Sitting of 10 February 1913

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Antrim (East Antrim), in the room of Colonel James Martin M'Calmont, deceased.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Lords Amendment (in lieu of Lords Amendments disagreed to by this House) considered.
  Lords Amendment: In Clause 90 (Electrical Fittings): Leave out Sub-section (2), and insert instead thereof—"(2) The Corporation may enter into contracts for the execution of any of the powers of this Section, including the wiring of private property. The Corporation shall not under the powers of this Section sell any such electrical fittings (other than electric lines, fuses, switches, ceiling roses, and such other electrical fittings as are used in connection with the wiring of private property from the distribution main as far as the ceiling, wall, or floor outlet only), except through a contractor carrying on his business independently of the Corporation."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Maclean.]
  Mr. POINTER: Before the House is called upon to come to a decision in regard to the Lords Amendment I want to make a personal statement as to why I do not propose to move to disagree with the Amendment. Since the matter was last before this House there have been the usual negotiations, and ultimately, driven by the force of time, the Corporation agreed to the Clause as it has been read. I do not know whether hon. Members have been able to justly appreciate what it means. It means that while it appears on the surface that the Corporation have agreed to the compromise, in reality they have given everything away. That will quite easily
  454
  be seen. Let any hon. Member of the House judge what he would do in the circumstances. If he were going to have electric light installed in his house and had the idea of employing the Corporation to do the work, the Corporation can only carry the wires so far as the ceilings and walls, and then he will have to call in a private trader to finish the task. Every one of us would be inclined to give the order to the man or party who could complete the transaction right through. Therefore, while on the face of it it looks like a compromise, in fact the Corporation have undoubtedly given all the work to private traders. That may be one of those things which so far as some hon. Members opposite are concerned are to be met with acclamation rather than, from my standpoint, with regret. Because of the fact that we are driven right to the tail end of the Session and that if we were to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and the Bill went back again to the Lords, it would be lost, and the Corporation would sacrifice improvements to the value of over £100,000, it would be a great responsibility if I were to take upon myself the task of opposing the Bill or offering advice to the House to do so. Because of the exigencies of time, I propose, after making this personal statement, to offer no opposition to the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 54) Warrant, 1913, dated 23rd January, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  STATISTICAL ABSTRACT (BRITISH EMPIRE).
  Copy presented of Statistical Abstract for the British Empire in each year from 1897 to 1911. Ninth number [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the three months ended 31st December, 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRELAND (AVERAGE PRICES).
  Return Presented relative thereto [ordered 9th December, 1912; Mr. Newman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 510.]
  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Copy presented of Statement of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March, 1911, and of the Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March, 1912, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 511.]

  SHOPS ACT, 1912.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the urban district of Bilston, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the day on which certain Shops are to be closed for the weekly half-holiday and the closing hours on the several days of the week for the same Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 15th October, 1912, in terms of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, affecting certain classes of Shops in the burgh of Fraserburgh [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES AND THE INCLUSIVE FEE.
  Copy presented of Correspondence between the Treasury and the Scottish University Courts relative to the institution of an Inclusive Fee for graduation courses [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INDIAN AND SUPPLEMENTAL MAILS.
  Copy ordered "of Contract, dated the 14th day of January, 1913, between the Postmaster-General and the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Companies Managing Committee for the conveyance of the Indian Mails in both directions between Dover and Calais, and other Mails from Dover and Folkestone to Calais and Boulogne respectively, together with copy of the Treasury Minute thereon."—[Mr. Masterman.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the 39th Central India Horse, or any squardorn or squadrons thereof, have been ordered to remain in Shiraz for another year?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFAIRS (Mr. Acland): The answer is in the negative.

  Regent's Park.
  Mr. GEORGE THORNEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, as being responsible for Regent's Park, he has had a scheme called the Mappin Terraces at the Royal Zoological Gardens under consideration?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The scheme has been brought to the notice of the First Commissioner of Works, and he has personally inspected the model and site. He hopes shortly to be in a position to place a sketch of the proposal in the Tea Room of the House. He is of opinion that, with minor alterations, the plan will add considerably to the attractions of the Royal Zoological Gardens, and be of great interest to the public in the adjoining park. Besides this, the conditions under which the animals live will be improved.

  Laboratory Buildings (Edinburgh).
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked whether a settlement has now been arrived at with the town council of Edinburgh concerning the laboratory buildings at Inverleith Row; what the settlement is and when the work will be put in hand?
  Mr. W. BENN: A settlement mutually satisfactory to the First Commissioner and the Edinburgh town council has been arrived at, and now forms the subject of reference to the Treasury. Pending decision by the Treasury, the First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to make any further statement.

  Calton Hill Scheme (Edinburgh).
  Mr. J. HOGGEasked whether Mr. Lorimer has reported on the designs for the proposed new Government offices in Edinburgh; and, if so, what is the nature of the report?
  Mr. W. BENN: The First Commissioner has received Sir Robert Lorimer's report on the Calton Hill Scheme. The Advisory Committee have decided to invite competition for designs.
  Mr. J. HOGGEasked whether the First Commissioner of Works has considered the suggestion of publishing the designs for the new Government buildings in Edinbnurgh in the Scottish Press in order that public criticism might be offered on the same?
  Mr. W. BENN: Competitive designs for the new Government buildings in Edinburgh are to be invited. The First Commissioner will be very pleased to publish in the Scottish Press the designs when finally accepted.

  Board of Agriculture (Horticultural Branch).
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether in regard to the advertisement by the English Board of Agriculture which recently appeared in the Press concerning posts in the horticultural branch, it has been decided that applications from Scots and Irish candidates shall not be considered?
  Mr. WILLIAM JONES (Lord of the Treasury, for Mr. Runciman): No, Sir, every application is considered on its merits, and some of the most meritorious have come from Scotsmen and Irishmen.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Am I wrong in saying that orders have practically been given that these posts shall be given to Englishmen?
  Mr. W. JONES: I would ask the Noble Lord to give notice of that question.

  Croscombe Church of England School (Somerset).
  Mr. KINGasked whether the site of the Church of England school at Croscombe, Somerset, was obtained under an Act of William IV., under which the lord of the manor is entitled to convey waste of the manor for a school without any consent obtained from the commoners; and whether steps will be taken to prevent this Act being used for encroaching on commoners' and public rights if an extension of these school premises is desired?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The Board have no knowledge of the circumstances in which the site of Croscombe Church of England school was
  458
  obtained. No grant of common land under the School Sites Act, 1841, can now be made without the consent of the Board.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to certain irregularities in the management of the Croscombe Church of England school, Somerset; and, if so, what action has been taken?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): The only information I have received in regard to irregularities in the conduct of the school referred to is contained in a series of somewhat lengthy letters addressed to me from the asylum at Wells, but I will communicate with the school authorities in the matter.
  Mr. KINGasked whether His Majesty's inspector has required structural improvements to be made in the Croscombe Church of England school, Somerset; if so, when the requirements of the Board were first conveyed to the managers; and why the improvements have not been carried out?
  Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Attention was first drawn to certain defects in the premises in May, 1910. Definite requirements were, however, made in March, 1911, with regard to the heating, lighting, and ventilation of the school, and two months later the authority's attention was called to the unsatisfactory character of the outside office accommodation. Plans were received in June and August of last year and approved in July of last year and in January of this year, respectively.

  Mersey Dock Board (Lairage and Slaughter Accommodation).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked whether representations have been made as to the charges made by the Mersey Dock Board for the use of lairage and slaughter accommodation; and whether there are legal maximum charges for such accommodation?
  Mr. GULLAND: No complaints have been received by the Board in respect of the charges to which the hon. Member refers. The lairage charges at Birkenhead approved by the Board are as follows:—1s. per head for cattle and calves, 1d. per head for sheep, lambs and goats, and 3d. per head for swine, and these charges cannot legally be exceeded. The

  459
  charge for the use of slaughter-house accommodation at the landing place does not require the approval of the Board.

  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the slaughter of tuberculous cattle and compensation therefore as tuberculous being part of the scheme for securing a pure milk supply contemplated by the Milk and Dairies Bill, and of the fact that this scheme is now being discussed by agricultural organisations and local authorities all over the country, the Board will, as in 1909, issue an Order or memorandum relating to such slaughter and compensation?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Order in question will be issued to local authorities on Monday next with an explanatory circular, and will come into operation on the 1st May.

  Ardglass Harbour (County Down).
  Captain CRAIGasked when the First Commissioner of Works proposes to carry out the necessary improvements to the Royal harbour of Ardglass, county Down, to enable the increasing trade in fish to be handled and to ensure the safety of the boats belonging to the local fishermen?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): As the Development Commissioners have not seen their way to make a grant towards improvements at Ardglass Harbour and as harbour improvements are in contemplation at other places on the coast of county Down I should not feel justified at reduplicating expenditure by commencing a large scheme at Ardglass. The funds at the disposal of the Board of Works are responsible for the maintenance of the harbour only and not, for capital works, and, as I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member, he is mistaken in thinking the harbour is in a deteriorated condition.
  Captain CRAIG: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been grave complaints that the berthing accommodation alongside the quays is foul, and consequently that it is dangerous for any trawlers to go alongside the quays?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If I have any information as to the maintenance being inadequate. I will certainly see that steps are taken, apart from the question of new works, in connection with the harbour.
  460
  Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman Gentleman will put himself in communication with me outside.
  Captain CRAIG: I have been putting myself in communication with the right hon. Gentleman for the past twelve months on the subject, and have not the local authorities been in communication with him, and have not memorials, signed by fishermen in the district, also been sent to him?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have received no information on that point. I understand that all the applications up to now have been for capital expenditure on improvements, and not for the maintenance of the harbour.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: With regard to the improvements to be made at other parts of the coast of Down, are they in the south or the north part of the county?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If the hon. Baronet will give me notice I will give him full information.

  Houses of Parliament (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Mr. POINTERasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that men employed in the Houses of Parliament by Messrs. Simpson, the contractors, have not participated in the ½ an hour increase in wages agreed upon recently between the Master Builders' Association and the representatives of the workmen; whether he is aware that the men referred to have in past years participated in increases agreed upon in the trade; and whether he will have inquiry made, and ensure due observance of the Fair-Wages Clause?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The workmen employed at the Houses of Parliament under the Board's contract with Messrs. Simpson are not engaged in the building trade, and do not, therefore, come under the recent arrangement with the Master Builders' Association.
  Mr. POINTER: Has it not been usual in the past for the men to participate in such increases, and why has the practice been departed from?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I understand under the Fair-Wages Clause an advance was granted to men engaged in the building trade. These men are not engaged in the building trade, and therefore did not get the advance.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    NON-PAYING PATIENTS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked under what obligation a doctor on a panel lies to accept as a non-paying patient a person who chooses him as his or her medical adviser; and what redress has a person who, having chosen a particular doctor, is rejected by such doctor, or perhaps by a succession of doctors chosen by him or her?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: One of the advantages enjoyed by a doctor who accepts insured persons on his list is that none of them are non-paying patients, and no obligation rests on any doctor on the panel to accept a non-paying patient. The Regulations provide for the distribution among the doctors on the panel of any insured persons who have been refused by the doctor whom they have selected, and so far as is practicable under arrangements made by the doctors on the panel.

