Sitting of 12 March 1912

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Hereford (Northern or Leominster Division), in the room of Sir James Rankin, baronet (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Balcarres.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Barry Railway Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
Midland Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Accounts ordered, "Relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions for each month of 1912."—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 4,836 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BRITISH and FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC SERVICES (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 4, 1912).
Copy presented of Statement of Conditions of Entry into the British, United States, and French Diplomatic Services and the Salaries of the respective Ambassadors [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUGAR CONVENTION (COMMERCIAL No. 2, 1912).
Copy presented of Report of the British Delegate to the International Sugar Commission, February, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CON-DITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of Licence granted to a Convict under the Penal Servitude Acts to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A of The Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVY (VICTUALLING YARD MANU-FACTURING ACCOUNTS, 1910–11).
Annual Accounts presented of the Cost of Manufacturing Provisions, Victualling Stores, etc., at the Home Victualling Yards and Malta Yard for 1910–11, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NAVY (DOCKYARD EXPENSE ACCOUNTS, 1910–11).
Annual Accounts presented for 1910–11 of Shipbuilding and Dockyard Transactions, etc., with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1907.
Copy presented of Return giving particulars of cases in which persons have been re-instated with the assistance of the Estates Commissioners during the quarter ended 31st December 1911 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LABOURERS (IRELAND).
Return ordered, "showing (a) the number of cottages and allotments provided under the Labourers' Acts by each district council in Ireland; (b) the rents reserved in letting under those Acts; (c) the number of cottages or allotments unoccupied within

939
each district council area; (d) the number of cottages or allotments the rent whereof is in arrear and the total amount of such arrears within the said area; (e) the number of cottages applied for in each rural district under the last completed scheme under the Labourers' Acts, together with the number of applications for extra half-acres to cottages already built under the said scheme, the number of applications for cottages and extra half-acres sanctioned, the amount of the official, legal, engineering, clerical, and other expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and confirmation of every such scheme and the particulars thereof; (f) the number of cases where advances have been made under Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1906 and 1911, to agricultural labourers; and (g) Return made up to the 31st day of March, 1912 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 193, of Session 1911").—[Mr. Flavin.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Five Lords to join with a Committee of this House to consider all Consolidation Bills of the Session, and request this House to appoint an equal number of its Members to be joined with the said Lords.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMIT-TEES).
Sir. Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House: "That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no change of Members shall be made on that Committee except in the case where a Member is incapacitated from attendance by serious illness."
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Walfisch Bay and Zanzibar.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what harbours or territory are offered to this Country in exchange for Walfisch Bay and Zanzibar in
  940
  connection with the proposed arrangement with reference to the exchange of these British ports?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on the 22nd of February, which should, I think, set at rest anxiety on this subject, as far as the House is concerned.
  Mr. FELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed, notwithstanding his previous reply, the continual references in the Continental Press to the proposed exchange of these two places?
  Sir. E. GREY: No. I have not seen the continual references, but the reply which I gave on the 22nd February fully safeguards the rights of this House.

  Canada and Newfoundland (Fisheries Commission).
  Mr. AMERYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether a permanent mixed fishery Commission for Canada and Newfoundland has been appointed as set forth in Sub-section 4 of Article 4 of the Award of The Hague Tribunal of 7th September, 1910; and, if so, whether he can give the names of the Commissioners; and (2) whether any request has been received from the Government of the United States that all fishery legislation which it is proposed by the Government of Canada to present to the Parliament of Canada should first be submitted to the United States Government for its approval or otherwise; if so, what are the views of the Canadian Government and of His Majesty's Government upon the matter; and whether any dispatch upon this subject has been received from His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, and to what effect?
  Sir. E. GREY: His Majesty's Ambassador has been in communication with the Canadian Government and the Government of the United States regarding the recommendations on the subject of fishery regulations made by The Hague Tribunal. Correspondence is still proceeding, and I cannot make a further statement on the subject at this moment.

  Survey Officers (India).
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will state the exact position of officers in the old provincial service of

  941
  the survey of India in relation to the new provincial service; whether he is aware that the officers of the old service who joined before 1904, but passed as high an examination as is set for applicants to the new service, and who carry out equal, if not more important, duties than the officers of the new service, are not allowed to be transferred to the now service with its greater emoluments; whether he is aware that this disability has given rise to a certain amount of discontent; and whether favourable consideration will be given to the matter with a view to putting these older servants on an equal footing with the more recent entrants into the service?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The old provincial service of the Survey of India is now a closed service, but the pay and prospects of its members are not affected by the creation of a new provincial service with better initial salaries and a higher educational standard. The new service was created on the recommendation of the Survey Committee of 1905, which reported unfavourably of the educational qualifications of the then existing provincial service and of its capacity for responsible work. The standard prescribed for entrance to the new service is that of the degree examinations of Indian Universities or the competitive entrance examination of the Rurki Civil Engineering College. For the old provincial service lower qualifications were accepted. Memorials from members of the old service asking to be transferred to the new service have been received by the Government of India, and have been inquired into by a committee; but no report on the service has yet reached the Secretary of State-Indian Service Force.

  Indian Service Force.
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Duke of Abercorn, as President of the Civilian Force, has published a letter proposing to enlist a complete company for special service, to be known as the Indian Service Force, and to be composed of those officers of the Indian Army, Indian Police, and other Indian services, who are now home on furlough; whether he has any information as to the business on which these officers are to be employed; and whether such officers may enlist in such company with the approval of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. KEATINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a published letter of His Grace the Duke of Abercorn, as President of a body calling itself the Civilian Force, in which he proposes to enlist a complete company for special service to be known as the Indian Service Force, and to be composed, amongst others, of officers of the Indian Army; whether he has any information of the business upon which these officers are to be employed; and whether he proposes to allow enlistment in such a force of officers holding the commissions of His Majesty the King, in view of the provisions of the Army Animal Act, the Army Regulations, and the various statutes and ordinances for the enforcement of discipline in the King's Army?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Secretary of State has seen the letter in the public Press. If, as he understands, the members of the proposed force are only to be employed on public duty after being sworn in as special constables and under the orders of the responsible police authorities, the Secretary of State sees no reason for intervening with regard to the recruitment of officers in the service of the Government of India. All questions as to the legality of the method of employment of the force must be decided by the Home Office, and the Secretary of State would be guided in dealing with Indian members of the force by their decision. I may perhaps add that the use of the name of Sir Theodore Morison in connection with the proposal was unauthorised and inaccurate.
  Sir. J. JARDINE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the terms of recruitment in the office in Victoria Street, stating that this special force are to march on short notice—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.
  Mr. KING: Will a copy of the answer be sent to the Duke of Abercorn?

  Pensions of Dismissed Officers (Bombay).
  Sir. J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, with reference to the mamlutdars, deputy collectors, and other subordinate officers under the Government of Bombay, who, after the conclusion of the Crawford trial were dismissed from the service of the Crown with pensions equal to full pay, on the ground

  943
  that they had purchased their revenue and judicial offices, if he can state what is the present amount paid annually out of the revenues of India for these pensions; and what is approximately the total amount paid since these pensions were awarded?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am unable to give the figures for which my hon. Friend asks. I may say, however, that, in view of the very small number of officers involved in the case to which he refers, and the lowness of their salaries, the amount paid to them since dismissal cannot ever have exceeded Rs. 12,000 a year, and in the course of the twenty-one years that have elapsed since their dismissal must have very considerably diminished. My lion. Friend's question is inaccurately worded. These officers were not granted pensions equal to full pay. They were allowed after dismissal to draw pay as if in the Service, but without increments, until the dates when, had they remained in the Service, they would have been entitled to pension. They then drew pensions, which, under rule, could not exceed one-half of their pay.
  Sir. J. JARDINE: Will the hon. Gentleman give an approximate estimate of the money that has been spent in this way?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think I can do so without asking for very laborious work. The whole affair happened about twenty-one years ago.

  Metropolitan Police (Army Reservists).
  Mr. PETOasked whether printed forms are being sent to Army Reservists, both by the Army Ordnance Department and by the Metropolitan Police office, stating that, owing to the large number of applicants already on the books, no more names are even being registered; what is the total number of Army Reservists employed by the Ordnance Department and in the Metropolitan Police Force respectively, and the proportion that such numbers bear to the total employed; and what steps the War Office intend to take to prevent men finding themselves without employment, or hope of employment, on completion of their term of service in the Army?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Tennant): As regards the Ordnance Department, nothing is known at the War Office of any such notices having been sent out, but there is
  944
  no doubt that the number of names already registered is very largely in excess of any prospective vacancies. The number of civilians employed is 2,940, of whom 1,928 are ex-soldiers; the number of Reservists employed is not known. Ex-soldiers are invariably employed as vacances arise. As regards the Metropolitan police, all recruiting is at present suspended for Reservists and civilians alike. The authorised number of Army Reservists employed in the police is 600, and there are at present 577 so employed. The total strength of the force is 19,974. As regards the steps taken to secure employment for soldiers on leaving the colours, I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement on this subject in the report on recruiting contained in the General Annual Report, and especially to pages 14 to 20 of the report for the year ending 30th September, 1911.
  Mr. PETO: Does the hon. Gentleman think that a larger proportion of ex-Army men might now be employed in the Metropolitan Police, and has his Department any view with regard to the employment of Army Reservists now that, these avenues are entirely closed?
  Mr. TENNANT: I cannot make a statement at Question Time on that matter. The hon. Gentleman will nave a full opportunity of raising it in Debate.

  Flying Corps.
  Mr. PETOasked whether land has been purchased in the neighbourhood of Enford, Wilts, for military aviation, and, if so, the extent; and whether it is necessary, and the intention of the War Department, to lay down the land at present under arable cultivation to grass?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The purchase of land at Enford is in progress, and I am not, therefore, at present in a position to give any details. The matters raised in the second part of the question are under consideration.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the land only be used for aviation or for other Army purposes?
  Colonel SEELY: As I explained the other day, it is primarily for aviation, though it may be put to other uses.
  Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give no idea of the acreage that it is

  945
  proposed to take? It is common knowledge in the neighbourhood what land it is proposed to take, and I should have thought the House might have the information.
  Colonel SEELY: I gave the figures the other day.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when this negotiation is complete and the land is taken over it will necessarily involve a very considerable number of agricultural labourers losing all their employment or chance of employment?
  Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can lay upon the Table, of the House the substance of the Report of the Technical Sub-committee on Aviation?
  Colonel SEELY: I shall be glad to lay on the Table a Paper giving the broad outline of the scheme, including all essential features of the new air service.

  Artillery Ranges (Lavington and Tilshead).
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether tenders have now been asked for the old materials of certain farm buildings on the land purchased for Artillery ranges in the Lavington and Tilshead district; and whether he is aware that since the buildings were vacated by the late tenants most of the valuable parts have been removed?
  Colonel SEELY: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, there is no definite information available.

  Territorial Force (Removals).
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Captain F. S. Brereton's name appeared in the "Army Gazette," dated 5th January, 1912, as having been removed from the Territorial Force, although he never applied to join that force or to be placed on the unattached list, and no communication had been received by him from the War Office, although, after resigning his commission in the Regular Army after the war in South Africa, he was officer commanding the Mounted Infantry Company, 3rd V. B. Liverpool Regiment, stationed at South-port, and registered his address with the
  946
  post office at Southport, and with his bankers after the 3rd V. B. Liverpool Regiment was disbanded, and he left for abroad; and whether he will take steps to remove the slur upon the good name of this gentleman implied in the notice in the "Army Gazette"?
  Colonel SEELY: Officers of disbanded Volunteer units were permitted either to resign their commissions or to accept the new conditions and join the unattached list until such time as they could be appointed to units in which they desired to serve. This procedure was made quite clear by Special Army Order of 8th March, 1908. As this officer did not send in his resignation he was reported to the War Office as being desirous of being placed upon the unattached list, and was consequently gazetted to that list. When his commission was forwarded in due course he could not be found, and, after every effort had been made to trace him, but without success, his name was removed from the list last January. No slur whatever has been cast upon the good name of this officer.
  Mr. PETO: Is not the form in which the notice appeared, that the officer in question was removed, necessarily a slur?
  Colonel SEELY: No, it involved no slur whatever, and I am glad to have the opportunity of making the fact public. If it appears that the form of words implies censure I shall be very glad to consider some other form of words in the case of those officers who cannot be traced and who therefore must be removed, but on whose character, of course, no slur whatever is cast.

  Musketry Regulations.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will have paragraph 165, Section 26, of the Musketry Regulations altered, as in this paragraph it is twice stated that the extent of the dangerous space depends upon the flatness of the trajectory; and (2) whether, in view of the value of high trajectory, he will take steps to have paragraph 184, chap. 3, Musketry Regulations, 1909, altered, as it states that in spite of the fact that at longer ranges the depth of the beaten zone is diminished fire is less effective than at short distances owing to the greater curve of the trajectory?
  Colonel SEELY: The replies to those questions are in the negative.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a qualifying statement introduced into these regulations in accordance with his speech last Monday, saying that if the range is known the danger space does not depend on the flatness of the trajectory?
  Colonel SEELY: No; there is nothing whatever to qualify.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Which is right, the regulations or the right hon. Gentleman himself?
  Colonel SEELY: They are both right.

  New Army Rifle.
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Minister of Militia in the House of Commons, Ottawa, on 26th February, in which he stated that he could get no information about the new British rifle in England, but that he could learn all he wanted at Washington and Berlin; and whether steps will be taken to keep responsible Ministers of the Dominions oversea fully informed as to the development of our armament?
  Colonel SEELY: As I have already explained to the House, certain communications were made to the self-governing Dominions concerning the proposed new rifle and ammunition.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Canadian Minister of Militia went to Washington and there saw the rifle, which we are not allowed to see here?
  Colonel SEELY: On the contrary, I invited every Member of the House to come and look at the new rifle.

  Staff College.
  Major STANLEYasked whether the time has arrived when officers should be admitted to the staff college purely by competition instead of under the present system?
  Colonel SEELY: It is considered that the present system has worked and is working well, and that there is no reason to alter it in the direction indicated.
  Major STANLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the present
  948
  system, by which officers who pass low in the list are preferred to officers who pass high, is likely to secure Lord Haldane's object and obtain the most thoughtful, capable and intellectual officers for the general staff?
  Colonel SEELY: I seriously think the present system is better than if you did it by purely competitive examination, and many eminent soldiers, like Lord Kitchener and others, are strongly of the same opinion. Every man has to pass a very severe examination. Those who have rendered conspicuous service in the field can be nominated, and I think the system works better than the system suggested.

  Disorder (Employment of Military).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARD1NEasked whether the Government have made any provision in this year's Estimates for the movement and maintenance of troops for protection against riot or for the safeguarding of the person of Ministers who are upholding the rights of free speech; if so, under what Vote is it to be found; and, if not, will such again be made a charge against the training of the Army, or will there be a Supplementary Vote?
  Mr. TENNANT: No specific provision was made in this year's Estimates for the moves in question.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether the cost of moving and maintaining troops during the labour troubles of 1911 and in connection with the First Lord of the Admiralty's recent visit to Belfast was paid for out of the money allocated for military manœuvres, amounting in the aggregate to nearly £50,000; and whether it is usual to charge such expenses for so different a purpose without informing the House either of the intention or the fact?
  Mr. TENNANT: The expenses referred to will be found in due course charged in the Appropriation Account of Army Votes against the proper Votes and Subheads, and not against the provision made for manœuvres. There is nothing unusual in this course of procedure.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Has any attempt been made to get the sums expended on moving the military during 1911 from the railway companies who were responsible for their employment?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  Land Valuation.
  Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked whether the value placed upon any plot of land by the Government valuers will be a matter for public information; and, if so, by what means a member of the public may obtain the information?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): The valuations made under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, are not a matter for public information, but, as provided by Section 27 (5) of the Act, any person interested in any land can obtain particulars of the valuation of that land from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention had been called to the instructions given by the Reference Committee that valuation cases should be heard by the referees in private; whether this would apply to cases where the appellant has no objection to publicity; and, if not, will he give instructions accordingly?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member the other day, he is aware of the instructions referred to, and under the condition mentioned in the second part of the question it is proposed to give discretion to referees to allow representatives of the Press to attend hearings.
  Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Crown intends to appeal against the judgments given by the Court of Appeal in the actions Burghes v. the Attorney-General and Dyson v. the Attorney-General; and, if not, will he give instructions that the costs incurred by the plaintiffs in these two actions be now paid?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It has been decided not to appeal against the judgments referred to, and instructions will be given for payment, of such costs as have reasonably been incurred by the plaintiffs in these cases.

  Estate Duty (Lord Carlisle).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the will of Lord Carlisle, which was proved on or about 16th June, 1911, all his personal property, except when otherwise specified, was bequeathed to his wife, Lady Carlisle; whether it appeared from the Inland Revenue affidavits lodged at
  950
  Somerset House on the occasion of proving that will that amongst other property which was bequeathed to Lady Carlisle by her husband's will was a collection of pictures, books, and works of art situate in his residence at Castle Howard; whether any application was made to the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1896, to exempt such collection from Estate Duty and Legacy Duty so long as it remained unsold, on the ground that the collection was one of national, scientific, historic, and artistic interest, and whether such application was granted; what was the total principal value of that collection; whether the picture by Mabuse, recently sold by Lady Carlisle to the trustees of the National Gallery, formed part of that collection; whether the Estate Duty chargeable in respect of that picture should be calculated at the rate appropriate to the total principal value of the said collection; and whether the rate at which Estate Duty was in fact charged in respect of the said picture was at the rate appropriate to such total principal value?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is a fact that under the will of Lord Carlisle, which was proved on the 14th June, 1911, all his personal property, unless otherwise specified, was bequeathed to his wife, Lady Carlisle. No application has been made to the Treasury under Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1896, as extended by Section 63 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to exempt any collection of pictures, books, and works of art situate at Castle Howard from Estate Duty and Legacy Duty so long as it remained unsold, and the remainder of the hon. and learned Member's question does not therefore arise.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the second paragraph as to the application to the Treasury?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think that is a confidential document, but I am not sure.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that final notices for the payment of taxes under Schedule A were issued on 26th February in Scotland giving seven days in which to pay, after which costs would be added; and, if so, will he say on what date similar notices were issued in England, and particularly in the London district?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No general issue of final notices takes place on a specific

  951
  date either in England or in Scotland. Such notices would have been largely issued in both countries by 26th February. Owing to the greater amount of work entailed, it is improbable that in London seven-day demand notes were sent out by that date.
  Mr. WATT: Do I understand that both countries are treated absolutely alike?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, both countries are treated absolutely alike.

  Fisheries Development.
  Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the funds allotted for fisheries development (under the Development Funds Act, 1909) are granted to suit the requirements of the English coast as a whole, or whether the local needs of the several district committees are taken into consideration?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The requirements of the English coast as a whole and the local needs of the several district committees are so intimately connected that the distinction suggested in the question cannot, in my opinion, properly be drawn. In the scheme submitted by the Board to the Development Commissioners all the various interests involved have been carefully kept in view. The interim grants which have been approved by the Commissioners and the Treasury will be paid to local committees in aid of work which they will respectively carry on.
  Mr. CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the anxious application of the Sea Fisheries Association on the subject?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I think that has been the only application which has come in from the district committees.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS.
    Captain FABERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state whether, in the case of an agricultural labourer who has signed a yearly agreement as to wages and obtains cottage and Michaelmas money, that agreement will be binding under the National Insurance Act, or whether it can be broken if the employer deducts the tax from the wages?
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that the word "tax" is used in the question, and that no such tax has been levied by this House, and ask whether you think it right that the Order Paper of the House should be used for the introduction of such a term?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is a trivial matter.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am advised that while the National Insurance Act authorises the employer to deduct the workman's part of the contribution from any wages that may have been specified in such a contract, it does not in any way affect the validity of the contract. The Act gives no power to the employer to deduct his own part of the contribution from wages, and, indeed, explicitly prohibits him from so doing.

    INDEPENDENT MODERN ORDER OF FORESTERS.
    Captain FABERasked whether the Independent Modern Order of Foresters at Amport, near Andover, numbering ninety-three members, and having a capital of £1,700, would be entitled to divide any surplus money remaining after they had been valued into another friendly society?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am unable to answer the hon. Member's question without further particulars as to the precise operation contemplated by the society; if he will communicate with mo in fuller detail I shall be glad to give him a considered reply.
    Captain FABER: Do all the small societies have to give all they have got if they come into the strong incorporated friendly societies, or if they do not they cannot get in at all?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will communicate with me I will give him a considered answer.

    LECTURES
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will make it a condition of the employment of the lecturers under the National Insurance Act that they shall not be candidates for Parliament at the next General Election?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him on 4th March.
    Mr. FELL: Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that public money should be spent on what may prove to be an election campaign?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no anticipation that public money will be spent in furthering the election campaign of any candidate.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question, of which I have given him private notice, whether, in view of the fact that the Scotch Insurance Commissioners, after offering to send an official lecturer to explain the provisions of the National Insurance Act to the friendly societies in Shetland, on condition that the said societies paid all expenses in connection with providing halls and advertising, and, the said terms having been agreed to by the said societies, and a request sent for an official lecturer to the Scotch Insurance Commissioners, the said Scotch Insurance Commissioners regretted that they could not carry out their undertaking, and if he will undertake that an official lecturer be sent forthwith to the Shetland and Orkney Isles, or consider the necessity of appointing business men as Scottish Insurance Commissioners?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not had time to obtain full information as to the facts, but I understand that a considerable time elapsed between the offer referred to and the date of a request being received from Shetland, and that in the interval the lecturers had engagements elsewhere. I will convey the request of my hon. Friend for an official lecturers to visit Shetland to the Scottish Commission, and I have no doubt that they will be able to arrange to send one at an early date.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: That is not at all an answer to my question. They have refused to send a man. They say they will not be able to send one owing to the expense, and that they have not got the money to do it with. That is the only reason given. What will be the cost of sending an official lecturer?
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask what would be the cost of sending a lecturer to Hong Kong?
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: What will be the cost of sending one official lecturer to the Orkney and Shetland Isles?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will inquire the cost of sending a lecturer both to Shetland and the other place.

    MARRIED WOMEN OUTWORKERS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has decided or given instructions to the Insurance Commissioners to decide to issue regulations including in the compulsory Clauses of the National Insurance Act married women outworkers; and whether any alteration is intended to be made in the rate of contributions and benefits payable by and to them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No such decision has been made or instructions given. The whole question of the outworkers is being considered by an independent Committee, whose Report will be considered before any regulations or orders are framed.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. BENTHAMasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that several small holders at West Butterwick, Lincolnshire, have received notice to leave their holdings on the 6th April; and whether any measures are being taken, either by his Department or the county council, to provide them with land in the neighbourhood?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, notice having been given to the small holders in question in consequence of the sale of the property. The county council are endeavouring to acquire other land for them, and have received an offer of ninety-eight acres with vacant possession on Lady Day from the purchasers of the estate. This offer is now under the consideration of the council.

  Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee.
  Major WHITEasked whether the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have received any communication from either the Development Commissioners or the Treasury containing an intimation that a Grant in aid of the scientific and developmental work of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee will shortly be made; if so, what is the amount of the proposed Grant; what are the objects upon which it may be expended; and will that amount be available during the financial year commencing on the 1st April, 1912?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Treasury, on the recommendation of the Development Commissioners, have approved of the Grant to the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Committee of a sum not exceeding £1,240, for the following purposes:—

  £

  (a) In aid of the maintenance of a steamer

  900

  (b) For nets and gear

  140

  (c) In aid of the maintenance of the laboratory at Piel

  100

  (d) In aid of the maintenance of the laboratory of Liverpool University

  100

  £1,240

  A proposal that Grants should be made for the salary of an additional assistant naturalist and a hydrographer is also under consideration. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  Non-Attendance at School (Cost of Summonses).
  Captain FABERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state whether, in view of the costs charged in convictions for non-attendance at schools, he can order a revision to the effect that the summons in these attendance cases should be served by post as are jury and petty jury summonses, with a view to curtailing the expense?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I have no power to issue instructions of the nature indicated.
  Captain FABER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who has power, or who ought to have power, to serve these summonses by post?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure that it can be done without an amendment of the law.
  Captain FABER: Who on that bench is responsible for the amendment of the law?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Government, as a whole.

  Furniture Hire-Purchase System.
  Baron de FORESTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a usual form of the hire-purchase system permits the vendor, on the
  956
  failure of the purchaser to pay any one instalment on the exact specified day, to seize the goods and to retain the whole of the instalments previously paid; and whether, seeing that cases of hardship in this connection, especially to the working classes, are frequently brought to the notice of county-court judges and police-court magistrates, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to remove this abuse of this system?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot add anything to the answer I gave to the previous question on the 5th instant. I am aware that the provision mentioned sometimes forms part of the contract, and that it sometimes gives rise to hardship; but fear I cannot undertake to propose legislation to regulate the terms of voluntary agreements for the hire of furniture and goods.
  Mr. O'GRADY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware of the fact that the whole of the legitimate cabinet industry is dead-set against this system of hire purchase?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, I was not aware of it.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the county courts are being turned largely into debt-collecting agencies on behalf of these firms, and that, in the opinion of more than one county-court judge, the proceedings amount to a scandal1?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, I have seen various complaints made on the subject; but legislation on the matter is not easy to devise.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the hire-purchase system in furniture gives rise to greater depths of sweating than any other system known?

  Scottish Schools (Size of Classes).
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the operation of the minute, dated 27th March, 1911, relating to the restriction of the size of classes in Scottish schools, will be delayed until a satisfactory arrangement is made with the Treasury regarding an additional Grant?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on this point yesterday to the hon. Member for Stirlingshire.

  Local Authorities (Purchase of Land).
  Mr. JOHN TAYLORasked whether, in any proposal by a local authority to purchase a plot of land, regard will be had by the Local Government Board to the Government valuation of the land when considering the price proposed to be paid for it?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): Where the Local Government Board are concerned with purchase of land by local authorities regard will be had to all available information in reference to the propriety of the price proposed to be paid for it, including such information as may properly be afforded by the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue.

  Milk Bill.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked whether the promised Milk Bill will deal with the conditions of labour in the trade?
  Mr. BURNS: The Bill will not directly deal with this subject.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to inform the House now when he will introduce the Bill?
  Mr. BURNS: No, Sir, I cannot.

  Unemployment Workmen Act, 1905 (Emigrants).
  Sir. CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can say how many men, women, and children, respectively, in the county of London and outside the county of London have been emigrated under the provisions of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905; how have the funds for this emigration been provided and what is the total sum raised from rates and voluntary funds, respectively; how much money so expended has been returned in the county of London and outside the county of London; and what is the net cost per head, taking men, women, and children together, of the entire emigration under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, since the Act came into operation?
  Mr. BURNS: The number of persons emigrated by authorities in England and Wales under the provisions of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, up to 30th September, 1911, has been as follows:—In the county of London, 4,459 emigrants, with 7,238 dependents, or 11,697 in all; in
  958
  the rest of England and Wales, 2,687 emigrants, with 5,149 dependents, or 7,836 in all. I cannot give the number of men, women, and children respectively. The funds for this emigration have been provided partly from rates, partly from voluntary contributions, and partly from Grants voted by Parliament; the sum raised during the whole period from rates and voluntary contributions respectively cannot be stated from the information at my disposal. Nor have I full particulars with regard to moneys returned by emigrants. Leaving out of account such moneys, the cost per head of the entire emigration by authorities in England and Wales under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, from the time the Act came into operation up to 30th September, 1911, was £8 13s. 9d.

  Infected Butter.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that it has been recently demonstrated to the satisfaction of the French Law Courts that butter manufactured from the milk of cows suffering from foot-and-mouth disease is undistinguishable from butter adulterated with margarine; and whether, in view of the fact that this disease is raging on the Continent and is communicable to human beings, he is taking any, and, if any, what steps to prevent the importation from abroad of butter so manufactured?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware of a report of proceedings in a French Court in which it was alleged that butter manufactured from the milk of cows suffering from foot-and-mouth disease had abnormal analytical characteristics. It appears, however, from certain subsequent experiments made in France with butter thus derived that these characteristics are not necessarily present. The available evidence as to the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease to man by means of butter suggests that the risk of such transmission is slight, and I am advised that it is not sufficient to justify drastic administrative measures in regard to the importation of butter.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Senate have decided that this disease is transmittible to human beings, at any rate in the United States?
  Mr. BURNS: That may be so.

  Housing Accommodation. (Litcham).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board if he has received a report of an inquiry recently held at Litcham under the Housing of the Working Classes Act; whether parents are sending children out to sleep because of the lack of bedroom accommodation, thereby involving the break-up of family life; and whether, in view of the admitted scarcity of houses and the consequent overcrowding, together with the apparent inability of the local council to deal with the problem, he contemplates any action in the matter?
  Mr. BURNS: I am informed that the formal report of the committee of the rural district council of Mitford and Launditch on the inquiry recently held by them into housing conditions at Litcham has not yet been made to the council, but I have seen an account of the proceedings at the inquiry, and will not lose sight of the matter.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the inconvenient hour, namely, eleven o'clock in the morning, at which the Mitford and Launditch Rural District Council held an inquiry under the Housing of the Working Classes Act at Litcham on the 6th instant; and whether, as this time rendered it impossible for the labouring class to attend, he will cause an inquiry to be held in the evening, when those most concerned in the question of housing accommodation may be present?
  Mr. BURNS: I understand the inquiry was held at 11.30. As my hon. Friend will have gathered from my reply to his previous question, the inquiry was one fixed and held by the rural district council, and I had no responsibility for the fixing of the time. Any inquiry which the Board may find it necessary to hold in the matter will be opened not earlier than 6 p.m.

  Thames Embankment Improvements.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can lay before the House a plan and description of the proposed improvements between the Victoria Tower and Lambeth Bridge1?
  Mr. BURNS: I will communicate with the First Commissioner of Works and the London County Council on the subject, and see what can be done.

  Books of Stamps (Advertisements).
  Mr. CROFTasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Post Office have made a rule not to admit any wine or spirit advertisements into the books of stamps; and will he state on what grounds these advertisements are refused?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The rule to which the hon. Member refers was made with my approval, because I do not think it advisable that the post offices should disseminate advertisements which would be disapproved by a considerable number of the taxpayers, to whom the post offices belong.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why Australian and French wine growers, or British importers connected with the licensed trade, should be prevented from advertising in the stamp-books, in view of the enormous contributions derived by the State from the legal trade they carry on?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That may be, but I do not think advertisements should be accepted by the Pest Office when their publication in that way would be likely to be made the subject of controversy.
  Mr. CROFT: Is that the opinion of the whole Cabinet?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It is obviously a purely Departmental matter.
  Mr. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the letter refusing the advertisements contained the following words: "We take it you have no non-alcoholic beverage that you wish to advertise"?

  Post Office Pay Inquiry.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked whether the Committee of Inquiry into the remuneration of Post Office servants has been appointed; and, if so, whether any member of it has first-hand knowledge of Scottish conditions?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. When the members of the Committee are selected, no doubt due weight will be given to the desirability of a proper representation of Scotland.

  Civil Service Appointments (Royal Commission).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the Prime Minister whether, in forming the Royal Commission on the question of appointments in the Civil Service, some one may be included who can represent the interests of the naval and military services, in view of the number of ex-Service men in the Civil Service?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): It does not seem desirable that the members of such a Commission should be selected with a view to representing particular interests. The Commission will, of course, have the power to take evidence from all sources.

  Home Rule Bill.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet finally decided upon the financial provisions of the Home Rule Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA (for the Prime Minister): I do not consider it desirable to answer questions as to the provisions of a Bill before it is actually introduced.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will call the attention of the Prime Minister to an article written by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) at the time of the last Home Rule Bill—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of the question.

