out that though the Military Correspondent of The Times was editor of the Army Review he did not have access to papers at the War Office without the leave of the chief of the Imperial General Staff. That question has since been brought forward in another place, and therefore I will not touch upon it again.
But with regard to the rifle, I am aware that other noble Lords on this side of the House also had complaints that during the armament debate a fortnight ago they did not get any definite answer from the noble Viscount on the points which they brought forward. My noble friend Lord Stanhope, in his able and forcible speech, brought out, in my opinion, a very potent question. He asked, "Who is responsible for the fact that our Army has been equipped for six long years with a rifle and ammunition not up to modern requirements? As your Lordships are aware, he received no answer to that question. In fact, the noble Viscount hardly replied to the noble Earl's remarks at all, except to say that his speech was a most interesting one. I quite agree with the noble Viscount there; and any one who heard Lord Stanhope's speech could not have failed to recognise that he was an expert on the subject and was speaking of what he knew. As far as I could gather, the main line of defence of the noble Viscount with regard to the present rifle was this, that the English soldier could fire out of his rifle double the number of rounds in a given time that could be fired out of the German rifle; that is to say, without bringing the rifle down from his shoulder, meaning to imply that the rifle was more or less used auto-
294
matically. In spite of that assertion, however, the noble Viscount said later on, when speaking of the automatic rifle—
"The waste of ammunition and the inaccuracy in shooting which comes from it counterbalances…the advantage in the number of bullets you can send out of the muzzle in a minute of time."
If he holds that view with regard to the automatic rifle, how does he contend that our rifle has any superiority over that of the German rifle?
During the recent debate we came to this universal decision, that the weak spot in the Lee-Enfield rifle was its breech action. No one can doubt, however, that with its turned down bolt lever we are in this respect in advance of other countries. Other countries, too, are at a disadvantage in not having the hand-guard in front of their rifle for rapid firing. The point that some bring out—that our rifles hold ten bullets and those of other nations only hold five—is, in my opinion, a doubtful advantage. But on the other hand the breech locking action of Continental rifles is well known to be far superior to that of our rifle, whilst their sighting is far simpler, more especially that of the French rifle with its battle sight. In the course of the noble Viscount's remarks respecting our rifle, he advocated that one of the great points about it was its lightness, that it could be quickly brought; up to the shoulder and down again. With all respect to the noble Viscount, I do not agree that that is much advantage, and for this reason—that in modern warfare, as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who sits on the Cross Benches (Earl Roberts) well knows, the standing position for which that is useful is never used on the field of battle; in fact, the prone position is invariably used and nothing else except, perhaps, the sitting or kneeling position. But no one who has had any experience of our rifle can doubt that the greatest objection to it lies in this—the flatness of the trajectory of foreign rifles as compared with that of our own; and there is no question, if that is true, that our troops the moment they go on to the field of battle are at a great disadvantage—a disadvantage which I contend no nation can afford to run, more especially a nation with a small Army like ours, an Army which is now represented in part by a Special Reserve only partially trained annually in rifle shooting, and by Reserves hardly trained at all.

295
A few months ago this country was on the verge of war, and if it had taken place it would have necessitated the Expeditionary Force going to the Continent. Are we sure that that situation will not very soon, or in a very short time, recur? Surely, then, it is the duty of the military authorities at the War Office to hasten the issue of the new rifle before it is too late, so that our troops when they do take the field will be, if not on a superior, at any rate on an equal, footing with the troops of other Powers. In this connection it must be remembered that 80 per cent. of the casualties in battle result from rifle bullets, and our deficiency in respect to the rifle could not be compensated for by any superiority in regard to Artillery. That is my reason for asking the Question on the Paper, and I hope that the noble Viscount will give me a definite answer and will also state what he proposes to do in the immediate future.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Viscount began his speech with something like a resolution of virtue, but before long he had got away into a still more attractive topic than his friend the rifle, and that was the Military Correspondent of The Times, who seems to exercise a fascination for the noble Viscount comparable to that which King Charles's head exercised over a certain historic personage. I will not, however, pursue the subject of the Military Correspondent of The Times, which is not germane to this question.