    NOTTINGHAM LACE TRADE (CONTRIBUTORS' CARDS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether prosecutions of middlewomen for not stamping the contribution cards of outworkers in the Nottingham lace trade are imminent; whether he is aware that such omissions are due to the fact that the collection of this tax oppresses poor people; and whether the Government proposes to prosecute for such omissions in Nottingham?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Such steps will be taken as may be necessary to secure compliance with the National Insurance Act in the case of outworkers employed by middlewomen in Nottingham and elsewhere. The middlewoman will presumably look to the manufacturer for assistance towards the payment of the contributions, and from evidence given at the recent inquiry it appeared that the increase in prices of 2½ per cent. which the Manufacturers' Association in Nottingham agreed some time ago to allow for this purpose would be regarded by the middlewoman as sufficient.

    DEATH OF INSURED PERSON (ENFIELD).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has seen the report of the inquest on the body of a domestic servant named Wear, who recently died at Enfield, at which the coroner said that, owing to clerical work
    462
    under the National Insurance Act, the doctor had not been able to give proper medical attendance; and what steps the Government propose to take?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have seen the report referred to. My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney gave a complete refutation in this House on Friday last of the suggestion that the doctor in this area was precluded from giving proper medical attendance through clerical or other work under the Act. The doctor called on the patient on Monday, 20th January, when he was unable to diagnose the disease from which she was suffering, and said he would call again on Wednesday, the 22nd. He was informed on Tuesday, the 21st, that she was worse, and sent some medicine. At 9.50 on Wednesday morning he heard she was dead. So far as insured persons were concerned, on the 21st instant the doctor signed eighty-two medical tickets, made one visit to a patient's home in addition to seven calls at his surgery; on the 22nd he signed forty-four medical tickets, paid two visits, and received six calls at his surgery. Whatever was the reason therefore for the patient not having her illness diagnosed, or not receiving further attendance, it was certainly not the doctor's work under the Act.

    HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked how many panel doctors there are in the island of Harris; where are they resident; and what is the population of the island?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The population of the island of Harris is 5,449; the insured population is estimated to be between 100 and 150, for whom two panel doctors are available, one being resident at Obbe, and the other on Berneray Island.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: How are people several miles distant to be looked after, and why is there no panel for them?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: A population of 100 cannot support a panel doctor, nor have they ever had a doctor resident in the island. What has happened is that the doctors who have been attending the people up till now have gone on the panel
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Are all doctors on the island on the panel, and will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the size of the island?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As far as I know all the doctors on the island are on the panel.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTE: Is not this the very question dealt with in the report of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, and will it not depend on the action of the Government?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: This House has already passed through Committee a Vote for a special sum to deal with these matters. Everyone recognises the special difficulties of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked how, in stormy weather, it is possible to get the panel doctor from Eigg to Canna; and, if impossible, can a doctor be got from the mainland if required urgently?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: According to the last Census the island referred to contained twenty-nine inhabitants, of whom probably less than ten would be insured persons. It would, of course, be impossible to provide a special doctor resident in the island for this number of persons. A contingency of the kind suggested by the Noble Lord might arise, not through any defect in the Act or its administration, but through inherent difficulties of the situation. The whole question of the special circumstances of the Highlands and Islands is under consideration.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What are these men on the island going to do in the meanwhile, as they have to pay, they cannot get a doctor, and the Postmaster-General is going to cut the wires?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: They will have the same right to a doctor and the same possibility of a doctor as they have ever had, with the additional advantage that they will now have money to pay for a doctor, which some of them did not have before.

    INCOME LIMIT (PERTH INSURANCE COMMITTEE).
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has now received any communications on the subject of the reported decision by the Perth Burgh Insurance Committee to fix an income limit for the purposes of medical benefit; whether he is aware that due public intimation of the intention of the committee was not given to those concerned; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I understand that public notice of the proposal to fix an income limit was given by the insurance committee by means of advertisement in the public Press, and that a public meeting was held on Saturday last at which representatives of approved societies as welt as medical practitioners discussed the question. The insurance committee are further considering the question early in this week.

    MEDICAL BENEFIT.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the way in which the medical benefit is being conducted in the case of the men employed on the Admiralty works, Crombie, Fife; whether he has received any protests from medical men in the district; and, if so, what action he has taken in the matter?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: I am informed that no complaint has been received by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners as to the administration of the medical benefit of the men referred to. They are, however, making investigations.
    Sir JOHN BARRANasked whether, in the case of employed insured persons who were over sixty-five years of age at the time of joining an approved society, it is open to such approved society, with the consent of its members and the doctors on the panel, to provide medical benefit and drugs for such insured persons out if the society's own funds?
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he proposes to take any steps to deal with the case of men over sixty-five years of age who have contributed forty years to the funds of a society and are debarred from claiming medical benefits under the National Insurance Act; and, if so, in what way will those men be recouped for their loss?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Persons insured under Section 49 of the Act receive such benefits as their societies may determine; and a circular (of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Members) has been issued to societies giving a scheme of benefits for these insured persons, including the provision of medical attendance and treatment up to the age of seventy and reduced sick pay. Persons over sixty-five who are not insured under the Act are not affected by it unless their societies choose to take advantage of the option given to them by the arrangements made under

    465
    Section 15 (2) (e) for securing attendance for them on the same terms as for insured persons.
    Mr. JOYCE: Will this circular be sent to all Members of the House?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will either have it placed in the Vote Office, if it is a Parliamentary Paper, or send it to all those who desire it.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the special attention of societies to this third alternative form of benefit for those over sixty-five, and in the case of societies which have adopted either one of the previous alternatives, will they be allowed to change and adopt this third alternative?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will answer both questions in the affirmative so far as the Commissioners are concerned. I will gladly call the attention of societies to the special circular because I think it is largely desired, and in so far as societies can change under the conditions of their rules, we shall offer no objection.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send the circular to the societies saying he will not object, and that he will give facilities? This is very important.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I quite agree. I will do everything I can to let them see they can do this.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (AUDITING ACCOUNTS).
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in Liverpool and elsewhere the accounts and registers of approved societies have, during the second quarter of the health insurance year, been placed in the hands of the auditors at their request; that after several weeks' delay and inconvenience, owing to the second quarter's cards coming in in their absence, they were returned without their having yet been checked for the first quarter; and whether the machinery of audit can be accelerated and improved so as to prevent a recurrence of this experience?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have made inquiries into the matter, and I find that in two cases in the neighbourhood of Liverpool the return of registers was asked for by societies before the audit was completed. These requests were in both cases immediately complied with. I cannot find that in the case of accounts other than
    466
    registers any difficulties of the kind referred to in the question have arisen. Instructions are being given to the auditors with a view to preventing such inconvenience as is referred to in the question from arising.

    SEAMEN (AUSTRALIAN COASTAL TRADE).
    Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked under what Section of the National Insurance Act the Commissioners hold that seamen on British-owned ships engaged in the Australian coastal trade and: registered in Australian ports only come within the scope of the Act when the owner or, if there were more than one owner, the managing owner or manager resided or had his principal place or business in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The relevant portions of the Act are Sections 48 (3) and Part I. (b) of the First Schedule.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask whether the men do not pay any contribution, because they would not get any benefits under the Act?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I do not think that arises out of the question. The hon. Member has asked me to refer to Sections of the Act which lay down certain conditions.

    SHARE FISHERMEN.
    Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the position of the fishermen on the Fife coast has been brought to his notice; whether he is aware of the desire on the part of those who are practically shareholders in fishing vessels to be exempt from the compulsory provisions of the National Insurance Act; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to meet the desires of this industrious community, seeing that they are wholly dependent on a precarious livelihood?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the Scottish Commissioners that applications have been received from the fishermen referred to, and that their claim is now being investigated. I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    COPPERSMITHS (BRADFORD).
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, Part II., about one-half of the firms of coppersmiths in Bradford are being trated as insured trades and the other

    467
    half as uninsured trades, and, having regard to the fact that there is no essential difference between the class of work done at these firms, and workmen are therefore liable to be treated first as insured persons under Part II. at one firm, and then as uninsured persons at another, if he will take steps to have all these firms classed alike for the purposes of the Act; and, in the meantime, if he will explain the position fully regarding unemployment insurance of persons who work first for a firm which is treated as coming under Part II., and then at a firm which is not so treated?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): Coppersmiths are only insurable under Part II. of the National Insurance Act when they are engaged in one of the trades to which that part of the Act applies, and the decision of the question whether contributions are payable in respect of any workman or class of workmen rests with the Umpire, and not with the Board of Trade. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of certain decisions of the the Umpire with respect to the class of workmen referred to in the question, and I would also point out that application may at any time be made to the Umpire for a revision of decisions previously given by him. As regards the second part of the question, the position of a workman who is employed at one time in an insured trade and at another in an uninsured trade is that he is liable to pay contributions only While employed in an insured trade, but is eligible for unemployment benefit (subject to the usual statutory conditions) if he loses his employment, whether in an insured or in an uninsured trade. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the amount of a workmen's claim to benefit depends among other things on the number of contributions standing to his credit.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT (STIRLINGSHIRE).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a patient in an advanced state of consumption recommended to, and receiving treatment in, a sanatorium in Stirlingshire under the National Insurance Act has left before the expiry of the period of treatment prescribed for him and has returned to his home and family; whether he is aware that the purpose of sanatoria is largely the isola-
    468
    tion of infectious cases of tuberculosis; and whether, if compulsory isolation in a sanatorium over the period of active infectivity is impossible, he will supplement these institutions by health missionaries who will visit regularly the homes of tuberculous persons which are likely to be centres of infection in order to see that sanatorium conditions as nearly as possible prevail?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am informed by the Stirlingshire Insurance Committee that the patient in question left the sanatorium without the knowledge of the Committee, and that no communication or application has since been received from him or any one acting on his behalf. Sanatorium benefit under the Insurance Act is, of course, optional and not obligatory upon the patient. Persons in receipt of domiciliary treatment are instructed as to the conditions likely to impair either their own health or that of their households, and insurance committees have powers under Section 60 (1) (b) to disseminate information of this kind in their several districts.

    ALWYN RESERVOIR NORTH WALES.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether a doctor has been provided for insured persons employed on the Alwyn reservoir, North Wales; whether he is aware that an insured workman recently lay ill at No. 3 hut from the Tuesday to the Friday without medical attendance; and whether he will inquire from the Denbighshire Insurance Committee as to their arrangements in this district?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am making inquiries as to this case and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    SURGICAL APPLIANCES.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury in what part of the tariff for drugs and appliances set up by the National Insurance Act are splints other than arm splints mentioned; under what Section of the Regulations can other splints be obtained without the patient having to pay for them; and in what part of the tariff is medicated wool mentioned?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Second Schedule to the medical benefit Regulations issued by the Insurance Commission has provided that any kind of splints and of cotton and wood wools properly

    469
    required as part of medical benefit can be claimed. The Regulations have laid down no such limitation as is suggested in the question.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask why the tariff published only mentions cotton wool, and whether if this is a mistake, he will publish that medicated wool is probably the thing most wanted?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think medicated wool is a variety of cotton wool which is allowed by the tariff in the Schedule. I am not aware of any limitation.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a certain committee has already written to say that medicated wool is not on the tariff, and that therefore a patient will have to pay for it?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware of it, but I will be very glad to look into the matter if the Noble Lord will furnish information.