  Development Commission.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether it is to be understood that the Development Commissioners are in the position of ordinary Government Departments acting under the instructions of a Minister who takes responsibility to Parliament for all their actions and decisions; and whether the Commissioners have therefore, before taking any important decision or action, to ascertain, and then to carry out, the views of the responsible Minister, and are not free to form and to act upon their own views as a Commission?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, Sir. The Development Commissioners are free to form their own views on subjects within their cognisance, and report them to the Treasury. They have, however, no executive powers, and cannot, therefore, themselves carry out schemes to which they
  962
  are favourable. It rests with the Treasury to decide whether or not the schemes recommended by the Commissioners should be adopted and the necessary sums advanced from the Development Fund; but if the Commissioners decline to recommend a scheme their veto is final, so far as the fund is concerned. For further information, I may refer the hon. Member to page 6 of the Commissioners' First Report (House of Commons, 199, of 1911).
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Are the Development Commissioners in the same position as the Insurance Commissioners?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They are in a totally different position. They are a purely advisory body. The Insurance Commissioners have executive powers.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Are the Insurance Commissioners bound to act on a recommendation from the Treasury?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Insurance Commissioners have executive powers for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible to this House.

  Fog Signals.
  Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the result of the recent experiments in Hertzian wave fog signals made by the French lighthouse authorities?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I am informed by the Trinity House that they understand that the French Government do not expect to establish the experimental stations until the spring of this year, and that the lightship on which some of the experiments will be made has not yet been built. As I informed by hon. Friend on 29th November last the French lighthouse authorities have undertaken to supply the Trinity House with information as to the progress and results of their experiments.

  Wounded Sailor (Pension).
  Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of the wounded sailor Rudgley, invalided out of the Navy, on account of his wound, and lately certified by a doctor to be permanently injured, he will now again allow him the pension of 1s. 1d. a day, of which he has been deprived since September, 1911?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Although Rudgley is admittedly "permanently injured" the Regulations do not, except in special circumstances, contemplate the continuance of pensions for life to men with only short service. In awarding pensions in such cases consideration is given both to the character of the injury and to the man's capacity to contribute to his own support. Until it can be definitely established, in accordance with the condition already prescribed by the Admiralty, that Rudgley is, as a result of his injury, unable to work, there do not appear to be sufficient reasons for re-opening the case.
  Mr. HUNT: In view of the fact that the man is permanently injured, would not a man in civil employment have his pension continued by a civil employer?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question.
  Sir CLEMENT K1NLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that, although the man may be able to contribute to his own support, it is also a fact that no one can employ him?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This man is undoubtedly injured, probably permanently lamed, but he can contribute to his own support.
  Sir. C. KINLOCH-COOKE: If the man contributes to his own support, is it not a fact that the Workmen's Compensation Act precludes him from being employed in any other kind of work?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: This man, although he has been injured, still is able to contribute to his own support. He has been in employment, as the hon. Gentleman knows, recently.
  Sir. C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I do not know anything about this man.

  Shipbuilding Orders (Thames).
  Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that he has expressed himself as willing to pay rather higher prices for warships built on the Thames than if built in other parts of the United Kingdom, he will in future be willing to pay a rather higher price for granite produced in the United Kingdom for our naval needs than for granite produced in Norway or in other countries abroad?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): I have always stated that, in my earnest desire to place an order with the Thames I was prepared within certain limits to depart from the traditional policy that has governed—and in my opinion governed rightly—the placing of Admiralty contracts. I hope the hon. Member will regard this exception as proving and not breaking the rule.
  Mr. HUNT: If the right hon. Gentleman gives a preference to one part of the United Kingdom over another, why will he not give a preference to the United Kingdom over a foreign country?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Why has the right hon. Gentleman consented to break the rule in this case?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have to consider, as far as possible, the general distribution of Admiralty orders between the different shipyards of the country, in order, among other things, to keep alive as many centres of the building of warships as possible; and within certain limits the House has been prepared to allow a certain latitude in that respect. That is my justification for the course which I have adopted. The question of placing orders for warships in foreign countries, which I gather the right hon. Gentleman refers to, has not yet been considered by the Board of Admiralty.
  Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the question in reference to the production of granite, and therefore of keeping open establishments in this country?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that we need fight the granite battle over again.
  Mr. CREAN: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman apply that rule to the dockyards at Passage? They are asked to compete on the same terms as Jarrow and the Tyne, and they get no work unless they do so?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: We have made considerable extensions at Haulbowline.
  Mr. CREAN: It is the Passage Docks Company I am speaking of.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: Has it not been the practice of the Admiralty in placing contracts to accept the lowest tender?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It has not always been the practice.

  Coronation Medals.
  Mr. WATTasked how many Coronation medals were issued to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in commemoration of the event; and, if fewer in proportion than those granted to the Territorial Force, why such a distinction was made between Naval Volunteers and Territorial Volunteers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Three officers and three seamen of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve were awarded the Coronation medal. As to the number of medals awarded to the Territorial Force, I must refer my hon. Friend to the War Office.

  Board of Education (Accountant-General and Chief Clerk).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Education the reason for amalgamating the posts of accountant-general and chief clerk in October, 1909, and for separating them in December, 1911?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The reason for amalgamating the posts of accountant-general and chief clerk in October, 1909, was the close connection between the duties involved. This amalgamation was accompanied in 1909 by the appointment of a deputy accountant-general, to whom, in view of his financial ability, was assigned in the first instance that part of the work which dealt with accounts. On the appointment of the deputy-accountant-general as a Commissioner of Customs and Excise and the promotion of the accountant-general and chief clerk to a principal assistant secretaryship, it was found more convenient, having regard to the particular qualifications of the officers concerned, to preserve the connection between the two posts by the present arrangement under which the chief clerk is also deputy accountant-general the accountant-general's duties being discharged by a separate officer.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the principal assistant secretary of the elementary schools branch of the Board has in ten years had the salary which he received on first entering the service of the Board increased from £200 to £1,200 per annum, he will accord to those members of the staff who entered the office by means of a competi-
  966
  tive examination opportunities of similar advancement in status and salary?
  Mr. PEASE: There are no regulations which render persons who enter the office by competitive examinations ineligible for any posts. Promotions in my Department will be made solely in accordance with the fitness of officers for particular posts.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are we to assume that the gentleman referred to has received his rapid promotion as a result of exceptional merit?
  Mr. PEASE: Yes. He had exceptional qualifications for the post in which he was placed.

  Government Contracts (Sub-Letting).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether there is any intention on the part of the Office of Works to allow the sub-letting of contracts or parts of contracts without permission being first given; whether the present policy of the Department is not to permit any subletting unless good and sufficient reason is shown; and, if so, whether this policy is to be maintained?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. The rule of the Department is that no subletting whatever is allowed except with the permission in writing of the Department. This policy is governed by the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution, and there is no intention of departing from it.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state whether the tenants of the Jones estate, Burrishoole, county Mayo, which was purchased by the Congested Districts Board about seven years ago, still remain in the congested condition that existed before the sale; whether in the townland of Derrycooldrim West on this estate six occupiers hold land of a total valuation of £8, and split up into 165 divisions or separate patches, while the holdings of the three occupiers of Derrycooldrim East (including buildings) have a total valuation of only £5 5s., and the total valuation of four holdings in Derradda West is £6 12s.; whether there is sufficient grazing or untenanted land in the immediate neighbourhood to relieve the congestion complained of; and when the Board intend taking steps to afford such relief?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board inform me that the settlement of the cases referred to has been postponed pending the acquisition of lands in the neighbourhood, as the holdings could not be satisfactorily dealt with until such land is obtained. Although the holdings were left unstriped pending the acquisition of the additional lands, all the tenants have been given the fullest opportunity of placing their grazing stock on land which the Board had acquired.
  Mr. JOHN PHILLIPSasked whether Colonel M'Cutchan offered his grazing land of Munis Callaghan, Moydow, county Longford, to the Estates Commissioners; and, if not, will the Estates Commissioners acquire it for a number of small farmers in the district whose holdings are uneconomic?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the only M'Cutchan estate in county Longford the subject of proceedings for sale before the Estates Commissioners is that of Thomas M'Cutchan, which is a direct sale and does not include any untenanted land.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary whether, in regard to the Westby estate, Kilballyowen, West Clare, his attention has been directed to the fact that, whereas there are many uneconomic holders in Kilballyowen, a large area of the estate has been assigned to an evicted tenant of the Vandeleur estate, who has been reinstated, and who is a man of considerable means; and whether care will be taken that in this matter the aim and intention of the Land Act will not be contravened, but that this estate will be dealt with according to the provisions of that Act and with the least possible delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: This estate is the subject of proceedings for sale directs by the owner to the tenants under the Irish Land Act, 1903. When the estate is being dealt with in order of priority, full inquiry will be made by the Estates Commissioners into the matters referred to by the hon. Member.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that, if not real danger, there is a lively apprehension that in this case the terms of the last Land Act may be contravened, and if that were to take place it would excite great indignation in the county?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I will take note of that.
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether, in regard to the MacDonnell estate, Furoor, near Kilkee, West Clare, the Chief Secretary will direct his attention to the fact that the sale of the estate is now almost completed and that the opportunity has arisen of restoring to her farm Mrs. Collins, an evicted tenant whose reinstatement has been repeatedly promised whenever the land would be acquired; and whether steps towards that end will be taken without delay?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The holding on the MacDonnell estate, formerly ocupied by Mrs. Collins' husband, is in the occupation of another tenant, with whom the Estates Commissioners have no power to interfere. Her application will be considered in the allotment of such untenanted land as the Commissioners may acquire for purposes of distribution.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked whether the Chief Secretary will state on what grounds the Estates Commissioners refused to grant to Mrs. Catherine Gilroy, an evicted tenant on the Baron Massey estate, county Leitrim; and whether, having regard to their letter of the 15th December, 1909, they will reconsider her claim?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners received the application of Mrs. Gilroy for a Grant in connection with her holding, which she purchased direct from the owner in the matter of the sale of this estate under the Irish Land Act, 1903, and have decided to take no action in the matter. It is not the practice of the Commissioners to state the reasons which actuate them in the exercise of the discretion vested in them.

  Metropolitan Police Rate Bill.
  Mr. CASSELasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact it that the Committee stage of the Metropolitan Police Rate Bill is to be taken shortly, he will furnish members representing constituencies in the Metropolitan area with particulars showing how the estimated deficiency on the Police Fund is arrived at?
  Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer Which I gave him

  969
  on the 7th instant. I shall be glad, however, to send him a copy of a letter which I have addressed to the London County Council on this subject.
  Mr. CASSEL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, as the ratepayers of London have to find the whole of the money, they are entitled at least to have particulars of how the estimated deficiency has been arrived at?
  Mr. McKENNA: There has been no change in policy as regards the police in London for a great many years.

COAL STRIKE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the Home Secretary tell us the business for Thursday? I would also like to ask whether, if he thinks it desirable, he can say anything about the conference [representatives of miners and coalowners] to-day?
Mr. McKENNA: In regard to the business for Thursday, the Prime Minister asks me to say that he will be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he will postpone his question until to-morrow.
With regard to the coal strike, the representatives of the coalowners in every district have accepted the invitation of the Prime Minister. The representatives of the miners have accepted the invitation with a reservation the terms of which have already been made public. The conference is now sitting.
Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary if he is able to state whether, in the unhappy event of the Prime Minister being unable on Thursday to make a more definite and satisfactory statement in the matter of the coal crisis, the Government will then be able to give the House an opportunity of discussing the question?
Mr. McKENNA: I think my hon. Friend had better postpone that question.

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  FACTORY ACCIDENTS.
  This day fortnight, to call attention to the increase of accidents and the administration of the Factories Department, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.]
  This day fortnight, to call attention to trade with the Colonies, and to move a Resolution.—[Captain Campbell.]
  This day fortnight, to call attention to the wages of railwaymen, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Rowntree.]
BILLS PRESENTED.
  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION BILL.
  "To remove doubts as to the effect of certain enactments relating to Market Gardeners' Compensation." Presented by Mr. EYRES-MONSELL; supported by Mr. Courthope, Mr. Pollock, Sir Luke White, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Sir Ivor Herbert, Sir John Rolleston, Sir Courtenay Warner, and Mr. Joynson-Hicks; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 73.]
  TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To promote Temperance in Scotland by conferring on the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of certificates; by securing a later hour of opening for licensed premises; by amending the law relating to clubs; and by other provisions incidental thereto." Presented by Mr. MCKINNON WOOD; supported by the Lord Advocate; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION (SOLDIERS) BILL.
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to ask for leave to introduce a Bill "to facilitate the acquisition and exercise of the Parliamentary Franchise by Soldiers who, in the course of their military duty or service, are removed from one constituency to another."
The object of this Bill is to give soldiers better facilities for utilising the rights which the law now gives them for acquiring and exercising the Parliamentary franchise. It is to make those rights a reality, and not, as they very often now are, a mere sham. The position is that soldiers—officers, warrant officers, noncommissioned officers and men—are entitled, nominally entitled, to acquire and exercise the Parliamentary franchise

971
under the same conditions as civilians. Such is their legal right. But owing to the fact that they are removed from station to station at frequent and relatively short intervals, it is quite impossible for them to acquire or exercise that franchise with the same freedom as the civil population. The result is two-fold. A man is frequently removed from one station to another before he has had time to acquire a vote in his first station, and when he goes to the second station he has to begin his qualifying period over again. Another result is that a soldier may have acquired the right to vote in one station and is then removed; not by his own will, but as part of his military duty, to another, and it may be a distant station. He has not time to acquire a qualification in the second station before an election comes on, and in that way is prevented from exercising his vote. Cases have occurred and been brought to my notice where men have been in active service in the Army for twenty years or more; had they remained in the same station during that time they would have been continuously entitled to exercise their vote; but, owing to their frequent removal from one station to another they have never once, during the whole course of their twenty years' service, been able to exercise their vote at all. I submit that this is a case for special treatment, and that the soldier is in an entirely different position in regard to this matter from almost every member of the Civil community, because his removal from one station to another is not his free, voluntary act, but an act consequent upon his conditions of service, and in the discharge of his duty as a soldier, and an act entirely outside his own control. Under those circumstances, I ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill which has two main objects. The first is that if the soldier at the time of his removal from one station to another has not completed his qualifying period provision shall be made for his completing it in the second station; and, secondly, that where a soldier, at the time of his removal is on the register at the station from which he is removed provision shall be made for transferring his name from the register at that station to the register at the station to which he is removed.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Butcher, Colonel Lockwood, Viscount
972
Helmsley, Mr. Worthington-Evans, Viscount, Castlereagh, Mr. Charles Bathurst, Colonel Burn, Mr. Kerr-Smiley, Major Morrison-Bell, and Mr. Joynson-Hicks; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

SUPPLY.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.— [Progress, 5th March.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.— [Progress, 5th March.]

    VOTE A.—NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    Motion made, and Question again proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 186,600, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indan Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
    Mr. HUNT: I understand that the War Office has persuaded one hundred of the Chelsea pensioners to join the Special Reserve. The average age is over seventy, and one of them at least is, I believe, paralysed. I would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary would tell us what those hundred Chelsea pensioners are supposed to be for in the National Reserve. They only go to Chelsea because they are incapable of keeping themselves outside. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us was the object to count the number of pensioners so as to be able to pretend that they had got a great many in the National Reserve to make up for and in view of the deficiency in the Territorial Force. The number of recruits even of the Regular Army has diminished since 1904 by 17,000 men. It seems to me that recruiting decreases as emigration increases. The Regular Army is short by 4,000 men, the Special Reserve is short by 30,000 men, and the Territorial Force by 49,000. Last year 32,000 of the Territorials were under nineteen years. Recruits can qualify for musketry by just shooting fifty rounds at thirty yards, and it does not appear to matter whether they hit the target or not. These are some of the men or rather boys that are supposed to be going to defend us in time of national danger. Perhaps the right

    973
    hon. Gentleman would tell us how he is going to make up the numbers of the Territorial Force when there are 80,000 due to leave within six months and 175,000 within eighteen months. If you keep them on you will have no Reserve, and if you get the Reserve you will have 100,000 recruits probably under nineteen years of age. I find there were 4,000 men deserted from the Regular Army and the Special Reserve last year. Should there not be an inquiry to find out the reason, considering the very severe loss in money to the country? The right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, knows that our Regular Army, Special Reserve and Territorial Force are all dwindling and the Government is doing nothing to put a stop to that and to make things any better. If the Government would do their best to provide the Regular soldier with employment when, he leaves the Service then you would have much less difficulty in getting good recruits and plenty of recruits of a good sort. Last year there were only 16,800 men holding Government appointments out of 69,000 employed by the Government as postmen and messengers, and that sort of thing. Surely all those appointments ought to be kept for soldiers and sailors, who would then feel fairly certain that they would get employment when they leave the Army. It is the knowledge that they are so likely not to get employment which prevents recruits coming forward and which causes the difficulty in getting recruits for the Army. I should have thought that the Government might at all events have done that for the soldiers and sailors, on whom our liberties entirely depend.
    The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out that the flat trajectory of the rifle did not matter, or that it mattered to a comparatively small extent. Everybody who has even shot game knows what an enormous advantage a flat trajectory is. It is that with a flat trajectory the danger zone is increased: in other words, the error in sighting is reduced. If gravity did not exist, the bullet would travel in a straight line from the muzzle to the object aimed at, and every man at all ranges in the line between the muzzle and the object would be hit. The nearer we get to that the more efficient must be the rifle. The German rifle approaches this ideal far more nearly than ours, and especially more than ours would have done if we had had to fight last year. There cannot be any doubt that the German rifle is a far more dangerous and efficient weapon than ours. The
    974
    Secretary of State for War knew all about it in 1906, and probably in 1905, because he told us that the Germans sent us their rifle to see. He must have known also that they had a pointed bullet, which made a far more serious and dangerous wound than our blunt-nosed bullet. Yet he left us at this disadvantage for all these years. If we had had war last summer it is not only that our rifle would have been very inferior because of its high trajectory, but we should have been fighting against troops whose bullet made a terrible wound, whilst our bullet, as we proved in South Africa, made a slight wound, which healed easily and quickly. I asked a question about this matter two or three years ago, and the Secretary of State made no attempt to deny the dangerous nature of the wound made by the pointed bullet. The Under-Secretary in his speech the other day rejoiced that we were the last to adopt the pointed bullet, because it was a stopping bullet. I call that political cant and humbug. The right hon. Gentleman rejoices that for six years our soldiers would have been at a terrible disadvantage if we had had to fight a great Continental nation. The Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary are not appointed and paid to be international philanthropists; they are paid to provide our soldiers with the best rifle and bullet possible to defeat the enemy. For the last six years the Secretary of State has been deliberately allowing our soldiers to be at these two serious disadvantages. The right hon. Gentleman said something about hanging. If we had had war last year, and had been defeated for these reasons, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State ought not to have been hanged. Many of our men have not got the pointed bullet even now. I submit that the high trajectory of our rifle and the non-stopping character of our bullet show that the Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right and justified in his criticism of the chief weapon provided for our soldiers by a Liberal Government after six years of office. Everybody knows that about 80 per cent. of the losses in war are caused by the rifle. Lord Haldane himself admitted that the Territorial gun was an inferior weapon to that given to the Regulars. So that in the Territorial Artillery, as it takes three years to make a skilled gunner, we should have untrained men, untrained horses, and inferior guns.
    The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes) showed the hopeless inefficiency of

    975
    the Territorial Force both in numbers and in training. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect anything else when the patriotic few are asked to sacrifice themselves under enormous disadvantages for the sake of the huge majority, who do nothing whatever to learn to defend their country, and who therefore, according to Lord Haldane himself, are not worth anything? The most absurd idea of all is that the Territorials can be trained after war has been declared. The Under-Secretary of State said that we should have 400,000 men to defeat 70,000 Continental troops. But he does not know that there will be only 70,000. Lord Haldane himself has put the number as high as 150,000. It would take 200,000 men to garrison our arsenals and various other places in Great Britain and Ireland, and you would have very few trained men left to put against even 70,000 Continental troops. What is the use of boys under nineteen years of age, who can neither march nor shoot, to stop trained Continental troops? There is no way of filling up the Territorial Force and of making it of any real use against sudden danger except that of compelling every man, rich and poor, to do from four to six months' preliminary training in the ranks. The men will then be trained before war breaks out, and not after; they will know their drill, and be able to shoot, before they enter the Territorial Force. The men of this country have to make up their minds either to serve or to perish; there is no other way. The Territorial Force at present is an absolute farce so far as defending the country against sudden danger is concerned. The hon. and gallant Member for South Monmouthshire (Sir Ivor Herbert) made a severe attack on the hon. Member for Hull, and rather suggested that my hon. Friend was suffering from swelled head. If suffering from swelled head means telling the truth, it is a little unfortunate that there are not more swelled heads on the other side of the House. I have always said that the Territorials were greatly to be praised for their patriotic efforts, but owing to their small numbers and inefficient training they are really no use for the purpose of defending us against serious invasion, and I believe that that is what they are supposed to be for.
    4.0 P.M.
    The hon. and gallant Member for South Monmouthshire said that the general officers showed the Territorials much sympathy. I agree. I think that perhaps
    976
    they overdo it. Sympathy will not manufacture efficiency nor win battles. General officers are in a very difficult position. They have not got any trade unions to protect them either. If the twenty-five leading generals of this country told the country what they really think of the Territorial Force it would be a revelation. Two general officers defined their position thus: "We are servants of the War Office; we are told that we must make the best we can of the Territorial Force; it is not for us to point out whether or not we consider compulsory training to be necessary for the safety of the country." Their mouths, therefore, are closed. They are quite unable to warn the country. The military correspondent of the "Times" is in just the same position. He is employed by the War Office. He has to be very careful what he says. I know that correspondent, but that is how it is that we cannot be told the truth. It is perfectly well known if an officer says anything against the War Office, such as advocating compulsory training, that he is punished in some way if the War Office can possibly manage it.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: So be ought to be!
    Mr. HUNT: Well, I will point out to the Noble Lord how far the War Office goes. I have a friend who used to speak for the National Service League. He told me himself that he had had to give it up, because an official high up in the War Office had told him that if he went on as he had been doing it would very seriously interfere with his brother's prospects of promotion in the Army.
    Colonel SEELY: Will the hon. Member give me the name of that officer?
    Mr. HUNT: I could not run the risk of having him punished.
    Colonel SEELY: It is an absurd mistake.
    Mr. HUNT: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely dead true. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman knows about it. General Ian Hamilton, hon. Gentlemen will remember, told us that his experience in the Russo-Japanese war had burnt into his mind that nothing but the best army would do. Yet he was the very general employed by Lord Haldane to publish a book backing up the untrained territorials. This general has

    977
    described the large numbers of men under universal compulsory training as a monstrous agglomeration of half-baked conscripts, although they would have had four to six months' continuous training before instead of after war had begun. He further said that these men would be no use against 70,000 Continental troops. About half a million of these men who had been trained and their reserves are no use. Yet 260,000 Territorials, who have had no continuous training, are to drive 70,000 Continental troops into the sea. The right hon. Gentleman, I dare say, will remember that he himself before he went over to the Radical party told us that although he had a seat to lose he was bound to say that universal compulsory military training was necessary for the sake of the country—
    Colonel SEELY: Will the hon. Member read the rest of the quotation; it is very germane to the points?
    Mr. HUNT: I am very sorry, I have not the rest of it here. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say in what way what I have quoted differs from the rest of the quotation? The whole Territorial scheme is a political fraud intended to prevent the people of this country from understanding their danger. The Secretary of State for War "tells the Territorials of Glasgow that they must give their lives for their country." At Wimbledon he said "that no man was worth anything if he was not prepared to risk his life for his home." I asked the Prime Minister the other day whether, in view of the failures of the Territorial Force in numbers and efficiency, he would agree with the Leader of the Opposition to make compulsory training a non-party question, and the right hon. Gentleman refused. The Government will not even give the people a fair chance of considering whether they will adopt the only plan which can make the Territorial Army of any real use. The Prime Minister is quite willing to leave it to the House of Commons to say whether or not we should have women's suffrage, and the franchise for women, he said, would be disastrous. Lord Haldane says that no man is worth anything who is not prepared to risk his life for his country. I wonder what the Government are worth who will not even risk losing a few votes, even if the Opposition are willing to do the same. Nothing could be more contemptible than that Ministers should put the interests of their party before the interests of their race, their country, and the Empire.
    978
    I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether or not it is the case that some men have to take their rifles over from other men whose time has expired, and whether it is the fact that these rifles, at all events in some cases, shoot so badly that the men who have taken the rifles lose nearly a third of their pay through no fault of their own? If the rifle does not shoot straight the man, as I understand it, suffers. I should like also to refer to the confidential reports of officers, and ask whether it is not now recognised that in some cases great injustice is done. Last Session I brought forward the case of Captain Bryce Wilson. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a series of questions which he could not answer, or did not attempt to answer. I want to put this point to him now. Here was a man who had been in the Army about twenty years, and had obtained continuous good reports from his various colonels. For two or three months then he comes under another colonel, and he gets an adverse report, and his prospects are ruined. What did he do? He went to New Zealand. The Prime Minister there refused to employ him because he had been turned out of his regiment on account of this confidential report from the colonel with whom he had only been for two or three months out of his twenty years in the Army.
    The War Office in this case broke their own regulations, as a copy of this confidential report was not shown to this officer till some months after it had been sent in. One of the reasons, given why this officer was turned out of his regiment was because "he had the nickname of 'Flash'—which aptly fitted him." It was a peculiar reason to give. Neither the Secretary for War nor I would have any chance of staying in our places if we were to be turned out because we had a nickname. The officer had no chance either of an open inquiry or a court-martial, though he begged for one or the other. You cannot expect to get officers for the Army when their careers can be ruined by one man without any chance of their defending themselves, An alien murderer or a foreign spy has every chance of defending himself, but a British officer of twenty years' good service has none, and you wonder that you cannot get officers! You will not get them, and you will not deserve to get them, if that is the way you are going to treat them. You are endeavouring to give the miners something like a

    979
    minimum wage of 7s. per day. You give a subaltern 5s. 6d. a day, and that officer has got to keep up a position as an officer. If any of the hon. Members on the Labour benches ever become officers I hope that they will put pressure upon the War Office to raise the pay of the officers to something like a reasonable amount. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his attention, and I hope he may be able to give some reply to the things I have ventured to bring forward. I do think the military forces of this country at the present time are in a very, very unsatisfactory state. They are getting worse, admittedly they are going downhill, and the Government are doing really nothing to put things right.
    Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON: I think it is difficult to recognise the Territorial Force under the description to which we have just listened. Anything more unlike reality I can hardly conceive. I should have thought that it was undoubted to any unprejudiced mind that, compared with the old Volunteer Force, immense progress has been made. No responsible person will deny it. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down speaks of his friendship with the military correspondent of the "Times." I could wish that he had given a more conclusive answer to the very valuable arguments of one who is, after all, I suppose, the first military writer in Europe. I doubt whether the case for the Territorial Force could have been better put than it has been put by the military correspondent of the "Times," and we have as yet had no sufficient answer to that case. I cannot help thinking if some of those, who evidently are inspired by genuine zeal to strengthen the defences of the country, would only throw half the energy into developing the Territorial Force that they show in attacking it, it would be on a sounder footing than I admit it is, and it would be larger in number. It is somewhat short in numbers at the present moment. I doubt whether the original estimate of what is required is sufficient, but I am satisfied of this, that it will not be by the methods suggested in the speech to which we have just listened that the force we are asked to provide will have its ranks properly filled up.
    I did not rise to go into the general question of the Territorial Force, but to ask one or two questions on certain specific points and to make one or two observations on the finances of the Territorial
    980
    Force. The establishment Grant is not altogether satisfactory; it may be sufficient in populous centres like London or in great cities like Glasgow and elsewhere, but it is not a sufficient Grant when applied to scattered towns. You may have a county with a dozen drill halls in it, and in these conditions the Grant is insufficient. I should say, on the other hand, that the clothing Grant was sufficient; some of the Grants are sufficient, others are not when applied to certain, conditions. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take note of that. I could give full particulars, but I do not wish to detain the House. I take another point, that of the pay of the secretaries to the associations. A large sum of money, voted for the Territorial Force, has been returned to the Treasury; I think that to some extent shows the good management of the secretaries of the associations. I think they have done remarkably well. At the beginning they were paid on an absurdly low scale. I remember in one county the allowance was £72 for the secretary of the Territorial Association. The Lord Lieutenant of the county said he thought he knew a man for the job. He had been through the war, took an intelligent interest in the Territorial movement, and was in every way qualified, but as he was a stone-breaker on a certain road he did not think he would throw up his appointment to take it. In another county the local road contractor was paid £75 a year, whereas the secretary to the Territorial Association was paid £72. These scales of pay are now somewhat increased, but they are not yet sufficient, and I am satisfied that, both for the pay of the secretary and the staff and for the locomotion of the secretary, a more liberal allowance should be made in view of the admirable work done in every case by secretaries. In many cases the success, of the movement depends upon the secretary, and larger provision should be made for secretaries and their staffs. Secretaries of associations may be of great help as regards a better Reserve, and I think the War Office should do more to promote the more generous success of this movement. In some centres it has led to admirable results. In many counties it has not as yet been taken up at all. One of the counties with which I am connected has not enrolled a single man; the other county was in much the same position, but the secretary of the association took it up, I became a district officer and co-operated with him, and we have now 500

    981
    men in my district and 1,100 in the county. We have classified them and we find that 59 per cent. are fit for the firing line, 22 per cent. are fit for the lines of communication, and about 18 per cent. are no good for anything except that their moral influence as old and respected members of the old Volunteer and Militia forces has immense influence in stimulating recruiting, both for the first and second lines of defence. To get these veterans together and to get the whole association of the county divided into its areas with a proper officer for each, some organisation for rifle range practice and evening entertainments and affiliation with the Territorial headquarters, led to our having a very great reserve strength. We have traced all these men who have been in the Army, many of them first-rate fighting men who have been entirely lost sight of by the War Office, and that is the only way you can secure their services at a moment's notice; and to affiliate them to recreation rooms of the Territorial system is one of the ways where you can render to the Territorial Force great service and certainly provide additional reserve strength for the country in case of need.
    I think there is no doubt that with the National Reserve, with the Red Cross Society and Cadet Corps system, the difficulties in the way of recruiting the Territorials should disappear by degrees, and recruiting would be stimulated if we could have a system of compulsory continuation classes in physical training. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not mean continuation classes in compulsory military training. I do not believe in it; I think the true spirit of voluntary service has never been set forth better than by Lord Roberts, Chief of the Staff, Colonel Henderson—"Stonewall Jackson." It is the spirit of voluntary service that has animated our troops in the past, and that will always continue to animate them and make them the finest troops in the world. I do not believe in compulsory service, because I think it is unsuited to the circumstances of this country, but I think if you could establish in the towns for young persons of from fourteen to seventeen years of age compulsory physical training, both for boys and girls alike, and in the case of the boys some military training as well, it would be an enormous advantage to the youth of this country and would be a considerable stimulus to recruiting for the Territorial Force. That I believe in, and would support as readily as I would oppose compulsory military service.
    982
    I have been led into these things by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who preceded me, for I rose only to put two definite points to the right hon. Gentleman which I believe to be of great importance to the second line of defence. I think, in order to organise a Veteran Reserve, there should be advisory officers appointed who would go round the country and put the case of the Reserves to those associations who have not as yet taken it up. There are associations who think it interferes with the recruiting of the Territorial Force. I think they are absolutely wrong, but that impression does prevail, and it is greatly stimulated by such views as those expressed by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Rowland Hunt). A great number of associations feel somehow or other they are not doing the right thing in developing a National Reserve. I think it could be very easily shown that that movement does not in the least interfere with the Territorial movement, but, on the contrary, strengthens it.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I should like to bring before the Committee the facts as produced by the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War as to his ideas as to what should constitute an efficient rifle. If he is going to build a rifle with the points in the order of seniority that he has mentioned, I think I can prove, both by fact and experience, and out of his own mouth, he will not have an efficient rifle. I joined the Service fifty-three years ago. I joined with the muzzle-loading rifle; I went through with the Snyder, the Martini-Henri, the Lee-Metford, the Lee-Enfield, and the Magazine rifle. I myself have been personally drilled in all these; I have fired many thousands of rounds, and my responsibilities have been to teach men under my command to fire. I have also had great experience of machine-guns in action. I mention these things to the Committee to show the reasons why I think the right hon. Gentleman is not sound in his argument as to what a rifle should be. What do we teach the men to do? Directly you have a sight which is a mechanical contrivance to enable a man in the rear of a gun or a rifle to get the object, we always teach our men that they must get their sights in order to hit; you may have one or two natural shots in a regiment or on a ship, but you have to think of the hundreds of thousands of men you have to drill, and to put them into possession of some definite knowledge and to teach them what to do when they