The noble Viscount, in his Question on the Paper, asks whether the rifle which we now possess would have been, in the event of the Expeditionary Force having been called out for service abroad last September, inferior to the rifle of the German Army. I think it would have been inferior to the rifle of the German Army in very material points, but none the less I add to that that it would have been a very serviceable rifle and one with which no troops need have been afraid to go into action. It has various advantages which the rifle of the German Army has not. It is not the case that a flat trajectory is everything. A flat trajectory is important, but there are other things to be taken into account. A flat trajectory merely means that if you take aim at a man say 800 yards away, you
296
have a better chance than with a high trajectory of hitting somebody in between whom you did not aim at. With a high trajectory the man standing in between and at whom you did not aim would have the bullet go over his head, but with a flat trajectory there would be a chance, although he would have to be a tall man indeed if he was in the centre of the line of fire, of his being hit. But for hitting the man at whom you are aiming, one trajectory is for all purposes practically as good as another. If you are aiming at a man 400 yards away you naturally sight for a man at 400 yards, and the rifle with a high trajectory is as good as a rifle with a low trajectory. Moreover, a rifle with a high trajectory has compensating advantages. If the high trajectory is caused by the heavy weight of the bullet, then the bullet hits with more force and the accuracy is greater. But I am not here to say that it is not an advantage to have a flat trajectory. It is an advantage, but not the only advantage.
It is some time since the Army had the advantage of the noble Viscount belonging to it. A good many things have happened since then, and if he had had to do, as the experts of to-day have to do, with comparing the qualities of rifles, he would know that a great many things are now taken into account. One in particular in these days of rapid firing is the possibility of covering the intervening space with a large volume of lead. For that purpose a light handy rifle has advantages over a long and heavy rifle, and in the new rifle we are endeavouring to preserve the great advantages which the short rifle, the rifle which was introduced by my noble and gallant friend who sits on the Cross Benches, possesses; but our purpose is to combine with those advantages a trajectory as flat as we can get it, for the reason that it is an advantage for the flight of your bullet to be low so as to cover the intervening space. The General Staff, however, inform me that it is an advantage which is a good deal exaggerated, because when you are sighting any one 800 yards away there are not usually people intervening. But it is one, at all events, among other advantages, and so long as you can have it without sacrificing the handiness of the short rifle it is an advantage worth obtaining. One reason why we are proceeding with a new rifle is to get a larger charge than is possible with the existing rifle.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, but did he say that he is proceeding with a new rifle?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, the pattern is approved for trial, and manufacture on an experimental scale will proceed. I will say a word about that presently. The great difficulty with the existing rifle is that the breech-chamber is too small. Consequently you cannot get in a large charge, and you cannot get as great a muzzle velocity as otherwise you might obtain. The way that has been dealt with in the new rifle is that the breech-chamber is larger and will allow of much greater pressure. The noble Viscount spoke as though all you had to do when you had adopted the pattern of a new rifle was to make it and issue it at once. I can assure him that there is a great deal more to be done. First of all, you have to do what necessitates a great deal of experiment on a large scale; you have to determine the proper charge and the relation of the charge to the bullet. We shall not have determined that satisfactorily until this rifle has been used on a considerable scale. Therefore we are at present proceeding to manufacture a considerable number of them for the purpose of arming one or two battalions which can practise over a prolonged period with the new rifle, and at the end of some months furnish us with satisfactory materials on which to decide whether or not we have got the right form of charge and the right form of bullet.
There is every kind of question to decide. There is the question whether you should use shred cordite or small tubular cordite, or whether you should use flake cordite. These considerations involve scientific and mathematical problems of a high order, so complicated that the result has to be obtained largely experimentally. The German Army changed their charge almost the other day. They adopted an entirely new cartridge notwithstanding that their rifle had only been brought out in 1908. The reason why we cannot do as much as we would wish with the existing rifle is that the chamber is not large enough. That is why we have adopted a new rifle, and these experiments on a large scale are necessary before we know exactly how we stand. The new rifle we have adopted has the flattest trajectory in the world, and I think it possesses a great many other advantages. I should be sorry to say
298
that nobody will discover a better rifle in the course of the next few years, but what I wish to emphasise is that the important point is not so much the rifle as the cartridge. If you make a rifle with a large enough and strong enough breech-chamber you can put in new ammunition as new ammunition presents itself. We think we have the best ammunition; but what we do not know is whether we have got the cordite in the most perfect form for a high pressure rifle.