    DISPENSERS.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if a person holding the Apothecaries Society's certificate for dispensing, who has passed the Apothecaries Hall examination, has duly served his apprenticeship, passed the preliminary examination of the Pharmaceutical Society, compounded and dispensed medicines for thirty-six years, is now eligible to dispense under the National Insurance Act; and, if not, will he explain why?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to similar questions on the 5th instant. Section 15 (5) (iv.) of the National Insurance Act provides that nothing in the Act shall interfere with the rights and privileges conferred by the Apothecaries Act, 1815, upon any person qualified under that Act to act as an assistant to any apothecary in compounding and dispensing medicines.
    Mr. F. HALL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly say "Yes" or "No" whether this person is eligible to dispense? It is a most important matter.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I think I shall require more information as to the exact position this person occupies. I have referred the hon. Member to the Section of the Act which deals with the matter.
    Mr. F. HALL: I think the question gives the whole of the information, and I should like to have a direct answer.
    Mr. SPEAKER: There are many questions to which you cannot answer "Yes" or "No." The hon. Member has had a full statement, and he can refer to any questions which have already been answered.
    Mr. F. HALL: I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment I will raise this question.
    MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether quantity and price are mentioned in the arrangements with chemists for the supply of drugs and dressings but no mention of quality is made; and, seeing that the result is quantity and price and deterioration of quality known as the "insurance quality," will he state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The Noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The agreements with the chemists stipulate explicitly that all drugs and appliances shall be of good quality.

    Cardboard Boxes (Volumes of Reports).
    Mr. FELLasked what is the reason why the paper boxes in which the volumes of the Reports are sent by post are manufactured in Holland; if they are supplied to His Majesty's Stationery Office; and if no suitable cardboard boxes can be obtained of British manufacture?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The strawboard of which these cases are made is imported from Holland, as no strawboard is manufactured in this country. The boxes are made in London.
    Mr. FELL: How is it possible for cardboard boxmakers to pay wages to their men—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to this question.

    Customs and Excise Department.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the watchers of Customs and Excise are paid far less wages than those paid to dock labourers in the Port of London, and that the watchers' rate for overtime is only 6d. per hour; and whether, seeing that the Report of the Departmental Committee of inquiry into the conditions of work and wages of the Customs and Excise watchers has been received with dissatisfaction, it is contemplated by the Treasury to grant the watchers a living

    471
    wage, which should recognise extended and approved service of more than ten years' duration, besides an overtime rate of pay commensurate with the difficulties of attendance on duty in the Customs and Excise service in the Port of London?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not aware how far the precise conditions of employment of dock labourers are comparable with Customs watchers. I would invite the hon. Member's attention to Subsection (3) of Section 16 of the Report of the recent Waterguard Committee, and remind him that, in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee, watchers have been granted two good conduct allowances of 1s. a week each after five and ten years' service respectively, and a time allowance for night duty under which six hours' duty counts as seven. The question of the rate of overtime is engaging attention.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that certain Customs officials, holding the rank of assistant and second officer, performed duties superior to that of assistants, and that for the performance of such superior duties they were promised an annual allowance of £10; and will he say why the allowance was not paid from 1st April, 1909, to 1st December, 1912, and why they were paid in the aggregate only the same amounts as if they had served as ordinary assistants?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to my answer to a question put to me by the hon. Member for Barrow on the 20th May last on this subject.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether in the Customs branch of the Customs and Excise service it was formerly usual, when the state of public business permitted, to grant a weekly half-holiday, either on Saturday or some other day of the week, to members of the outdoor staff; why was this privilege discontinued; and, in view of the trend of recent legislation, will he cause the practice of granting a weekly half-holiday to be introduced or reintroduced by express authority, subject, if necessary, to the same conditions?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: It has been the general practice to grant a fortnightly half-holiday on alternate Saturdays to members of the outdoor staff when the
    472
    state of business permits. At particular stations, where there is ordinarily no business on Saturday afternoon, the officers might often get a half-holiday every week, but there never has been any general practice of granting a weekly half-holiday. I am not aware that there has been any change in this matter. The question of a weekly half-holiday in relation to the Civil Service is under consideration by the Treasury.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether representations have been made by the officers of Customs complaining of the state of office accommodation in bonded vaults and warehouses; whether he is aware that in many cases the provisions in regard to space, light, lavatory, etc., are far below the requirements of the Factory and Workshops Act; and, in view of the fact that the present system of approving offices has resulted in dissatisfaction, will he consider whether it would be advisable to transfer the responsibility of fixing and maintaining the standard of office accommodation in the Customs and Excise to His Majesty's Office of Works?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware that in some of the older bonded vaults and warehouses the office accommodation provided for the revenue officers falls short of modern standards; but I am assured by the Board of Customs and Excise that they are taking every opportunity of securing an improvement, and that the grant of new bonding privileges is always made conditional on the provision of proper accommodation for the officers. The whole matter, including the point mentioned in the last paragraph of the question, is receiving the careful consideration of the Board.

    Scottish Universities Grant.
    Mr. FREDERICK WHYTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the delay which has occurred in the publication of the correspondence between the Treasury and the Scottish universities on the subject of the system of inclusive fees, he will consent to waive for this year the Treasury's caim to insist on the full adoption of the system before the increased Grant is paid; and whether, in these circumstances, he will pay to the universities the full amount of the increased Grant for the year?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The correspondence will appear almost immediately. I propose to defer further action until after its publication.
    Mr. F. WHYTE: In view of the delay in publication, will the right hon. Gentleman consent to meet the universities by paying the whole Grant this year, seeing that they have shown their willingness to adopt not only the principle but also the active operation of the scheme so far as possible, though they require further time before they can arrive at a conclusion?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I will not commit myself to that policy at the moment. No immediate action is necessary. The whole correspondence will probably be published to-morrow, and perhaps I will be able to make a fuller statement before the Adjournment for the holidays.
    Mr. WATT: In view of their need of money, were they not forced to accept the tight hon. Gentleman's terms by their poverty?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: No one was forced by poverty to accept any terms. I want to find out what is the best for the Scottish universities.

    Welsh Bishoprics (Endowments).
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he is aware that information as to the endowments of the four Welsh bishoprics, based on facts which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners refused to disclose to the Royal Commission on the Welsh Church, was furnished privately to certain hon. Members of the House for the purposes of debate arising on 28th January; and what steps is he prepared to take to secure that information in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall be fairly accessible to all Members requiring it?
    Sir CHARLES NICHOLSON: I am not aware that any information refused to the Royal Commission on the Welsh Church by or on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners has been furnished privately to Members of the House for the purpose of debate. The Ecclesiatical Commissioners have in answer to questions readily furnished to all hon. Members asking for it such information as they could properly give with due regard to the interests under their charge, and I know of nothing more that they can fairly be asked to do.

    Farm Labourers' Cottages.
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for the Doncaster Division, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if he will state how far it is the practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to let farms with cottages for labourers to tenant-farmers; and whether, having regard to possible hardships falling on farm labourers living in tied houses, and the difficulties of securing proper sanitation and repairs in the case of sub-let houses, assurances will be given that in future lettings cottages attached to farms will be retained and let independently to tenants of the labouring class?
    Sir C. NICOLSON: The course adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners necessarily differs with the circumstances of their farms, but it is an ordinary practice for the labourers' cottages to be in-eluded in the letting to the tenant-fanner; cottages are regarded as a necessary part of the equipment of a farm, and where deficient are provided by the Commissioners. The maintenance of the cottages in sanitary condition and repair is not left to the tenant-farmer, but is supervised by the Commissioners through their agents. Having regard to the necessity that cottages attached to farms should be available for the labourers on those farms, the Commissioners are unable to give the assurance for which the hon. Member asks that farm cottages should be let independently of the farms.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    BATTLESHIPS.
    Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider the question of giving the name "Torbay" to one of the new battleships or cruisers?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir. Names have already been assigned to the battleships and cruisers of the present programme, and for the reasons which I have explained to the House in connection with the name "Plymouth," it is not the intention of the present Board of Admiralty to give names to His, Majesty's ships which might lead to confusion with harbours or naval bases.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state how many battleships are in full commission in home waters instantly ready at the present moment, giving their names; how many battle cruisers are in

    475
    full commission in home waters instantly ready at the present moment, giving their names; how many fully commissioned battleships and battle cruisers in home waters are in dockyard hands at the present moment giving their names; how many German battleships in home waters are in full commission instantly ready at the present moment, giving their names; how many German battle cruisers in home waters are in full commission instantly ready at the present moment, giving their names; and how many fully commissioned German battleships and battle cruisers in home waters are in dockyard hands at the present moment, giving their names?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be quite willing if the Noble Lord will repeat his question in three months' time to state the position as it is to-day, but it is not desirable to make comparisons of current strength. I may observe, however, that meanwhile there is no ground for apprehension.

    H.M.S. "TORCH."
    Mr. SANDYSasked how it was that the ship's book of His Majesty's ship "Torch" showed no record of any survey of plating, as ordered by Article 1071 of the King's Regulations, of later date than 1900; why was no entry made of the surveys claimed to have been held in 1905 and 1909; and what evidence is there that these surveys were held?
    Mr. HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether at various times before His Majesty's ship "Torch" was sent to sea in May, 1911, the steel upper deck had rusted through in many places and had been patched by thin plates of steel; whether one of these sheets had rusted through and had itself been patched by another sheet; and whether all these patches were secured solely by wood screws to the wood covering of the deck; (2) whether he is aware that a hole was scraped through the bottom plating while His Majesty's ship "Torch" was at sea, and that the commanding officer postponed further examination of the ship below the water-line rather than run the chance of developing leaks; whether he made a note of this and other defects in the ship's log, and a copy of this log is forwarded to the Admiralty monthly; and, if so, what action was taken; and (3) whether he will state why, if a completion cer-
    476
    tificate was not required by Regulations on completion of the refit of His Majesty's ship "Torch" in May, 1911, was a certificate surreptitiously posted into the ship's book early in 1912 while the book was in the hands of the dockyard; why did the dockyard officers certify therein that all known defects affecting the fighting and seagoing efficiency of the ship had been made good; and why was the customary proviso, Being in all respects ready for sea, omitted from the sailing orders issued by the Commander-in-Chief?
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether, when His Majesty's ship "Torch" was completing her refit in July, 1912, an attempt was made to undock her, but owing to the ship filling with water the dock was pumped out; whether, after some endeavours to stop the leaks, a second attempt was made with like result; whether, after further leak-stopping, a third attempt was made and the ship was floated, but shortly afterwards developed serious leaks and was docked for the fourth time; whether it was then found that some bolts or rivets had been omitted from holes in the bottom; whether any properly constituted court of inquiry was held into these incidents, and, if so, what was the result; whether this ship still has a leak in her fore shell-room; and when it is proposed to remedy this; and (2) whether he is aware that the loss of His Majesty's ship "Torch's" screw was reported by the commanding officer, who made an investigation at the time, to be due to a crack in the shaft at the point of fracture, which extended for two-thirds of the circumference and had a maximum depth of five-eighths of an inch filled with rust, while the diameter of the propeller shaft was only eight inches; and whether this fact proves that it was a longstanding defect which should have been remedied before the ship sailed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given at Question Time and in debate full replies, on the subject of this vessel. Disciplinary action has been taken where necessary, and the case is now closed so far as the. Admiralty is concerned. In these circumstances I do not see any public advantage in pursuing the matter further in detail. The Estimates will be presented next month and will afford the usual opportunities for criticism, or, if necessary, for taking the sense of the House by a Division.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: As the right hon. Gentleman in his statement has accused myself, among others, of having made exaggerated statements, cannot he answer these statements so that we may discover what is truth and what is not?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it much better to state these matters on the Estimates.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Naval Estimates will be taken?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In the course of next month.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Does the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made refer as well to the personal attack which he made upon the character of an officer, as to which I have given notice of four questions to-morrow?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is nothing about that in any of these questions.