    983
    meet the enemy, and that is to hit the enemy. The only possibility you have of teaching your men how to carry out that action is to teach them to fire with their sights, and not to fire without their sights. That is the principle of gunnery and the rifle, as every hon. Gentleman will agree. The right hon. Gentleman has put reliability first; there I entirely agree. That means there should be no mechanical failures, that when you press the trigger the rifle should fire, that it should not jam, foul, or get hot, and, possibly, that it should be strong enough to stand the campaign. That is reliability. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that is entirely a manufacturer's question, and has nothing to do with the men in the field. The first point that is important to the man in the field is to enable him to hit his object when he fires. I put reliability out of the case, because it is a question of Manufacture.
    Colonel SEELY: Surely the Noble Lord will admit that if it comes first it is most vital. It is not a matter of the real merits of our rifle; it is a matter of the relative merits of our rifle compared with those of other Powers.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: There I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I put reliability first. That is, to ensure that the rifle, when sighted, does go off when fired and does not jam. But when you have the rifle you have to teach your men how to hit the enemy. The right hon. Gentleman put rapidity as his next point, and he says that in regard to this rapidity our rifle is quite as good as the other Powers.
    Colonel SEELY: Twice as good.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: But what is the use of rapidity if you do not hit the object? The right hon. Gentleman was asked about his tests, and he stated that he had all his tests made at 600 yards. Anybody who has been in action, or who has studied action, knows that you are not going to bring infantry together within 600 yards, and, therefore, that is no test whatever. You ought to test at distances between 800, 1,000 and 1,200 yards, and that is where you will find a great loss of accuracy.
    Colonel SEELY: No; that is where our accuracy is even greater, and at 1,500 yards it is remarkably superior to the enemy's rifle.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Then the right hon. Gentleman certainly misled the Committee. We asked him what the test was, and he said his tests, were taken at 600 yards. Has the right hon. Gentleman tested the long and the short rifle at 1,500 yards?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes. I do not want the Noble Lord to damage his own case, but I wish to point out that my hon. Friend gave figures showing the extraordinary success of our rifle at 1,500 yards. The further you go off and the greater the range the greater the advantage in accuracy of our rifle.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Was that a rifle fixed in a rest?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I am talking of a great body of men in action, and when a man fixes the rifle in a rest to test it it is a very different thing. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman puts rapidity next, but I put trajectory, which the right hon. Gentleman underrates, as the first necessity after reliability, and I will give my reasons for this. If a rifle has a low trajectory it can be fired at 500, 600, 700, or 800 yards, and even up to 1,000 yards, without altering the sight, and that is the whole point. I remember when in India I had a sporting rifle and I killed a deer at 60 yards, and I afterwards killed a pig at 140 yards, and the sights were on both times, because it had a flat trajectory. No other principle is a good one. The right hon. Gentleman says we have an enormous overwhelming advantage in rapidity, but that is no advantage at all unless you can hit the object. I see the hon. Member for Monmouth, who was an old colleague of mine in the Soudan, and I think he will agree with me when I say that this question of rapidity can be overdone. I remember my hon. Friend being attacked by a tremendous number of men, and I remember the order being given to "Cease fire!" and then he made them fire in volleys. That steadied the men, and they got their sights on. At Abu Klea I had command of a machine gun, and I loaded and fired it myself. When I got my sights on the enemy they fell by fives and twenties and thirties; in fact, they fell over each other. Supposing I had gone on firing when I did not see them fall? That would have been a waste of ammunition. I noticed that they fell again until the gun jammed. That is rapidity of fire. I heard an hon. Member speak about the

    985
    automatic rifle, and he stated that it would waste ammunition. Just the same thing was said about the breech-loader, but it is a mistake to think you want to fire 300 rounds a minute. What you want to be capable of doing is when the sights are on to fire ten rounds at the rate of 300 rounds a minute. Soldiers who can keep the automatic rifle to their shoulder the same as the ordinary rifle and keep on firing ten rounds a minute when they have got their sights on would be absolutely certain of winning. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office are working away to get the automatic rifle as soon as they can. With regard to accuracy, may I point out that you cannot have accuracy if your sights have to be altered between 500 and 800 yards. You have accuracy when you have a rifle with a flat trajectory that will stop the enemy or hit the target at 500 yards or 800 yards, and the same is applicable to the stopping power of the rifle. I should have much more confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's rifle if he would agree that the first and most important thing is the flat trajectory, for the reasons I have given.
    Colonel SEELY: No.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I agree that the first and foremost necessity is to get a flat trajectory rifle for the Army, because all other things are subservient. The rapidity, accuracy, and stopping power came behind the flat trajectory, which gives a man the opportunity of firing up to 1,000 yards without altering his rifle. On the other points I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but they are not so important as lightness and durability. A rifle roust have all the points he mentions, but where I disagree with 'him is that he puts trajectory fifth and the other points before it. I wish to emphasise the question of getting the sights on. Take the case of a heavy gun. In this case you have every mechanical contrivance in order to get the sights on. If I am firing with a heavy gun at a ship 3,000 yards away going twenty knots, when I look along the gun it would not be pointing to the ship at all, but the sights would be on. If you get the man to fire his rifle when his sights are on he gets a much better chance if he has a flat trajectory from 500 yards to 800 yards. All these mechanical arrangements on rifles and guns are intended to enable a man to get a sight on no matter what other influences there are to act against him. You will always have the personal error, but even
    986
    that is minimised with a flat trajectory, and you should teach men to aim at the target and aim at the bull's-eye. The right hon. Gentleman said they must aim low, but the first thing a bluejacket who was instructed in that way would say would be, "How low?" You must teach, him to do something definite, because you have men of different abilities, and they all form part of that great fighting machine, the British Infantry. The main armament of the British Army is the rifle, therefore you have to do your level best to obtain the best rifle you can, and you have to teach your men, whether they are intelligent or not, a definite point, and that is to fire when their sights are on. Once more I maintain, and I am not ashamed to repeat it, that a man who has a rifle with a flat trajectory who has not to alter his sight at the distances I have mentioned is in an infinitely better position than the man who has to alter his sight after every two or three rounds. The right hon. Gentleman said that high trajectory was an element, though not the most important element.
    Colonel SEELY: And I think the Noble Lord agrees with that.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: No, I do not agree with that. What I want is a low trajectory. I want a flat trajectory.
    Colonel SEELY: At any rate the Noble Lord agrees that reliability comes first and trajectory second.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I said reliability is a question for the manufacturer, and I agree that trajectory comes second. The two most important points are rapidity and accuracy, and you cannot have them unless the sights are on. The right hon. Gentleman says that a soldier would say, "Bother your trajectory, give me a rifle that shoots the straightest." That is a very clever soldier, but give Mm a rifle with a flat trajectory which hits at 800 yards and put alongside him another man, who has to alter his sight at 500 yards, and you will soon see which trajectory is the best and which shoots the straightest. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain how he makes a rifle which has to be altered at 500 yards shoot straighter than a rifle which can be fired at any distance from 400 to 1,000 yards. He says trajectory is not of paramount importance, and he says that in trajectory Continental Powers have the advantage. If that is so,

    987
    and if foreign Powers have a better trajectory, they have the advantage of having a rifle that will shoot straighter, better, and quicker than ours, because they have not to alter their sights. I do not care one fig about the right hon. Gentleman's tests made in a screw jack with a master gunner behind it with every class of mechanical contrivance. He says a low trajectory is an advantage if it is unaccompanied by other and greater disadvantages. Will the right hon. Gentleman let us know what are the other and greater disadvantages?
    Colonel SEELY: I have explained them already.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not mind explaining them again. Now I come to where I have got the right hon. Gentleman entirely on my side, as I can prove out of his own mouth. I expect to see him blush when I mention it. He said this, and he felt it, and meant it, and was honestly sympathetic when he said it:—
    "We suffered a series of disasters we are not likely to forget; they burnt themselves into the mind of every soldier employed in the Boer war."
    He then went on to say:—
    "These disasters were all caused by rifle fire."
    His next sentence was:—
    "The reason was the Boers had a trajectory very much lower than ours."
    Colonel SEELY: I did not say that was the reason. I could not possibly have said that.
    Lord C. BERESFORD (reading from the OFFICIAL REPOBT):—
    "We suffered a series of disasters which we are not likely to forget; they burnt themselves into the mind of every soldier, and all those disasters were caused by rifle fire. The Government of the day—"
    I left this out, because I did not want to make it a party question, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have mentioned it. His argument was that the Government of the day knew all this and did not alter the rifle. That is not the point. Do drop this party business. What we want is to get the best rifle now. If our Government knew that and did not after the rifle, they were to blame.
    Colonel SEELY: No, I said they were not.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Well, I cannot make head or tail of what the right hon. Gentleman means.
    Colonel SEELY: Read on.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Very well.
    "The Government of the day set about putting our house in order, and they said they would spend whatever sum was necessary to give our men the best rifle. They knew very well that the Boer rifle had a trajectory very much lower than ours."
    Colonel SEELY: Read on.
    Lord C. BERESFORD:
    "Yet, after all this talk—"
    Well, the talk seems to be on both sides of the House. Do not you talk on the other side, and do nothing? What we want is to have the best rifle put into the hands of our small Army. How many pages does the right hon. Gentleman want me to read?
    "Yet, after all this talk, and with the fullest determination, the party then in power decided not to spare a copper in providing the best rifle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1912, col. 447.]
    That is in the book.
    Colonel SEELY: I think the Noble Lord must really see what I was endeavouring to show. I pointed out that the Government of the day deliberately chose a rifle which did not give so low a trajectory as that of the Boer rifle, because they thought other elements were more important, and I finished by saying, I believed the Government of the day were right in adopting the advice of their then advisers. I made no party point of it. I think so still. They did not think the trajectory the most important nor did their advisers, nor do we now.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I am prepared to knock that into a cocked hat. What did Lord Haldane say two years ago? He said:—
    "We shall never have a proper rifle till we get one that will stand greater pressure on the breech."
    What did he mean by that? He meant a greater initial velocity and a flatter trajectory, and that is what you have been working at ever since. Lord Haldane knows it, and every man who has ever fired a rifle knows that a flat trajectory is an advantage over a high trajectory.
    Colonel SEELY: Hear, hear.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: It is an advantage with a heavy gun, with the rifle, and with the sporting gun. What the right hon. Gentleman wants the men to do is to chance. He says they must shoot low. You must aim at the middle of the target. That allows for little personal errors. You want your men to shoot with

    989
    the rifle the same as we shoot with a sporting gun. If you aim at a bird with a sporting gun along the top of the barrel, you miss it. You will go behind it. Your eye does it. In Ireland we are very good at throwing a stone. We throw a stone to hit a man on the point of his nose, or else to break a lamp, and it is all done with the eye. It is absolutely different from shooting with the rifle, and you have no right to have a trajectory which means that you have to alter your sight, or that when you fire the bullet it does not hit the target. A low trajectory gives you an enormous advantage over a high trajectory. I have said already that the first nation that gets an automatic rifle whereby men can put the rifle to the shoulder, get the range, and fire five or six rounds running before he recharges, will enable a soldier, if he is a good shot and if the sights are right, and he fires to the proper alignment, to stop ten men while I am speaking. It is very important, as we have got a small Army, and an Army that is very efficient—that is the Regular Army—that we should get the best rifle, and if possible get it before other nations. Get that rifle and you have another element making for peace. There is nothing that could secure peace for a nation better than if it gets a good automatic rifle, and gets it first. We have the same rifle both for the Army and the Navy. The officers in the Navy used to practice considerably more with the rifle than the officers in the sister service. I do not know whether that is so now, but I mention it merely as some claim for taking up the time of the Committee.
    There is one other point I want to bring forward. I wish Lord Haldane would not make statements which are not according to facts. He says naval men laugh when Lord Roberts' name is mentioned. I say deliberately that is not a fact. There is not a single naval man who is worth his salt who has not the greatest respect for Lord Roberts. His opinions are second to none, if you count experience. Of course, if you count quill-driving at a table, perhaps his experience is not so good. His experience, his dictum, and his reasons with regard to the Army are very valuable to the country. I do not say the Government of the day is to take all that he says, but his reasons and statements should never be laughed at. I say with considerable emphasis that statement with regard to naval officers is not a fact. There is another question which, I think, is of paramount importance, and that is the ques-
    990
    tion of the editor of the "Army Annual." I am not going to blame the editor. I know him very well. He is one of the cleverest men we have got. He is one of the best writers of military history in any country in the world. He is extremely clever, and he would be very valuable in any position in which the Government could employ him. Neither do I blame the "Times" newspaper. I blame the Government very much for this position. It is a position which is unbearable, and this House should not allow it.
    5.0 P.M.
    I will give my reasons. The "Times" is our leading journal. It has immense influence abroad. I have lately been to Germany, and I can assure the Committee a great many people in Germany were more irritated and more angry at that article on the German Army last autumn than at any other single thing said in this country, in the House, out of the House, or in the Press. As one distinguished officer said to me, "What would your people at home say if it were stated here that the British Navy was rotten, or words which meant that? They would be very angry, and so are we." The danger is not so much in that article. It is this. Abroad, and especially in Germany, that great newspaper is regarded as the official organ of the Government. [A laugh.] I am sure the hon. Member laughs because it is so absurd, but I am sure he will agree with me that if other people abroad think it is so it is a very great danger, and they do think so abroad. The correspondent that wrote that is an official at the War Office, and he is receiving pay, and has got a room there. I maintain that the War Office, having a man of that description, of undeniable ability, should pay him properly, and keep him there if he is to be the editor of the "Army Annual." His ability is his danger. If you have him writing for a public journal, and giving men the character he gave men in October, it will cause this irritation and provocation in Germany, which we all want to stop. If that is the case—and I can assure the House it is the case—the position of this gentleman should be altered. He should be either one thing or the other, and not both. It reminds me of the old days, which this House will very well remember, when from 1902 to 1909 we had a Press Bureau at the Admiralty. The country was bolstered up and fed up with all sorts of statements about reform. The public were misled. It was a mistake; it is a mistake, and it must be a mistake to have anything of that character in the Press.

    991
    The Cabinet is responsible, and the Cabinet must make these statements. There must be none of these side-issues and statements in the Press which, it is inferred, come from the Government. They are nothing but bad, and they prejudice public interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull (Mr. Mark Sykes) spoke about officers' reputation, and I can quite understand the almost angry remarks of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire, a distinguished colleague of mine in the Soudan. It had nothing to do with the officers' reputations. I agree with everything he said. What did he say? He said that officers on full pay had no right to contribute to the Press, and that they had no right to write and praise the Government, for that was every bit as bad as if they wrote and blamed the Government. If an officer criticised its authority he was, metaphorically, "on the beach," and he deserved to be. No man on full pay should do otherwise than obey orders. He might represent to those in authority that their orders were bad, but he had no right to say so to the public, otherwise he destroyed the Cabinet responsibility. I blame the Government for this. They have brought in experts to write and give opinions both on Army and Navy matters. The expert should give his opinion to the Government, for the Government is responsible, and no expert should break through old traditions, for that is bad for the Service and prejudicial to discipline. It is worse, because if a man who praises the Government gets an appointment, or a decoration or honour, it is apt to be put down to the fact that he did praise the Government, and it is a great deal worse than if he threw blame on the Government. The whole principle is unsound. I hope it will not in the future be encouraged by the Front Bench, and that we shall hear no more of it.
    A distinguished officer praised the Government, and a gallant general sitting below the Gangway said it was unfair, on the part of my hon. and gallant Friend behind me, to use strong remarks about that officer, who had written a book while on full pay, and that it was unfair because the officer could not reply. What an absurd reason! He wrote on a controversial question, on which more than half the Army disagreed with him, and because somebody called attention to the gross impropriety of his having done so the reply was, "Don't touch the man; he cannot
    992
    reply." Of course he cannot reply. Every officer on full pay should keep his mouth, shut and his pen dry. Of all the jobs ever perpetrated in or out of this House, or in any country, the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief of the Military Forces in the Mediterranean was the biggest. It was both unnecessary and expensive. I cannot describe it in better words than those used by my hon. Friend—it was absolutely rotten; there was no reason for it at all. Of course, if people make speeches or write books in praise of the Government who employs them, and then get some appointment or decoration, officers and men put that down to the fact that the speeches have been made and the books written. I believe I have with me, in this particular, the sentiment of the whole House. Officers should simply obey orders. If they express opinions they are private opinions, which should be addressed to the Cabinet and to nobody else. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will assure the House that something is going to be done with regard to the editor of the "Army Annual," and that something will be done to prevent officers in either of the Services writing either in praise or in blame of the authority that is over them.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I do not propose to deal with one question that has been so eloquently, and I might almost say so perfectly, dealt with by the Noble Lord who has just spoken with reference to the proposal for the new rifle. I take it for granted that those who have used the rifle are quite satisfied that it meets the necessities of the case and that it is an efficient weapon for warfare. Unquestionably, as the Noble Lord explained, a flat trajectory is one of the most essential features in any weapon of that description. There was, however, one statement that the Noble Lord made in reference to firing to which I should like to refer. He said that unless you could see your enemy or your target you should not fire. I think military history affords an exception to that, and shows that exactly the contrary course was successfully pursued in connection with the defence of Plevna by Osman Pasha. I believe it is a well-known fact-that Plevna was defended on entirely different lines to those laid down by the Noble Lord. The men were directed to fire at a high angle whether they could see the enemy or not, and I believe it is generally admitted by military experts that that was responsible for the success of the splendid defence made of that place.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The hon. Member is perfectly right about Plevna, but it was a peculiar case of an inclined plane. The rifles were directed at certain points in that inclined plane.
    Mr. J. WARD: I quite agree. Undoubtedly it is an immense advantage where you have to fire at a certain point, at two or three or four hundred yards, for the man to be able to drop his bullet at that particular point, and it may make all the difference between success or otherwise. Without being much of a soldier I confess I am interested in the rifle. But I and those who sit with me on these benches, who take any interest in either military or naval affairs, are, more interested in the men than in the rifle. We know experts ought to look after the rifle part of the business, and that it is our business to look after the interests of what is known as the "bottom dog." Ever since I have been in the House I have been obliged to bring forward, as a kind of hardy annual, one particular question. It rather reminds me of what has occurred at Congresses in the Labour movement. We used to bring forward propositions year after year, but eventually they became accomplished facts. First of all I object altogether to the attacks made, especially by the first hon. Member who addressed the House to-day, on the Territorial Force. I know it is not so much an attack on that Force. I know that hon. Members opposite are not so anxious to attack that Force, but that they do attack it with the idea of bolstering up another principle which comes behind, namely, the principle of compulsory military service. If it can be demonstrated that under the voluntary system you cannot get men to defend the country, that of course strengthens the claim for compulsory military service. But I look upon these attacks on the Territorial Force as sham attacks; they are largely fireworks. Those in favour of compulsory service realise how important it is that they should be able to prove that the Territorial Force is not effective for its purpose. Unless they are able to prove that they are not likely to be able to get the country to go the whole length of compulsory service. I take it for granted therefore that that is the main factor in the attacks levelled against the Territorial Force.
    MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINE: Is not the hon. Member aware that officers on this side of the House have done their
    994
    utmost to make the Territorial Force a success?
    Mr. J. WARD: I admit that, but there are those who believe that we have never had such an Auxiliary Force as we have now, and that the old Volunteer Force, disintegrated, unorganised, and lacking unity of purpose, as was the ease years ago, bears no comparison with the Territorial Army we have to-day. No one will pretend to deny that. For that reason I am prepared to assist it to the best of my ability. But in reference to this Force I resent, as I am sure many officers in the Territorial Army who have been previously officers in the Regular Army and have done active service also resent, these constant attacks, and I would suggest to the Opposition that it will be much more effective if they fight this question of compulsory military service on grounds apart altogether from the question of the efficiency or otherwise of the Territorial Army. I admit that as long as you are not able to attack the Territorial Force there is a screen between you and compulsory military service, and that it is necessary for you to beat down that screen before you will be able to get the country converted to your ideas in favour of compulsory military service. I am not so enamoured of the Regular Army after all. I have read a little of the history of wars, not merely of our own country's wars, but wars in the world generally, and, so far as I can see, there is no clear case in the whole history of the world where, when citizens have taken up arms in land fighting, with an idea behind them, they have not won. I wish the whole context of my observations to be understood. When a citizen takes up arms in land fighting, with an idea behind him, and tumbles up against the Regular soldiers, there is no known instance in the history of military warfare where the trained soldier has not gone down before the citizen. [An HON. MEMBER: "How about the Boer war?"] I am not going to talk about the Boer war. I merely say there is no known instance where the citizen in such a case has not beaten the Regular soldier, and I throw that out for the consideration of those who are so fond of pretending and trying to convince the people of this country that it is utterly impossible for them to defend the country. I think it was the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Shropshire who stated that if you were not prepared to train your conscripts you were not in a position to defend. The idea is that no man can defend his

    995
    country unless he is a fully-equipped and trained conscript soldier, but I repeat there is nothing in the history of the great conflicts of the world to justify any such contention.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Does the hon. Member remember the case of the franc tireurs in the Franco-Prussian war?
    Mr. J. WARD: That is an entirely different question, which has nothing to do with the proposition I am putting forward. I quite agree that a Regular Army treats with scant courtesy the citizens who take to soldiering during a war, and I admit that in certain circumstances it has a right to do so. That is nothing to do with my contention that so far as the history of war is concerned, in land fighting, it is not the Regular soldier who is so certain of being able to defend his country as the free and independent citizen. [Interruption.]
    The CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to hon. Members that they should not pursue this question too far, as it is not relevant to the Estimates of this particular year.
    Mr. J. WARD: Acting on your advice, Sir, I will leave that subject, and I will proceed to the other point on which I wish to address the Committee. I notice in the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for War, explaining the Estimates, there are references made to the supply of officers. I notice there is still a shortage in the supply of officers of a very large amount. All sorts of suggestions have been made to meet this, for instance, with regard to new buildings at Sandhurst and the number of new cadets that might be found accommodation here and there. I venture to put forward, for I think the sixth time in this House, another channel by which I think the Army could be supplied with officers without all the paraphernalia and expense suggested by the building of these establishments. I know it is a sore point between myself and the officers on the other side as to whether a private soldier, the ranker, the man who has joined the Army as one of the ranks, and who has become a non-commissioned officer, say anything up to a sergeant-major or colour-sergeant, should become a commissioned officer. My suggestion has always been that these vacancies should be filled by these men. It has been suggested from the other side on several occasions, that for some reason or other
    996
    the ranker does not like a ranker officer, but the ranker's opposition to a ranker officer is as nothing compared with the opposition of the ordinary officers to the ranker officer. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] A similar demonstration against that proposition has taken place, on each of the five previous occasions that I have brought the matter forward, and I suppose it will continue to the end.
    So far as we here are concerned in voting the supplies for an efficient fighting service, the good wishes or bad wishes of either the present commissioned officers or of the rankers ought not to weigh with us for one moment. The question for us to decide is whether in the non-commissioned ranks there is the material to fill these vacancies. I know the ranker's opposition to a ranker officer. He would much prefer to have an ignorant or an idle officer over his regiment than a fellow who has been through the ranks, who knows every trick of the trade, and who cannot possibly be deceived. That is really an argument in favour of the ranker officer, because it is a moral certainty that if you are going to have a real fighting machine then the man who has been through the ranks, and who knows the whole business from beginning to end, and who knows the tricks by which the ordinary officer is occasionally and very often deceived—sometimes, of course, he turns a blind eye, as he ought to do occasionally, to the offences of the men under him—is the man who ought to be made an officer if it is efficiency and strict and proper discipline in the Army that we are really aiming at. If you take the whole of our non-commissioned officers, from the corporals to the sergeant-majors throughout the British Army, any man who has the impudence to stand up here and say that we could not find 2,000 or 3,000 of the finest officers that could be got in any army in the world from within those ranks, really does not know what he is talking about. I know it is suggested that what we should do first of all is to raise the pay of the officer to such an extent as to allow the ranker a chance of becoming an officer. I say that what we had better do first of all is to give the ranker the chance of becoming an officer, and to make such provisions in the King's Regulations or the Army Annual Act by which we can give the common soldier a chance to rise from the ranks. I venture to say that the Army would be entirely changed, and that the character of the ranker would be entirely changed.

    997
    No man among the working classes joins the Army now unless he is compelled to do so by his economic circumstances. Rarely does a man join the Colours because he hopes to succeed in that direction. He knows that there is not a ghost of a chance for him to succeed at all. All the men among the working classes who want some kind of profession of this description are thereby absolutely tabooed, for the simple reason that there is no chance for them to succeed. All they can hope for is to become a sergeant-major, and there is a thousand to one chances against that. If it were understood that every man who joins the Army, provided he can show ability—I do not want a man to be promoted whether he has ability or not, although I fear that is the case now—if you were to offer to every recruit who joined the Army an equal opportunity with others, provided he could prove himself to be capable of taking a commissioned position, if it were given to him as a right, instead of a privilege, as it is to-day, I venture to say that the whole character of even the ordinary ranks of the Army would be changed from what it is. There are cases to which I have already drawn attention. For instance most officers on the other side will agree that the Gymnastic Training Corps of the Army is one of the best in the country at the present time. There are men there who have been training other officers for years. I believe they are thoroughly efficient in every way. What happens now? Very often a young officer comes down to be trained by these men, and after they have put him through the mill for from four to six months, and made him a competent man, he will be put over them at once and given a commissioned position, while the men who trained him have no chance whatever to get to that position, no matter how competent they may be. Things like that are positively disgraceful. If you really want a better class of men to join the Regular Forces, you must give a chance to the ranker which is not given to him at the present time.
    In connection with that I have a complaint to make against the present Government. If one looks at the Returns relating to the number of commissions that have been given to those who have served in the ranks, one will see there was a great rise from about 1899 to 1903–4. Since 1905 the proportion has fallen off, and it is falling continuously, and yet Lord Haldane came down, and now the Under-
    998
    Secretary comes down here to tell me how much they sympathise with the ranker, and agree that he ought to be given a chance. But that is only one day in the year. For the other 364 days they are planning ways to prevent his getting a chance. During the last three or four years they have actually closed up one or two important channels of promotion for men from the ranks. We are often asked to model ourselves on the Swiss system. I think the commander-in-chief of the Swiss Army keeps a chandler's shop in Zurich. I know that when I was shown over the country for the purpose of studying the military conditions there, I was taken to a depot, where certain men who had been refused by their ordinary officers permission to go into the officers' training corps to prove their ability to become commissioned officers in the Swiss Army had, after appealing to the Canton Government—which every private soldier in Switzerland has a right to do—been appointed over and above the heads of those officers who did not wish them to be appointed. We have nothing of that kind here. Even if the Government wanted a man who was a non-commissioned officer to be offered a commission, I believe the Regulation is such that that could not occur unless the colonel of his regiment, or some other officer, agreed to recommend him. There is another bar, a personal bar, a bar that has nothing to do with the efficiency of the man at all.
    Sir. R. POLE-CAREW: Will the hon. Member tell us, as the colonel is not to recommend a man for promotion, who is the responsible person who should recommend him?
    Mr. J. WARD: I would have no recommendation at all. I know quite well that the officer wants to maintain his ascendancy over all his men, and I quite agree that that is an important power. If the chief commanding officer or the colonel of his regiment can prevent a man, by his mere will and whim, from rising, that places that man under him, and he has a control over him that he would not possess if there were some outside body who could test the ability of that man. In the Swiss Army if a common soldier thinks that he has the ability—I know officers do not think, as a rule, that soldiers should have any brains at all—he does not apply to the colonel at all. He applies to the Cantonal Government for a position as a commissioned officer. The Cantonal Government itself, whether the commanding officer of

    999
    the regiment recommends him or not, can put that man's abilities to the test by examination, and if they consider that he has the ability to hold a commissioned position they can appoint him to some regiment as a commissioned officer, independent of whether the colonel likes it or not. It is something of that kind that we want in this country. We do not want the chances of a private soldier who has native ability to rise from the ranks to a commissioned position, to be left entirely to the whim of his commanding officer. There should be some machinery set up, and it should be understood that the man has the right in case of his commanding officer refusing—perhaps it would be well to allow the commanding officer to recommend him—to appeal. There should be some independent body to test the ability of the man, and that is what I have been asking for for the last five or six years, and I shall continue to ask for it until at least some progress is made along the road I have suggested.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: I do not agree with all the hon. Member's remarks in reference to commissions from the ranks, but I think there is room for a great many more commissions to be given from the ranks than are given at present. Some years ago, at the time alluded to by the hon. Member, the number of commissions given from the ranks was diminished very largely, and certainly there are not, in my opinion, enough commissions given from the ranks, and I quite agree with him to that extent that there are plenty of men in the Army who could safely be given commissions, and whose presence as officers would be welcomed by the ranks. The case is not quite so bad as he stated it. After all, the head of the Staff College, General Robertson, is a ranker, and several other distinguished officers came from the ranks. In these Army Estimates there is the name of General Luke O'Connor, V.C., who was Sergeant Luke O'Connor. There are many other officers who have risen from the ranks. To my mind, the hon. Member's remarks in reference to officers not wishing the men to use their intellect and all that sort of thing only shows that the hon. Member has no real idea of what the relations between officers and men of the Army are. At any rate, he made a very strong appeal to the Undersecretary to increase the number of commissions from the ranks, and, as far as that goes, I am entirely with him.
    1000
    I wish to say a few words in reference to the remarks of the Under-Secretary when he made a somewhat vicious attack on the Leader of the Opposition in introducing the Estimates. He assured us, as regards the reliability of the rifle, that our rifle was very much superior to that of other nations. I do not know how he arrives at that fact, because, after all, to use his own words, they are not all fools. The German nation, the French nation, the American nation, and the Austrian nation are not likely to have a rifle which is unreliable. Then the right hon. Gentleman quoted the fact that in the South African war our rifle had been found to be very reliable, but, unfortunately, we were using a rifle which was not the rifle at present in use, and we were using a rifle which had ammunition which is not the ammunition which is going to be used now in our rifle, and that makes a very considerable difference. We are now about to use a pointed bullet with a higher charge in the same sort of a rifle. That entirely alters the situation, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot quote the Boer war as any sort of proof that our rifle with this new ammunition is going to be as reliable as that of other nations. In fact, were the rifle as reliable as that of other nations we should not be looking for a rifle with a larger and more powerful chamber, a better barrel and a stronger breech mechanism. Every other nation that is using these high-velocity charges with a small bullet is using a rifle, which is very much more powerful in all these three things, breech mechanism, chamber and barrel. If we are going to use our old rifle with this higher-charge ammunition it is extremely likely that we shall find it is not so reliable as the right hon. Gentleman states. It is a curious commentary upon his statement that on the very day he made that statement a command order was issued at Aldershol, withdrawing some of this very pointed bullet ammunition of which he was speaking. These rifles have not been in the hands of the troops using this new ammunition yet to any large extent, and before some of them have begun to fire with them one-half of the ammunition has to be withdrawn.
    As regards rapidity of firing, the right hon. Gentleman said we were twice as good as any foreign Power. I should like to ask how he arrived at that statement. To begin with, our rifle requires four motions to load, unload, and load again. You have to raise the lever, draw back the bolt, put it forward again and lower it again.