Meantime the steps we have taken are these. Although the existing pattern of rifle does not admit of as large a charge as we are attempting, it admits of a considerably larger charge than we have ever had before, and the new cartridge with which four Divisions of the Expeditionary Force were armed last December, and with which the whole six Divisions will be armed in the course of a month or so—the new cartridge for which we have taken a large sum of money in the Estimates this year—contains a considerably larger charge, and we get a substantially increased muzzle velocity and a trajectory which is four feet lower than the trajectory of the present rifle. These things are never accomplished very rapidly. If they are accomplished very rapidly, failure and disappointment result. Far the most difficult part of the problem is the ammunition in its relation to the bullet. That can only be determined by experience. As soon as we know that we have hit upon the right form of ammunition, the right proportion of what is in the cartridge and what is in the bullet, we shall, now that we have determined the rifle, proceed very rapidly. If an automatic rifle is invented which fulfils Service requirements we shall take to it at once and without difficulty, because the new rifle is so adapted that it would be able to take ammunition suitable to an automatic rifle, and all that we would have to do would be to proceed with the manufacture of automatic rifles and substitute them. It is the wildest notion that you can invent a rifle out of your head, so to speak; still more that you can adapt the ammunition for it without most careful consideration. Every Power that has adopted a new rifle successfully has done so after the most minute care. Our rifle is the most modern of all rifles, and but for its defective breech-chamber we should have been able to put in a charge which would have made it equal to any.

299
The new rifle, as we believe, will be in calibre, in the weight of the bullet, in the size of the charge, and in the qualities of the rifle, superior to anything which at present exists in the world; but I do not wish to rush into the arming of the troops with it until the troops have had some opportunity of using it experimentally on a large scale, and until we can be sure that it is the best rifle. Meantime we have, by adopting the new ammunition, taken steps which give us a very serviceable weapon, nearly as good as the French, something short of the German in point of trajectory, but possessing advantages over both in the rapidity of fire and the consequent volume of lead that can be sent from it in a given time over a given space. My answer to the noble Viscount's question is that if, unfortunately, some cataclysm had taken place which had called for the use of our troops last summer or at any other recent time, we should have found ourselves with a rifle inferior in trajectory to the Continental rifle, but nevertheless a very serviceable weapon, possessing in many respects advantages over the Continental rifle, and not a rifle with which our troops need have been afraid to go into action.
EARL ROBERTS: How soon will the new rifles be in the hands of the two battalions?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Very soon now. The specimen rifle has been completed and we are proceeding to the experimental manufacture. A considerable number will be manufactured at once. There is to be no delay.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but one or two of the remarks made by the noble Viscount are so extraordinary that I feel compelled to draw attention to them. The noble Viscount made a great point of the fact that if you aimed at a man 800 yards away you would hit him whether the trajectory was high or low. That is perfectly correct, but, as the noble Viscount knows, the real difficulty in shooting in the field is to judge the distance. It is almost impossible, under varying conditions of atmosphere and of ground, to judge distances accurately. You have not always a range-finder at hand, and it is obvious that if you estimate the distance at 800 yards and it happens to be 700 you are more likely to hit the enemy if your trajectory is low than if it is high. In other words, with a low trajectory you increase the
300
area of danger space. Every soldier will agree that that is the point in favour of a low trajectory, not whether anybody would be standing 400 yards away while you are firing at an object 800 yards distant.