    "DREADNOUGHTS."
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether Great Britain will have a 60 per cent. superiority over Germany in completed ships of the "Dreadnough" type on the 31st March, 1913; and, if not, how much short Great Britain will be of that percentage?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the affirmative.

    OIL FUEL.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can see his way, in Section 2, Vote 8, of the Navy Estimates for 1913–14, to place the sum of money required for oil fuel, freight, and expenses of hired vessels in a separate category, and not combine these items with coal, patent fuel, etc., as at present?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I regret that I am unable to comply with the request of the Noble Lord, as it would not be in the public interest to publish the information in the detailed form suggested.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the names of the contractors for supplying the Navy with oil fuel; the locality from which the fuel is obtained; what is the present price of oil fuel paid by the Admiralty; and what is the present rate of freight paid by the Admiralty for oil fuel?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It would not be in the interests of the public service or in
    478
    accordance with Admiralty practice to give details of contracts or charges. I may state, however, that the Admiralty invites tenders for oil fuel from all the large producers, and the bulk of the contracts have usually fallen to American and Roumanian contractors.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether any Report has yet been issued by the Royal Commission on Oil Fuel; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; the inquiry throughout is strictly confidential.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the date that Rosyth will be a properly equipped naval base?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The contract date for completion of the engineering works now in hand is 30th September, 1916. The contractor is entitled to extension of time due to various strikes. This has not yet been adjusted. On the other hand, the contractor hopes to gain some acceleration on the extended contract date, as the Admiralty are offering a large bonus for earlier completion. It is not, however, possible to say at present how much acceleration will be achieved.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Have they discovered a bank of mud that was not in the original contract?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot answer that without notice.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You cannot answer it! I thought you were a slinger of mud. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. KING: Is it in order for one hon. Member to say that another hon. Member is a slinger of mud?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is very fond of making very offensive observations. I have repeatedly called his attention to it, and I call his attention to it again, and that of the House, and ask him to behave as the other Members do.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE (subsequently): Perhaps I may be allowed to make an apology to the right hon. Gentleman for what I said just now, which I beg him to accept.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am very glad to accept it.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the terms of the arrangement between the Department and the contractors relating to the granting of permission to obtain a licence for the canteen proposed to be erected in connection with the temporary housing of the workmen at Rosyth, for enforcing good order and management, and especially as regards the police and the prevention of inducements for excessive drinking?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The terms of the arrangements proposed have not yet been settled, but Messrs. Easton, Gibb have promised to submit them for Admiralty information. As I stated, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife on the 3rd instant, the Admiralty will not oppose the licence for the canteen provided it is run on certain lines, and the points raised by my hon. Friend as to the enforcing of good order and management will no doubt be borne in mind by the contractors in making their arrangements.
    Mr. J. M. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government, or one of its Departments, should grant a disinterested management licence to this canteen, when it refused to accept the Lords disinterested management Licence Amendment to the Scottish Temperance Bill?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We are not granting it; we are raising no objection to the granting of this licence to the canteen.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why did the Government refuse the Lords Amendment then?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Admiralty have no control over that matter.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the First Lord of the Admiralty can see his way to place men employed in the works department of the Royal dockyards on the establishment list; and, if not, will he explain the reason the Government advance for refusing to one set of men employed in His Majesty's dockyards the privileges as to pension given to another set of men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Whilst the amount of work in the shipbuilding departments of the dockyards may be regarded as fairly constant, subject, of course, to the variations in shipbuilding programmes, the demands for building and engineering work are liable to fluctuations from time to time. These considerations have militated against the granting of establishment to men employed in the works department.
    480
    The question has been frequently placed before me at the hearing of petitions, and is at present under review.

    OVERCOATS.
    Mr. FALLEasked if the new overcoat is to be issued free to all ranks or, if not, then at what price is it to be issued; and if the old overcoats now in use are to be worn out or to be replaced at once by the new?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The overcoat is an optional article of kit and is not included in the free issue. The prices at which it is issued are: £1 1s. 9d. for petty officers and men, £1 4s. 5d. for chief petty officers. As is usual on change of pattern, the men will wear out the coats they have now.
    Mr. PETO: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, can he say whether the figures he has quoted represent the actual cost price to the Admarilty of the articles in question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think I can certainly say that the Admiralty make no profit on them.

    GERMAN AND BRITISH SHIPBUILDING.
    Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that we shall have twenty-nine ships of the "Dreadnought" type on the 1st April, 1914, and that Germany will have twenty-one, and that two or three of our-ships will or may be away in Colonial or foreign oceans, and in view of the fact that, in addition to these, four of our ships will be in the Mediterranean and one at Gibraltar, and that as, according to his own statement, 25 to 30 per cent. of our ships would not be available for immediate war at our average moment, the First Lord of the Admiralty can say what would be the number of our ships ready for immediate war in Home waters at our average moment, and what would be the number of German ships ready for immediate war at Germany's selected moment, on the 1st April, 1914?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: These discussions can be more satisfactorily conducted when the Estimates are being debated by the House.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it the fact that according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement we shall have a smaller number of "Dreadnoughts" ready for immediate war for the defence of the country against invasion than the Germans will have for attack on 1st April, 1914?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No; it is not the fact, nor anything approaching the fact, but I prefer to defer a general discussion of the Navy until we have a proper debate.
    Mr. HUNT: In view of that answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment on Tuesday.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked what, according to their present programme, will be the completed strength of the German Navy in ships of the "Dreadnought" type in April, 1916; and what number of British ships will then be required to maintain the standard of superiority outlined on 18th March last?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total number of German "Dreadnoughts" (including battle cruisers) on the date mentioned is computed at twenty-six. The British total, including the "New Zealand," the "Australia," and the two "Lord Nelsons," but excluding the "Malaya" and any vessels provided by Canada, will then be forty-three. Thus the standard of superiority referred to by the hon. Member will be maintained if the programmes announced to Parliament last year are carried out.
    Mr. MIDDLEMORE: Will it not be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to lay down eight battleships this year in order to maintain a 60 per cent. margin?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, not on the basis I have stated. The figures indicated by me last year will suffice.
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the total number of completed destroyers in the British and German Fleets, respectively; and how many in each case have been launched fifteen years or more?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Great Britain has 183 completed destroyers, of which forty-nine have been launched fifteen years and upwards. Germany has 124 completed destroyers, of which one has been launched fifteen years.

    PENSION RIGHTS.
    Sir REGINALD POLE-CAREWasked whether, when a man serving in the Navy has the misfortune to lose his reason and is sent to Yarmouth Naval Asylum, the whole of the pension he may have earned is appropriated for his keep, that his private property is sold by auction,
    482
    without reference to his wife, and the proceeds held at Yarmouth until he is discharged or dies, and that his wife and family are meanwhile left penniless; and whether the First Lord of the Admiralty can see his way to recommend some modification of this Regulation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under existing arrangements the cost of maintenance of men sent to Yarmouth Hospital is borne by Navy Votes, the whole of their Naval pensions being surrendered. In cases of exceptional need, allowances from the funds of Greenwich Hospital, varying in amount from 4s. to 6s. a week, may be granted to the wives of such men, or to persons having charge of their children. Private cash, valuables, and other articles of a personal value which are not likely to deteriorate, accompany men discharged to Yarmouth, and are retained at the hospital pending the patient's recovery or decease. Other effects are sold at the port of invaliding and the proceeds of the sale are dealt with in a similar manner. As regards the moneys retained, the Admiralty are advised that there is no legal authority under which these can be paid away unless a committee or person with like powers is appointed under the provisions of the Lunacy Act of 1890. Any balance of wages due on invaliding is payable to dependent relatives under the provisions of the same Act. With regard to the last part of the question, I may say that we are considering the question of modifying the existing regulations with regard to total surrender of pension in the case of men whose pension exceeds 1s. a day.

    H.M.SS. "TRIUMPH" AND "SWIFTSURE."
    Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked whether, in view of the fact that the "Triumph" and "Swiftsure" have been transferred from the eighth battle squadron to the eighth cruiser squadron, he will state what arrangements, if any, have been made for the replacement of these ships in our list of effective battleships?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is difficult to see why the transference of these vessels from one squadron to another in the same standard of commission should lead to any alteration in fleet strength.

    COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the death of Lead-

    483
    ing-seaman Charles Anderson, who served in the Royal Navy for twenty-three and a half years with a first-rate character; whether his widow has any claim to a compassionate allowance; and, if not, whether, in consideration of the destitute condition of his family owing to his being out of employment, any such allowance can be made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The late Charles Anderson had a total length of service of twenty-three years two hundred and fifty-four days, of which twenty years sixty-nine days counted for pension. He was discharged from the service on completion of time for pension with the rating of A.B., and was in receipt at the time of his death of a pension of £16 15s. a year. His widow has no claim to any compassionate allowance, and I regret that there are no funds at the disposal of the Admiralty from which she can be given assistance. If, however, there are any children between the ages of eight and fourteen in the ease of boys, and nine and twelve in the case of girls, application for their admission to orphanages or schools at the expense of Greenwich Hospital, could be considered. I will hand my hon. Friend the forms of application, but it must be understood that I can give no undertaking in the matter.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACT (FAIR-WAGES CLAUSSE).
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether the Dock No. 14, now being contemplated or constructed at Portsmouth, has the last Fair-Wage Clause as passed by the House of Commons, as part of the contract; and, if so, can the right hon. Gentleman state why the trade union rates of wages for navvies and labourers are not being paid?
    The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Lambert): The Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, dated 10th March, 1909, is embodied in the contract for enlarging Dock 14, Portsmouth. As regards the rates of wages that are being paid, I am making inquiries and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as early as possible.

    ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKEasked the number of engine-room artificers who have entered the Royal Naval Reserve from, the mercantile marine for the last three years, respectively?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The numbers of engine-room artificers, Royal Naval Reserve, who entered from the mercantile marine during the last three years are:—

    1910

    …

    …

    …

    44

    1911

    …

    …

    …

    35

    1912

    …

    …

    …

    27

    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to why the number of these artificers has gone down for the Royal Naval Reserve?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should say it is owing to the continued employment to be obtained outside and the high level of wages for the time being that the men are not so ready to go for three months training.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries in regard to this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not done so yet.

    FLUSH BOLSTER KNIVES.
    Mr. POINTERasked if the Secretary to the Admiralty's attention has been called to the case of Messrs. Frank Mills and Company, Limited, Sheffield, who are manufacturing marine flush bolster knives (No. 30), for which the trade price is 10s. per gross, and are only paying 8s. 6d. per gross; whether he can give any explanation why letters on this matter sent by the secretary of the Sheffield Trades Council, on 1st September, 1911, and on 26th June. 1912, have received no reply beyond a bare acknowledgment; and if he will inquire into the circumstances?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My attention has been called to the case in question. The firm state that they pay the agreed rate. There are, however, certain details of the matter still under investigation, hut 1 hope that our inquiries will be complete in a few days. With regard to the second part of the question, the letter of the 1st of September, 1911, was replied to by Admiralty letter of the 30th November, 1911, which intimated that the two firms then complained of had agreed to pay the rates claimed. The letter of the 1st of September, 1911, stated that Messrs. Mills were then paying the agreed rate, and as a letter addressed by the Admiralty to them confirmed that information, no action was then necessary in regard to

    485
    this particular firm. The complaint against Messrs. Mills was contained in the later letter of June, 1912, in regard to which, as I have stated, I hope that our inquiries will shortly be complete.

    Japan Coasting Trade.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in shipping circles because, while the Nippon Yusen Kaisha Company is able to undercut British rates between Hong Kong, Singapore, Rangoon, and Calcutta, owing to the liberal grant of State aid by the Imperial Japanese Government, no British ships may carry passengers or cargo from one Japanese port to another under the law of 17th July, 1911, which will be operative until 16th July, 1923, while Japanese steamers have, free access to the Indian coasting trade; and what immediate action the Government propose to take?
    Mr. ACLAND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the last part, if by immediate action, the hon. Member means that the Japanese Government should be approached with the view to securing a satisfactory arrangement, the answer is that proposals with this object have been made already, and are under consideration. If, on the other hand, he means that retaliatory action should be taken immediately to exclude Japanese steamers from the Indian coasting trade, the answer is that, in view of these negotiations, this step is not contemplated.

    Divorce (Royal Commission).
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked if it is intended to introduce legislation, and, if so, when, to give effect to such recommendations of the Royal Commission on Divorce as are unanimous?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 19th December last to the hon. Member for Blackburn, to which I can at present add nothing.
    Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the recommendations such, for instance, as those dealing with the granting of separation orders by magistrates are now in consequence in daily operation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that. The whole ground is very contentious.

    Mall Approach.
    Mr. BIRDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the offer made by Mr. George Drummond in 1911, on behalf of Drummond's Bank, for enabling the completion of the approach to the Mall, to consent to an alteration of the bank premises, and to surrender the land liberated, free of cost, provided the county council would make the alteration and set back the buildings on the opposite side, he will endeavour to bring about a conference with the authorities concerned and other parties interested, with the object of carrying out the improvement in a manner worthy of the capital of the Empire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: While I should welcome such a, conference, I fear that I do not see that the Government could usefully at this moment take any steps in the matter.
    Mr. BIRD: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen two letters in the "Times" from Sir John Benn and Mr. Hayes Fisher, in which, as representing the two parties in the London County Council, they practically agree that the final completion of this national movement should not be treated as a party question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better hand in his question.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the allocation of the £60,000 surplus in hand from the Memorial Grant in order that the road may be completed?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice. This has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.
    Mr. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, permit me to see him for about five minutes?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Nothing would give me greater pleasure.

    Education.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister (1) whether a comprehensive Bill dealing with every grade of education in England and Wales will be the chief Government measure of next Session; and, if so, whether, before the introduction of such Bill, he will state in outline the nature of the Government's education policy; and (2) whether the proposed Education Bill of the Government promised

    487
    for next Session will deal with education only or will include provisions relating to interdenominational religious controversy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already said, it would at present be premature to make any statement with regard to the business of next Session.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some opportunity to the local education authorities to consider the Government's education proposals in outline before they are crystallised in the form of a Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Ample notice will be given of any proposals which the Government have to make.

    Married Women Outworkers.
    Sir J. D. REESasked when the House will have an opportunity of discussing the report of Mr. Pope on married women outworkers?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: The report referred to is the result of an inquiry into the objections raised against the draft special Order including married women outworkers within the provisions of Part I. of the National Insurance Act. It is a report to the Commissioners, who do not propose to modify or withdraw the Order, which was liable to challenge when it was first issued.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Was it possible to challenge it, seeing that the Government had taken all the time of the House?
    Mr. MASTER MAN: I believe it could have been challenged at the time, and I am not sure that it could not have been challenged after eleven o'clock at night.

    Rural Life.
    Mr. NEWMANasked whether the impossibility of obtaining free and unfettered evidence as regards the conditions of rural life was considered by the Government as a reason against the appointment of a Commission or Select Committee to take any further evidence on which to found legislation; and whether such alleged reluctance to give evidence is the sole reason for the appointment of an unofficial and informal Committee to ascertain the particulars desired?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 5th November last to the hon. and gallant Member for the Hornscastle Division in reply to a question on this subject.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the reason why the Committee was formed unofficially was because it could not possibly get satisfactory evidence if it were official?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer which I gave, he will see that there are other reasons also.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Would the Prime Minister refer to the speech in the National Liberal Club?

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

    ULSTER.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if the inquiries now being made in certain towns of Ulster as to the accommodation available for troops have reference to the possible outbreak of revolt on the part of the loyalist Protestant inhabitants of that province; and if he is yet in a position to state the policy of the Government should the resistance of Ulster to separation from this country take a serious form?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I know nothing of any such inquiries. As regards the last part of the question I have nothing to add to the statements I have already made on his subject.
    Mr. F. HALL: Will any declaration on the subject be made before the Royal Assent is given to the Home Rule Bill?

    Ebbw Vale Coke Ovens.
    Mr. J. WARDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will make inquiries into the house accommodation for the navvies and labourers employed upon the coke ovens at Ebbw Vale, and take such steps as he may think desirable to end the nuisance of workmen being obliged to sleep out through lack of accommodation?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I have recently been in communication with the local authority in regard to the housing accommodation for persons of the working classes in the Ebbw Vale district, and

    489
    I was informed on 28th January that 102 houses for the working classes have been completely erected during 1912, and that 135 more are in course of erection now. I will communicate further with the local authority in regard to the question of my hon. Friend.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Ebbw Vale and the adjoining valleys the scarcity of housing accommodation is due to His Majesty's Government having refused to make loans under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890?
    Mr. BURNS: The right hon. Gentleman should address his question to the Public Works Loans Commissioners. It does not come within my Department.

    Heavy Motor Cars (Damage by Vibration).
    Mr. HIGHAMasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the representations from municipal corporations and urban district councils of Lancashire as to the vibration and damage being caused to houses arid shops adjoining main thoroughfares by heavy motor vehicles, daily increasing in number; if the President of the Local Government Board can make any modifications of the provisions of the Heavy Motor Car Order, 1904, in the direction of a reduction of the speed limit in urban districts; and if Regulations can be made requiring the compulsory provision of efficient mudguards so as to remedy the nuisance caused by the splashing and squirting of mud and dirty water on to pedestrians, shop windows, and property?
    Mr. BURNS: I have received representations from various local authorities on this subject. The Regulations contained in the Heavy Motor Car Order were based upon the recommendations of a Departmental Committee, and I do not see my way at present to modify the particular provisions referred to by the hon. Member, but the matter is not being lost sight of. As regards the last part of the question, the compulsory provision of mudguards appears to me to be within the scope of Regulations under the Motor Car Acts, but 1 am not satisfied that an effective mudguard has yet been invented.

    University of Bristol.
    Dr. ADDISONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, before
    490
    making any further Grants to the University of Bristol, he will institute an inquiry into the complaints made against the council of that university by present and past professors?
    Mr. PEASE: The distribution of the Exchequer Grants for universities and university colleges in England for the five years ending 31st March, 1916, has, now been determined, and no further question as to allocation of Grants will arise until the end of that period. Before making any recommendations as to subsequent allocations of Grant, the Board's Advisory Committee will make such visits and inquiries as may then seem to them to be proper. No special inquiry now seems either necessary or desirable.
    Dr. ADDISONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to the facts connected with the dismissal of Professor Carol from the chair of English Literature in the University of Bristol; whether the Board of Education regards as an important matter in determining its Grant to universities and university colleges the fact that a reasonable security of tenure is assured to the holders of such chairs; and whether such security was afforded to Professor Carol?
    Mr. PEASE: I have no official information as to the events referred to, which I understand occurred some years ago. The Board's Advisory Committee on University Grants in their Report, issued in March last, proposed that the terms and status of professors should form a subject of special consideration before the next assessment of Grants is made in 1916. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Report.
    Dr. ADDISON: Is it not the fact that the Chair held by Professor Carol was suppressed contrary to the advice of the Senate?
    Mr. PEASE: I understand that the Council revised the recommendations of the senate, and was not able to see their way to fill the posts with the same individuals; but there was an interval, I understand, between the university being a university college and a university.
    Dr. ADDISON: Is it not the fact that the council did not revise the report of the Senate, but appointed a sub-committee of its own before the senate had sent in a report at all?
    Mr. PEASE: The matter is one relating to two and a half years ago, and I do not think any good cause will be served by looking further into it. I have received no representations on the matter from the university.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that his colleague, the Lord Chancellor, is Chancellor of Bristol University, and will he consult him upon this matter?
    Mr. PEASE: I have already done so.

    School Accommodation (Ewell and Sunbury).
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received the reports of his inspectors on the local inquiries as regards school accommodation held recently at Ewell and Sunbury; if so, whether copies of the reports have been supplied to all the parties concerned and to the local Press; and, if not, will he say where copies may be obtained by any persons interested?
    Mr. PEASE: The answer to the first, part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board are making arrangements for the deposit of the reports of the inquiries referred to, in accordance with Section 73 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and as soon as these arrangements are complete notice of the place at which the reports may be inspected will be circulated locally and published in the local Press.

    Street Accidents (London).
    Mr. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there has been a marked decrease of accidents in London since the commencement of the strike of motor cab drivers; and, if this is so, will he consider the advisability of, in the future, limiting the number of licences for motor cabs in the interests of safety, and also so as to minimise competition, thus allowing for better payment of the drivers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The Commissioner of Police reports that there has been no marked fluctuation in the number of accidents since the commencement of the strike. The second part of the question therefore does not arise. The proposal in the third part would involve legislation, and I would remind the hon. Member that the Departmental
    492
    Committee of 1911 reported against any limitation of the number of licences.