    1001
    Several of the rifles of foreign nations have what is called a straight pull, which consists only of two motions, one backward and the other forward. Obviously where you have only two motions as against four the rapidity of firing must be greater when you do not bring the rifle down from the shoulder. The Schmidt rifle of Switzerland, and several other rifles, the Mannlicher and our own Canadian Ross rifle, one of the best in the world, all have the straight pull, and they are therefore very much easier to fire when you are firing rapidly than is our rifle. I have shot with three of these rifles myself, and I know they are at least more rapid than ours. The Swiss rifle holds twelve cartridges in the magazine, as against our ten, and even although we have ten cartridges in the magazine as against the five which are in the magazine of nearly every other nation in the world, even our own musketry regulations lay down that the men are to load in clips of five at a time and not ten. Therefore as regards rapidity of fire I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's statements were at all correct. As regards accuracy, he stated that our rifle had been fired in competition with the rifles of other Powers, and that ours came out very much ahead of other nations. In these contests our rifle is a picked rifle out of many thousands manufactured in this country, and the rifles of foreign Powers are taken haphazard or obtained surreptitiously by our agents abroad or else obtained as a presentation copy from other nations. There is nothing like the same sort of choice, so that these contests as regards accuracy cannot be relied on at all. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Springfield rifle of the Americans or the Mauser, or even the Mannlicher, are not extremely accurate? Nearly all men who go in for big game shooting prefer the Mannlicher to any other small bore rifle; and as regards the Mauser, I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman's experience in the war would have told him that at any rate the .276 Mauser was a very accurate weapon. He himself quoted a case where he had been leading a horse and at 3,000 yards the horse was killed. That shows not only that the rifle is accurate, but also that it is a very bad thing to be led by the right hon. Gentleman.
    As regards stopping power, I should like to know how our rifle is superior to that of other nations. We know, for instance, that the striking energy of a
    1002
    modern rifle at 800 yards—I am quoting the Ross .280 rifle, one of the best in the world—is 845lbs., whereas the striking energy of even our converted rifle with the new ammunition is only 547 lbs. Everyone who has either been hit by a bullet in war or has seen other people hit knows perfectly well that it is not the size of the bullet which matters; it is the velocity and the striking energy. And where you have a rifle of infinitely greater striking energy than another, that rifle is going to have greater stopping power. I do not agree at all with the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. J. C. Lyttelton), who rather backed up some of the right hon. Gentleman's statements, because he said the German Spitze bullet could not have both penetration and stopping power. I had in my hand, the time he made his speech, a statement by a gentleman who was present at Woolwich, in 1909, when the German Spitze bullet was tried in competition with our old ammunition. What was the result? At 550 yards the Spitzer bullet went through the Maxim gun shield, whereas our rifle could not penetrate it at 300 yards. It does not look from that as if the power of penetration was wanting in the German Spitze bullet. As regards stopping power, everybody who has read about or seen the effects of the bullet knows that it turns over and tears a large hole. It tears so large a hole that it has been described as resembling the dum-dum bullet, which was introduced some years ago and afterwards prohibited by The Hague Convention. I am quite certain that the German nation would not keep their rifle for five minutes if there was anything wrong with it.
    I do not want to go into the question of the trajectory. I think the opinions put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the other day when he minimised the importance of the flat trajectory are against the opinions, not only of every soldier, but also of every nation, against what must be the experience of everybody, and must be against the real common sense and ordinary feeling of those who heard him. There can be no doubt at all that a flat trajectory is a tremendous point in a rifle. It is practically the main point, provided you have a fairly serviceable rifle in other matters. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a certain advantage in it if you did not know the range. The difficulty is that we do not know the range in actual warfare, and that is just the time when you want to have the flat trajectory. If

    1003
    that is not so, why has it been the effort of every single civilised nation to get a rifle with as flat a trajectory as possible? What is really felt is that our rifle is weak in mechanism, that it has a chamber which is not suited to the new ammunition, and that the barrel is not suitable for the new ammunition, so that it is wrong in these three most important points.
    The right hon. Gentleman has asked us not to make this a party matter. He does not think it should be a matter in Debate to embarrass the defence of this country. It is not, of course, a party matter, except in this way. We are obliged to look to the Under-Secretary, or whoever is responsible to this House, and to the Cabinet behind him, for seeing that our Army is properly armed. We do not think our Army is properly armed at the present time as regards the rifle, and we therefore bring these matters up in this House, as we have a perfect right to do, and as we think it is our duty to do. The Government, or rather the War Office, are aware that our rifle is not so good in certain particulars as that of other nations—we have that through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman himself—and they are looking for a rifle at the present time to take the place of the present weapon—one with a stronger breech action, a better barrel, a better chamber, a smaller bullet, a higher charge, and a flatter trajectory. I believe they have one in the experimental stage. The indictment against the Government is not that they are not looking for another rifle, but that they are not taking stops to have one manufactured quickly now, so as to get our Army rearmed. We know that there is no automatic rifle yet in sight. The Committee who reported on this matter said that no automatic rifle was in Right, and yet we are told the same story that an experimental rifle is being issued on a large scale for tests. This experimental rifle is apparently not manufactured in any quantities, for I notice that the amount allocated in the Estimates is something like £40,000 less than last year. It does not look as if we were going to manufacture that rifle on any large scale.
    As long as the Government do not take steps to manufacture a new rifle as rapidly as possible, so long shall we continue to attack them. The Army has taken in the past a long time to rearm. When we introduced the Lee-Metford of 1892, it took something like seven years to rearm the Army. I went with a regiment to Lady-
    1004
    smith which was armed with the Martini-Henry. I was adjutant of the regiment, and I arranged for the transfer of the Martini-Henry carbines to another arm. Seven years after that rifle was introduced part of our Army was still armed with the Martini-Henry. The carbines with which our men went on service were weapons with which they had never fired a shot. I say that that must never happen again. In 1903 we rearmed the Army with the Lee-Enfield rifle. The right hon. Gentleman told me himself that it took five years to rearm the Army with that rifle, and that it was six years before the Special Reserves were armed. The state of affairs therefore is this. In the past it has taken a very long time to rearm the Army, and the fault lies not so much with the War Office as with the Treasury and this House, because we do not sanction the amount of money necessary to carry out the rearming all at once. I would urge that the right hon. Gentleman should take steps to get a large sum of money appropriated by this House for the manufacture of the rifle on a large scale by every possible private factory and Government factory in the country, and that at the same time ammunition for the rifle should be manufactured, so that the whole Army could be rearmed at once. The danger is this. At present we have the Army armed with two different rifles, one sighted for a pointed bullet and the other sighted for a blunt bullet. The result is that we have a very chaotic condition of affairs if unfortunately we had to go to war at the present moment. It is quite true that the ammunition we have can be used with either rifle, but, of course, it must be obvious to all that to use ammunition with a rifle for which it is not sighted must have deplorable results. The right hon. Gentleman has invited us to go and see the new rifle, but he will not show it to us in the Tea Room here. The new rifle has an entirely different bore, and the old ammunition cannot be used for it. Consequently it is extremely important that the rearming should be done all at once, and that the ammunition should be ready for use and ready to issue. That can only be done if the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary will take the responsibility of coming to this House and saying they must have £2,000,000 for this purpose. I believe that is what it will cost. The last rearming cost £1,500,000. The whole indictment of the Government rests on that. We want to see them go ahead with the new rifle.
    Sir. SAMUEL SCOTT: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary a question with respect to the registration of horses. As the House is aware, during last Session an Amendment was made in the Army (Annual) Act giving the War Office power to enter anybody's stable and to register the horses, which in the event of mobilisation could be commandeered by the War Office. The War Office undertook this work, and so far as certain parts of London are concerned they have done it fairly efficiently. I wish to point out that a great hardship may be caused in connection with the registration of horses. In the first place, if you take one lot of horses, and they are replaced by the owners, there is no guarantee that these horses will not also be taken, for all horses are liable to be taken. I have one big firm in my mind in referring to this matter. I must remind the House that these are the firms which utilise the light draft horses of which there is a very great scarcity in this country, and which on mobilisation, will be most difficult to obtain for the Artillery and Army Service Corps. You will have no difficulty in finding horses for the Cavalry, but I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that there will be the difficulty in getting the horses of this class required to meet the wastage, and for mobilisation. In August last, when the war scare was on, the firm to which I refer was told that 90 per cent. of their horses were registered and would be suitable for taking on mobilisation. They wrote to the War Office and asked that some limit should be put upon the horses registered under the Act, as otherwise they would find it quite impossible, for business reasons which we can understand, to continue to keep their light draft horses, and would find it necessary to revert to motor traction. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this matter up—I have instanced one firm, but there are a large number of others in the same position—in order to encourage the use of light draft horses. I hope he will look into the matter, and see that each firm is told the exact number of horses that will be required from them on mobilisation, so that they will be able to know where they are, and to make arrangements accordingly.
    6.0 P.M.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) dealt at great length in his speech last week on the duties which fall to the Special Reserve, which I am sorry to say dwindles by some thousands every year. I wish to ask how many Special Reservists are allocated to go
    1006
    abroad with the Expeditionary Force, because I think the Return given some time ago showed that among the numbers left in England after the departure of the Expeditionary Force there will be only 55,000 Special Reservists, while according to the Army Estimates there will be some 61,000. I turn to the Territorial Force. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he did not pretend that he was satisfied, and he frankly appealed to those who have power to recruit the Territorial Force up to strength. I wonder has it ever struck the right hon. Gentleman that he will not obtain the necessary recruits by appeals of that sort nor by abuse of the National Service League, of which I am not a Member. Has it ever struck him that the greatest enemy to recruiting of the Territorial Force in this country is the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War? We all admire the right hon. Gentleman's tireless energy in travelling the country. If anybody worked out the figures of the large number of prize-givings to the various Territorials which he attends, it would be found that the right hon. Gentleman holds a record in attending these gatherings, which he makes over and over again the occasion of these appeals.
    What I think should be prevented is his habit of blowing hot one day and cold the next. At the prize-givings you will find that the same appeal is made by the Secretary of State for War, as by the hon. Member for Stoke, an appeal to the patriotism of all their hearers; but if we read the speech of Lord Haldane in the House of Lords we get quite another point of view. He goes down there to defend his policy and the Territorial Force, and he tells the House of Lords, in answer to Lord Roberts, that he has got plenty of men. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his Noble Chief forget from what classes they draw the Territorials. They draw them from the employed classes. Therefore it does not rest altogether with the individual man to join the Territorial Force. He may be willing, but his employer may be unwilling. You have two factors to deal with. First of all, you have to gain the man as a recruit, and then you have to gain over the employer. In these days, when business competition is so much keener and it is a very hard struggle for a large number of employers to make both ends meet, they are not likely to let their men go away and have a burden placed

    1007
    upon their own shoulders. Lord Haldane will not encourage those employers who perhaps would be willing to allow their men to join the Territorial Force if they considered the defences of the country required it, but are not willing to place an extra burden upon their business. Imagine what the feelings of the man must be who, when he wakes up in the morning and gets his paper, finds that after all, as the right hon. Gentleman said the other day we have 410,000 men left in this country against 70,000 invaders. I quite agree that if we have 410,000 men ready for the defence of the country things would not be in a bad state. I do not believe for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman ever dreamt of trying to mislead his fellow-countrymen, but I have no possible hesitation in saying that the figure of 410,000 men is both misleading and inaccurate. In the first place, it is inaccurate because no deductions have been made for recruits, inefficients, untrained men, and sick. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that these paper figures, from which no deductions whatsoever are made, have any relation to the number of men whom he will have available.
    Colonel SEELY: I am glad to say at once that we may reasonably suppose that a smaller percentage of the 410,000 men, to whom I have referred, will be sick, than of the 70,000 who will come from oversea, whatever they are. Honestly I believe that is so. I do not wish to make a point of it, but I think that it is obvious to anyone who has studied the question of invasion that sickness supervenes in a greater proportion in an army which is brought oversea than in an army which is operating in its own country. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consider the problem I think that he will come to the same conclusion.
    Sir. SAMUEL SCOTT: I think that the right hon. Gentleman can hardly have taken into consideration that in the first place the troops sent over would be picked men, and if this country were invaded they would be very few hours upon the sea. They would come over in fast boats and they would hardly have time even to be sea-sick. Is he also aware that on the mobilisation of Continental armies a deduction of 30 per cent. is allowed off the paper figures for sick, etc., while with regard to the 410,000 men there is no deduction made for sick, inefficient and untrained men. Therefore, I say that these
    1008
    figures are grossly inaccurate. I cannot believe that of actual men fit for the field he would have more than 330,000. The figures, are misleading also, because the right hon. Gentleman never gave the various duties which this force of 410,000, or, as I believe, of 330,000, would have to carry out. Lord Haldane never told us that they would have to garrison our naval bases and arsenals, and that they would have to supply a garrison for Ireland, and a garrison for Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, in time of war would1 have to be considerably increased. He did not tell us that they would have to provide troops for the defended zones, and that we might possibly have to send reinforcements to our coaling stations abroad, while even India might require reinforcements. Nor did he mention that this force would also have to make up the wastage of war in the Expeditionary Force, so that, out of the total number, as a central force, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman could give figures which would show a central force of more than 130,000 men instead of 410,000. I trust that when he comes to reply he will give some idea of how many men he will have. I would also like to ask him what steps have been taken to meet the deficiency of 1,370 officers in the three combatant branches of the Territorial Force—the Artillery, the Yeomanry, and the Infantry, irrespective of whatever may be the number short in the Army Service Corps and the Army Medical Corps? I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech, and the allowance of a Grant to the Territorial Force, but unless he takes up the question of employment and deals with the employer, he will never be able to get recruits for the Territorial Force. This question will have to be dealt with if this country is to have a voluntary Army. You will either have to deal with it now, or the Territorial Army will become less and less, and you will have to do it later on, or else come to some form of ballot or some form of compulsory service.
    Mr. AMERY: There is one point in these Estimates which I think will meet with the general approval of the Committee, and that is that for the first time, though somewhat late in the day, we have a substantial allowance made for aviation. Whether that allowance even now is enough, remains to be seen. Certainly, if we take into account what the air battalion has already cost us and what the

    1009
    air corps of other countries cost, it is obvious that £320,000 can hardly cover the cost of 167 officers and 130 aeroplanes in the future even when the £120,000 now spent on grounds and buildings is liberated, and I think it would be satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some estimate of the normal future requirements on this point. Another subject on which I should very much like to be informed is the peculiar position that the Air Corps is occupying as an independent body meeting the requirements both of the Army and Navy under the control of the War Office. How is that to work? Suppose that the Admiralty decides that for its purposes the only sort of machines it would really want to spend money on are either dirigibles or hydro-aeroplanes, capable of going very long distances and of carrying a large supply of bombs, while, upon the other hand, the War Office may decide that what they want is a very largo number of swift monoplanes, who is to decide how the money is to be spent? Again, as to the position of the naval wing. Are we to understand that is under the Air Corps, and that if the Admiralty wish to issue instructions, those instructions have to go through the War Office or will it be for for every purpose directly under the Admiralty? Another question is the position of the Air Corps with regard to the General Staff. The work of the Air Corps is intimately connected on its military side with the work of the General Staff. The principal work of the flying men will be scouting, and it will be essential in war for aviators to be directly under the control of the intelligence section of the General Staff. It is necessary that this Aviation Corps should be under the control of the General Staff and not of any other department in the War Office. There is a converse. The effect of aviation on the whole of our tactics and strategy is bound to be immense. I will give one instance only. The whole case for keeping up the idea of Cavalry is that shock tactics rests on the assumption that even now there are occasionally still opportunities where Cavalry can be massed, and remain undetected behind some slight folds of the ground. Will that ever be possible with aeroplanes hovering overhead? If that is not possible, it ought to be our duty to abolish the lance at once, and to abolish every vestige of shock tactics from Cavalry training.
    1010
    It is of the greatest importance that the General Staff should have control of aviation, and that attention should be drawn to this point from the very first in order to come to a definite conclusion. Our Army should be, among the first to adopt any lessons that can be drawn from the developments of modern science. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that the Air Corps, broadly speaking, will be under the General Staff, and that the training, as well as the intelligence section, of the General Staff will include a large number of officers who have gone through the Air Corps and know what air scouting means. The next point is the grave inadequacy of what is called our Colonial establishment. The military correspondent of the "Times," whose ability was most eloquently defended by the right hon. Gentleman the Undersecretary (Colonel Seely), reviewing the military situation on 4th March, pointed out that we urgently require at least six or eight more battalions of Infantry at certain naval bases; and that the five battalions kept in Egypt are utterly inadequate for any purpose except policing Cairo and Alexandria. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover pointed out very forcibly that the concentration of naval strength in homo waters rendered all the more urgent the garrisoning, not only of our Mediterranean stations, but stations in the Far East and in the West. The night hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War (Colonel Seely) gave an answer to this effect—that the policy of the Government was not going to be based upon the assumption of a waning sea supremacy, but my right hon. Friend's point was that the sea supremacy has been withdrawn from certain great areas where we have important political and military interests. That question at present remains entirely unanswered. There is a further point. Apart from the necessity of having a barely sufficient garrison in our naval bases, we do need, and it is a most vital need, a surplus of permanently mobilised battalions overseas for reinforcement purposes. Under our present military system we cannot reinforce in time of peace from home without mobilisation, and such mobilisation would involve considerable hardship upon the Reservists called up, supposing they were required for six months or eight months, or a year or more. There is a further serious point, that mobilisa-

    1011
    tion might precipitate the very hostilities you wish to guard against.
    I would like to remind the Committee of the circumstances with which we were confronted on the eve of the South African war. The whole problem was that the Boers could cross the frontier within a few hours, while we could not get men into South Africa for something like three weeks; and even after that three weeks several weeks would be required to provide the force with mules and other transport. The whole problem was how we could unostentatiously reinforce South Africa without precipitating a war, for which we knew that mobilisation would be the signal, and the Boers would cross the frontier. Fortunately, in the circumstances of India at that time we were enabled to withdraw 6,000 troops from there, and owing still more to the state of affairs in the Mediterranean caused by the insurrection in Crete and other events, we had at that time, what we have not got to-day, a very large surplus of battalions in the Mediterranean. We borrowed four battalions from Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt and Crete; a fifth battalion, which was on its way to tile West Indies; another on its way from Ireland on foreign service, besides a battalion from Mauritius. It was simply and solely due to these battalions that we were able to make any defence in South Africa whatever. But the force we got together was inadequate for its purpose, and its inadequacy was the cause afterwards of the whole failure of the main Army, which was continually behind the fair, and was continually trying to retrieve a position already ruined. Inadequate though it was, that force saved us from having to reconquer the whole of South Africa from the coast. Therefore, I do maintain that it is most vital we should have a surplus of these permanently mobilised battalions. At the present moment the only surplus we have of that kind is the force stationed in South Africa, and it is because I feel so strongly the importance of that surplus, that I protest most earnestly against the plea for a reduction of the South African garrison. I admit, quite readily, the duty of any self-governing Dominion to provide for its own defence, but as regards South Africa I would say, that as long as the Imperial Government is responsible for Basutoland and the Protectorate, so long must it be responsible, to some extent, for the defence of South Africa.
    1012
    The battalion in South Africa is valuable for reasons of Imperial strategy. South Africa is the most convenient strategical point in the whole Empire for the reinforcement of many most important military points. As a mere matter of sea miles, South Africa is nearer not only to Abyssinia, the Soudan, and India, and the whole of the Far East, but it is practically as near to the West Indies. What is still more important, the sea routes from South Africa to those points lie outside the zone of danger of interruption by hostile cruisers. I would remind the Committee that the reason why a considerable force was kept in South Africa was that the Admiralty specifically declared that while it could not guarantee the transport of troops from this country to India on the outbreak of war, it could guarantee the transport of troops to India from South Africa. South Africa is not only admirably situated strategically but it is an ideal station both from the point of view of health and training. I have been there several times in recent years, and I have been immensely impressed by the enthusiasm of the officers, both senior and junior alike, who spoke of the beneficial effect upon the health of young soldiers, and still more of the really splendid opportunity for training that South Africa affords. I would like the right hon. Gentleman, if he thinks it necessary to do so, to consult Sir Ian-Hamilton or Lord Methuen on the point. I am aware that to keep the necessary surplus of battalions in South Africa is expensive, but it is cheap in some respects—the manœuvres, for instance, cost only about a quarter of what they do in this country.
    The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire spoke of the money spent in recent years on the South African garrison as having been wasted. I would say, on the contrary, that there is no station in the whole of the British Empire where the expenditure of a sovereign produces so much value in military efficiency. Of course, if, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dover suggested, there is a special reason for three Cavalry regiments being called home to complete the two divisions instead of the one division now at home, that is a case for special consideration, and the money spent in that way might well be devoted to putting a large proportion of the South African Infantry battalions on a Mounted Infantry basis. I submit

    1013
    that the Government should not countenance the idea of diminishing the South African garrison. I come to the question of the Expeditionary Force. Is an Expeditionary Force of 170,000 men sufficient for the purposes of such wars as we may be engaged in? I do not know. All I say is that its strength has been fixed without any reference to our strategical requirements, and to that question no answer has ever been given, for the simple reason that there is no answer. The strength of our Expeditionary Force is fixed entirely by the mobilisation strength of those units we keep at home in order to provide drafts for all the units we keep abroad. What has that got to do with our strategical needs? Can anyone imagine that the Admiralty would fix the strength of the Navy in home waters by reference to the requirements of the Navy in the Pacific and the Mediterranean instead of by reference to the strength of Germany or of any other combination?
    Surely we are entitled at some time or other to have our military arrangements based on our needs for war, and not upon our peace garrisons in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. Are we to await some terrible disaster before we face that question, and face the elementary fact that the strength of the Army should be determined by its needs, and not by the desirability of completing this or that particular War Minister's scheme? But even if we do take the Expeditionary Force as it is, even if we assume that 170,000 men is just the force necessary for some great war, have we really got the 170,000 men? How many of these six divisions can we, as a, matter of fact, mobilise at once and put into the field? That again is a question to which we have never got a clear answer. To judge from some answers I received yesterday to certain questions which I put, I may be told that it is not considered expedient that the answer should be given. Expedient to whom? Expedient to our possible adversaries whose Intelligence Department knows a great deal more than the House of Commons, or expedient to the Secretary for War, who finds it very convenient to cover all these matters with the bland and shimmering haze of his optimistic generalities. What we would like to know is whether we can bring those six divisions in1o the field. As far as I have been able to ascertain myself from unofficial inquiry, at this time last year there were only about four divisions that could
    1014
    be placed in the field fully equipped and ready. Only the other day the right hon. Gentleman informed us that with regard to the 41,000 horses required no arrangements had been made for their collection and purchase, but that a full scheme was being worked out. We now know that the scheme is not working, but that it is only being worked at.
    Obviously from that answer alone the whole of these six divisions cannot be ready to take the field. If they do, how will they be composed? Are they in any sense a homogeneous force as regards men? It is admitted that less than half of them will be men serving with the Colours, and something like 90,000 will be drawn from the Reserve. I readily agree that that is also the case as far as numbers go in the Continental armies, and that they draw upon the reserves to the extent of half or more for mobilisation. But the reserve in their case is of men who were in the ranks last year or the year before that or the year before that. There is no great gap between the reserves and the men with the Colours. They take the men between twenty years and twenty-four and twenty-five from the same villages and the same district, and they are really homogeneous. In our case the men with the Colours are separated from the Reserve by at least five years, and in the great majority of cases by ten and even thirteen years. The men with the Colours are between twenty and twenty-two and twenty-three. Of our Reserves 52,000 are over thirty years of age, and of Section D of the Reserve, which is 30,000 strong, practically the whole of them have been away from the Colours from nine to thirteen years, and have not had a day's training or have not seen a rifle during that time. Can anybody call that a homogeneous force? I know that Lord Haldane declared the other day that it might not be necessary, except in a few units, to draw upon Section D. I should like to see the right hon. Gentleman, show how that is the case. Next year, as far as I can make out, although a great number will have been away from the Colours for more than five years, A and B Reserves will be only 106,000 strong. When you subtract from that 10 per cent. for casualties, 8,000 who are abroad, the 4,000 that will be required to complete the Regular battalion at home, and the 6,000 that will be required in category B which was to have been supplied by the Territorials but which has

    1015
    never materialised, and with the other deductions, you will find that you are left with not more than 75,000 in A and B; so that, in other words, for the shortage of 12,000 or 13,000, you will have to draw upon Section D.
    More than that, according to the mobolisation tables, the very day you send your Expeditionary Force you are to send abroad 10 per cent. of drafts for the field units, that is some 15,000 men. How are you going to do so when you have only some 14,000 or so of Section D left behind, of whom 10,000 have been earmarked for the stiffening of the Special Reserve? You have 8,000 Reserves, who I trust and who undoubtedly will in large numbers, come back from abroad. But taking these and the young men in the line you have only got about 20,000. That means from the very start you will have to come down on the Special Reserve for something like 40,000. The Special Reserve is not 60,000 strong, and from that you have got to send 15,000 of the extra Special Reserve to which my right hon. Friend has referred. So wonderful are they that after three months they can do what any other troops are only expected to do after several years. There are something like 15,000 to be sent to the Mediterranean and other lines of communication. You are left with 45,000 Special Reservists of whom 20,000 are under nineteen, or only just recruited to meet drafting requirements. In other words, you cannot even with the Special Reserve keep the Expeditionary Force going for six months. Even if you could, it means that, so far from having a homogeneous force, you will have a force consisting partly of young soldiers and partly of men who have left the Army eight or ten years before, and partly of boys of eighteen or nineteen who have had six months' training. Surely that is not a sufficient kind of force with which to face an enemy.
    But even more serious than the deficiency in respect of the men is the shortage of officers. At the very outset of the war it is generally estimated we shall have in Infantry officers alone a shortage of over 600, and where are we to draw them from? Can we draw them from the surplus of officers in the Special Reserve or Territorial Force? There is a shortage of 3,000 odd in those forces. The other day Lord Haldane gave an answer to the Duke of Bedford, and I may say, in passing, that the country
    1016
    owes a real debt of gratitude to the Duke of Bedford for the persistent determination with which he endeavours to elicit the real facts of the military situation. In answer to the Duke of Bedford, if I can understand his answer, as it was very vague, Lord Haldane said that we should draw for that shortage upon Regular officers now seconded to other forces and upon four subalterns from each battalion of the Special Reserve. Those battalions are already 1,200 officers short out of 2,700, and you are to take 300 to make them more efficient. If you do, and if you replace the number from the general reserve of officers, what is that general reserve worth. The right hon. Gentleman told us that there were 3,000 of them of one sort and another. He did not mention their ages or how many years they had been away from the Service. But I noticed there were only 440 captains or subalterns who had been away from the Army for three years or less. I imagine if you could draw to the extent of 1,500 upon that General Reserve and another 500 from the Officers' Training Corps and other sources that that would be the most, and that will not go near filling the gaps of the Expeditionary Force and of the forces left at home.
    What about the wastage of war? Lord Haldane airily said that you make up the wastage of war by promotion from the ranks. With a great deal of what the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) said I entirely agree. I believe we ought to have, to a much greater extent, promotion from the ranks. I believe that that would be a good thing, as he said, not only for the corps of officers, but also for our recruits generally. I think we have long needed something that will give a better incentive to non-commissioned officers. It would, however, be essential to have an adequate college for non-commissioned officers' from, which they could rise to a commissioned position. But all that is a matter of time, and the sooner we start the better. But you are not going to get either in numbers or in quality a large supply from the non-commissioned ranks in the middle of a crisis. You cannot be sure that a non-commissioned officer taken from the ranks without preparation would be really effective as an officer. In South Africa in many cases promotions of that sort were not altogether satisfactory owing to want of training and preparation for promotion. Promotion from the ranks properly organised is an excellent thing, and we ought

    1017
    to have it much more than we do now; but improvised promotion is not going to do much for the Army during a crisis. So much for the Expeditionary Force, and then what of the 410,000 men we have got? My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir S. Scott) has dealt very largely with that, and I will not deal with the 260,000 odd of the Territorial Force since so many Members have already dealt with it. I will just mention that some 140,000 of them had a fortnight's training last year. According to the hon. Member for Leith Burghs 18 per cent., or something like 50,000, are worthy old gentlemen who exercise a good moral influence in inducing others to join. About 64,000 are under twenty years of age, and when those accumulate in 1908–9 to the extent of 160,000, leaving the Territorial Force, you will have an immense influx of men under eighteen and nineteen in the ordinary proportion of the ages of recruits.
    I will leave them and deal with the 144,000 Regulars of a sort. There are 14,000 who are properly officered, seven battalions of Infantry and certain other arms. I am going further to subtract 15,000 Special Reserves going abroad, which reduces the number to 115,000, and 15,000, the first contingent drafts, brings it down to 100,000. From the 100,000 you have got to subtract 7,500 per month for drafts. Of the rest you have got 50,000 of the Special Reserve and the Regular Forces who are either recruits or immature in point of years. In any case you are not going to have anything like a sufficiency of officers, and you will have the same situation as in the case, of the South African war, when you had 100,000 left behind with no sort of organisation, and when, as Sir Evelyn Wood pointed out to the Elgin Commission, you had one officer responsible for 850 Cavalry men, and when you had seventeen officers, ten of them just joined, with each of them responsible for 4,500 Artillerymen at Woolwich. I say in the words of Lord Lansdowne in May, 1900, that you cannot by any stretch of language in any sense of the word call such a body a field force. You have got to discount them altogether. Yet this body is supposed to garrison our naval bases, to train and send drafts, to fill up the wastage of officers, to train recruits, and you will want 50,000 Territorials to garrison Ireland, and you will have to garrison Scotland. Scotland is liable
    1018
    to invasion just as much as Ireland. It is not a question of the inhabitants, it is a question of the strategical dangers of an immense coastline. If we stand on the defensive we have got to be strong at a great number of points. I believe 100,000 is the very outside figure of your mobile field force.
    Is that 100,000 force really going to "eat up" 70,000 highly-trained Continental troops, as the right hon. Gentleman said? I do submit that neither the Expeditionary Force nor the force left at home is adequate to meet the needs imposed upon it, or corresponds in the least degree to the eloquent descriptions of the Secretary of State for War, and the somewhat more moderate description of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary. I have not mentioned an even more important question, and that is the one question upon which the Elgin Commission concentrated attention, namely, the need for large expansion, in a great war, of men and of officers over and above the existing forces. Where are you going to get them from? You skim the officers at home in order to let your Expeditionary Force take the field, and you have not even got the officers or men to defend this country against a moderate raid. Then where are you going to get the great expansion from which you are going to supply the needs of your Army in a great war. I do submit, on these main points, that the Government, however much they can show little improvements here and there, have made no advance whatever during the years they have been in office. For all practical purposes as regards the main questions of the total numbers of the strategical arrangements of our forces, and their adaptability to our strategical needs, we stand in exactly the same position as at the time of the South African War.
    Colonel SEELY: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I rise at once to reply to several points which have been raised, and especially to the very vehement attack made by the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Amery). Those of us who can look back for a few years, and who remember what the history of the hon. Gentleman himself is, must rub our eyes with astonishment at the extraordinary words to be found in his closing remarks. I think I shall be able to show that his speech is a very extraordinary contribution to the Debate. We are not concerned, either when discussing the rifle or