In the previous debate the noble Viscount referred to the remaining velocity of the heavier bullet. I made the remark then that our bullet compared badly with the German bullet at all ranges, and the noble Viscount promptly denied that statement. It is quite true that the German bullet has less striking velocity and less remaining energy beyond a certain distance, but the German bullet is better than ours up to that distance. It is better than our bullet up to 1,100 yards; there is nothing to choose between them up to 1,500 yards. But in all drill books it is held that effective rifle range is only up to 1,400 yards; after that it is considered long range firing. Therefore the point of the remaining energy of our bullet as compared with the German bullet is not worth consideration. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that the cartridge is, if anything, more important than the rifle. But that only brings out the extraordinary statement he made on the previous occasion. I have an impression that he has edited the remarks he then made to some extent, and that as printed in the Official Report they are not quite so serious as at the time he made them. He then remarked that the old bullet could be used in the converted rifle and that it would make quite fair shooting, but I think he has since put in the words "up to 500 yards." If the sighting of a rifle is of any value at all, it has to be accurate. The sighting that is right for one bullet is absolutely wrong for the other, and that holds true at all ranges, though less so at ranges under 500 yards. In war at short ranges men are going to lay as flat as they possibly can, and therefore it is not a question of whether you can hit a man standing at 500 yards or so. The question is whether your rifle is absolutely accurately sighted, and the probability is that you will have to consider hitting a man the top of whose head is not more than eighteen inches at the outside from the ground.
The point that will have to be raised when it comes to the question of the Army Estimates is the far more serious situation as regards ammunition. I not by any means satisfied, either by the remarks of the noble Viscount or by the information

301
with which we have been supplied, as to the state of the ammunition during last summer, and, in fact, up to the present time. I have not yet been able to discover what reserve of ammunition we had of the old type, because most of the rifles, in fact practically the whole of the rifles, of the Expeditionary Force had then the old sight, and I think this House will desire to know what reserve of old ammunition we had to go with the old rifle. The other point made by the noble Viscount on the last occasion was that the reformed rifle, if I may so call it, could use the old bullet. Well, perhaps it can; but I should like to know whether the old rifle can use the new bullet. The new bullet is longer than the old one, and it is a question whether it can go into the magazine at all. That is a matter on which we desire information, because obviously if you reduce your rifle to single-loading instead of charger-loading you do away with the whole of the advantages which the noble Viscount mentioned with regard to rapidity of fire. Secondly, there comes the serious question whether you would not send your troops into action possessing a rifle sighted accurately for a certain bullet but supplied with another bullet. There is nothing that I can imagine which would so materially affect the morale of troops in action than to feel that their rifles were 80 badly sighted that they were not able to hit the object aimed at. I hope the noble Viscount will on a future occasion make clear the position in which we stood last summer, not only with regard to the rifle, but with regard to ammunition.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am loth to take part in this discussion, but I feel that we have gained a great point from the noble Viscount, and after what he has said I hardly think it is worth while continuing a discussion about the old rifle. The noble Viscount has assured us that we are going to have a new rifle and a new bullet, and that our troops will very shortly—I hope he will be able to give us a definite date—be armed with the new rifle. If that is so, and the rifle then will be as good as, or better than, any rifle possessed by a Continental Army, I think we must accept his statement with great gratitude, and I do not think there is anything to be gained by looking back at the past. I quite agree with the criticisms that have been passed on the old rifle, but what I think is far more important is
302
to know that a new and improved rifle is to be issued to our troops. We hope that the experiments to which the noble Viscount referred will shortly be put in hand, and that the bullet and rifle when issued will be of such a calibre as to excel those possessed by any Continental Power. If the noble Viscount could give us any sort of assurance how soon the troops will be armed with the new rifle we should feel still more satisfied.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The new rifle is in a completed form and is at the War Office, where it is to be seen alongside the rifles of other Powers and our present rifle. I do not wish to make public the details of it, but if any of your Lordships would care to go and look at it and compare it with other rifles I shall be only too glad to arrange for an inspection. As regards the question put to me by the noble Earl opposite, there was a mythical rumour, which originated in a sensational evening paper, to the effect that we only had last summer 150 rounds of ammunition for each man of the Expeditionary Force. That was a ludicrous rumour. I do not propose to go into the details of the ammunition we had, but I may say that we had in reserve three times the amount that was shot away in the whole course of the South African War. The ideas of the General Staff about the reserve of ammunition which we should possess have gone up, and we have been accumulating ammunition. Last summer we even brought some from the enormous stores at Malta. We are passing to the new cartridge from the old, and we hope presently, so far as the Regular troops are concerned, that time old ammunition will not be required. We have taken in the Estimates this year a very large sum for the new ammunition. I do not think your Lordships need be at all troubled about the reserve of ammunition at this moment.