    Suffragist Outrage (Nuneham Park).
    Mr. F. HALLasked if the sentence of imprisonment of the persons who attempted to burn down the children's rooms at Nuneham Park were remitted or relaxed in any way?
    Mr. McKENNA: One woman only was convicted, and her offence was being found by night on the premises of Nuneham Park with housebreaking implements in her possession. She refused to take food after her conviction and food was administered by force; but the process, in view of the prisoner's state of health, involved some danger, and I found it necessary to remit the sentence and release her after she had served only ten days of it.
    Mr. F. HALL: Is the House to understand that those women are able to lengthen or shorten their sentences by simply abstaining from food?
    Mr. McKENNA: Not entirely on that. It depends on the prisoner's state of health. If she is in such a state of health that she can be forcibly fed without danger she is forcibly fed.

IMPRISONMENT OF MR. ARNOLD (INDIA).
Mr. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, as representing the India Office, a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the case of Mr. Arnold?
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): I informed the House in December that it was not practicable to consider the severity of Mr. Arnold's sentence so long as it was uncertain whether he did or did not intend to appeal against the correctness of his conviction. This statement was made in the belief that Mr. Arnold's intentions would be known at an early date. But some time has now elapsed; no application for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been made; Mr. Arnold is completing his fourth month in prison. The Government of India have therefore now reviewed the case

493
on its merits, and have come to the conclusion that a term of four months' imprisonment will meet it. They have reduced the sentence of one year accordingly. I wish to make it clear that this decision will not in any way affect Mr. Arnold's power to make application to the Judicial Committee regarding the judgment of the Burma Chief Court, should he decide to do so.
Mr. C. BATHURST: Does that mean that Mr. Arnold is to be at once released?
Mr. BAKER: No, he will be released on the termination of the fourth month from the date of the sentence, which was I think on 19th October.
Mr. MORRELL: Do we understand that the Government do not think it necessary to make any further inquiry into the facts of the case.
Mr. BAKER: I am afraid that would depend on whether Mr. Arnold would still appeal or not, and on the result of any appeal.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister if he proposes to take any business to-night after Committee of Ways and Means?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to take the Second Reading of the Aerial Navigation Bill and the Report of the Money Resolution Pensions (Governors of Dominions).
  Mr. KING: Are we not to make some progress with the Committee of the Railways Bill, and so lighten our very long hours to-morrow?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We stated we would not take that Bill to-night.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: When will the Report stage of the Railways Bill be taken?
  The PRIME MINISTER: We hope upon Thursday.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1912–13.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "2. That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £248,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Additional Expenditure in respect of the following Army Services, namely:—

  £

  Vote 1. Pay, etc., of the Army

  215,000

  Vote 6. Quartering, Transport, and Remounts

  68,000

  Vote 7. Supplies and Clothing

  95,000

  Vote 8. Ordnance Department Establishments and General Stores

  45,000

  423,000

  Less Surplus on Vote 10

  75,000

  348,000

  Deduct Excess Appropriations in Aid

  100,000

  £248,000"

  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): The Commiitee will wish to know how it comes that this sum is asked for as a Supplementary Estimate. I shall, of course, be glad to explain any item, but I would like to state how it comes that the Supplementary Estimate is necessary and how we have under budgeted to this extent. There is no item which involves any change in policy, and they have all been previously discussed, but it has been necessary to aske for this further sum for one or two main reasons. In the first place, there are the troops in China, which have had to be kept there owing to the state of the country not being sufficiently calm to enable our representatives to agree to the withdrawal of the Indian troops. That accounts for a sum of £97,000, which we have to pay for the Indian troops which would otherwise be paid for by India. The second item is for insurance, which it was provided should be a supplementary sum for each of the Departments. The third item is for sea transport, which is due partly to the maintenance of troops in China for the reason I have already stated, and partly to the withdrawal of a portion of the garrison in South Africa, which I have already explained to the House. Those items represent £200,000; there remains the sum of £48,000. That is due to the general rise in prices which, as the Committee knows, has been very large. The sum would have been considerably larger but for the Appropriations-in-Aid. I think the Committee will see that in none of these cases could we have foreseen the extra charge that is thrown upon the Treasury. The Committee rightly objects to over-budgeting, so as to keep control of finance. In this case we have under-budgeted, but it is owing to the unforeseen circumstances to which I have drawn attention.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some fuller explanation as regards Subhead (c), "Regimental Pay, including Health Insurance Payments." The amount shown is apparently too large to be accounted for solely by health insurance payments, which at the rate of about 1½d. per man per week would amount to a good deal less than £50,000. As regards gratuities and deferred pay to soldiers on discharge, for which £40,000 is taken, we have had no explanation at all. It is a very

  523
  large sum to be asked for in a Supplementary Estimate. Sub-head (d) is for pay, etc., of Army Reserve, £28,000. Has any sum which is to be allocated to the National Reserve been included in this Sub-head? Owing to the very small amount of detailed information, it has been quite impossible for the Opposition to examine these items carefully; therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman to supply this further information.
  Major WILLOUGHBY: I hope the Secretary of State will give fuller information on these items. We have no idea whatever why a greater amount has been paid as regards gratuities and deferred pay to soldiers on discharge, or why the pay of the Army Reserve is being increased. These items at first sight are most unsatisfactory. It is essential that whatever number of troops was voted by the Committee should be maintained, and if this increased amount is called for in consequence of men being put into the Army Reserve before their time, I think it is most unsatisfactory. If, on the other hand, it is found that we are able to get a larger number of recruits, although it is not possible on this Supplementary Estimate to add to the number of our trained soldiers, I hope the Government will very carefully consider the question of adding to the establishment of our Regular battalions. Earlier in the Session I called attention to the fact that it is most essential that we should have a larger number of trained soldiers in our Regular battalions, and if this increased estimate is caused by reducing the number of trained soldiers, thus making necessary an increased Estimate for the Army Reserve, I think it is most unsatisfactory.
  4.0 P.M.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: With the small amount of information which the right hon. Gentleman has given it is not easy to deal with the matters he has placed before us. There are sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman, however, two financial advisers, one past and one present, who will no doubt be able to give us the information we require. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that there is no change in the policy of the War Office. That is rather a pity, as we had hoped there might be in regard to some points with which I will deal if they are in order. We have been told that the Supplementary Estimate is due to a great extent to the expenses of troops in China,
  524
  which naturally the right hon. Gentleman could not anticipate. It seems rather curious, however, that it should be necessary for the War Office to increase their expenses in China, while the Admiralty, after taking money in their annual Estimates for extra ships for China, have not yet found it necessary to make them. I do not know where the money has gone, and it cannot be discussed on this Vote; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain the matter. If he cannot, no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty can tell him privately what the explanation is. With regard to the item of £50,000 for regimental pay, including health insurance payments, my hon. Friend has already pointed out that health insurance does not nearly account for the sum taken. No doubt the Under-Secretary will explain how the £50,000 is made up. I should like to ask in this connection whether there is any idea on the part of the War Office of paying the insurance money in respect to Territorial soldiers? I think he is as well aware as I am that almost all the Territorial Associations
  —that is the central bodies— have suggested, I believe, so far as I have seen the correspondence, that the insurance of the soldiers should be paid when they are in camp.
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is a matter of policy that does not arise on this Supplementary Vote.
  MARQUESS-of TULLIBARDINE: Mr. Whitley, on a point of Order, does the Vote not include health insurance payment of the soldiers when in camp?
  The CHAIRMAN: Clearly that should arise on the Vote for the Territorial Service, and not on this Vote.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: May I ask if this has anything to do with health insurance at all?
  The CHAIRMAN: I think not.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Oh, then, we know where we are. What we do know is that this extraordinarily large Supplementary Estimate for the Regular Army in China is large in proportion, and that makes it a very much greater and worse Estimate. I understand, then, that the regimental pay—I presume I am in order in raising the question of the pay of officers—
  The CHAIRMAN: No. The Noble Lord must understand that this is only a Supplementary Vote, and only the reasons for the increase asked for can be discussed. What he suggests now will come on on Vote A of the new Estimate for the coming year.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us, Mr. Whitley, what this regimental pay is required for. When I asked him on this point he pointed to his neighbour next door. It would surely be more satisfactory if the right hon. Gentleman did tell us what is the reason for this, and then we should have helped him to get the Vote passed. I think I am in order in asking him, in respect of this increase of regimental pay, the question which I raised on the Army Estimates this year, and which the right hon. Gentleman said he would look into. I think it was he—or perhaps his predecessor—who gave that promise. That is: Why a non-commissioned officer on the permanent staff, still belonging to the Regular Forces, and paid from the Regular Forces, if he belongs to the Infantry and is attached actually, say, to the Cavalry outside the Regular Army on permanent staff duty, why is he paid at Infantry rate, and who is making the profit?
  The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is a question for the general Estimates, and not for a Supplementary Estimate.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I do not, Mr. Whitley, wish to try to get out of order. I desire to keep inside, and not to get out of order with you, but it is an extraordinarily difficult problem, for I want to get certain information, and it seems to me it is not easy to get at it. My hon. Friend beside me reminds me that there is one point I did not quite make clear—that was in regard to the troops in China. What is a necessity for the increased cost of keeping the troops there when we had the Navy there? A point I really want to get at is in respect to the Army Reserve. The amount here has increased by £28,000. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in this connection whether he can say anything as to the report that I saw in the newspapers—I may add that I do not take everything in the newspapers always to be absolutely accurate, as doubtless the right hon. Gentleman will agree. The point I want to raise is in regard to the officers who, in connection with the Army Reserve, receive £100.
  526
  These men have belonged to the Officers' Training Corps. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the newspaper report is correct. There are the officers of the Army Reserve, who have to do so much training every year, and receive so much every year; who have been Regular officers and have gone through the whole mill. In the case of the officers from the Officers' Training Corps, men from Oxford and Cambridge—no doubt very estimable young gentlemen—is it true that they can come in as second lieutenants into the Reserve of Officers and be paid, on mobilisation, £100? Does this Estimate include that expenditure? Is it really true, because it does seem to me extremely unfair that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give to the officers of the Officers' Training Corps, with absolutely no experience except their ordinary camp drills at the university, this advantage. I think it is extremely unfair that these officers, with very little experience, may on mobilisation, the day they join, be given the £100, while other officers—
  The CHAIRMAN: Will the Noble Lord show me where that is shown in these Estimates? That seems to me again a question for the general management of the Army, and comes up on Vote 1 A.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I beg pardon. I think it ought to be shown in the Estimate, because it is a very important point. If it is in order, I would like to ask a question as to the cost of forage. May I ask him if this includes the extra cost promised on 9th March? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War promised he would look into this matter when we were discussing the Army Act. If the Vote includes that increase it will be very satisfactory. I am quite certain that all of us will be agreed on the point. I have raised the point two or three times in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself as being fully of the opinion that the matter should be looked into, while the Under-Secretary gave us some hope with regard to the matter on the Army Act discussion. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the cost of this increase of forage? Has it been owing to the actual increase of the price of forage? If so, can he give us any reason for the increase in the price? If it is not in the increase of the actual forage itself, is it on account of any increase in the number of horses?