    1019
    when discussing our Army, with what is its actual and possible perfect value. What we must look at is how we stand with regard to possible enemies, for the very obvious reason that any country, if they tried to get an ideal army ideally armed, could spend—and the hon. Gentleman himself better than anyone else, perhaps, could show them how to spend—£100,000,000 a year with great advantage on its army, and any small country could spend thirty or forty millions. If the hon. Gentleman would apply his mind to the question he would probably say that we could spend much more than £120,000,000 a year.
    The contention of the hon. Gentleman is that we have made no advance during the past few years, and that, comparing our responsibilities now with our responsibilities then, our situation is deplorable. May I answer him out of his own mouth? He knows all about the South African war. I venture to say that no man in this House knows it better. He wrote a history about it, and a very good history too. He was there himself, and saw the war with his own eyes. He has just told us to-day, in the very formidable indictment which he made against the Cardwell system—for that is what it amounts to—that at the start of the South African war, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) represented the War Office in this House, we could not send even the small force considered necessary to reinforce Natal without withdrawing troops from all over our Eastern garrisons. [An HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He does not deny that. That was his whole point. His whole point was that in 1899 we could not reinforce Natal with a few thousand men without withdrawing troops from our Indian and other Eastern garrisons. What the hon. Gentleman said is perfectly and literally true. In 1899 we could not send 10,000 or 20,000 men, or even less than 10,000 men, to Natal without withdrawing troops from India, from Ceylon, and from other Eastern possessions. The hon. Gentleman has the hardihood to say that our position now is no better, and he seemed to imply that it is worse. I have here an envelope, addressed to him, which I have marked "Secret." I will send a similar envelope to any hon. Member who will be good enough—I need hardly make the condition—to regard it as secret. From the paper in this envelope it will be seen that if we wanted to send reinforcements to
    1020
    Natal to-morrow we could, without withdrawing one single man from any of our Eastern garrisons, send within a very few days, if transport were ready, 150,000 men fully equipped with arms, ammunition, provisions and stores, and reinforcements for three months to come.
    Mr. AMERY Mr. AMERY rose—
    Colonel SEELY: I listened very patiently to the hon. Gentleman and I must ask him to listen patiently to me. I do not often make long speeches in the House. He has made the allegation that little or no advance has been made. I do not care what he said in the way of getting a party cheer; what I am concerned with is what people abroad and elsewhere will think—
    Mr. AMERY Mr. AMERY again rose—
    Colonel SEELY: I wish to finish my sentence. The hon. Gentleman has made a very fierce attack upon the military preparedness of this country, which attack will have a grave reaction, if believed, upon our position in the world. I am here to say and repeat again that on the word "mobilise" being given, and if the word "mobilise" were given to-day, within a few days—and the number of days will be found in this paper, which any Member can see—150,000 men could be dispatched with all their arms, ammunition, provisions and stores, and reinforcements ready for them for three months. That marks the most extraordinary advance in the whole military history of this country. Nothing like it has ever been attempted before. It is the result of years of thought, of effort, and of expense. It has involved the cutting down of many redundant things; it has involved the setting up of very necessary things. Hut we stand today in a position quite extraordinary in offensive force compared with the position we held at the time I have named, or even six or seven years ago. When we recollect that we are comparing the position to-day with the position at the time to which the hon. Gentleman refers, when, according to the hon. Gentleman himself, we could not send 10,000 men without withdrawing troops from foreign garrisons, I say that it is trifling with the Committee to make such a charge. I turn to other points which the hon. Gentleman made. When I have sent him the envelope, I hope he will return to the attack. I welcome it. I have a certain dread that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) and

    1021
    others, who, following my example of years ago, have sometimes moved to reduce the Army, may, as a consequence of what I have said, suggest that we are much too strong in offensive force. I foresee that they will use that argument as a consequence of what has happened. I think there are some ready to do it now, but I occupy a middle position. I think at least that we have disposed of the extraordinary allegation of the hon. Gentleman opposite that we are in a no better, or in a worse, position than when he rendered such distinguished service to his country during the South African war.
    Coming to details, he asks what are we to do as to the shortage of officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) raised what he calls his hardy annual in urging promotion from the ranks. It is eminently desirable that there should be more promotions from the ranks. The hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to think that promotions from the ranks during a war were a mistake. That may be right, but the Duke of Wellington thought otherwise. The Duke of Wellington during the Peninsular War made promotions from the ranks wholesale after the battle of Badajos. It is most interesting to see that he made recommendations the very same day for, I think, eleven commissions after the battle of Badajos. The Duke of Wellington gave the commissions, as can be seen from the records of the time, because the men who were recommended for commissions had rendered such gallant service that he thought they were fit for commissioned rank in His Majesty's Army. [An HON. MEMBER: "After years of war."] What does it matter if it was after years? Is a soldier less fit for commissioned rank if he happens to do a distinguished act, to show distinguished service, or to show distinguished capacity, in the middle of a war than at the beginning of a war? What the hon. Gentleman seems to think is that all the men who fought at Badajos had been through the war from the beginning. Has he any reason to believe that? If he looks at the records he will find that that is not the case.
    Sir. R. POLE-CAREW: Were the men who were promoted to commissioned ranks raw recruits?
    Colonel SEELY: Of course they were not raw recruits. Who ever suggested that? We have at the War Office at this moment a list of non-commissioned officers suitable for commission, and a finer list—
    1022
    if we are to believe the officers who have reported upon the men, and I suppose the hon. and gallant Gentleman would believe them—it is impossible to conceive. They have every quality to suit them for commissions.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Then why not promote them?
    Colonel SEELY: I am coming to that point. We are in this great difficulty. Directly you propose to promote from the ranks you are brought up against this, curious dilemma. In order to avoid what is called jobbery in the Army, a succession of persons on both sides of the House have for a series of years urged us to adopt a competitive system of examination for entrance, and a continuation of examinations for promotion. Only this very day the hon. Member for Preston (Major Stanley) called in question the system of appointment to the Staff College, where we have a nomination system, enabling officers in this case who have rendered distinguished service in the field and passed qualifying examinations to be posted to the Staff College. He wants, as many others do, a purely competitive system.
    Major STANLEY: What I had in my mind was, that officers may go up for examination for the Staff College and not be nominated at all; they may pass excellent examinations, but because there is not a sufficient establishment for all regiments, they cannot enter the Staff College, while officers who have passed the examination lower in the list may do so. That is my point. It has nothing to do with nomination at all.
    Colonel SEELY: It is the same point. There is not room for them in the Staff College, because others who have passed not so high, but have rendered distinguished service in the field are appointed, and they are excluded. That is the hardship.
    Major STANLEY: I was thinking more particularly of my own regiment, the Royal Artillery. There are only four vacancies one year and five another for officers of the Royal Artillery. Therefore you may have an officer of the Royal Artillery passing higher than another officer, but he is not appointed to the Staff College, because there is no vacancy for him.
    7.0 P.M.
    Colonel SEELY: I thought from the hon. Gentleman's question that the difficulty

    1023
    was that the question of nomination precluded officers, but his objection is to the system. There could not be a Staff College composed entirely of Artillerymen, therefore you must divide them into classes, and have so many Infantry, so many Cavalry, so many Artillery, so many Engineers, and so on. The point has often been raised from both sides that you ought to abolish jobbery by having a system purely of competitive examination. That is strongly urged from this side, and particularly by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who is anxious that there should be no chance of jobbery, and contends that there must be a system of selection by competitive examination. We are proceeding upon that basis. The Army now is an Army composed of officers who are perpetually reading, thinking, writing, and trying to pass examinations. Anyone who knows the Army knows that that is so. By the very desire to ensure that you shall get officers who are fully and intellectually qualified, you make it almost impossible in time of peace for the man promoted from the ranks to hold his own intellectually in the way of examinations with other officers who have come in in the usual way. The ordinary officer now goes to a crammer, or else to a public school, where hundreds of pounds are spent in teaching him how to pass examinations in competition. Before he goes up for his promotion he in many cases goes again to a crammer as hon. Members know at great expense, so that he may pass. That is the difficulty that we are in. I commend it to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke. When we are urged, as we constantly are, to rely only upon competitive examination, it being so good a thing, may I say that even if it is a good thing, you do definitely close the avenue to the poor, except to the exceptional poor. Education is a matter, not of mere brains, but of money. In adopting this system it is a fact, a deplorable fact, that we close the avenue of promotion in peace time to all the poor, except the exceptionally clever poor. A way ought to be found out I am sure. One way is that indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in the House of Lords the other day. We have decided in time of war to promote on a large scale from the ranks. The knowledge that that will happen may do some-
    1024
    thing to mitigate the present situation—the disability under which the soldier feels he labours as compared with the great days of Wellington. The promotions from the ranks are deplorably few, and have in the past few years diminished. I can assure hon. Members who spoke on this point that we are bearing carefully in mind this particular point. Promotion from the ranks in time of war is an established fact. When we—
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he also intends to keep the pay of the officer the same as in the time of Wellington? Otherwise these men who go up from the ranks will never be able to live at all—not at the rate of a present officer at all events.
    Colonel SEELY: Of course the question of pay comes into the problem, and must be considered with it when you are considering promotion from the ranks in time of peace. In time of war fortunately it does not arise. Afterwards it does, and in time of peace, both before and after. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made a statement on this point, and I am very anxious not to detain the House, as I know many hon. Members desire to speak. With regard to the rifle, the Noble Lord appealed to me in one sense, and the hon. and gallant. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury appealed to me in another. In this matter of armament hon. Members opposite, if I may say so, have knocked each other's heads together in a way that absolves me from much of my task. The Noble Lord is very anxious that we shall adopt an automatic rifle—so I understand.
    Lord C. BERESFORD Lord C. BERESFORD indicated dissent.
    Colonel SEELY: And the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Finsbury says he will again and again raise the matter in this House unless we at once commence to manufacture the existing experimental rifle, which is not automatic. We cannot commence to manufacture an automatic rifle, because we have not yet found one that will work. Nor has any one else! If, therefore, we follow the advice of the Noble Lord we should wait until we have got an automatic rifle—and all nations are not very far from it—and then rearm. If we follow the advice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Finsbury we shall proceed at once to rearm with the experimental rifle—
    Lord C. BERESFORD: That is not my point at all. I said the automatic rifle

    1025
    when invented will be the best possible rifle. What I asked the right hon. Gentleman was that when he is making this new rifle is to give a flatter trajectory. He knows he is going to do that, although he is denying it.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps pardon my interruption, but I only stated what the Secretary of State for War has said himself, that we should not wait for an automatic rifle.
    Colonel SEELY: Yes, but I am attacked from one side and then from the other, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has a more formidable opponent by his side than above the Gangway; and when the Noble Lord was speaking there were crashing cheers from the benches opposite. I think, therefore, I am entitled in as few words as I can to try to show that the arguments of hon. Members opposite, designed to prove that the Government are proceeding in the wrong direction in regard to the rifle, are mutually contradictory. We do intend always to have the best rifle of all the Powers in Europe. In my judgment we have it now. I speak not my own opinion, but that of my expert advisers.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: No.
    Colonel SEELY: If the Noble Lord would prefer to exchange our rifle for another, which would he exchange it for?
    Lord C. BERESFORD: The rifle with a trajectory of eight hundred yards is a better rifle.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The right hon. Gentleman says we have got a better rifle; is he manufacturing that rifle or making another one?
    Colonel SEELY: The rifle in the possession of our troops is, in the judgment of our advisers, a better rifle than that of the other European Powers, but we want to have a new rifle, because we know other people, whose rifles are even worse than ours, are going to get a new rifle. We do not want ours to be the worst, but the best. I have said this again and again, but I must repeat it each time. So with regard to the question of horses. We have been charged with regard to our readiness, for war in the matter of horses. We are more ready for war than we were, but we are not, I fully admit, so ready as we ought to be.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I am glad you realise it.
    Colonel SEELY: On this matter of light Cavalry horses the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has so often addressed us. He has taken a great interest in it. He, I am sure, will be glad to know that, although we are not as ready as we ought to be, we are more ready than other Powers. There is no doubt that to stand up in this House, and to explain how terrible is the state of Britain in its unreadiness for war may be a fine thing; but it is just as well to look all round the world when making a comparison. Von Moltke himself once, when told that England was not a military nation, replied:—
    "No, but she is a martial nation, and from my study of history I believe she has not been uniformly unsuccessful."
    This nation, so described by Von Moltke, is, after all, less unready than other Powers, with whom I trust we shall always remain at peace, but with regard to whom we have to keep a watchful eye. In the case of Cavalry horses, the Secretary of State appointed a Committee, presided over by my hon. Friend who is now Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. That Committee was composed of many eminent Cavalry officers, including General Allen. The Report of that Committee has been adopted practically in toto, though not in every detail, by the Army Council, and its recommendations when carried out will, I believe, greatly increase the rapidity of our mobilisation with fit horses. Under the scheme instead of, as now, horses being bought all the year round, and sent to regiments, they will be bought so far as possible in the spring or the summer, and they will then be sent, not to the regiment, but to grass farms, where they will get rid of the numerous ailments to which young horses are liable. The Board of Agriculture in this country, and the Irish Board of Agriculture, have been good enough to say that they will cooperate with us in this scheme. I have no doubt they can render us most valuable assistance. The horses will mostly be purchased in Ireland, not from any preference to Ireland, but from the Army Council's view, which is that you can get the best horses in Ireland. Having bought them they will be sent to the grass farms, and they will go to the Cavalry regiments in October after the manœuvres. Then will follow persistent systematic training. The net result will be a very considerable

    1027
    saving in expenditure of money as well as a great increase in the efficiency of the horses. At present it would appear that the average life of a Cavalry horse in our service is considerably less, nearly three years less, than in the case of another great nation. That is, no doubt, entirely due to the fact that we have not given them a previously long and systematic training that that other nation has given so as to get their muscles and backs trained.
    Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: What is the minimum age at which you will buy horses?
    Colonel SEELY: The minimum age should be not sooner than four years—for this reason: We do not propose, and we hope very soon to be in a position to say, that no horse shall go on mobilisation until it is six years old. We hope that it will remain on the grass farm until it is approximately four and a half. Assuming the horse in April or May to be four years, it is four and a half in October, after one and a half years' training it will be six. It will have had progressive training similar to other great foreign armies, where the training has had surprising results on the life of the horse. It is no good buying a horse young, so I am advised, partly because of the incurable optimism of the Irish farmer, who always asks more for his horse—so our buyers inform us—when three years old than he would ask for the same horse as a four-year-old. He believes that his horse will grow into a Grand National winner, and, of course, it very often does not. Therefore we do not propose to buy until about four years, because we believe that that will be the most economical system, and also the best. We have already got one grass farm, and we are making arrangements to get three more. When the whole scheme is in working order I believe that as the result of labours of my hon. Friend's Committee and those distinguished officers who have worked with him that we shall have our Cavalry not only much more ready for war than it is now, but far more ready for war than any other Continental nation.
    Sir. S. SCOTT: Are these horses to be in addition to the ordinary establishments?
    Colonel SEELY: I am talking about the method. With regard to numbers, I mentioned the other day that we have added,
    1028
    as hon. Members know, another twenty to the establishment. We propose to increase the number of boarded-out horses, and to take further measures to ensure that boarded-out horses shall be in better condition. By taking a certain percentage of those most fit for the first reinforcement, I believe we shall have Cavalry absolutely ready to take the field. That would, of course, necessitate a pool of the horses that can be drawn upon. With regard to the Territorial Force, I trust I may be forgiven for not dwelling upon it now, as I understand an hon. Gentleman opposite will move a Resolution raising that whole point, and we shall have an opportunity of debating it on a full day which has been allotted by arrangement between the two parties. With regard to the matter of aviation, the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) asked me how we were going to run a business like this common both to the Army and Navy. It is essential that there should be co-ordination between the two. How that can best be arrived at I am not now at liberty to say, but that there should be co-ordination between the Army and the Navy, so that the flying services shall remain one flying service, and not be split up into different departments or regiments or any other kind of jealousy, is vital to any air service, as has been generally recognised by those who organise similar services in other parts of the world. He asked me whether East-church would be under the Admiralty. Yes; that would mean that the Navy wing would be under the Admiralty and the military wing would be administered by the War Office. He pressed me to say that it should be under a Departmental Staff, and gave very strong reasons, if I may say so, that this air service which must, at any rate as far as we can now see, be a service of reconnaissance and scouting, should have one General Staff. His suggestions will be very carefully considered. I am disposed to think that the arguments he put forward are so sound that his suggestions would have to be adopted, and if he will ask me questions about it at a future time I should be very glad to give him a definite answer. I think I have dealt with most of the points raised in this discussion, and, of course, before it closes, if there are any other points that hon. Members raise, I shall be very glad to answer them.
    Sir. S. SCOTT: What about the light draft horses? The point I put to the right

    1029
    hon. Gentleman was that he should tell us how he proposed to draw from these horses registered?
    Lord CLAUD HAMILTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the Committee how many men of the Regular Force, officers and men, would be left in the United Kingdom after the Expeditionary Force of 150,000 men have left the country.
    Colonel SEELY: I have given the figures on more than one occasion, and they have been quoted in the course of the Debate. It is generally assumed that 410,000 is the total from which you deduct a little over 250,000 of the Territorial Force. That leaves approximately about 150,000 in the Regular Force and Special Reserve, and, speaking from recollection, about 110,000 of our Regulars and the remainder of the Special Reserve not required on first mobilisation. With regard to the question put by the hon. Barnnet as to the light draft horses registered, it is perfectly true it would be a great hardship to take all the horses from one firm. I had interviews with the owners of horses in respect to the hardship if all the horses were taken from them. We have taken steps to see that if hardship does arise when the classification is complete we will communicate with the owner as to the condition they will find themselves in on mobilisation, and by that means, and as they will have an opportunity to bring their grievance before us, we will have the opportunity of redressing any grievances that they may have. I hope now we shall be able to get the different Votes upon the Paper.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, replying to the question asked a moment ago by my Noble Friend the Member for South Kensington (Lord Claud Hamilton), will have recalled to the memory of the Committee that he altogether failed to answer the whole object of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham. I should not have intervened in this Debate had not the Under-Secretary, acting, no doubt, within his strict rights, refused to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham. If he had thought it better, with a clear understanding of the important matters we are here to consider, to give way, he would not have fallen himself into the error, and he would not, having fallen into the error no doubt unintentionally, of having misled the Committee upon a matter of the gravest concern. It is
    1030
    essential that if our Debates are to be serious at all that the confusion which he has created should be cleared up. The hon. Member for South Birmingham at the beginning of his speech urged that it was important to have a surplus of battalions, which are mobilised in peace, battalions which can be used without calling out the Reserve. He urged that South Africa was a convenient spot in which to place such garrisons, and in support of that argument and that plea he cited the fact that at the beginning of the South African war, there then being a surplus of such battalions in the Mediterranean and other places he named, it was possible to move them to the right spot at once. And he used this further argument, also an important one, which is that it is often necessary to strengthen your garrisons in this or that portion of the world without mobilisation, because if you have to mobilise you precipitate war. I am not going to repeat the speech I made twelve years ago in this House, but the burden of it was that if we had not been able to move certain battalions to South Africa without calling out the Reserves, we should have precipitated the war at an earlier moment. That is what my hon. Friend said.
    Colonel SEELY: It was one of the things he said.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: The Under-Secretary for War quotes another thing he said—namely, that the preparation of the Government is not as good as the preparation that existed some years ago. What does the Under-Secretary do? He pieces these two things together, and has the amazing hardihood to tell the Committee we could only move ten battalions to South Africa in 1899, and he goes on to assert that now he could move 150,000 men ready for war. I am glad he attaches so much importance to having the Expeditionary Force, but how can he say that that force, if it is ready to start—I am not going over that ground again—can be allowed to start if behind that force we have the state of affairs described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham in the whole of his speech, and to which not one word of answer is given. In spite of that speech, when my Noble Friend asked what force would be left in this country after the Expeditionary Force had started, the Under-Secretary gets up and says there would be 410,000 men, of which 110,000 would remain. An answer is necessary to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Birmingham, and all

    1031
    the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War said about horse registration and the comparative charm of a high trajectory over a low trajectory is merely so much dust thrown in the eyes of the Members of this Committee. The object of military preparation is to prevent war, and you cannot prevent war unless you can strike a blow in war. You have an Expeditionary Force, but cannot launch that force, and other countries know you will not be able to launch it, so long as you allow that state of affairs to continue, which the hon. Member for South Birmingham has this afternoon fully and truthfully described.
    Colonel SEELY: If I may reply, let me reply with the utmost deliberation in three sentences. The General Staff are of opinion, and the Secretary of State for War, acting upon their opinion, authorises me to say this, that we consider that when the Expeditionary Force has left this country, taking into account the relative strength of our Navy and all the surrounding circumstances, this country is safe from invasion. All questions as to the precise number of men and their quality are, of course, questions I should be very glad to answer, but the statements I have made seem to me to be a complete refutation of the alarmist suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and if at any time I am challenged I shall repeat the statement that it is the opinion of our advisers, in which we concur, that taking all the facts into consideration, when the Expeditionary Force has left this country, this country is free from invasion—I mean, of course, defeat in the event of invasion.
    Mr. PEEL: The right hon. Gentleman has given the usual answer which I think is always given to criticisms on our preparation. To the very powerful speech of the hon. Member for South Birmingham, he says we could spend £100,000,000 upon the Army if we were to have an ideal Army; but he seems to think that in existing circumstances we have an ideal organisation for the Army. He also tells us that on mobilisation we would have 150,000 men which we could send out of the country, but that is not the point. The point is when you send 150,000 men out of the country, what have you left? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is ever going to give the number. He has not said a single word in answer to the question as to this mysterious equation
    1032
    between our Army abroad and our Army at home. I could quite understand there might be some equation between the two Armies. If you had the fifty battalions now in India you would also want fifty-two battalions for the purpose of maintaining this country. You have beside these twenty-two battalions in other parts of the world, and that makes it almost incredible that there should be this exact equation between the Army at home and the Army abroad; but it goes very much further. We all know these establishments are for the purpose of supplying drafts to India and places abroad, but, of course, the size of the Expeditionary Force is also based not upon strategic purposes, but upon this equation, and especially so that upon this accident of quality you get the number of this Expeditionary Force.
    The right hon. Gentleman has not said a single word in reply to another challenge that owing to the drawing home of our naval forces and their concentration around this island, you would leave some of your garrisons abroad in a condition of less strength than before. I should like to know how far the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have considered that question, because it is a remarkable thing that after all that tremendous alteration in the position of the Fleet, the position and number of these garrisons would remain probably the same, or rather worse and weaker. Moreover, if anything has been brought home to our minds during the last few years I think it is this, that the Navy cannot finish a war, that you must have an Army to drive the matter home. The lesson we have had borne in upon us by the Russo-Japanese war is one that should have left some impression upon the right hon. Gentleman's mind and those of his advisers. He has not told us how he is going to provide for the Reserve which is coming, owing to the system of two enlistments coming to an end. The Secretary of War has made, of course, many boasts in those speeches of luminous verbosity to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. That is my paraphrase of the right hon. Gentleman's phrase. I am sure it is an equally vivid one. He has boasted that he has reduced the Army largely, and that at the same time he has largely added to its strength. Now that is a thing which the plain man in the street finds it difficult to understand. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that he had added 90,000 to the force of the Army. When you come to examine this, how has

    1033
    it been done? We know there has been a reduction in the Army, and it is plain that it has been done largely by the change of the Special Reserve being made liable for foreign service. How does the right hon. Gentleman compare the two? In taking numbers has he ever tried to compare the value of the Special Reserve with the value of the Regular troops whom they have replaced? We have never heard any comparison made between the quality of the men. At the present moment, according to the description, the Special Reserve is one of the most amazing forces in the whole world. It is composed of all sorts of different enlistments and lengths of training. You have in the same regiment three different classes of training. You have men trained for six months who come out for fourteen days; you have those trained for five months who come out annually for twenty-seven days; and then you have those who come out after three months for twenty-seven days. This mixing up of men of different trainings is defended on the ground that these extra twenty-seven special battalions who were going to be trained for three months were going to be stiffened with Regular troops. The right hon. Gentleman adopts the same argument with regard to the abolition of a large proportion of our Regular Forces and the institution of the Territorial Army. As a matter of fact he reduces the period of training before he has stiffened these regiments. As regards officers, he considers twelve months is a short enough period to produce an officer. Not only this, but he is reducing the training of officers from twelve months to six months, not on any real military grounds, but because it is very difficult to get the officers.
    Take another point in this marvellous force which is going to replace the old Regular Forces. The extra Reserve battalions are to be raised from 500 to 750, and they require more officers. Such is the extraordinary magic moving the mind of the Secretary of State for War that he increases these regiments by 250 and at the same time docks them of four of the Regular officers they had to train them. This is one of his beautiful systems of economy which he effects by taking away four officers from each of these twenty-seven battalions, spreading them out among the Regular Army, and then he makes out that he has got more officers. He told us last year that he was going to take steps to prevent these men being
    1034
    drafted away from the Line. There used to be a good deal of discussion about counting these men twice over, once for the Militia and once for the Line as well, but we have got over pretending that now and we get the admission that it is impossible to count them as two men. I am not aware, in spite of the promise made last year, that any steps have been taken to prevent the men who joined the Special Reserve from going on in the Line. I would like to ask a question about the Special Reservists. After mobilisation, are they going on with the old rifle with which they have trained, or with the new rifle with which they have not trained, or are there to be in the same regiment two sets of men using two separate sets of rifles? If so, what an extraordinary confusion will be produced.
    The old county association has now been tacked on to the Regular depot, and has become in the nature of a military force. Consequently it is exceedingly difficult in many counties to get the old officers you used to have because they feel it is not their own regiment, but one tacked on to the depot. In this way you have lost the services of a good type of officer. That is the curious mosaic force created by the Secretary for War, and it enables the right hon. Gentleman to boast that he has enlarged the Army sent out in the Expeditionary Force to fight our battles against foreign countries. I should like to say a word or two about the position of the Territorials, because I belong to them myself, and I am very familiar with their condition. I have belonged to most branches of the Territorials, and in my old age I am still connected with the mounted force. I think the right hon. Gentleman is always confusing us by his metaphors. A philosopher ought to avoid metaphors, but the Secretary for War is always talking about this force being the third line. When you talk about a third line, the inference is that you have other two lines in front of it. That is a false metaphor, because we have to meet a situation where the enemy might have pierced through the other two lines, and where the brunt of severe fighting might fall upon what has been called the third line. The Secretary for War is always saying, "Oh, yes, you must either have one thing or the other; if you want to meet Regulars, you must have man to man." If they train for three years, and train like the Regular force, he seems to think there is no difference between this full training and the small training of the

    1035
    Territorials. However deficient my military knowledge may be, I do know something of the Territorials, and I should like to say that it is really absurd for anybody to pretend that there has been any great measure of improvement in the Territorials. One hon. Member has fallen foul of the generals. I am not dealing with Sir Ian Hamilton, but I do not think our generals have talked with very excessive enthusiam about the Territorial Force. They say it is an improving force. If anyone is satisfied with the word "improving" I will make them a present of that argument, but that is the most General French ever said about it.
    The generals find great difficulty in criticising the Territorials. At first they had a new standard, and there has been great difficulty in applying it to the exact needs of the Territorial Force. In the ridiculously small time we have to train it is no use asking for any higher standard. It may be better next year and worse the following year, but the centre of oscillation is not going to alter very much, in spite of all the organisation you speak of with so many generals, major-generals, and brigadiers. The real value of a force depends upon the strength of the particular units, whoso value and strength again depend upon the length and the fullness of their training It would simply be magic if this Territorial Force could possibly be of much value. I am not deceived by the panegyrics passed by distinguished generals and even by colonels on the strength and value of the Territorial Force. As a member of the Eastern Division, which in the event of war might be called upon to meet the brunt of an attack, I am not pleased by the sort of attitude the Secretary for War takes up. Not long ago he said:—
    "Such a force the Territorial citizen army could crush by sheer weight of numbers."
    As a member of that force I do not like the idea of crushing a force by sheer weight of numbers, because that means tremendous slaughter, and though I am ready to take my own share of the risk of being shot in a reasonable manner, I do not quite like to be treated by the Secretary for War as nothing but food for powder leading on a mass of men who have to win by exhaustion of the enemy and shooting them down. The Secretary for War talks of this mass of men as a mobile force, but after all our horses are taken by the Regular Forces I think we
    1036
    shall find it difficult to move these men about the country. Do hon. Members opposite realise that all these brigades and divisions, and all this panorama of organisation which has been trotted out, has hitherto existed only on paper and nothing else? Do hon. Members know that the more untrained a force is the more difficult it is for a general to handle it? If you have an untrained force and the officers are also largely untrained, then you have an almost inconceivable state of things which presents more difficulties than a Regular force. I am not going into the question of how much we attend camp, beyond saying that the very modest training we get works out at about ten days in the year. We do not even get these very small requirements fulfilled. "Ah, yes," we are told, "but you are going to have your six months' training." Speaking in 1909, the Secretary of State for War really admitted that a long time would elapse before the Expeditionary Force would leave the country, and he said that in that time the Territorial Force would be able to get through a good deal of training. He could, therefore only establish a certain value in the Territorial Force by denying the facility for mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force. He must take his stand on one leg or the other. If the Expeditionary Force can go out at once, then the Territorial Force is left untrained. If the Territorial Force has time to train, then we are not ready to send out an Expeditionary Force of 160,000 or 170,000 men at a moment's notice.
    It is a rather remarkable thing, too, that, though the Territorial Force was based on the view prevailing in 1904 as to the possibility of the invasion of this country, and though in 1909 a great change came over military, and, I believe, naval opinion also, as to the possibility of a larger force coming into this country, yet no attention whatever has apparently been given by the Secretary of State for War to that change, and the Territorial Force is exactly the same in establishment and training as it was in 1907, before this change took place. The hopes of the people are raised by a large and shadowy Fourth Line, the reserves of the Territorial Force. These hordes of veterans, no doubt, are admirable people, but I do not know whether they can march. They have no guns, and they have nothing whatever to form even the nucleus of some sort of a Fourth Line. They really only exist in a