LORD SALTOUN: Can the noble Viscount give us any assurance as to when the new rifle will be issued?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: It is impossible to say. It depend, upon how the relation of the powder to the bullet progresses. We have already determined on provisional cartridges, but how they will stand the experiments on a large scale to which we intend to subject the firing qualities of the rifle remains to be seen. That is why we have thought it necessary to have with the new ammunition the old rifle in a service-

303
able condition. What I should hope for is that in a very few months we shall have determined something at any rate approaching to the idea of charge for the new bullet, and that we shall then be able to begin the manufacture of the new rifle and proceed with the work until the whole of the Army is armed with it.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, this is a very short Bill. It consists of one clause, its object being to repeal Section 157 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. The necessity for this Bill has arisen out of a recent decision in the High Court. Under Section 116 of the Act of 1901 the giving of particulars of work and wages to pieceworkers is made obligatory. Section 116 applies in the first instance only to workers in textile factories, but by subsection (5) the Secretary of State is empowered by special Order to extend the provisions of the section to any class of non-textile workers. In 1909 the Secretary of State did make such an Order applying the provisions to the wearing apparel trade. That Order was accepted by the great majority of the trade, and it was not until 1911 that the authority of the Secretary of State was challenged by an individual named Alexander. This resulted in the case of Seal v. Alexander, which was brought before the magistrate and subsequently carried to the High Court. In that case it was held that the effect of Section 157 is to exclude from the provisions of Section 116 pieceworkers who receive their work from workshops in which only men are employed. Therefore it was held that the Secretary of State had no power to make the Order in question.
It results from this decision that, while outworkers to whom work is given out from factories and other classes of workshops, and also outworkers to whom work is given out from shops, warehouses, or any other place which is not a men's workshop, receive particulars of their work and the rate of wage to be paid for the work, outworkers who get their work from men's workshops do not. This constitutes a very anomalous and undesirable state of things, for there is no logical reason why men's workshops alone should be exempted from
304
the provisions which apply to almost every kind of factory and workshop. It is very undesirable that outworkers and pieceworkers, who in many cases may be women, should not have the advantage, enjoyed by textile traders in all these other factories, of knowing what their work is and what they are to be paid for it. Under the present state of the law an employer is enabled to play fast and loose with his outworkers: to state in vague terms what the particulars of work are and what will be paid for it, and then when the work is done to modify the conditions which the men or women believed they were to enjoy. It is therefore proposed to extend the provisions as to work and wages to men's workshops.
Your Lordships may, perhaps, ask why it is that Section 157, which exempts men's workshops, is to be found in the Act of 1901. There is not any particular reason for it; there certainly is no logical ground for it. The explanation probably lies in the fact that factory legislation has grown up from dealing first with women and children only. The first Act concerned the textile trades; then legislation was extended to other trades and to men under certain conditions, and so forth. This is merely one of those instances of an area which is not yet covered by the general provisions of the Factory and Workshop Acts, and I think it is very desirable that the anomaly should be removed.