  527
  If so, will he tell us what extra horses we have got on the establishment now that we had not before? Does the increase in forage include or exclude any increased feeding of horses for the regiments that have come from South Africa?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): It does not.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: No. Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us if it does not include the cost of horses from South Africa what these troops that came from South Africa are mounted on? They are certainly not mounted on Cavalry horses. Are they mounted on Infantry cobs?
  The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that arises.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: What I want to get at is this: That full-sized horses obviously eat more than cobs, and I really want to know whether or not this amount is justified. If the War Office are economising naturally we would all back them up in it. Still we do not want to economise by giving Cavalry regiments cobs instead of horses. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us what military and strategic reason there is for this. I think there is no other point I would like to raise at the present moment, which, by the way, is not a very satisfactory moment for raising points. There is the pay of the officers that might be raised, the question of barrack furniture, and so on. Is the question of barrack furniture, Mr. Whitley, in order, not barrack stores or hospital stores?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is entitled to ask what that money is proposed to be spent on, if that is what he wants?
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I am in an enormous difficulty, as I cannot get an answer out of any of the three Gentlemen representing the War Office.
  The CHAIRMAN: A reason for that might be that the Noble Lord himself is at present addressing the House.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Then may I rise again afterwards?
  The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Then I shall shortly have great pleasure in
  528
  sitting down, but I hope I shall get an answer to some of the questions I have put, including that of barrack furniture.
  Mr. TENNANT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Finsbury, who began this discussion, was correct in assuming that the £50,000, the first item, was more than the amount required for the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act. The amount due on that head is £35,000 in respect of soldiers for which no provision was made in the original Estimate. I may say it was directly according to the Treasury instructions to the War Office that no money was taken in the original Estimate for the National Insurance Act. The remaining £15,000 is an underestimate of pay for the Army. It is what is known as proficiency pay mainly. Hon. Members will be interested to hear that, because it is always satisfactory that the Army is becoming more proficient.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is there any officers pay in that?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it does include officers pay.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Where does China come in?
  Mr. TENNANT: If the Noble Lord had looked at the inscription on the Vote he would have seen that the China item is Item W, and I am dealing at present with the letter C. The hon. Member for Finsbury also asked whether there was any money taken in these services, amounting to £15,000, for pay for the National Reserve. No, that will come in another Vote, Vote 4 of the Estimates for the coming year. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stamford is not in error in assuming that the sum he mentioned is required owing to the fact that a larger number of trained men have been transferred to the Reserve from the Regular battalions. I may say that it was the policy of the War Office seven or eight years ago to have a change in the period of service with the colours, and owing to the changes made seven or eight years ago this year and next will be difficult years for recruiting. For some years there would be too many men to be recruited, and other years there would be too few vacancies, and in order to equalise and to get something of an average during the two or three years, 1913, 1914, and 1915, we had in 1912 more men going to the Reserve than the ordinary number.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Have we had an extraordinary flow of recruits this year to make up for it?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think we may say we have had the normal, but more men have gone to the Reserve owing to the brisker employment throughout the country.
  Major WILLOUGHBY: Is it a fact that owing to the change of policy at the War Office these men have been allowed to go to the Reserve?
  Mr. TENNANT: There has been no change in policy; there is continuity of policy, but owing to the fact that changes were made seven or eight years ago, before this Government had any responsibility in the matter, this action was considered advisable, and it is obvious, if anybody looks at the fact, that the total amount of increase is not very considerable. It is £28,000 to the Army Reserve and £40,000 for gratuities and deferred pay to soldiers on discharge. I hope I have now explained these matters to the satisfaction of the Committee. The Noble Lord opposite was not very lucky in the points he raised, as he got stopped when dealing with them one by one. He spoke about China as if there was some scheme by which the Navy reduced their shins in Eastern waters and that we had been compelled to keep more troops in China. That is not so; it was owing to the internal condition of China which nobody could have foreseen that this extra force was required.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Were not gunboats in China waters?
  Mr. TENNANT: With regard to the question of the cost of forage, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will answer that. There is no provision in this sum for officers' training corps.
  Sir C. HUNTER: There is only one item on which I would like to have a little information and that is as regards this extra £68,000 for transport. I take it that the greater portion of that is due to the removal of the garrison from South Africa, and I rather think that amount ought to have been allowed for in the Army Estimates when they come up. It was public knowledge in South Africa that a certain portion of the troops were going to be removed from the moment that national service had been started in South Africa. I was there myself last February and every
  530
  soldier was talking about it, and that was before the Army Estimates came up for review, and that sum ought to have been allowed for. Of course, when this universal service was started in South Africa, we knew a great portion of the garrison would be brought away. I think that is regrettable for many reasons. Not only is South Africa a first-class strategic position, but it is one of the few fine training grounds left for Cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery. Beyond that it is an extraordinary fine strategic position either for re-inforcements for India or along the Mediterranean. I look forward to a still further reduction of troops in South Africa as the Union scheme of National Service becomes further developed That perhaps may be a matter of but I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers will never listen to any reduction of the Imperial troops as regards the Cape Police. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me why in reducing these troops the whole of them have been taken away from Blomfontein. The stations there have been practically shut up.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is raising questions that properly belong to the main Army Estimate.
  Sir C. HUNTER: I was afraid I would be stopped in that way, but I thought I was justified in mentioning the matter owing to the fact that the troops could not have been brought away if the money was not forthcoming at the time. The only other point is that I should like some information as to the sum of £60,000 increased contribution from the Colonies. When one looks through the Army Estimates and sees the contributions made by the Colonies, it is very obvious that some of them give very much larger contributions than others which might well bear a larger proportion of the cost. If you take places like the Straits Settlements and China, I think they bear a very much larger proportion than a good many of the others. It would be interesting to the Committee to know where these increases in the Colonial contributions are derived from in order that the Colonies giving that sum might have the proper credit.
  Colonel GREIG: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down raised a very important point, I think, in connection with these Estimtaes. He referred to the transfer of troops and to this sum upon the Estimates, due apparently to the withdrawal of troops from South Africa. The

  531
  hon. Gentleman seemed to express some regret upon that score, first, because he thought it was a very good training ground, and, secondly, that such a policy would not meet with his approval. If his mind went back forty or fifty years ago, he would see that in 1860 a unanimous Resolution was passed by the House of Commons in that year to the effect—
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Is it in order to discuss this matter?
  The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not in order. This is obviously a matter for general debate at the beginning of the Session.
  Colonel GREIG: Then I shall not pursue that argument. I am extremely glad to see that the withdrawal of troops is going on owing to the action of this party in giving autonomy to South Africa.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now dragging in policy, which is strictly left out of discussion on Supplementary Estimates.
  Colonel GREIG: Then I shall confine myself solely to the question of method. The Noble Marquess opposite intimated in his speech that he found it a little difficult to know exactly where he was. He eventually did discover that there was no new policy initiated by these Grants, but he wanted to know a little as regards something, and, first of all, as regards the expenses for China. I presume that is expenditure of which we shall see a reduction in a short time. I do not imagine that hon. Members opposite will suggest we ought to retain our troops there longer than is absolutely necessary. I will not deal with the question of pay for the insurance of Territorial soldiers; that is a matter, as the Chairman intimated, that can be brought up on the discussion of the Territorial force. It deserves the serious consideration of the House, nor do I imagine we can deal with the extra payment to the National Reserve which, I am sure, will give great satisfaction throughout the country, but I should like to know something about the forage. There is an extra amount for forage. It may be either due to the greater consumption or to the price having gone up. What I should like to know is where do we obtain the greater bulk of our forage. Is it from the farmers of the British isles? And if so, I presume they have benefited by this greater cost. One
  532
  other point. There are extra payments for the number of men transferred to the Reserve. That, again, the Under Secretary explained, is due to the desire to equalise the recruiting from year to year, and I think if the hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke upon the subject traced the recent history of transfers to the Reserve he would have seen that owing to the alteration in the service of soldiers some years ago, this matter had to be faced sooner or later, and I think it is a very wise policy of the Government to permit the extra transfers to take place so as to regularise the transfers to the Reserve. I think we are all aware that owing to the system in operation we have a higher number of Reservists, forming a magnificent body of men, due entirely to the system we have in operation for the last thirty or forty years.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Did I understand the hon. and gallant, Gentleman to say that he wished to see the forage bought in this country?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the Government.
  Colonel GREIG: If the Noble Lord will send me notice of that question I will answer it.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Opposition, they were never tired of criticising Supplementary Estimates, but when they are in office they are never tired of bringing forward Supplementary Estimates for large sums. This is as an Estimate for £423,000, less certain savings on new works and deductions for excess Appropriations-in-Aid. It is true that that sum is not a very large percentage upon the total amount spent upon the Army, but nevertheless it is a very large sum, and it ought not to have been necessary to bring forward a Supplementary Estimate in the case of the Army at all. Why are Supplementary Estimates necessary, and on what ground can they be excused? Only on the ground that there has been an unforeseen expenditure which could not be contemplated when the original Estimate was produced. I would like to ask the Secretary for War whether he can show why there has been this large increase in the expenditure which was not contemplated at the time the original Estimates were prepared. My military knowledge is of a small character, but I am approaching this question not from a