    1037
    sort of cloudy form in the mind of the Secretary of State for War, who would make us believe that behind the Third Line there is some Fourth Line which would be of some possible fighting value. The great difficulty operating on the minds of employers which we have all found, and which the Territorial Association have found, is not so much the fifteen days' training, but the fact that the Territorial Force may be called out for six months' training on the outbreak of war. That causes an employer to pause, because at that time he might have a great deal of work to do, and he and his loyal and patriotic friends would have the whole duty cast upon them of supporting and running the Territorial Force, as it -were, and all those who ought to have joined and done their duty would not be taking their part and would score.
    The Territorial Force has been treated too much as if they were younger members of a family, to be provided with the old cast-off clothes of their elder brothers, and as if those clothes were thought quite good enough for them. We are not so highly trained as other forces, either in men or officers, and we are short in every way. It is therefore absurd that it should be thought good enough to provide us with weapons that are not the best. You will never make the Territorial Force a real force, and you will never make it recognise its own value or make the people recognise it either, until you supply it with the best weapon. You really ought to have one homogeneous Army, and supply your Army right throughout, both Regulars and the Territorial Force, with the same guns and rifle. We are told that in the last resort we are to form a reservoir upon which you are to draw to fill up the ranks in our Regular Force after the Special Reserves and the Extra Special Reserves are eaten up. If that is so, why are we not placed on the same footing as the Regular Force, so that we shall be able to take our place in the fighting ranks with the same weapons, and so that you will not have two sets of men working with different weapons, making the difficulties of supply, transport wagons, ammunition, etc., a thousand times worse. You are bound to put some sort of order upon men to join the force. The right hon. Gentleman, not this right hon. Gentleman, but the other—the worst of the two—says he is satisfied with 250,000 men for his establishment of 315,000, because in a time of war men will flock very readily to fill up the ranks. Let this force, first of all,
    1038
    be a full force. Let it come up to its full establishment, and do not let the right hon. Gentleman pretend, when he cannot get his 315,000 men, that 250,000 is sufficient to make it a real force. Let the right hon. Gentleman devote all his energies, all his ability, and all his knowledge, to make it a real genuine force, which will be a real Third Line and not a sham Third Line in the case of an invasion of this country.
    Colonel GREIG: The hon. Member who has just sat down is a member of the Territorial Force, and I think we need not despair if the members of that force are at all of the calibre he has displayed in this House and elsewhere. He stated that he believed that force is not capable of improvement, but he rather answered himself when he told us at the end of his speech that the only thing necessary to make it a really effective addition to the forces of this country was to put it on an equality with the Regular Army as regards equipment and arms. Those who know something of the Territorial Force feel convinced that, as it is organised and equipped and armed now, it is an immense improvement upon the old Volunteer Force, which, even in the state in which it was then, was relied upon by the party opposite to support the defective organisation with which they were content to enter upon the South African war. We have at least now a connected, well thought out, and scientific system for the defence of the country. It has never been done on scientific lines before. Although the hon. Member for South Birmingham, who told us he would prefer a system which would allow us to have organised battalions at Cyprus and other places in preference to an Expeditionary Force, is a very great authority on strategy, I very much doubt whether that is a system we are likely to adopt in this country. A great deal too much has been made of the deficiency in the recruiting for the Territorial Force. The discrepancy between the establishment and the efficients for the last six years of the old Volunteer Force was something like 80,000 or 90,000, and yet not one word was said about the efficiency of that force. Compared with that the deficients of the present force are only about 40,000.
    A great deal too much has also been said about the two weeks' training. That has been erected into a fetish. People discuss it as if that was the only training to which the Territorial Force was subjected

    1039
    during a year. The force is continually in training from the first day of the year to the end of the year, and the annual training of two weeks is merely the finishing touch given to the training through the whole of the year. There is a very great difference of opinion about the value of that training. When we started it was said to be the only occasion on which large bodies of men could be got together for brigade movement. Now the generals who inspect and instruct consider it best at that time to subject the Territorial Force not to brigade movement and matters of that sort, but merely to camp administration; and even company training is done now. Experts are not at one as to the value of that training. One word as to the officers, not only of the Territorial Force, but also of the Regular Army. Hon. Members forget that the percentage of officers to men in the English Army is greater than in any other army in the world. We have under the control of the officers of the English Army a smaller number of men than in any Continental army. Therefore, I think we can at least console ourselves with the fact that the matter is not so serious as hon. Members opposite would make it appear. We have up to the present endeavoured to keep this question of the Army out of party politics, and I regret very much to see an inclination amongst Members, I do not say in this House but outside, to make the question of the defence of the country the subject of party attack. If that is to take place, we will accept it on that ground, because we can at least say that all the great reforms in the Army and Navy have been due to the party on this side of the House; and, if we are to defend the present position, we are convinced, and we have made up our minds, that the present system is perfectly calculated to defend the country. To adopt any system of compulsory service would simply mean an alteration in our foreign policy, and an alteration, not only in the recruiting for the Territorial Army, but also for the Navy and Regular Army, whereas up to the present time the whole demand for men for the defence of the country has been adequately met on the voluntary system. I think it was the hon. Member for South Birmingham who said that in time of war it would be necessary to keep 50,000 troops for service in Ireland. If the measure which is proposed on this side of the House
    1040
    is carried, not only will there be no need to provide these 50,000 troops, but we shall have at least 30,000 Territorials from Ireland available, in addition to our present forces.
    8.0 P.M.
    Major MORRISON - BELL: The hon. Member who has just spoken concluded by saying that in the event of Home Rule being passed it would not be necessary to have a certain number of troops available for service in Ireland. But I venture to suggest that whether Home Rule is passed or not we shall be bound to have a certain number of troops for that purpose. I would like to draw attention for a few minutes to a point which was briefly touched upon by the hon. Member for Taunton, and that is the shortage in the Territorial Force, which has been apparent for the last two or three years. We are told it is now something like 50,000 men in round numbers, and that there is very little prospect of the force increasing or of its being brought up to its proper total on the voluntary principle. The minimum now laid down for the Territorial Force is 312,000 men, and we have never been able to get anywhere near that total.
    Colonel GREIG: What I pointed out was that under the old voluntary system we were 80,000 men short, and that fact appears to have been lost sight of.
    Major MORRISON-BELL: I am a pro-Territorial, and always have been. The minimum laid down for that force by the officers of the Army Council is 312,000 men. That number has never been reached. The point is can we ever hope, under our present system, to get anywhere near that figure? There are two ways of getting the men: you must either attract them in some way by increasing their pay or adding to the amenities of the force, or you must compel them to come in. You cannot always hope to attract them by the performance of some play or by the newspapers taking the matter up. That is not a permanent way of bringing about the desired result. You must raise the amenities of the force, or you must compel the men to come in. I believe that no Minister will ever be prepared to propose a Vote for £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, which will be necessary to secure the force by means of increased pay; therefore you are face to face with the alternative method of getting them by compulsion. This has nothing to do with compelling everybody to serve. You only want to get a sufficient

    1041
    number for the Territorial Force. The hon. Member for Stoke referred to this subject, but I would like to point out to him how very small a burden it would be on the basis of population. There are 40,000,000 of people in this country. The minimum of the Territorial Force is put at 312,000. But, supposing we fix it at 400,000: that represents but 1 per cent. of the population. By what method could the number be secured? It could be obtained by a tale on every county. I need not go into figures, but each county would be called upon to provide its quota, whereas, nowadays one county does a great amount of work, while other counties are shirking it. Certain counties are assessed at a higher rate than others simply because they happen to have a keen Lord-Lieutenant, or officers keen on working up the forces. Why should not every county provide a number of men assessed according to its population. What would occur? Your officer would go to a village. He would inquire how many people are there in this village? The answer might be "300." He would then declare: "I must have three men." Or he would go to a town with 10,000 inhabitants, and there he would claim a quota of 100 men. The adoption of this system would not be unpopular; indeed, it would very soon become a popular part of our life.
    You are now compelling people to insure for the purposes of health, why not, in the same way, compel them to insure for the national health? You are not really asking for 1 per cent. of the population, you require rather about three-quarters of 1 per cent., and if you adopt this policy everybody would be doing their share, and it would practically work out at about 5 per cent. of the men, or less than one in twenty. If one man was drawn for the duty the other nineteen men would at least have the satisfaction of feeling that they too might have been drawn, and if the man drawn grumbled the answer would toe that the others stood an equal chance with himself. This, at any rate, would do away with the feeling that the burden fell upon the men who were keen on doing their duty to their country while others were shirking it. There is another point to be borne in mind. Anyone who has had to do with volunteer camps knows how it is almost necessary to go down on the knee to employers to allow their men to attend the camp. Under the system I propose there would be no necessity for such action, and more than that you
    1042
    will get your men for fourteen days' camp training instead of eight days. The third advantage would be that there would be no difficulty in securing the necessary number of officers. I do not think I need go into this plan in greater detail. By compelling 1 per cent. of the population to serve you would secure that everybody takes the chance of doing the work and nobody would be allowed to shirk it. I do not believe that votes would be lost by advocating a system such as that, and I certainly am of opinion that, in the course of the next few years, some such system will have to be adopted. It would, therefore, be well for us to face the problem to-day.
    Colonel SEELY: I understand it will take some little time to read out the Votes from the Chair, and I therefore hope we may be allowed to close this discussion now. I shall be happy to answer various points which have been raised by hon. Gentleman in the course of to-morrow. I am sorry if I unintentionally misrepresented the remarks of the hon. Member for South Birmingham. If I did him an injustice, I regret it. I was simply trying to dispel the gloom which I thought his observations might have given rise to. I hope we may now have this Vote.
    Sir. F. BANBURY: May I say I do not quite agree with the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite that the adoption of compulsory service must alter our national policy? I cannot assent to that, but, as time is very brief, I do not now propose to deal with the argument.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,536,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
    WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,602,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, Lands, and Miscellaneous Engineer Services, including Staff in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending, on the 31st day of March, 1913."
    HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,843,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
    PENSIONS AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMIS-SIONED OFFICERS, MEN, AND OTHERS.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,917,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Services, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31 at day of March, 1913."

    CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION, AND GRATUITIES.
    Resolved, "That a sum, not exceeding £145,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913."
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Wednesday); Committee to sit again to-morrow.

FISCAL SYSTEM—COST OF LIVING.
Mr. WHELER Mr. WHELER rose to move, "That this House is of opinion that the increased cost of living, unaccompanied by a corresponding rise in wages, is injurious to the working classes of this country, and regrets that His Majesty's Government has taken no adequate steps to mitigate the evil by so adjusting our fiscal system as to develop the resources of the United Kingdom and of the Empire."
Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member cannot be proceeded with. It is practically the same question that was discussed on the 22nd February as an Amendment to the Address. It seems to me that, although the wording of the Amendment then
1044
proposed and the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member is slightly different, yet the substance of the two Resolutions is the same. It has been ruled that the same matter cannot be brought before the House twice in a Session.
Mr. WHELER: In obedience to your ruling, I do not propose to move my Motion.

VIVISECTION OF DOGS.
Sir. F. BANBURY: I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, no operation for the purpose of vivisection should be performed on dogs."
This Motion is not directed against vivisection as a whole, but is confined solely to the question of dogs being taken as instruments for experiments and other purposes connected with vivisection. It will probably be asked on what ground do I suggest that dogs should be exempted from the operation of vivisection. I am inclined to think that in speaking to an assemblage of Englishmen I shall have the sympathy of all of them when I point out that a dog is in a very exceptional position with regard to other animals. For many centuries the dog has been the friend of man. He has lived in the society of man, he has been brought up with man, and the consequence is that his sensibility has been developed to an extent which has never been equalled by any other animal. The sensibility of the dog having been developed makes him a far greater subject for pain, and he feels it much easier. During the centuries he has been taught to look up to man as his protector, and he has rendered untold service to man. I was told only this afternoon, quite casually, by someone who I think if he is here will probably oppose my Motion, that he had been told by some of the great explorers in the north that they could not have got on had it not been for the services rendered them by the dogs. We all know of the services that have been rendered to travellers by the monks of St. Bernard, but none of those services could have been performed if they had not been assisted in the saving of life by their dogs. Only last year I happened to see in the "Times" an extract as to the performance of a dog who saved seven lives in Marylebone. Everybody will agree that anything that appears in the "Times" newspaper is certainly accurate. I hope there are no Irish Members present.
Mr. MacVEAGH: Who said "Piggott."
Sir. F. BANBURY: I did not see the hon. Member sitting over there. If the hon. Member will sit on the wrong side he will excuse me if I made a remark which I should not have made had the Irish benches been full. The extract from the "Times" is as follows:—
"A Dog Saves Seven Lives.—At a fire which occurred yesterday at a hairdresser's shop in Marylebone, a terrier was the means of saving the lives of her master and six other persons residing in the same house. The toilet saloon is kept by Mr. R. J. E. Williams, who, in a statement to a Press representative, said that shortly before one o'clock in the morning he was awakened by the dog, which had run into his room from the shop, jumped on his chest, and 'clawed' at his throat and chest. At the same time she was yelping. On awaking he discovered that the house was on fire, and he aroused the other residents, who were able to escape. Mr. Williams still bears on his throat some marks of the dog's 'clawing.'"
That extract shows that from the dog's point of view he is able, in a sense which no other animal is able, to render service to man. Unless it can be shown beyond doubt that the using of a dog for the experiments of vivisection is absolutely essential to human life, I say it is a very great act of ingratitude on the part of men that they should subject dogs to these experiments. I need not enlarge upon this point. Only a short time ago there was a case of a man who committed suicide in the East End in order to avoid the police. His dog lay on his body, and they could not get the body away until they had killed the dog. That shows the extreme fidelity and devotion of the dog to man. I want it to be clearly understood that I am not at this moment advocating the total abolition of vivisection. I have never myself introduced into this House any measure which would involve the total abolition of Vivisection. The weight of experience of the medical profession seems to be that in certain circumstances vivisection is necessary, and, always providing that the animal was killed after the operation had been performed, I should not oppose vivisection on other animals. For the reasons I have given I think the dog is in a very exceptional position, and I hope this House will come to this conclusion.
A Royal Commission has been sitting for six years upon this subject, and their Report has, in one sense very opportunely and in another sense not very opportunely, been issued to-day. The issue of the Report is very opportune because one can read there the, conclusions at which the Commission has arrived and the evidence
1046
given for and against exempting dogs, because this question was before the Commission. On the other hand, it is not quite so opportune, because it will be open to anyone who is opposed to my Motion to say that before coming to a decision he would rather read the whole of the evidence. I would point out to the House, although I do not in any way wish to cast an aspersion upon a Royal Commission, that the Royal Commission which has sat for six years has had a great number of different matters before it, upon which it has arrived at a conclusion. I am only dealing with one part, and, if I can show that there was considerable divergence upon this matter in the Royal Commission itself then I say it is the proper province of this House to form its own opinion, and to give effect to its judgment without regard to the conclusions at which some of the Commissioners have arrived. Mr. R. H. Hutton, a member of the Royal Commission appointed in 1875,
"although he signed the general report, appended a reservation to the effect that dogs and cats should be exempted from experiment on the grounds of their special relation to mankind, their higher sensibility, the degrading and criminal trade which is fostered by their supply to physiologists and the absence of proof of their indispensibility to science."
On page 15 of the Report the statement is given of certain experiments which were performed upon dogs. A Dr. Crile, in 1895, made an application to the Home Secretary for permission to do certain things. The application was referred by the Home Secretary to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Research.
"The Home Secretary then granted a licence (without any certificate) to Dr. Crile, who proceeded to perform his sixteen experiments in the laboratory of University College, London. They consisted of the infliction of very grave injuries on dogs such as cutting out both cerebral hemispheres, tearing out the brachial plexus, crushing the foot before the corneal reflex was abolished, pouring boiling water on the intestines, etc. Sir Victor Horsley stated that certain of these grave injuries were purposely designed to reproduce as far as possible the injuries which occurred by accident or in surgical operations. … With regard to these experiments, there was a difference of opinion among the eminent surgeons who appeared before us as to whether or not they were justifiable. Sir Henry Morris stated—

"Q. (Mr. Tomlinson.) In your opinion, were the results from any point of view at all commensurate with the severity of such operations on the observation of shock or the effect of shock?—A. I hardly feel that I can form a just opinion about that. I did not like many of the experiments that were performed, but I would not like to express a definite opinion."
"Q. You hardly feel prepared to justify it altogether?—A. No, and I would hardly be prepared to say that they were not desirable to have been made once, but I certainly think that such things ought not to be repeated for the sake of repeating them."
Then Professor Starling, who is a very great supporter of vivisection, and one of

1047
the greatest experimenters in that direction, said, questioned by Dr. Wilson:—
"Q. I am not going to ask you anything about Doctor Crile's experiments, but I may say, as a medical man, admitting everything about anæsthesia, that I read them with horror at the time, and even now I cannot sec the justification for them. I will ask Professor Victor Horsley about that. You of course know them. Do you contend that they are justifiable from your own point of view?—A. They are not experiments which I should have done myself.
"Q. Then, personally, you would not consider them justifiable?—A. I would not like to say that, because it is not a subject with which I am connected. I think you must ask the man in whose laboratory they were carried out."
This is the conclusion of the Committee:—
"As regards the different class of animals used for experiment, and the possibility of making discrimination between them for such purpose, we are again confronted with the delicate question of relative ethics. Here, again, there can be little doubt that the general moral sense of civilised mankind would be prepared to make such differentiation and would regard with quite a different degree of reprobation the like treatment for such purpose of one of the domesticated animals on the one hand, with that of cold-blooded or indeed verminous or destructive animals on the other. The differentia in such case would probably be found to consist of the degree of association with or affinity or utility to man. We feel that recognition should be accorded to the reality and worthiness of such underlying sentiment which would secure a special reservation for animals coming within the aforesaid limits. Thus we think that the higher apes and the dog and cat present claims for special consideration, and with these claims we deal subsequently in our Report."
There have been certain arguments used against the exemption of dogs, and this is one of them:—
"Considerable evidence is given as to the possibilities of using for experimental purposes some of the larger animals other than dogs, and pigs, calves, goats and sheep were suggested. It was, however, urged that a serious objection to the use of these animals lay in the fact that they could not be kept in the laboratory to which licences are attached and in which the experiment would take place."
No weaker argument was ever advanced. The people who bring forward the argument are practically admitting that the dog is an animal that they would rather not use, but you are to use it in preference to a pig, a calf, a goat, or a sheep, because it is not quite so easy or comfortable to keep these particular animals in places near the laboratory. After all, it only comes to this, that it is a slight increase of expense. Half an acre of land with proper pens and sheds would be sufficient to keep pigs, calves, and goats just as well as dogs in a kennel. If these witnesses had no better argument than that, my whole case is justified, and I should feel confident that the House would confirm me in my Motion. I am in no way suggesting that vivisection as a whole should be abolished. Those of us who think that great knowledge has
1048
been derived as a result of vivisection could perfectly well support the Motion, which only says that whereas the dog for many centuries has shown his devotion to man, man at any rate should show that he can return kindness with kindness. No man has ever had a better friend than the dog, and no greater devotion has ever been shown by a husband to a wife, or a wife to a husband, than by a dog to his master. I would appeal to the House, at any rate, to consider with all seriousness the proposal which I have the honour to bring forward to-night.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: An old French writer many years ago used these words:—
"Plus je connais les hommes, plus j'aime les hiens."
I thoroughly agree with every word that has fallen from my hon. Friend in proposing the Motion. I wish to associate myself with him, especially in regard to one point, and that is that to-night we appeal to the House not for the total abolition of vivisection, but for the exclusion of dogs from that practice. I could not have supported the Motion if it had been directed entirely against every form of vivisection. I have just emerged from the Royal Commission which has been sitting continuously for several years. The Commission exhausted the scientific and the ethical evidence. We took the evidence of all opposed to the practice of vivisection and of all in favour of it, and every witness who came before us was allowed freely to state his opinions. They were subjected certainly to a very rigorous cross - examination. It is exceedingly difficult to avoid drifting now and then into a discussion which you, Mr. Speaker, would stop at once—namely, a discussion of the whole Report of the Commission. I wish to confine myself entirely to the proposition brought forward by the hon. Baronet. I only had notice quite late that the subject was to be brought forward this evening, and I have not had the opportunity of consulting my colleagues on the Royal Commission. Therefore I am unable to state who agreed with me on this point and who differed, but I am perfectly ready to answer to the House that I was one of those who objected to dogs being used at all for the purposes of vivisection. I cannot help saying how much every lover of truth and every lover of science is indebted to my valued colleague, Sir William Collins. He is no longer, I regret to say, a Member of this House, but during the whole of

1049
the sitting of the Royal Commission, his scientific training, his love of animals, his desire and intention to arrive at the truth, and his enormous capacity for work, helped to make the Royal Commission what I trust the public will think it was—a hardworking and earnest Commission whose desire was to arrive at a fair and just conclusion supported by evidence.
I confess when it came to the question of signing the Report of the Commission it was with the greatest difficulty that many of us were able to sign it. We only signed it because we were able to insert in it such guarded language as we think the House and the public will appreciate, and because we were anxious to endeavour to arrive at a unanimous Report. Therefore we did with certain reservations arrive at what was practically a unanimous Report. On the question of the utilisation of dogs, certainly we felt very deeply, and I am not going the least too far when I state that our feelings were justified by the evidence brought forward. It has often been said that the use of dogs is absolutely necessary to physiologists for their purposes, and it may be said perhaps that the House, if it passes this Resolution to-night, are going too far in advance of scientific opinion. I should like to remind the House how far in advance of scientific opinion and public opinion the first Commission of 1875 was. Those who read and study the evidence given by the scientific witnesses at that time will see how averse they were to any legislation on the question of vivisection at all. They maintained that it would cripple science, and that men of learning anxious to discover the secrets of nature for the benefit of mankind would be hampered and stopped in their endeavours if regulations were passed. The House of Commons, I am glad to think, insisted upon these regulations, and they have been in operation since that time.
The scientific witnesses who came before us nearly all said that they had no fault to find with the regulations, and that they had not disturbed them in their work in the smallest degree. Even the scientific men themselves who practice these experiments were extremely divided upon the subject of the necessity of the use of dogs. One of the witnesses was Dr. Pembry, lecturer on physiology at Guy's Hospital, member of the Army Medical Board, and a physiologist with great experience in experiments on living animals. He was questioned on the subject of experiments on dogs, and his evidence is given in the
1050
appendix to the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission. He said:—
"I have not used a dog at Guy's for illustration of lectures at all. I used rabbits, rats, and guinea-pigs."
The witness further stated that he could teach physiology without experiments on dogs, though there were certain experiments, of course, which could only be done on dogs.
Let me take another witness, Dr. Osier. He stated that he was the Regius Professor of Medicine in the University of Oxford and Fellow of the Royal Society, and had been professor in the John Hopkins University in Baltimore for some years. He says, in answer to questions—and this evidence very fairly represents the pre-ponderence of opinion amongst scientific men, even among those who practice vivisection:—
"There is very naturally a feeling of regret in the minds of many, and in none more than in our own, that animals, particularly dogs, should be thus subjected to operations even though the object be a most desirable one to accomplish without the infliction of pain, and we would gladly have not used animals with which there is an association of most acute sentiment on the part of all."
That evidence on the part of these distinguished physiologists goes far to show that though we might be slightly in advance of the scientific opinion, yet among the greater proportion of that profession to which we owe so much, and among whom there are men just as humane as the hon. Baronet or myself, or any other person who objects to experiments on dogs, it will be found that the great preponderance of opinion is in favour of exempting dogs. Even among those who agree there is an absolute necessity there is a difference of opinion, because Professor Langley, at page 85 of our final Report to be found in the report of Dr. Wilson, states that experiments on dogs are still necessary to investigate the sympathetic nerve fibre which are in the lips of dogs and not in the lips of other animals. At the first blush that seems to be against the argument of the hon. Baronet and myself, but a little further examination of the evidence proves that even these scientific witnesses are not at all agreed, because Dr. Langley, who was a recognised authority on physiology, admitted, in reply to Sir William Collins, that there are two rival schools, that he belonged to one, and he did not suppose that he could convince the other people.
Even among those who hold advanced scientific opinion as to the necessity of employing dogs there is far from being

1051
that agreement which is necessary to decide that dogs must be used. Another point we draw attention, to on page 62 of our Report. We say that the exclusion by Order of any particular class of animal might be objected to as illogical on the ground that it is not easy to draw a sharp line of demarcation between exempted and non-exempted classes. We felt that difficulty very strongly, and in every evidence that was given we attempted to enlighten ourselves as to how or why the opinion was held that dogs should not be exempted. We found, after all, that precedents are not wanting even in law for making some such attempt. We found that the general law precludes the employment of dogs for the purposes of traction in this country, where as in several Continental countries they are habitually employed for such purposes. Dogs and cats are also dealt with on licence. They may be the subject of experiment on licence only, but they must not be used for experiments without an anæsthasia, unless a certificate is given, by one or other of the scientific authorities named in the Report, stating that for the reasons specified the experiments will necessarily be frustrated unless performed on a dog or cat. Then in the following page we say—this is the whole Commission—that the representations made to us for the complete exemption of any class of animal from all experiments under the Act have been strongest in the case of dogs. We had, on the other hand, many of the scientific witnesses representing strongly the case for the employment of dogs for certain experiments. Dr. Gotch, also a great physiologist, stated that in the University of Oxford during the last five years in that great school of learning and medicine no dogs had been used. If it had been so vitally necessary to employ dogs for examination I do not think that Dr. Gotch would have been found behindhand.
In the University of London, on the other hand, Professor Starling, said that they had employed 155 dogs in 1902, but in the Medical School of Guy's Hospital Dr. Pembry does not experiment on dogs at all, nor does he use them for the illustration of lectures. He uses rabbits, rats, and guinea pigs. Therefore, the House will not be astonished, in view of this divergence of opinion even among scientific men of advanced opinions and great experience, that we found a great deal of difficulty in deciding this very important
1052
question. Personally speaking, I should have been very pleased indeed if the exemption had been extended altogether to dogs, and I will go further and say that I would have included in the exemption the higher anthropoid apes. I do not think it right to leave quite unnoticed the remarks of the hon. Baronet upon the, to-my mind, appalling experiments that were conducted by Dr. Crile. I am bound to say that every scientific witness who came before us condemned those experiments. I am happy to say that I do believe the heavy anæsthasia was used. I know that the public were horrified—it is not an unfair word to use—at the idea that the light anæsthasia only was used for these dogs. But after carefully searching through the whole question we believe that the animals who were subjected to the appalling experiments were absolutely senseless and without pain. That is perhaps a pious opinion, but after the evidence I heard I am forced to agree to it. I was placed on the Commission, I believe, as one who always voted and spoke against these experiments unless under certain conditions, but I honestly endeavoured during the time I served on that Commission to put aside all my opinions and to go entirely in search of truth, and to listen to every opinion either for or against it that was put before the Commission. I hope that after our painstaking efforts extending over some years, the country will feel they have endeavoured to fulfil a double duty, a duty to science and a duty to the animal. I think that this House will be acting well within its province if it passes the Motion moved by the hon. Baronet to-night, namely, to exempt dogs altogether from these experiments.
9.0 P.M.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I intervene thus early owing to the exceptional circumstances under which this Debate has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last reminded the House that a Royal Commission had been sitting upon this subject and investigating it with great care for six years. The Report of that Commission appeared for the first time this morning. So far as I am concerned I have had an opportunity of perusing it very cursorily only this afternoon. As might be expected, the hon. Baronet who, as the whole House knows, has taken a great interest in this subject for a number of years, has made a very forcible speech in support of the Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman, who had the advan-

1053
tage of being a Member of the Commission, and of investigating this subject amongst others for six years, has supported the hon. Baronet in an equally forcible speech. If the matter could end there I am fairly confident that the House, on grounds of humanity, and on the various grounds put forward by the hon. Baronet and the right hon. Gentleman would be only too glad to comply with the terms of this Motion. But it is quite obvious that the matter cannot end at this point. What must be the position of anybody holding my office who would necessarily be responsible for legislation in order to carry out the views of the House, if he were to form a hasty judgment upon a subject of this kind? I tell the House at once that this Motion brought forward this evening places me in a great difficulty. I am asked to agree to an expression of opinion which would lead to a reversal of what has been done by my predecessors in office for a good many years. I do not know that I should hesitate, if I could be convinced upon all the evidence, considered in the light of such advice as I could obtain from the experts who advise the Home Office, to support the Bill of the hon. Baronet which would have the object of carrying out his policy. But ought I at this stage to commit either myself or the Government to that policy without having had an opportunity of considering, even in the most cursory manner, the evidence which was collected over a period of six years, and the Report which an eminent Royal Commission has given to the world to-day only. The hon. Baronet observed that the issue of the Report is inopportune, as it would enable those opposed to the Motion to shield themselves behind that Report. Speaking for myself, that is not an accurate description of the situation. I can assure the House that I should come to this subject, as I hope to all the subjects which are matters of controversies— it is controversial, even with scientific experts—with an open mind, but I must have a preliminary study of the evidence and form my judgment on the Report. Supposing, on behalf of the Government, I were to accept this Motion, what should I be doing? I should not be even paying the Royal Commission the courtesy of reading what they had to say. Supposing, on the other hand, on behalf of the Government, I were to advise the House to reject the Motion, I should be judging this question which forms part of a
1054
subject which was deliberately remitted to the consideration of the Commission. I cannot be expected to do either of those things, with great submission to the hon. Baronet. I do not think the House, or even the hon. Baronet himself, would ask me to go one step beyond saying that if I am satisfied, as the result of a study of the expert evidence which was heard before the Royal Commission, that his Bill—for I appreciate this Motion leads up to a Bill—ought to be accepted, I should not hesitate to support it.
I really think the hon. Baronet could not ask me to go further than that, but, if he does ask me to go further and to support the Motion, I must tell him frankly that I cannot do so. If the Members of the House go to a Division, I tell him; frankly I cannot vote. I do not think that this matter ought to be prejudged either way—either by a vote in favour of the Motion, or a vote of the House against it. There is one thing which I think ought to be emphasised. The hon. Baronet stated very clearly that this is not a discussion on vivisection itself. I think—whatever conclusion the House may come to on this subject, if it takes a vote-upon it—that it ought not to go out to the world that this is a decision either for or against vivisection. This is really the limited question as to whether dogs should be excepted from vivisection, of course, a very much smaller point. But having said so much, I must plead to the House that I should not feel myself—without the opportunity of examining the evidence, and without the opportunity of coming to a conclusion upon that evidence—justified in recommending the House either to support or to oppose the Motion of the hon. Baronet. For my part I should be very glad if the hon. Baronet, could agree, in the circumstances, not to press his Motion to-night. If, on the other hand, he thinks it necessary to press his Motion, I can only repeat that I should not feel myself justified in giving a vote either way, because if I voted for the Motion I should be committing myself to. support his Bill, when a subsequent consideration of the evidence might lead to the conclusion that I was not justified in doing so. On the other hand, if I opposed the Resolution, I should be committing the Government to that policy, when further examination of the question might lead to the conclusion that it ought to be accepted. On these grounds, therefore, I do not feel justified in advising the House to give a vote either way.
Mr. WALTER GUINNESS: The Home Secretary has taken a very sound line on this matter, and urged, as we have not had time to read this Report, that it is inadvisable to go to a Division to-night, but as the hon. Baronet who moved this Resolution went into the merits of the case, I think it is only right to point out that from this Report, even at the first glance which we have been able so far to give it, there is a considerable amount of evidence, and I think one may say that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of dogs being allowed to be the subjects of experiments subject to the present restrictions. The hon. Baronet read several extracts from the Report, but he did not deal with the difficulty that the majority of Commissioners were not in favour of this restriction which he brings forward, and there is not a single word in favour of exempting dogs from vivisection in the Report of the Minority or in the Majority Report.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: There is no Minority Report.
Mr. GUINNESS: Three of the members signed a statement. Certainly the majority point out that there are restrictions at present, and they do not argue that it is necessary to increase them.
Sir. F. BANBURY: On page 63 of the Report it is stated:—
"Some of us regard the provisions of the existing law as sufficient. Some of us would prefer that in the case both of experimentation and demonstration the further protection given to horses, asses and mules, should be extended to dogs, while some of us would exclude the use of dogs altogether."
Mr. GUINNESS: The Majority Report, in summing up their recommendations on page 65, do not mention dogs at all. Dogs are, I understand, only mentioned in the separate statement which is signed by the right hon. Gentleman who seconded this Motion.
Sir. F. BANBURY: What I quoted from page 63 is included in the recommendations.
Mr. GUINNESS: Anyhow, the majority do not recommend any alteration in the law about dogs. I am quite sure that the House sympathises with the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, and I suppose there is no one in the House who has not had a faithful friend among the dog world, but at the same time I think it can be shown that it would not be in the interests of dogs themselves to pass the Resolution. My reason for saying that is that
1056
various diseases which have caused an immense amount of suffering to dogs have only been tackled by science with the help of experiments on dogs. I would mention amongst those diseases distemper. There is a preventive treatment for distemper which was discovered by Doctor Cope, and which I believe has prevented an enormous amount of suffering among dogs.
Colonel LOCKWOOD Colonel LOCKWOOD expressed dissent.
Mr. GUINNESS: The scientific opinion is that the preventive treatment is very successful. There is another disease which has caused a great deal of suffering among dogs, and which is known as malignant jaundice. That disease has been studied in its progress under experimental conditions which would not have been possible if all vivisection of dogs, which technically includes treatment which does not involve any surgical operation, were prevented. The observations of this disease and the resultant discovery of the parasite and the cure, would not have been possible.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: I lost a dog by it last week.
Mr. GUINNESS: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had it treated.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: Yes, in London.
Mr. GUINNESS: I believe that as the result of experimental observations, Professor Nuttall has discovered a, remedy which has made the probability of recovery in those cases very much greater. Of course all medicine must be experimental, and I think the majority of Members will agree that it is better that you should experiment upon dogs, under every favourable safeguard as regards cruelty, instead of experimenting upon human beings in hospitals which is the only alternative.
Sir. F. BANBURYmade an observation which was inaudible.
Mr. GUINNESS: There are various diseases which can only be treated on dogs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Of human beings?"] Yes. There are certain diseases of digestion which must be treated and observed in carnivorous animals. Obviously you cannot have lions and tigers. Cats are too small for a large number of experiments, and the only animal possible is the dog. The hon. Baronet admitted the weight of medical opinion in this

1057
matter. He said he was not against vivisection as a whole because he recognised that the weight of science was in favour of it. I think he ought, therefore, to attach some importance to the statement on page 3 of this Report, that the General Medical Council and other medical bodies recommended in 1876 that dogs and cats should not be exempted. On page 59 of the Report he will also find that in the opinion of many of the scientific witnesses to totally prohibit all experiments on dogs would seriously hinder the progress of science. The authorities quoted are Professor Starling, Sir Lauder Brunton, Sir Douglas Powell, Sir Henry Morris, Sir Victor Horsley, and others. Further down on that page, he will find the following:—
"The general view of most of the scientific witnesses was that, in construction and organisation the dog was the animal best adapted, and in many cases the only one available for such experiments."
I think it is satisfactory to find that dogs and cats cannot be experimented on except under particular restrictions. It is stated on page 59:—
"Except in the case of operations under anæsthesia without recovery it is necessary for experiments on dogs to obtain a certificate which states among other things that the object of any such experiment would be necessarily frustrated unless it is performed on an animal similar in constitution and habits to a dog or a cat, and that no other animal is as suitable for any such experiment."
That extract shows that very careful means are now taken to prevent any experiments on dogs and cats which are not absolutely essential or which could equally easily be performed on other animals. The hon. Baronet urged that it would be possible to perform these experiments on pigs and sheep. But you cannot keep pigs and sheep in university laboratories. Most of the investigators into these abstruse matters are employed either as medical men or as professors at seats of learning, and it would mean that they would be debarred altogether from experiments if they had to travel out to the country and visit a farm each time they wished to make observations. The pain suffered by dogs owing to vivisection is very liable to be exaggerated. The hon. Baronet said that Professor Starling in the year 1902 performed 155 experiments on dogs in the physiological laboratory of University College.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present. House counted; and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at Eighteen minutes after Nine o'clock till to-morrow (Wednesday).