The amending of Section 157 of the 1901 Act will do rather more than make employers liable to give particulars of work and wages. Among the provisions of the Act which would, as a consequence, become applicable to men's workshops may be specially mentioned those which require a reasonable temperature, adequate ventilation, provision of sanitary conveniences, provision of washing accommodation, and the keeping of a general register with a record of accidents and poisoning. There, again, I submit that it is not unreasonable that owners of men's workshops should be expected to do in these matters what other employers are called upon to perform. In view of these facts, and seeing that this is nothing but a very small advance in factory legislation and an advance on well recognised lines. I hope your Lordships will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I wish to raise one point only with regard to the Bill which the noble Lord has just explained. Its effect is, as he has told us, to make Section 116 of the Factory and Workshops Act of 1901 applicable to men's workshops in like manner as to other workshops. The effect of this change in the law is to oblige the owners of these workshops to introduce a number of modern improvements into their premises: to see that they are properly warmed, properly ventilated, adequately provided with sanitary conveniences and washing accommodation. Now all these are admirable things, but they are expensive and are improvements which take some time to carry out. The question which I wish to ask is this. Am I wrong in believing that the Bill as it now stands would come into operation from the moment that it passed both Houses of Parliament? If that is so, I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should consider whether a clause might not be added giving reasonable notice—say six months, or something of the kind—to those who will be affected by its provisions. I will not press for an answer now. If the noble Lord will kindly tell me that he will consider the point before the Committee Stage I shall be quite satisfied.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The point, made by the noble Marquess certainly appears to be a very reasonable one. I am not quite certain whether he is right in thinking that the Bill would come into force immediately after its passage. I think that is so. But if the noble Marquess will allow me, I will consider the point and see how far it is possible to meet his view.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I would point out that there is a distinction between the two cases with which it is proposed to deal. The first provision is that all outworkers who are employed in men's workshops should receive particulars in the same way as those do who are employed in ordinary factories. In that case there does not seem any reason why the provision should not come into force at once. But in regard to the other provisions, which, as a consequence of the passing of this Bill, would become applicable to men's workshops, I think it desirable there that some reasonable notice should be given.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

SHOPS REGULATION ACTS CONSOLIDA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to call attention to a new clause in this Bill which did not appear in the Bill which was presented to us last year. I refer to Clause 2, which provides that no person under the age of 18 years shall be employed about the business of a shop for a longer period than 74 hours, inclusive of meal times, in any one week. The fact that this is inclusive of meal times does not get rid of the difficulty. Meal times generally mean an hour for dinner and half-an-hour for tea, which at the outside is 8 hours a week. Therefore these young persons might be employed for 66 hours, or for nearly 13 hours a day, at the will of the employer. I cannot think that that is intended. It must be remembered that one of the six days is only a half-day. Therefore the young person might be employed for 66 hours during the 5, working days. There is another reason why this provision should not be agreed to—namely, that there will be a tendency for employers to work up to the maximum; the maximum of hours will be what will be demanded, and the minimum will be the exception. Again, I do not know of any shop that would be open so long. A shop is usually open from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening, but under the clause in question these young persons might be compulsorily kept at the shop several hours longer during the week, at the will of the employer, and it seems to me that it is of no use to the employer to have them there at a time when the shop is not, likely to be open. I should like to ask what reason there is for this new clause and why such a long period of employment is allowed.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I would remind the noble Lord that this is a Consolidation Bill. We do not in any part of the Bill alter the law as it at present stands. This clause is taken verbatim from the Act of 1892. We have no power in a purely Consolidation Bill to make any amendment in the law.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question concerning one point in the Bill. I refer to Clause 4, which enacts that every shop

307
must be closed not later than 1 o'clock in the afternoon on one week-day in every week. If your Lordships refer to Clause 10 you will find that the expression "shop" includes any premises where any retail trade or business is carried on, and the expression "retail trade or business" is interpreted as including the sale of refreshments or intoxicating liquors. The effect of that is that restaurants will come under the closing order mentioned in Clause 4. I quite agree that the object of giving a half-holiday every week is a good one, but in the case of restaurants the provision is extremely hard because some of the employés—cooks and others—do not go to business until midday. Therefore the provision in the Bill means that the restaurant employer will have to pay a whole day's wages for one hour's work. Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will look into that point before the Committee Stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I should like to explain that this is purely a consolidating Bill and does not alter the law. There has been a custom during the past five or six years, which I am glad to say has been encouraged by both Houses of Parliament, of selecting branches of the law in order to put the law in an intelligible shape by means of consolidation or codification Bills. The law in regard to shops is not altered a jot or title by this Bill, which merely states in a single Statute what the law is, without obliging people to look through law books and successive Statutes to ascertain the law. This Bill will be referred to a strongly composed Joint Committee on which the legal element will be well represented. I have, at the request of the Joint Committee, presided over their proceedings during the last few years, and our constant endeavour has been to prevent any alteration in the law at all. If, however, there is any alteration in a small matter, it is necessary that we should report it and lay our Report before both Houses of Parliament before the Bill reaches a further stage. If on such a Bill as this we are to have a discussion on the merits of the law as it is, we shall have to abandon the practice of consolidation which has been so successful during recent years. It is only by their being treated as Consolidation Bills that we get the necessary facilities for them in both Houses of Parliament. This is, I repeat, a purely
308
consolidation Bill. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will not think us disrespectful if we say that we really are not discussing the merits of what the law is.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack has said. But I would point out to the noble Earl, Lord Galloway, that he is mistaken in his interpretation of the provision to which he called attention, for if he will read subsection (6) of Clause 4 he will find that certain trades and businesses are exempted, and if he examines the Bill further he will find that restaurants are one of the businesses which are so exempted.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: It was my intention to move that this Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, but so far we have had no reply from the other House to the Message sent down communicating the Resolution of this House for the setting up of a Joint Committee for the present session and desiring their concurrence. I understand that there is no objection to the setting up of a Joint Committee, and the success which has attended these Joint Committees in the past is a proof, I think, that when we receive the reply from the other House we cannot do better than refer this Bill to such a Committee.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill I would point out that a Bill of a similar character was introduced and passed through your Lordships' House last session, but owing to various reasons, into which I need not now enter, it did not make progress in another place. I have slightly amended the Bill since last year. In the Bill as it is now before the House I do not propose to include municipal authorities. It refers to county councils and to county councils alone, and I think your Lordships will admit that it is the

309
duty of county councils to keep the communications through the county and between one county and another open in perfect order. County councils perform the duty of keeping their roads in good condition, but, in the case of a recognised ferry, if the ferry boat goes down to the bottom of the river there is no power to allow a county council or to compel any person to place another ferry boat on the river in order to keep the communication open. I know a case in which a county council maintains an excellent road down to an old ferry, but the ferry boat is at the bottom of the river and there is no power to compel any one to put another boat on the river. The county council are anxious to do so, but there is no power to enable them to acquire the ferry. The County Councils Associations support this Bill as a matter of public utility, and I sincerely hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Galway.)
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, the noble Viscount, as he has reminded you, introduced a similar Bill last year, and I can only repeat what I then said on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they do not offer any objection to the Bill and are, in fact, prepared to support it. Although the Bill is likely, as I think the noble Viscount admitted, to have only a limited application, there seems to be a prima facie case for it, and if it passes it should prove of utility in certain places such as those to which the noble Viscount referred. I had observed that, as he has pointed out, the scope of the present Bill is limited to county councils and does not extend to municipal boroughs and district councils. I need not say anything as to the desirability or otherwise of this limitation, but it may in consequence be necessary to amend the Bill in some points of detail. As ferries are usually of local utility rather than of service to a whole county, with the, possible exception of cases where the ferry serves to link up two main roads, the borough or district council or a combination of two or
310
more such authorities would seem the more suitable body to maintain it than the county council. It does not appear quite clear whether it would be right to charge upon the whole area of the county expenses incurred in respect of a ferry which was only of local benefit, and it is a question whether powers should not be given to county councils to charge the expenses incurred in respect of any particular ferry as special expenses on the parishes benefited by the maintenance of the ferry. One or two drafting Amendments will also, I think, be found necessary when we come to Committee. For instance, the first part of sub-clause (5) does not seem to be required, and the paragraph might begin with the words "The power" in line nine. The second paragraph of sub-clause (5) does not seem to be exactly a proviso, and the words "Provided that" might be omitted. But, as I have said, the Government have no intention of offering any opposition to the Bill; on the contrary; they support it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CANVEY DEEP WATER WHARF AND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
Report of the Board of Trade respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Order of this day), and to be printed. (No. 8.)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There being no business on the Paper for to-morrow, I move that the House do adjourn until Wednesday.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Wednesday next.—(Viscount Haldane.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.