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  WELLINGTON HOUSE.
  WELLINGTON HOUSE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH COMMISSION (IRELAND).
  NATIONAL HEALTH COMMISSION (IRELAND).
  Inhabited House Duty.
  Inhabited House Duty.
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  National School Teachers (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1909.
  Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1909.
  Land Judge's Court (Ireland).
  Land Judge's Court (Ireland).
  Local Contributions (Ireland).
  Local Contributions (Ireland).
  Outrages (Ireland).
  Outrages (Ireland).
  Royal Hibernian Military School, Dublin.
  Royal Hibernian Military School, Dublin.
  Army Pay Offices (Civilian Subordinates).
  Army Pay Offices (Civilian Subordinates).
  Osborne Naval College.
  Osborne Naval College.
  School Teachers (Compulsory Retirement).
  School Teachers (Compulsory Retirement).
  Coroners' Law.
  Coroners' Law.
  Eastern Shipping Company, of Penang.
  Eastern Shipping Company, of Penang.
  Royal Navy (Cost of Ships and Pay).
  Royal Navy (Cost of Ships and Pay).
  Central Telegraph Office (Hours of Duty).
  Central Telegraph Office (Hours of Duty).
  Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee (Foreign States).
  Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee (Foreign States).
  North Atlantic Fisheries.
  North Atlantic Fisheries.
BARONIES OF BURGH, STRABOLGI AND COBHAM
Petition of Viscount Gage and Sir Robert Bourchier Sherard Wrey for leave to lodge forthwith one printed case applicable to the three claims to the Baronies of Martyn, Dynaunt and Fitzwaryn; read, and ordered as prayed.
CREDIT FONCIER OF MAURITIUS BILL. [H.L.]
  BELFAST CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WIRRAL RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I see my noble friend Lord Newton in his place, and I venture to make an appeal to him with regard to a Notice which stands first on the Paper for to-morrow in his name.—viz:
"To call attention to the Report from the Joint Select Committee of the House of lords and House of Commons on the Stage Plays (Censorship)."
Your Lordships are aware that there are on the Paper following the noble Lord's Notice two Motions with regard to Ireland to which noble Lords from Ireland attach considerable importance, and for the discussion of which I understand a certain number of noble Lords are coming over from Ireland. The noble Lord, it is true, had placed his Notice on the Paper in advance of the Irish Notices, but those who issued the summons to noble Lords from Ireland were under the belief that those Motions stood first on the Paper. That, however, was not so, and consequently the day is entirely at the disposal of my noble friend. But if he should find it possible, without inconvenience to himself or to those who are interested in the subject to which he desires to call atten-
390
tion, to put his Notice off for two or three days and allow the Irish Motions to hold the field to-morrow evening it would be greatly appreciated by those who are interested in them.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it has frequently happened to me to put down a Motion and then be asked by some noble Lord, generally some one on the Front Benches, to change the day. I feel quite certain in my own mind that, if the circumstances were reversed, it would not be the slightest use my making an appeal to my noble friend to give way to me, but as I am of a much more amiable disposition I suppose I shall have to again sacrifice myself. I observed that the Notice Paper was absolutely clear of business, and thereupon, after consulting with other noble Lords and twice altering the day, I fixed upon to-morrow. Some time afterwards Lord Midleton came to me and in broken-hearted accents asked me to give up my day because a large number of noble Lords are coming over from Ireland in order to discuss a very important question. If the question is such an important one, I am surprised that they did not put the Motion on the Paper two or three days earlier. But, as I say, I do not wish to be disobliging, and if there are a number of noble Lords coming over from Ireland. I do not wish to stand in their way. At the same time, I desire to enter a protest against this practice of asking members of this House to alter their day. In this particular case, however, I have consulted with noble Lords who are interested in the question which I was to have raised to-morrow, and they have assured me that they do not mind its being postponed until next week. Therefore I will fall in with my noble friend's request, but I should like to warn him that this is the last time I shall give way.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am sure we are all most grateful to my noble friend for the generosity with which he has acted in this matter, but I wish to say a word on one remark which fell from him. He said that he had always been anxious to give way to members of the Front Benches. I can assure him that there is a perfectly clear understanding that no one on this Bench should ever rise when it is understood that my noble friend wishes to address the House.

MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Extent of Act.
1. This Act shall extend and apply to the administrative county of London and to those parts of the administrative counties of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, and Surrey (exclusive of the county borough of Croydon) to which the provisions of the Disorderly Houses Act, 1751, relating to music and dancing licences applied.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS)THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS) moved, after the word " of "["and to those parts of the administrative counties of"] to insert "Buckinghamshire" and to leave out the words "exclusive of " and to insert" and of the county borough of West Ham and. "The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment and of some subsequent Amendments which are consequential is to bring within the scope of this useful piece of legislation the whole of the district included within the twenty-mile radius from the City of Westminster. I think the value of the Bill would be very much destroyed if an exception were made as to the borough of Croydon and a small piece of Buckinghamshire. The position would then be this, that there would be three Acts of Parliament dealing with this subject applying to the same district. There would be the old Act of 1751, which would not be repealed in respect of Croydon and this part of Buckinghamshire; the Middlesex Act of 1894, and then, if this Bill passes, there would be this Act. There is no reason, so far as I know, why Croydon should be treated separately, and as no argument has been advanced for such separate treatment I hope your Lordships will see fit to include the whole of the twenty-mile radius.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, after the first ("of") insert ("Buckinghamshire"), and leave out ("exclusive of") and insert ("and of the county borough of West Ham and").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
EARL STANHOPE: The London County Council, for whom I am acting in this matter, have naturally no objection to the noble Lord's Amendment. But I wish to point out that as far as Buckinghamshire is concerned it is really a minor matter, because I am given to understand that there is not, at present at any rate, a single building in that county which conies under the Act of 1751. The reason why the borough of Croydon was left out was, as I stated on Second Reading, that the borough council had made other arrangements and did not wish to upset thorn by having, a new Act. Naturally the London County Council do not object to Croydon being put into the Bill, but it is possible that at another stage of the Bill the authorities of Croydon may petition against it if they are now included.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next Amendment is a purely drafting one. It is better to state expressly the area; otherwise it is necessary for a person reading the Bill to refer to the Act of 1751.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out front ("Croydon") to the end of the clause and insert ("which are within twenty miles of the Cities of London and Westminster").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out the words "exclusive of the county borough of West Ham. "An administrative county does not include a county borough. Therefore it is unnecessary to insert these words.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("exclusive of the county borough of West Ham").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, after ("West Ham") insert ("and the county borough of Croydon").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Music and Dancing Licences.
3.—(1) Premises, whether licensed or not for the sale of wines, spirits, beer, or other fermented or distilled liquors, shall not be kept or used for public dancing, singing, music, or other public entertainment of the like kind without a licence first obtained from the licensing authority for the purpose or purposes for which the same respectively are to be kept or used.
(2) The licensing authority may grant licences, to such persons as they think fit, to keep or use premises for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, upon such terms and conditions, and subject to such restrictions, as they by the respective licences determine.
(3) The licensing authority may transfer any such licence to such person as they may think fit.
(4) Any person to whom the licensing authority may have refused to grant or transfer a licence to keep or use premises as aforesaid shall not be entitled to again apply for the grant or transfer of a licence in respect of the same premises within three months from the date of such refusal, and the licensing authority may refuse in any case to consider any application for the grant or transfer of a licence under this Act at any meeting other than an annual licensing meeting fixed by the licensing authority for the purpose of considering such applications unless the applicant can satisfy the licensing authority that there are special circumstances which justify the consideration of the application at such other meeting.
(5) Subject to the provision hereinafter contained as to the revocation of a licence by the licensing authority, every licence granted at an annual licensing meeting as aforesaid shall be in force for one year, or for such shorter period as the licensing authority on the grant of the licence shall determine, and every licence granted at any other meeting of the licensing authority shall be in force until the annual licensing meeting next ensuing after the grant thereof, or for such shorter period as the licensing authority on the grant thereof shall determine.
(6) Premises kept or used as aforesaid shall not be opened for any of die purposes aforesaid except on the days and between the hours stated in the licence relating thereto, and no such premises shall be open for any of the purposes aforesaid after midnight and before the hour of noon: Provided that if any person applies to die licensing authority for a licence exempting him on any special occasion or occasions from the provisions of this subsection relating to the closing of premises it shall be lawful for the licensing authority, if in their discretion they think fit so to do, to grant to the applicant a licence exempting him from the before-mentioned provisions of this subsection during certain hours and on the special occasion or occasions to be specified in the licence.
(7) The observance of the days and hours of opening and closing as aforesaid shall be a condition of every licence.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out subsection (4), which seems unnecessary. There is really nothing to prevent an individual making an application, and there is nothing to prevent the authority refusing it. Therefore there is
394
no necessity to insert this subsection, which is both inoperative and unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 6 to 17, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
EARL STANHOPE: I do not propose to divide your Lordships on this Amendment as it is not of any great magnitude. I would, however, point out that the London County Council has already a considerable amount of work to do, and if anybody is allowed to come and demand week after week a licence for a particular place and on its refusal to come again the following week, naturally it is not going to reduce the amount of work done by the Committee concerned. If this subsection is cut out it is possible that a considerable amount of extra work may be placed on the County Council committee and the officials.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE*EARL STANHOPE moved to amend subsection (5) by leaving out the words "at art annual licensing meeting," and also omitting all words after "determine" in the middle of the subsection. The noble Earl said These two Amendments are really of a drafting nature. It is considered that without these Amendments it would be possible for an interval to exist between the termination of one licence and the granting of another. Supposing the annual meeting was held on November 15 this year and was not held next year until, say, the 20th; in that case every single house which had received its annual licence would be without that licence from the 15th to the 20th, and every one of them would accordingly be considered a disorderly house. It is in order to get rid of that interval between the two licences that I propose these Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("at an annual licensing meeting")
Page 2, line 22, leave out from ("determine") to the end of subsection (5).—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Fees for Licences.
4. There shall be paid to the licensing authority in respect of the grant or transfer of a licence under this Act, such fees as the licensing authority may fix, not exceeding—
(1) For the grant of a licence in respect of church halls, mission halls, schools, institutes, awl similar premises, five shillings for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted, or one pound, whichever amount is the lesser:
(2) For the grant of a licence in respect of assembly rooms, club rooms, concert halls, hotels, restaurants, public-houses, dancing halls, skating rinks, town balls, drill halls, and swimming baths, five shillings for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted:
(3) For the grant of a licence in respect of any premises other than those in this section herein-before mentioned:
For premises accommodating not more than five hundred persons—
Ten shillings for every month or part of a mouth for which the licence is granted.
For premises accommodating more than five hundred but not more than one thousand persons—
One pound for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted.
For premises accommodating more than one thousand, but not more than fifteen hundred persons—
Thirty shillings for every month or part of a month for which a licence is granted.
For premises accommodating more than fifteen hundred, but not more than two thousand persons—
Two pounds for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted.
For premises accommodating more than two thousand persons—
Three pounds for every month or part of a month for which the licence is granted.
(4) For the transfer of a licence—
For premises to which paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of this section apply, five shillings.
For other premises, ten shillings.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Before this clause is added to the Bill I should like to say a word, because I do not wish the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to be under any misapprehension as to the view of the Government upon it. This clause imposes certain fees payable to the licensing authority in respect to the premises licensed. It is true that in the Middlesex Act of 1894 a small fee is payable, but this clause goes far beyond anything in that Act, and for the first time imposes a sub-
396
stantial fee payable by the licensee to the authorities. There is a good deal to be said for this, because no doubt the authorities are put to considerable expense and will no doubt be put to additional expense under this Act. I believe it is stated that as large a sum as £6,000 or £8,000 is annually spent upon the inspection of licensed premises. At the same time, I think it must be borne in mind that the inspection of these theatres is more in the interests of the public than of the theatrical proprietors or managers, and it is questionable whether that expenditure should not be borne out of the general rates rather than be thrown upon the individual. Moreover, this is quite a substantial fee. I do not know what view the Exchequer may take of it. It is conceivable that at some time a Chancellor of the Exchequer may wish to tax places of amusement, and in view of that I do not know whether it would be wise for us at this stage to grant, as it were, to local authorities such sums as might be derived from this species of taxation. However, I have not put down any Amendment upon this, but I reserve to the Government the right, after consideration, if they see fit, to move in another place to amend at any rate the amounts which are specified in this clause.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope His Majesty's Government will not follow the suggestion which has been outlined to the House by the noble Lord, because, as I stated on a previous stage of the Bill, the fees charged under this clause will not cover one-half of the cost of inspection. The cost of inspection is put at over £8,000—that is, the cost of architects going into the question of safety and the cost of fire brigade officers going into the question of fire risks. What we expect to get from these fees is approximately £3,600, as against £8,000 which the inspection will cost. As to the noble Lord's remark that it is possible at some future date that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see fit to impose taxes on places of this kind, I would suggest that these fees are not likely to be any interference with such taxation any more than was that the case with the licensing of motor-cars. Motor-cars were licensed before the Budget of 1909, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer found no difficulty in placing additional taxes upon them.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Penalties.
5.—(1) In the case of any premises kept or used for any of the purposes aforesaid without a licence for such purposes first obtained, the person keeping or rated as occupier of the same shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for every day on which the Battle are so kept or used.
(2) In the case of any breach or disregard of any of the terms, conditions, or restrictions upon or subject to which a licence was granted, the holder thereof shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and in, the case of a continuing offence to a further penalty not exceeding five pounds for each day on which such offence continues, and such licence shall be liable to be revoked by the licensing authority.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in any other Act all penalties recovered under this section shall be paid to the licensing authority taking the proceedings leading to the recovery of the same.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My first Amendment is to leave out the words " In the case of " at the beginning of the clause. It reads better to begin the clause with the words " Any premises."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1 leave out (" in the case of ").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to leave out from subsection (1) the words " any of the purposes aforesaid." It is thought clearer to state what the purposes are, and therefore I move to insert the words " public dancing, singing, or other public entertainments of the like kind."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("any of the purposes aforesaid ") and insert ("public 'dancing, singing, music, or other public entertainments of the like kind").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move, after the word " obtain " in subsection (1), to insert the words in my Amendment. The object is to retain the description " disorderly house " for such premises as are unlicensed. If that is retained as it is in the Middlesex Act it has the advantage of giving the police, if necessary, a right of entry. It also makes the person who occupies such unlicensed premises guilty of a misdemeanour which can be punished by imprisonment or unlimited fine, and the imprisonment can carry with it in some cases hard labour. The insertion of these words provides an alternative method of
398
procedure. If in any circumstances the local authority was slack in prosecuting houses which had not a licence it would give the public, acting through their county councils, power to obtain a warrant which would enable the police to enter and close the premises. This is an additional precaution, and I hope the noble Earl will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, after ("obtained") insert (" shall be deemed a disorderly house, and without prejudice to any enactment respecting the prosecution of persons keeping a disorderly house ").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
EARL STANHOPE: The only point against the Amendment is this, that it does preserve some of the rather extreme procedure of the Act of 1751. By Section 5 of that Act proceedings can be taken against a disorderly house by a common informer. Any two members of the public can take action against the disorderly house, and if the proceedings are successful they can claim a fee of £10 each. Several of the borough councils in London have objected to that procedure, which they think is undignified and unnecessary. They feel that the police authorities are adequate to take proceedings in such cases, and they are therefore anxious to do away altogether with the Act of 1751 in that case. I think it is possible that in another place there may be an Amendment moved to this subsection by which the common informer will be ruled out and the municipal and police authorities given the power, which, of course, ought to be left to them, of taking proceedings in such cases.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: Your Lordships will observe that this clause provides that a penalty not exceeding £50 may be exacted from any one convicted of a breach of the provisions of the Act, and that the fine is to date from the day from which the offence is committed. There is an invariable practice nowadays in all Government Departments dealing with these kind of Bills to insist that the fine should not take place until after conviction. If that is not the case, there is nothing to prevent a local authority from purposely delaying the proceedings against an unlicensed house with a view to mulcting them in very heavy damages. It is considered better now to make the fine date from the date of conviction and

399
not from the date of the offence. I hope it will meet the view of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill if, as my next Amendment proposes, " one hundred pounds " is inserted instead of " fifty pounds " for a first offence, and £50 for every day following. In that way the fine is increased, but the authorities are rather put under an obligation to take proceedings at once and not let the thing remain on with the object of possibly abstracting a bigger fine.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, after (" exceeding") insert (" one hundred pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further penalty not exceeding ").—Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("used") insert ("after conviction therefor")
Page 4, line 12, after ("continues") insert ("after conviction therefor").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: I move to leave out from subsection (3) the words " all penalties " and to insert " any fines." This is merely a drafting Amendment to make the clause read clearer.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out (" all penalties ") and insert, (" any fines ").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: I move, after the word " section " in subsection (3), to insert " on the prosecution of a licensing authority." The object of this Amendment is to allow fees and penalties to he paid to the police authorities or to whoever takes proceedings in such cases where it is not the county council. As the clause at present stands, all fines and penalties would be paid to the licensing authorities whoever took proceedings. I hope my noble friend will realise that the county councils are giving over these fees, and will remember that fact when he is dealing later on with Clause 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, after (" section") insert (" on the prosecution of a licensing authority ").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Repeal.
9. From and after the commencement of this Act the enactments mentioned in the schedule to this Act, in so far as they apply to the area to which this Act applies, are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that schedule.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: I move to omit the words " in so far as they apply to the area to which this Act applies." This is merely a drafting Amendment with the object of bringing in the whole of the twenty-mile radius.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 32 and 33, leave out (" in so far as they apply to the area to which this Act applies ").—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 12.)

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present session.—(Lord Ashby St. Ledgers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Lords following were named of the Committee—

L. Chancellor.

L. Zouche of Haryngworth.

L. De Manley.

L. Stanley of Alderley. (L. Sheffield.)

L. Ashby St. Ledgers.

Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

IRISH FINANCE.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether it is intended to publish the Report or evidence, or both, of the Committee on Irish Finance, having regard to the early introduction of the Home Rule Bill and to the consequent need for authoritative and expert opinion and figures being available to Members and the public upon the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland; whether the contents of the Report, or any part thereof, or its general import, have been shown or communicated to any member of either House of Parliament, except Ministers, or to any other person, and, if so, to whom.
This Question is no novelty to those who have studied this matter. Questions of a similar character have been frequently put to His Majesty's Ministers in the House of Commons, but the replies have always been of an unsatisfactory, and, I think I may say, of an evasive character. I may remind your Lordships that it was in March last, at Oxford, that the Chief Secretary announced that an inquiry was to be held with regard to the relations between English and Irish finance, and that it was to be of a purely confidential character and for the benefit of the Cabinet solely. That Committee called a number of witnesses and made its Report to the Government last autumn. I fully admit that if His Majesty's Government intended to bring in a Home Rule Bill—which in all probability will lead to the absolute ruin of finance in Ireland—it was their duty to appoint a Committee to inquire into the financial relations between England and Ireland. But the Committee reported now some months ago, and as we are told that a Home Rule Bill is to be introduced into the House of Commons during Easter week I cannot understand why the Report should not be made public. Before the introduction of the Home Rule Bill and afterwards there will be discussions of an important character in Parliament, in the Press, and on public platforms. Consequently, I think it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to give every facility to those who will take part in those discussions of knowing what is contained in the Report of this Committee. I think it is the bounden duty of His Majesty's Government to let the country know the basis on which they have founded the financial proposals which will appear in the Bill shortly to be introduced.
402
I can quite understand that up to the time when the Home Rule Bill is prepared His Majesty's Government should consider the Report of the Committee confidential, and, I might even say, of a secret character; but now that the Bill is about to be introduced I maintain that the confidential nature of the Report is entirely removed. The Committee in question was appointed and discharged its duties at the public expense, and as the public has had to pay for the information obtained by the Committee I maintain that the public has a perfect right to obtain the Report made by the Committee to His Majesty's Government. I gather froth the answers of the Prime Minister in another place that the Government have not finally made up their minds not to publish the Report. On February 19 the Prime Minister said he could not yet say what the eventual decision as to the publication of the Report might be; and again, on March 6, the Prime Minister replied in the negative to a question whether we were definitely to assume that he undertook not to publish the Committee's Report. Mr. McKenna, on February 27, said it would be contrary to precedent to produce the Report of this Committee before legislation. From that answer it is gathered that the Government will not be unprepared to publish the Report after the introduction of the Home Rule Bill. I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether it is intended to give the Report to the public before the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, whether it will be issued in the course of the discussions of the Bill, and, if not, what grounds they have for keeping the Report back from the public. I hope to have direct answers to those questions.
But I hope to have an even more direct answer to the latter part of my Question. I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government considered the Report of a secret and confidential character, but there are rumours that the details of it have not been confined to the members of His Majesty's Government. Reports are abroad that other people have seen the Report. That rumour has gained a certain amount of credence owing to the evasive answers which have been given by the Home Secretary in another place when questioned on the matter. The Home Secretary was asked whether the Report had been shown to others than to His Majesty's Government, but be fenced

403
entirely with that question. Therefore I have to ask the noble Marquess whether it is the fact that the contents of the Report or any part of it, or its general import, have been shown or communicated to persons outside His Majesty's Government, and if the noble Marquess replies in the affirmative I can only say that it is most unjustifiable to show the Report to nonofficial individuals when they refuse to show it to people in the House of Commons who are entitled to ask for it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, the noble Marquess has told us that Questions similar in character to that which he has just asked have been put more than once in another place, and he does not consider that the replies which have been given are satisfactory. I fear, however, that I shall not be able to-day to go beyond what my right hon. friends have said elsewhere. This inquiry, as has been already stated, was a purely confidential inquiry for the purpose of assisting His Majesty's Government in framing a Home Rule Bill, and upon His Majesty's Government the whole responsibility must necessarily rest for the particular financial proposals as well as for all the other proposals which they embody in that measure when it is presented to Parliament. I therefore cannot see any reason, and I know of no precedent which would help the noble Marquess, in urging that the Report of an inquiry of this kind should be published before the Bill is read a first time in the House in which it is introduced. It seems to me that you might almost as well ask for the publication of the various drafts upon which a Bill is framed, sometimes, as noble Lords who have been responsible for Bills know, greatly differing in their details and even sometimes in their principles, in order that you may be able to trace the various processes of mind through which the framers of a particular measure have passed. Therefore, so far as the immediate publication of this Report is concerned, there seems to me to be no case for it whatever.
As to its ultimate publication, I am not in a better position to speak than my right hon. friends in another place. I cannot say that it will be published. I certainly am not going to say that it will not; but, if it is, it is impossible for me now to tell the noble Marquess at what stage of the
404
discussion it will be produced. But I can safely say that the particular considerations which the noble Marquess urges as to the need for authoritative information on certain financial matters so far as they would be advanced by the publication of this Report will certainly carry due weight with His Majesty's Government. I cannot help thinking that there has been a confusion in the minds of some people between the character of this inquiry and the large inquiry by Royal Commission into the financial relations between the two countries which was held before the last Home Rule Bill was introduced. They are entirely different in character in every respect. I have noticed that in some of the Questions that have been put to my right hon. friend in another place this Committee has been spoken of as the Financial Relations Inquiry, as though it were exactly on all fours with the wide and sweeping inquiry which was held nearly twenty years ago.
As regards the second part of the noble Marquess's Question, that, also, has more than once been put in another place. I am not quite sure with what object this query has been put either here or on former occasions in the House of Commons. The Report is, as I have explained to the noble Marquess, of a purely confidential character. As to whether it has been shown to any other person or persons, as confidential Papers are sometimes shown in confidence, I am not in a position to speak. Honestly, I do not know, and although I am probably as much interested in the forthcoming measure as any other member of the Government, and more than some, because when it comes here it will, I presume, fall to my lot to be in charge of it, I have not made any inquiry as to whether any other person or persons outside the Cabinet have seen it. I am bound to add that even if I did know I could not answer the noble Marquess's Question, because the Report is a confidential one, and it would not be proper to state who had or who had not seen it. But I cannot think that in any case the matter is one of great importance, because, as I have already said, what is important is the responsibility which His Majesty's Government will take for the actual proposals which they will produce immediately after Easter in another place. Meantime, I am afraid it is impossible to satisfy further the curiosity of noble Lords opposite on this particular point.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I put this Question on the Paper some days ago, and I think it is an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the noble Marquess not to have taken the trouble to find out the answer to the latter part. Speaking with great respect I venture to say that there was never a more discourteous action done by one Front Bench to another. Probably the noble Marquess knows full well that the Report has been shown to people associated with the Nationalist Party but he is afraid to say so in your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I must contradict that statement. I was speaking quite seriously and stating a simple fact when I observed that I do not know whether or not any one outside the Government has seen it.
THE EARL OF MAYO: There was one remark made by the noble Marquess to which I should like to allude. He stated that the proceedings of this Committee were quite different in character from the former inquiry. The only difference in character that I can make out is that this country has since those days provided a great deal more money than it had done before—
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but my observation was directed to the fact that the former inquiry was held by Royal Commission and this was an inquiry by a small confidential Committee.
THE EARL OF MAYO: What I feel in this matter is that we have not got out of the Government any statement as to whether the Report has been shown to outside persons. If this Committee had reported in a favourable manner with regard to Irish finances, and if they had reported that Ireland would be able to pay its way under Home Rule—if they had taken an optimistic view of the result of a measure of Home Rule upon the finances of the country, we should no doubt have heard all about it. We should have been told that the Committee had been a great success, and that they had found out that everything would be all right when Ireland had got Home Rule. But we have
406
reason to believe that the contrary has occurred, and therefore we are told that the Report of the Committee is to be kept a secret. I hope that after the Home Rule Bill has been introduced we shall see the Report of this Committee and know exactly the opinions at which they arrived. I cannot say that the answer of the noble Marquess is other than most unsatisfactory, but we must be thankful even for small mercies. I can only repeat that if the Committee had found out that we would be able to pay our way under Home Rule we should have heard all about it before this. That, I am afraid, is not the case, and therefore the Report is to be kept secret as long as possible.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am unable to agree with my noble friend who has just sat down, for I see no mercies at all to be thankful for. The noble Marquess had ample notice of the Question on the Paper, and my noble friend Lord Londonderry presented his case with the greatest courtesy and clearness. I anticipated the answer we should receive to the first part of the Question, but the noble Marquess has given no answer at all to the most crucial point contained in the latter part of the Question to which attention has been keenly directed in the Press and in conversation, and which is of the highest possible importance. The noble Marquess said he did not know whether the contents of the Report had been shown or communicated to outside persons. I ask, What business has the noble Marquess to be in that state of mind? When such a Question as this is put to His Majesty's Government by a noble Lord who fills a considerable position in reference to this question, is it not the business of the noble Marquess opposite to be able to give an answer? Why is he in a position to clothe himself in masterly ignorance? Ignorance is entirely out of place on this question. I can understand the noble Marquess saying that this was a secret Committee, but, if so, surely he should be in a position to say whether the secret was fairly observed all round, and whether when the discussion opens every one will be in a state of ignorance until the Prime Minister, who will have charge of this Bill, unfolds the secret. What is suggested is this, that it is extremely probable, if the Report has not been shown, that at any rate its contents have been communicated to ersons who do not belong to this side

407
in politics, and that one Party greatly interested in the Home Rule Bill have been given an opportunity of knowing a great deal about the contents of this Report, whilst no information at all has been communicated to those who sit on this side and who are deeply interested in knowing the contents of that Report. Personally, I am entirely dissatisfied with the answer given by the noble Marquess. Having regard to my personal respect for him, I do not like to say it was unfair. But I think I will go as far as to say it was not fair. I do not think it is reasonable for the noble Marquess, when asked a fair question like this, to say that he is unable to give an answer on what is a most crucial point in this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I say that as the noble Marquess has stated that he is not in a position to answer the latter part of my Question because he has no knowledge on the subject, I will repeat the Question on Thursday next, when I hope he will be able to give me some information.

THE ARMY.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD*THE DUKE OF BEDFORD rose to call attention to—

1. The following Table showing the number of men required from Section D of the Regular Reserve to complete the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force after October, 1913, according to statements supplied by the Secretary of State for War and by the Under-Secretary of State for War.

2. The number of men in Section D available for service abroad in 1913 after all the requirements of mobilisation have been supplied; and to move for Papers.

Estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913 (Lord Erroll's Return)

106,372

Less number resident abroad on 1st January, 1912. (Statement of Under-secretary of State for War on Monday, 4th March, 1912. Official Report)

8,230

98,142

Less 10 per cent, for casualties. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State, 15th November, 1910. Official Report)

9,814

Less number of Reservists required to bring the four home battalions and other Regular units left at home up to war establishment. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State, 15th November, 1910. Official Report)

3,729

Less number required to replace combatant Regular Reservists who have been transferred from Regular Reserve to serve with Royal Army Medical Corps on mobilisation and are no longer available in the combatant ranks. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State, 20th February, 1912. Official Report)

1,650

Less number required to complete deficiency in Category B. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State for War on 20th February, 1912. Official Report)

6,467

21,660

Regular Reservists A and B available for Expeditionary Force

76,482

Number of Reservists required for Expeditionary Force. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State for War, 30th May, 1911. Official Report)

90,000

Deficit in Sections A and B

13,518

Number required from Section D to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force in 1913

13,518

SECTION D, THE SECOND CLASS OF THE ARMY RESERVE. RE-ENLISTED RE-SERVISTS ABSENT FROM THE COLOURS FROM 9 TO 13 YEARS.

Estimated strength on 1st February, 1913. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State for War, 19th February, 1912. Official Report)

29,862

Less 10 per cent, allowed for Casualties. (Statement of Under-Secretary of State for War, 15th November, 1910. Official Report)

2,986

26,876

Less number required to make up the deficiencies of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve for the Expeditionary Force

13,518

13,358

Less 9,840 time-expired Reservists to be enlisted into the Special Reserve battalions instead of Section D. (Statement of Secretary of State for War, 14th March, 1911. Official Report)

9,840

Less 2,032 required for Depôts by Army Order, 23rd December, 1907

2,032

11,872

Available surplus from Section D for foreign service with Regular Army after mobilisation of six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force in 1913

1,486

The noble Duke said: My Lords, my present Questions arise from a discussion which took place in your Lordships' House on February 28 last as to the fitness for immediate active service of time-expired soldiers re-enlisting into Section D, which I describe as the second class of the Regular Reserve, and as to the number of men of this description required by the noble Viscount to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force. It is necessary to remember, in reference to this Section of the Reserve, firstly, that for the next four years it will be composed of men who are the product of the three-years Colour service term of enlistment, and, consequently, have been absent from the Colours from nine to thirteen years; secondly, that if the noble Viscount succeeds in re-enlisting, as he hopes to do, 30,000 men out of the 40,000 due to pass out of the Reserve by October, 1913, these 30,000 men in four years time pass out of the Reserve and cannot be replaced. They cannot be replaced because the noble Viscount has diminished the Reserve-creating power of the Army by reducing the number of men serving with the Colours by 37,000 since 1905. It is this reduction in the number of men serving with the Colours which necessitates the re-enlistment of these time-expired soldiers. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for the Reserve created by the three-years term of Colour service the Expeditionary Force of the noble Viscount, which has shed such lustre upon his military administration, would have been numerically impossible even on paper. It therefore seems to me that the noble Viscount, instead of denouncing the scheme of the three-years Colour service as preposterous, ought to be deeply grateful that the plan was ever tried.
The body of men in the Section D of the Reserve with which we have to deal for the next four years have been absent from the Colours from nine to thirteen years without doing any military training during the period of their four years' re-enlistment. Their musketry practice consists in two attendances on the range and in firing twenty-five rounds on each occasion. On mobilisation they will find themselves armed with a rifle of a different pattern to the one which they carried in bygone days when they were soldiering. Lord Methuen has told us that he found that this class of Reservist could not march on
410
active service, and has described them as more or less veterans. This combination of facts proclaims them at once as unfit for active service on the Continent with the Expeditionary Force within three weeks of mobilisation. The noble Viscount has not quoted any military authority to prove that such is not the case. The question is, How many of these re-enlisted Reservists, unfit for the duties assigned to them by the noble Viscount, must he include in the ranks of the Expeditionary Force? Upon that point the noble Viscount was reticent, on account of the secrets of mobilisation. Now the numbers of our Army are matters which must be, and are, within the knowledge of the public. I ventured to say, therefore, in my reply to the noble Viscount the other day, that I would put on the Paper of the House the figures with which we have already been supplied bearing upon the point. This I have now done. I propose to take the headings separately, and if the noble Viscount in his reply found it convenient to follow the same course I hope we may be able to understand why these War Office figures point on mobilisation to a very narrow margin in the Reserve, whereas we know that the noble Viscount reckons on an abundant surplus.
The estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913 is 106,372; the number resident abroad is 8,230. Necessary allowance for wastage at 10 per cent. is 9,814. These headings need no explanation. The next deduction is 3,729, the number of Reservists required to bring the four home battalions and all other Regular units at home up to war strength. The four home battalions represent the backbone of the swiftly moving central field force upon which, according to the noble Viscount, we can rely with such certainty. These battalions, as well as the other Regular units, must be made up to war strength by 3,729 Reservists, who, being wanted at home, cannot be available for foreign service.
My next heading is 1,650 combatant Reservists who have transferred from the combatant ranks to serve with the Royal Army Medical Corps on mobilisation. I read in the Army Annual Return for 1912 that the full number of 2,000 Infantry Reservists who had been invited in 1909

411
to transfer to the Reserve of the Royal Army Medical Corps have not yet been obtained. However, 1,650 have been obtained, and it is certain that if these 1,650 men are withdrawn from the fighting line their vacant places must be filled by a similar number of combatant Reservists. My last deduction is 6,467 men, the number required to complete the deficiency in Category B of the Special Reserve. Category B is composed of men who are returned as supernumerary to the Territorial Army and who have undertaken to join the Special Reserve on mobilisation and to serve abroad. They are an absolutely essential part of the Expeditionary Force, which will be incomplete without them. We heard a great deal about them-once; we do not hear much about them now. The establishment is 7,448. The deficiency shown by the Army Estimates of this year 1912–1913 is as follows—Army Service Corps, deficit 5,513; Royal Army Medical Corps, 420; Army Veterinary Department, 524.
To sum up. The allowance necessary for wastage, the number of Reservists required for home Regular units, the number transferred to Army Medical Corps, and the number required to make good deficiencies in Category B amount to 21,660. The result, then, is that there are left available for the Expeditionary Force 76,482, but as 90,000 are required there is a deficit in Sections A and B of 13,518. This deficit of 13,518 represents the number required from Section D to complete the mobilisation of the six Divisions. In the Table dealing with Section D I would only say, as to the second heading, that the War Office allowance of 10 per cent. for unfitness amongst time-expired Reservists is contrary to common sense, because it is the same rate which is found necessary for soldiers serving with the Colours. It is more likely to be 30 per cent.
The only other heading requiring any notice is the fourth—namely, the 9,840 time-expired soldiers required by the noble Viscount to complete the establishment of his Special Reserve battalions. I have already mentioned this point in your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount appeals to time-expired soldiers to enlist both into his Special Reserve battalions and into Section D. The supply of time-expired Reservists is limited to the number
412
who pass out of the Reserve in any one year. Of course, all men who enlist in the Special Reserve battalions, and the noble Viscount has assured us that few men go to Section D, must be lost to Section D. Finally, according to the War Office figures I have quoted we are to be left in 1913, after the departure of the Expeditionary Force, with less than 1,500 Regular Reservists available for the Army overseas, and those of the second class. The noble Viscount told us on May 4 last that he would have, in the event of mobilisation in 1913, a surplus of 27,000. I beg to move for Papers.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, the noble Duke has laid before the House a Table, which he says is compiled from statements made by myself and by the Under-Secretary in the House of Commons and from Returns, showing what he considers will be the state of things as regards the mobilisation of the Expeditionary Force should that take place in the year 1913, and he has added to that a further Table showing the number of men in Section D who will be available for the purposes of the Expeditionary Force. The noble Duke laid a similar Table before the House last May dealing with practically the same subject. I always treat the views of the noble Duke with profound respect, so I referred that Table to the department of the Adjutant-General, and I brought before the House the result of their Report, which was that the Table contained a trifling error of a little over 32,000 men. On this occasion I congratulate the noble Duke. I have referred his new Table to the department of the Adjutant-General and have got a further Report from them, and this time the error is not anything like as great.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I would point out that the figures are not mine. This is not my Table; it is the War Office Table.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Duke has misunderstood and quite unintentionally misrepresented the War Office figures. But, as I say, I congratulate him because on the present occasion the error is reduced to a trifle over 18,000 men, which is an improvement. This is a very

413
dry and tedious subject, but I think I shall be able to put shortly before the House the points which have misled the noble Duke. The noble Duke started off with the Return which was made in response to a Motion by Lord Erroll in 1909, and he has taken the figures as they appeared at that time. For instance, he says that 106,372 is the estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913. According to that Table, that is quite true. We said at the time that we were dissatisfied with that state of things, which arose from the outgoing of the nine years enlisted men. It was only temporary, because the Table itself shows that the numbers went up afterwards. In order to meet the shortage at that time, or at any rate the small numbers at that time, we said we would resort to measures which we have since taken and which I have explained on former occasions to the House. We have allowed, in the case of suitable battalions where recruiting was very good, a considerable number of men to go to the Reserve before their time, and the result is that—not because the old Table was wrong, for it was based on the then existing state of things, but because of the new state of things—the figure to-day is not really the figure which the noble Duke has taken from the 1909 Report.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Can the noble Viscount give us the figure? The figure of 106,372 is the one on which we have worked for some time past.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: The noble Duke has worked on it, but we have since then taken extensively the step of enabling men to pass prematurely to the Reserve when the state of recruiting was so good that the shortage in the battalions was easily made up. In that way we have increased the Reserve by several thousands.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Will the noble Viscount give us the figure?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I can obtain it for the noble Duke if he likes, but we have increased the figure by several thousands. My point is that it is misleading to take the figure of 106,372, what at best is merely an actuarial estimate, as if representing the ascertained facts. The next point is the figure of 3,729, which was the
414
number of Reservists required on January 1, 1910, to bring the four home battalions—that is to say, the unallotted battalions—up to war establishment. For very much the same reason that is an unreliable figure, and constantly changing. It is different now from what it was then. I will give the noble Duke a Table which will enable him to see where he has gone wrong.
Then the noble Duke speaks of 1,650 Infantry and Royal Garrison Artillery Reservists transferred to the Royal Army Medical Corps. He has deducted these as not being available for the purposes of the Expeditionary Force. But these should not be deducted, as they are part of the establishment of the Expeditionary Force. They are included in the 90,000 required for the Expeditionary Force, and the noble Duke has counted them in that way twice over. They are in the 90,000, and you cannot have them twice over. That is a mistake. But there was a much larger mistake in the noble Duke's last Table. The next point is this. The noble Duke puts the deficiency in Category B of the Special Reserve at 6,467, based on the 1911–12 establishment. If the noble Duke had looked at the establishment in the new Estimates for 1912–13 he would have found that it was 5,210, and not the figure he has given, and that the strength on February 1, 1912, was 988 all ranks, leaving a deficiency of 4,222. As, however, 680 out of that number are not required for the Expeditionary Force at all, the actual deficiency on Expeditionary Force requirements is 3,542, which, as we have already explained, will be made up by specially enlisted men.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Will the noble Viscount explain what he means by specially enlisted men? Does he propose to enlist these men at the moment of mobilisation?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes; and I should explain that we have made considerable changes in the system of transport. The transport used to be horse transport. It has now become in large measure mechanical transport, and the drivers, instead of being horse-drivers, will be men specially trained in the driving of these mechanically-propelled wagons, some of which we are building and others of which we are subsidising. We are making special arrangements for enlisting skilled motor-drivers.

415
That is what I mean by specially enlisted men. The number of Regular Reservists available, admitting that the other figures used by the noble Duke are approximately correct, therefore becomes 84,599 plus the men who join Section B on premature conversion of service, and not 76,482. Then, finally, the full number of 9,840 time-expired Reservists to be enlisted into Special Reserve battalions instead of into Section D has been misunderstood by the noble Duke. Those are in addition to and not in substitution for Section D men, since they will be men of an age who will already have finished their time in Section D if they ever contemplated joining that Section of the Army Reserve.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Does the noble Viscount mean that the man must go to Section D before he goes to the Special Reserve?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Not necessarily. The age fixed for the Special Reserve is higher. Men are going into the Special Reserve at a higher age than into Section D.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: May not these men go into Section D in preference to going into the Special Reserve?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Some men will not go into Section D because it does not suit them to take the obligation attached to that section.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Then the noble Viscount has a competition between Section D of the Regular Reserve and the Special Reserve?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: There is an abundance of old soldiers in the country and an enormous source from which to draw men, and we are not conscious of any difficulty in that direction. With regard to the figures in the noble Duke's Table, I have here a Table corrected in accordance with the criticisms which I have made, and the effect of it is that, instead of the state of things shown by the noble Duke, a very different state of things is disclosed. The noble Duke makes out that we would have to use up Section D men to such an extent in order to mobilise in 1913 that there would only be a surplus of 1,486 left over. According to the corrected Table, the
416
surplus left over is not 1,486 but 19,483. I will hand this Table to the Official Reporter to be added to my reply, so that the noble Duke may examine it.†
There is only one thing I should like to say in conclusion. I do not interfere in any way with figures made out on the responsibility of the Adjutant-General's Department. But I did suggest to the noble Duke before, and I make the suggestion again, that it is really impossible for any person who is not trained to the work and has not the materials for making out Tables like this to do it efficiently. The noble Duke falls into these mistakes not from want of zeal—we all know with what public spirit he has applied himself to this—but he obviously could not possess the materials for making out such a Table. I suggested before that when he prepared a Table again he might send it to me or to my private secretary or direct to the Adjutant-General, and I promised that the Table would be returned to him with the observations of the Department upon it and accompanied by a cor-

[†] TABLE.

Estimated strength of Sections A and B of the Regular Reserve in 1913. (Erroll Return)

106,372

Less number resident abroad—say the same as on 1st January, 1912

8,230

98,142

Less 10 per cent, for casualties

9,814

Less number of Reservists required to bring the four home battalions up to war establishment (assuming that the figure in 1913 remains the same as that in 1910)

3,729

13,543

13,543

Instead of 76,482, there are available

84,599

Number of Reservists required for Expeditionary Force, approximately

90,000

Number required for Expeditionary Force from Section D

5,401

To meet this Section D is estimated to be on 1st February, 1913

29,862

Less 10 per cent. for casualties

2,986

26,876

Less number required for Expeditionary Force

5,401

21,475

Less number required for depôts

1,992

19,483

417
rected Table, and if that had been done we should have been saved two or three debates in this House on figures, which are very unprofitable. The noble Duke pours out figures like a torrent, and then I trickle forth a number in response, and I am afraid the result is not very profitable. In these circumstances I trust the procedure which I have suggested will commend itself to the noble Duke.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for his answer, but I wish he could tell me what the estimated strength of the Reserve is going to be. The figure I have quoted is the figure which has always been given to us. As regards the deficiency in Section B, the figure I gave is the figure of the Under-Secretary of State for War himself. The noble Viscount has never told us how many men he wants for the mobilisation of the Regular troops at home. Does the figure 3,729 remain?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: What figure is that?
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: The number required for the mobilisation of the troops at home.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, that figure is practically correct. It is changed to this extent, that the Reserve of many of these home battalions varies from time to time. It is a quite unreliable figure to stand by, because it changes for the reasons I have given—that in the case of many battalions men pass prematurely to the Reserve and the Reserve of those battalions is larger than it would otherwise have been. The noble Duke may take it that I have not altered this particular figure in making my estimate of the error in his Table.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: The noble Viscount has included those men in the 90,000?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: No.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: Until the noble Viscount can tell us what the difference is with regard to the figure of 106,372 I do not think we can arrive at the large surplus which the noble Viscount has stated.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have assumed 106,372 as the figure for working on. It is really a conjectural figure, and therefore if I had corrected it the noble Duke's error as to the surplus left over might have been greater.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Would it not be possible to bring Lord Erroll's Return up to date?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Yes, I think so; and if it would be of any convenience to noble Lords I will see if it can be done.
LORD AMPTHILL: Why will not the noble Viscount give us the actual figure of the estimated strength of Sections A and B?
VISCOUNT HALDANE: I have not the actual figure with me, but I can say it is some two or three thousand over the 106,372, assuming that the latter figure turns out in 1913 to accord with the actuarial estimate.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT REGULATIONS.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask why the Regulations made in pursuance of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and laid upon the Table, have not been printed and circulated, and to move that all such Regulations shall in future be printed and circulated. Your Lordships will recollect that a very important part of the administration of the Insurance Act passed last year is left to Commissioners by means of Regulations. The Act also stated that certain of those Regulations were to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and that if either House adopted an Address against any one of them the Regulation was to fall. Several Regulations appear to have been made provisionally; they seem to have been presented, but further than that this House has no cognisance of them at all. Regulations were laid as long ago as February 14; another was laid on February 22 and another on the 27th, and the twenty-one days given to Parliament in which to consider these Regulations have been running since that time. The Regulations have not been printed and circulated, and therefore if things are to continue like this there will be no possibility of checking or scrutinising the Regulations which the Commissioners make.

419
This question was raised in 1910 by the late Lord Onslow, and the noble Marquess who leads the House and Lord Sheffield and one or two others all took the same view—that when an Act says that a certain period is to be given to the Houses of Parliament in which they may consider Regulations, that period should be a real period, and that the Regulations themselves should be presented to Members and they should have an opportunity of looking at them. There are, of course, different kinds of Acts of Parliament. Some Regulations are ordered to be laid on the Table which, perhaps, may not be so important, but in this particular case the Regulations are of exceptional importance. It is most desirable, indeed it is absolutely essential, that all of your Lordships should have an opportunity of looking at them and of taking any action with regard to them that you may think necessary.
Now we come to the question whose fault this is. It is very difficult to say, because the Minister who presents the Regulations apparently does not use the mystical words that they are "to be printed," and because he does not use those words, according to the practice of your Lordships' House, they appear not to be printed. When questioned on the matter the Minister naturally says he was not aware that it was necessary to use the words that they should be printed. Therefore that is his excuse. Then, on the other hand, we come to the regulations of this House. The practice of this House, I must say, appears to me to partake of red tape on particular occasions, particularly with regard to the words "to be printed." When you present a Bill, if you do not use the words that it be printed, although you present it and have it read a first time it is never printed. However, the important thing is this, that with regard to the Insurance Act at all events it is most important that your Lordships should see these Regulations and should have an opportunity of considering them during the twenty-one days on which they lie upon the Table of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Regulations made in pursuance of the National Insurance Act, 1911, when laid upon the Table be in future printed and circulated.—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, the facts of the case are exactly as the noble Earl has stated them, but I think I can in a few words state what has happened as regards these Regulations. It is true that they were printed in the House of Commons but not in this House. I am given to understand that when Regulations are printed by one House of Parliament they are not printed by the other; and in this case they have not been printed by this House. These particular Regulations were not circulated in the House of Commons, and they have not, as your Lordships know, been circulated here.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: But they are to be found in print in the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: Yes, and they are available in print here at the Printed Paper Office.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I asked for a copy the other day and could not get one. I was told that there were no printed copies.
THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL: There are, I know, copies to be obtained in the Printed Paper Office, though they have not been circulated. The Regulations were mentioned on the Pink Paper which is sent round to your Lordships, and any noble Lord who desired a copy could have had it sent to him if he had requested it. This really resolves itself into a question of expense, and an enormous amount of expense would be involved if all Regulations were printed by both Houses of Parliament. Every noble Lord has a right to move that particular Regulations should be printed and circulated; but I understand that the Regulations in question are available at the Printed Paper Office in your Lordships' House to any noble Lord who asks for them, and the Treasury will be glad to give any other Papers with regard to this Act.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): I should like to say a word with regard to one statement that was made by the noble Earl Lord Camperdown. In the case of Bills which are presented and read a first time it is not necessary for the Peer introducing the Bill to move that it be printed. It is printed and circulated as a matter of

421
course. I believe that is the only form of circulation—the circulation of Bills—which the house does of itself.
LORD SANDERSON: I would venture to call attention to what appears to be a curious anomaly in the practice of this House. Every time a scheme for a professorship at a University or for a change in the scheme of a college or even a grammar-school is laid on the Table of your Lordships' House it is printed and sent round with the Votes, whereas Regulations of the importance of those referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, are not circulated. Sometimes we get notice of important Regulations in the Pink Paper, though sometimes we do not.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The practice referred to by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Sanderson) has, I think, often struck us as involving something of an anomaly. It is true that the schemes which are regularly circulated to us are by no means always of universal or even of wide interest, whereas in particular cases some Papers, such as the one in question, which are not regularly circulated are of greater interest and importance; but it has been and remains the custom of the House to print and circulate everything which can be described as a scheme, whereas Regulations are not as a rule circulated or even printed unless the House so orders. I should have considerable hesitation in adding either to the expense which would be involved or to the mass of printed matter which your Lordships would receive by suggesting a universal and general printing and circulation of all Papers which might conceivably be printed, and I confess that I am not clear as to any method by which the difficulty to which the noble Earl has drawn attention can be met except by the readiness of individual Peers to ask in particular cases for the printing and circulation of Papers in which they are specially interested. That would certainly involve no small degree of watchfulness on their part, and even something of a prophetic gift in knowing that the twenty-one days, or whatever the period would be, were approaching during which the Papers would have to lie on the Table. But I own that I am not prepared to ask the House to agree to a general printing or circulation of all such Papers. Neither am I prepared with any system by which those
422
of special interest to a considerable number of peers can be automatically forthcoming. In those circumstances I confess I do not see that there is very much to be done. In this particular case I understand from my noble friend that copies of the House of Commons print are now available in the Printed Paper Office here. I hope that that may satisfy the noble Earl so far as this particular case is concerned, although I fully appreciate that he may not feel quite satisfied unless some adequate suggestion is made for dealing with the question as a whole.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think my noble friend, or any one else who sits on this side of the House, desires to suggest for a moment that all Papers, no matter what their importance, should be circulated. That would, no doubt, occasion a great deal of unnecessary expense. Besides, we are always able, if we pay any attention to the Pink Papers which are circulated from time to time, to ask for a particular Paper if we desire to have a copy of it. But the case my noble friend has in view is rather a different one. He is talking about Regulations issued in order to give effect to a very important Act of Parliament. The tendency in these days—I say it with all possible respect—is to shirk a great many of the minor difficulties of legislation and to deal with many points of detail in Regulations, which are really parts of the Act itself. Whenever that takes place I think the House is entitled, as a matter of course, to be supplied with copies of the Regulations in due time. That is what my noble friend presses for, and that, I think, we should all of us like to see carried out.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I am not very fond of the argument of tu quoque, but I should like to remind the noble Marquess the Leader of the House of what he said in the year 1910 when this same question came up. He then said—
"With regard to the general question of the laying of Regulations I have no hesitation in saying there could not possibly be two opinions that when it is provided in an Act of Parliament that a Regulation should be laid on the Table of either House or both Houses during a fixed time that period should be a real period, and that the Regulations should be available during the whole of it."
I entirely concur with that, and if the noble Marquess will look at my Motion he will

423
see that I have limited it to the Insurance Act. There is no doubt that in this particular Act exceptional powers are given to the Commissioners, and it seems to me most desirable that your Lordships should have every opportunity of seeing the Regulations in sufficient time to enable objection to be taken to any of them with which noble Lords may not agree. How we are to obtain information as to when these Regulations are laid on the Table raises a point of difficulty. I think Lord Liverpool said that the fact that they had been laid was set out on the Pink Paper. I generally look at the Pink Paper, and there are one or two noble Lords near me who do so, but none of us recollects seeing any reference to these Regulations. That is all I can say. With regard to the general practice, I believe it is this. Once in every week a Pink Paper is issued containing a notice of every Regulation which is lying on the Table, but if your Lordships do not happen to look at the Minutes on that particular day in the week you have no opportunity of seeing the Pink Paper again for another six days. I hope that your Lordships will insist on this occasion on these particular Regulations being invariably printed and circulated.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps, by the indulgence of the House, I may be allowed to say that I certainly do not depart in any way from the opinion quoted by the noble Earl, which is that during the time that Regulations of any substance are lying on the Table of the House they should be at the disposal of anybody who wants them. I do not think that that necessarily involves their circulation in all cases to the whole House, although I have no doubt the noble Earl thinks that in this case circulation ought to have taken place. Whether or not the notice respecting these Regulations appeared on the Pink Paper I am not from personal observation in a position to state, but I quite agree that it should have so appeared in a case of the importance of these particular Regulations. It would, of course, I may remind the House, have been open to anybody during the discussion on the National Insurance Bill when it was in the House to have expressed the opinion that the Bill was of a character which would justify an order for circulating the Regulations under it, and I have no doubt it would have been done. It is not altogether easy to say upon whom the
424
responsibility is to lie of saying that certain Regulations are of such general importance that we ought to go to the not inconsiderable expense of circulating them. In this particular case it might no doubt have been done, but some other case may occur in which other noble Lords will rise with indignation at not having seen certain Regulations which, on the other hand, may not be of acute interest to a great many other noble Lords. Therefore, although in this particular instance, if the noble Earl desires it, I have no wish to oppose the instruction that these Regulations should be printed and circulated, I cannot promise that in some future case some noble Lord will not complain that certain Regulations in which he is deeply concerned have met the same fate as these—namely, that they were only able to be obtained on application at the Printed Paper Office.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF BENGAL.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for India—

1. Whether it is a fact that the Chief Justice of Bengal is drawing a pension as Retired Chief Justice of Bombay as well as the full pay of his present post; and if so

2. Whether there is any precedent (a) for an official of the Indian Government drawing pay and pension at the same time; or (b) for a retired official of the Indian Government, who has accepted an appointment in the Council of the Secretary of State for India, returning to India to take up a permanent official appointment.

3. What were the circumstances in which the extraordinary departure from custom involved in the appointment of the present Chief Justice of Bengal was considered justifiable.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has placed three Questions on the Paper with reference to the appointment and the present position of the Chief Justice of Bengal, Sir Lawrence Jenkins. The first Question is whether it is a fact that Sir Lawrence Jenkins is drawing a pension as Retired Chief Justice of Bombay as well as the full pay of his

425
present post. The answer to that is that it is the case that Sir Lawrence is in receipt of a pension which was earned by his Judicial service in India from 1896 to 1898, and that he is receiving that pension in addition to his salary as Chief justice of the High Court of Calcutta, where he went in March, 1909. The rules relating to the salaries of Chief Justices and other Judges of the High Court in India are of a statutory character made by the Secretary of State in Council under powers given to him by Act of Parliament, and they have, therefore, the same effect as though they were actually embodied in an Act. Therefore they are in no way affected by the ordinary rules as to pension which govern the usual Civil Service appointments in India, as the noble Lord will appreciate. As the rules stood in the year 1909 they did not provide for the suspension of an existing pension in the case of a former Judge who was reappointed to a Judicial office in India. Since then the Secretary of State in Council has made a rule taking power to decide in any future case of the kind whether the new salary ought or ought not to be reduced in consideration of the holding of a pension by the Judge in question.
The second Question is whether there is any precedent for an official of the Indian Government drawing pay and pension at the same time, and, secondly, whether there is any precedent for a retired official of the Indian Government who has accepted an appointment in the Indian Council in London returning to India to take up a permanent official appointment. As the noble Lord is well aware, retired officers whose pensions do not fall under statutory rules, if they are reappointed to another position, either have their pension held in abeyance altogether or partially held in abeyance while they are serving, or else they are liable to have the salary of the new post which they occupy reduced. On the other hand, it is not forbidden to receive a pension for past services as well as the pay of any office from Indian revenues. For instance, as the noble Lord will, I have no doubt, have considered, members of the Council of India receive salary from Indian revenues, but they also receive the pensions which they have earned by service in India—it may be Civil, it may be Judicial, or it may be military. In fact, Sir Lawrence Jenkins was himself a case in point, because when he was serving on the Council while Lord Morley
426
was Secretary of State he was drawing the salary of a member of Council and also the full pension of a retired Judge. On the second point which the noble Lord mentions there is no rule, and I think it cannot even be said that there is a custom preventing the return to India to an official appointment of a retired Indian official who has held an appointment in the Council of India. There was a case not so very long anterior to the appointment of Sir Lawrence Jenkins—the case of a distinguished Indian official, Mr. J. F. Finlay. This gentleman was in the Indian Civil Service from 1875 to 1903. He then came home to England and sat on the Council of India from 1903 to 1907, and in the latter year he returned to India as an ordinary member of the Council of the Governor-General. That, I think, disposes of the particular point raised by the noble Lord.
Then the noble Lord, in his last Question, asks, "What were the circumstances in which the extraordinary departure from custom involved in the appointment of the present Chief Justice of Bengal was considered justifiable?" I have shown, I think, that in essentials and arguing from analogy the appointment was not so extraordinary as the Question would lead one to suppose. Sir Lawrence was not appointed in my time, although I have the honour of knowing him well and hold the same opinion of him as was held by those who actually appointed him. But it was undoubtedly the case that he was considered by my noble friend Lord Morley and by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, to be the most suitable person to appoint to the then vacant, office of Chief Justice of Bengal in virtue of his quite remarkable ability, his exceptional legal knowledge, his Judicial experience, and his knowledge of India. I ought to add that Sir Lawrence, far from in any way applying for the post, did not desire it, and he only accepted it in deference to the strong wish of my two noble friends Lord Morley and Lord Minto, who were exceedingly anxious to secure his services; and it was as a matter of fact, as I am informed, both an inconvenience and something of a real sacrifice to him to take up the appointment at the time he did. I hope that the replies which I have been able to give to his various Questions will satisfy the noble Lord as to the character and the propriety of the appointment.
LORD AMPTHILL: I am greatly obliged to the noble Marquess for having replied so fully, and I only beg permission to put a supplementary Question. Have I clearly understood the noble Marquess that this appointment, so far as its financial aspect is concerned—and I was only concerned with that—is regarded as an undesirable precedent, and that a new rule has been established which will make it impossible in the future that a man should be drawing pay and pension at the same time in India?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: The noble Lord must not draw from what I have said quite so far reaching a conclusion as that. What I said was that a rule had been passed by the Secretary of State in Council which would make it possible for the Secretary of State in such case, supposing another to occur, to consider what it was not possible for him to consider before, whether any, and if so what, reduction should be made from the salary of the post in consideration of a pension
428
being already held by the officer appointed. But I would not say that it might never occur in special cases that a man might be allowed both to enjoy his pension and to receive the full salary. It would not, however, be an absolutely necessary sequel of his appointment, as it was in the case of the present Chief Justice of Bengal.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I hope the noble Marquess will guard himself in that respect, because I have myself in another Department found extreme difficulty arising from the fact that an official who had a small pension from one part of the public service and was ready to take a not very lucrative employment was unable to take the post because the law of this country is so strict against the holding of pay and pension together. I think there are cases, as the noble Marquess says, in which the Secretary of State ought to have some latitude.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Four o'clock.