  533
  military, but from a business point of view. I was under the impression that there was a reduction in the Army, and therefore it should not have been necessary to bring forward these Estimates. If there has really been a reduction in the size of the Army, surely it ought not to be necessary to increase the amount which the nation is called upon to pay. If, unfortunately, the country is to be blessed with the presence of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in office much longer, I hope they will take my remarks to heart, and endeavour to bring forward their Estimates in a more businesslike manner.
  There are two things I wish to allude to, namely, the cost of provisions and the cost of forage. I remember not long ago we were told that if certain things took place our food would cost us more. Those things have not taken place, and yet our food is costing us more. I want to know why the Secretary for War and his advisers, with all their knowledge, made such an extremely bad estimate when the original Estimates were prepared. Is it duo to the fact that there has been a larger number of men in the field? [An HON. MEMBER: "Increased price."] Surely it is not an increased price with the present Secretary of State in charge of the Army? We all thought it was going to be a decreased price. This is really a matter of housekeeping. I presume the price of food has gone up, but the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers knew this, and why did they not allow for it in the Estimates, particularly in regard to the cost of forage? Even I knew forage had gone up. I know it has not gone up in the last five or six months; oats may have been a little dearer, and I know they were dear last March, perhaps 1s. or 2s. a quarter more; but hay is not at its top price, in fact it is lower than it was five or six months ago, and straw is about the same. I am paying for straw exactly what I was paying a year ago, and I presume those in charge of the Army are as businesslike as I am. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, they would be if we were on the other side, and they ought to be able to buy forage as well as an ordinary civilian. I hope we shall have some explanation on this point. An hon. Member asked if this forage was all bought in England or abroad. Now, that is a very thorny question, and I am sure I should be out of order in going into it; but, after all, it is the business of the Government to get the best article at the lowest price, and, although I am a Tariff
  534
  Reformer, I do not propose to go into that question. I understand that the Financial Secretary is going to tell us all about these things, and I hope he will give us a careful explanation and some assurance that next month, when we meet again to consider the Army Estimates, he will really exercise some businesslike care in the preparation of the Estimates for next year.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: I wish to ask the question with regard to the item of £97,000 for the expenses of native Indian troops. I wish to know whether that is likely to be a recurring charge? I understand it has been incurred on account of the extra Indian troops temporarily employed in China. I should also like to know if that sum includes the item of transport, and if it covers the full cost of those troops, or whether the Government of India has made any payment towards the cost. I want to know whether this item is one that falls on the British Exchequer in the end, or whether it will be decreased by any payment out of the revenues of India or the India Office, or the Governor-General in Council at Calcutta? I hope when the Financial Secretary makes his reply to these questions he will deal as fully as he call with this rather large and certainly very interesting item.
  Colonel YATE: With reference to the charge of £97,000 for the native Indian troops, I wish to say that I welcome this charge in the Estimates most cordially. I am glad to think that the Indian regiments are willing to serve their Sovereign in all parts of the Empire, and I am glad the Empire is willing to pay for the services of those troops whenever they may be required. With regard to the item of £28,000 for the pay of the Army Reserve, may I ask whether, by increasing the number of the Army Reserve, the complements of the battalions serving at home have been in any way reduced? Those complements now are very small indeed, and in allowing extra men to go to the Reserve I trust no reduction is being permitted in the home battalions in any way whatever. I should like an assurance on that point from the hon. Member opposite. I wish to know, also, if any provision has been made in the £28,000 for paying the Army Reserve men in a different manner? We know the custom of paying these Army Reserve men has been that they have been paid £2 5s. down every quarter, and this has led to tremendous difficulties, and it has been bad for the Army.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of general policy, which cannot be discussed now, and which is applicable to the Army Estimates for the year.
  Colonel YATE: I understood there was a little extra money required for this purpose. With regard to the £68,000 required for meeting the cost of the sea transport of troops from South Africa, I do not know whether it would be in order, but possibly the hon. Member opposite will be able to say whether any of the troops brought home are to be disbanded. I trust we shall have some assurance that that is not the case. The question of forage has been referred to. I should like to know whether these provisions and forage have been purchased in England or imported from abroad? I notice that on new works there has been a saving of £75,000. We all know how short the Army is of accommodation for commanding officers and married officers. I know one instance where a married officer had to go twenty miles to find a suitable house, and I would like to know why this £75,000 has been deducted from the building estimate when so much accommodation is required? It is one of the crying hardships of the Army that married officers are never able to get suitable quarters for their wives and families. When we find that an officer has to go twenty miles away to get a house, it is high time the War Office provided more houses, instead of attempting to save £75,000 out of the Estimates.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) made a general charge against the Supplementary Estimates. I do not think he would have made that charge if he had heard the speech of the Secretary of State for War. The hon. Baronet said all these items of expenditure ought to have been foreseen, and that we might have anticipated them. I think he will see that every single item is of a kind which justifies itself, and could not have been included in the ordinary Estimates. Take the Question of forage, in which hon. Members have taken a great interest. It is quite true that food is costing more and the food of horses is also costing more; the price of everything has gone up, and particularly the price of forage. We estimated at the beginning of the year that although we were paying 1s. 6d. for forage, it might go up a little,
  536
  but it would probably drop in the autumn, and that we might safely strike an average for the year of 1s. 5d. [An HON. MEMBER: "For what?"]
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: Does the hon. Member mean per quarter, per bushel, or per stone?
  Mr. H. BAKER: That is the index number for purposes of Estimates.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is it for corn?
  Mr. H. BAKER: No; hay is the item that has risen most. There is not very much variation in the price of oats, but in the case of hay there has been a considerable rise, and so far from forage falling as we had hoped to 1s. 5d., it has actually risen to 1s. 7d. We arc compelled for that reason to come to the House and ask for this extra sum of £65,000. It is not in any way due to the number of horses; it is entirely due to the rise in the price. With regard to the way in which forage was purchased, I may say that the hay was purchased entirely at home, and the oats partly at home and partly from sources abroad.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Would the hon. Gentleman give us a rough estimate of the proportion?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that would lead to a debate on policy.
  Mr. H. BAKER: I am only concerned at this moment to explain why an extra sum is needed. On another and more suitable occasion I shall be very glad to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The item for sea transport divides itself into two parts. There is the charge for the extra sea transport of troops from India to China, and that necessitated by the withdrawal of troops from South Africa. With regard to the movement of troops to China, I may say the change took place in January and February of last year, but the charge did not come in to us until April, after the beginning of the next financial year. It is for that reason it figures in this Supplementary Estimate and is not provided for in the original Estimate. I would point cut to hon. Members who say we ought to have anticipated the withdrawal of troops from South Africa, that it was impossible for us to come to any definite decision until the autumn of this year. It would, indeed, have been improper on our part to have anticipated the passing into law of the Defence Act of South Africa. The question of Colonial contributions has

  537
  been raised. These contributions are arranged on a system by which they bear a proportion to the total revenue of the Colonies concerned. We are not always able to anticipate that revenue; if a Colony miscalculates its revenue the amount we receive varies. In this case the revenue has gone up in consequence of the increased price of rubber, opium, and other articles, and it is for that reason we have this variation in our Army Estimates at home.
  Sir C. HUNTER: Is the proportion of contribution the same in the case of all the Colonies?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I think it it not the same, but the fact is not of great importance, because at this moment there is an Interdepartmental Committee sitting on that very question under my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, and they may, of course, make a change in the present system. There has also been an increase in the value of the dollar at Hong Kong which has led to an increase in our Appropriation-in-Aid in this Estimate. We have had further an increased payment by India in respect of the soldiers who have passed to the Army Reserve. The soldier gets £1 for each year he has served with his regiment when he passes into the Reserve, and India pays a share in proportion to the length of his service in India. Then there is the question of the maintenance of these Indian troops in China. No one, neither the Foreign Office nor the War Office, could have foreseen when the Army Estimates were introduced last year that we should require to keep these troops so long a time in China. It was impossible then to realise that the internal affairs of China would necessitate our keeping these extra battalions there. The hon. Member for Roxburgh (Sir J. Jardine) asked how the expense of these troops was met. When they go from India to China they pass temporarily into the administration of the War Office, and we have then to bear the cost of their maintenance while there and also to pay for their equipment. When they return to India we shall get credit for the value of their equipment. The question of the Army Reserve was raised by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Leicestershire (Colonel Yate). He asked whether the battalions abroad had been reduced in consequence of these extra number of men passing into the Army Reserve.
  Colonel YATE: Battalions at home?
  Mr. H. BAKER: I am not able to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that is precisely so or not, but he may, at any rate, be quite sure this figure in the Supplementary Estimate represents mere numbers and nothing else. With regard to the question of pay, there has been no change of policy at all, and no difference has been made in the pay given to the Army Reservists. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why there was this large item for money not expended on new works. I am afraid that is an item which is apt to recur in Army Estimates. It is very difficult to calculate precisely what works will be made, and the surplus is entirely due to delay which has occurred in the construction of certain barracks. The Director of Barrack Construction is at present a very hard-worked person. He has a very vast field to cover, and I am not quite sure he has a staff exactly able to take his place when his own personal operation is not possible. We are, however, going to remedy that very soon, and I hope in future we shall be able to make a much closer estimate. I think I have now covered the various points raised, and perhaps succeeding in persuading the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that really no man of ordinary prudence, or even of exceptional prudence, could forsee these variations.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I express my sympathy with you, Sir, in having so often to call to order hon. Members with whom I know you have a warm feeling in your heart, because, if I may throw my mind back ten years, there was no Member who more diligently, efficiently, and regularly criticised Supplementary Estimates than yourself, and I think I may also say you escaped those pitfalls into which you have seen so many hon. Members fall this afternoon. A rather remarkable statement was made by the Under-Secretary with regard to the question of health insurance. He was understood to say the War Office would have been prepared to submit an estimate in the ordinary course in this matter, but they did not do so under direct instructions from the Treasury. I think the matter wants clearing up. The Insurance Act was passed some months before the Estimates were presented, and its effect could have been foreseen. Yet the Treasury apparently gave direct instructions to the War Office that no Estimate on this matter was to

  539
  be presented. That is really an extraordinary thing. It was an item which followed directly from legislation and could have been foreseen, and it should not have been excluded from the ordinary Estimates by direct instructions from another Department. There was another statement made by the hon. Gentleman which I found difficulty in following, and that was with regard to the extra number of men going into the Reserve. I understood him to say that, owing to a scheme in vogue started seven or eight years ago, it was foreseen that in a certain two years there would be some difficulty in calculating the extra flow of men from the Army into the Reserve, and therefore a little more was asked for one year and a little less for another year. If all that was foreseen some years ago, why could it not have been foreseen this year? I understood him to say it was calculated years ago that either last year and the year before or this year and the coming year there would be a special difficulty, and, if that be so, why was not that difficulty provided for? The hon. Gentleman's explanation was a good deal wide of his usual lucidity in this matter, and I am afraid he left the Committee rather in a fog as to how this difficulty, owing to a former scheme, had arisen, and why it was not allowed for in the original Estimates.
  I do not know whether it would be in order to touch further upon the question of forage, but I think it would be so far in order to ask why, if all the hay can be bought in this country, all the oats cannot too? I should like to ask one or two questions about the item for the troops in China. It is a very large sum, and involves questions of policy. It has been very difficult to calculate how long these troops will be required in China, but I think a little more light should be thrown upon the matter. Where are the troops and what are their duties? Are they merely at Weihaiwei or are they looking after the interests of British subjects elsewhere? Has the Government now any idea how long they will be required? What reports have they as to the need of their presence? A step like this may lead to large consequences. The whole of the China War was brought about by the indiscretion of a gentleman who had been a leading politician in this House. We should like to know what these troops are doing, and how long they are likely to remain, and who controls them. Are they
  540
  controlled by the Indian authorities, although paid for at home, or does the commanding officer get his orders directly from the War Office? I really think some further explanation is necessary, and in order to focus the matter I now beg to reduce Item W by £1,000.
  The CHAIRMAN: We have already one reduction before the Committee.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: With regard to Vote 1Y, under the head "Increased Colonial Contributions and other receipts, £60,000," I should like to know from what Colonies these contributions come and on what principle they are paid. Further, why do some Colonies pay contributions and others pay no contributions? If one may refer the Secretary of State for War to the principal Estimates it is made clear that, whilst the Army is presumably for the whole Emipre, the contributions come from the home country almost entirely, with a small contribution from those Colonies, and those Colonies only, that have no democratic institutions.
  5.0 P.M.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has introduced the main Estimates himself, and he may deduce from that that when we come to the main Estimates that will be the proper time to discuss the matter.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: This is a discussion on the Supplementary Estimates, and even with such a genial autocrat as yourself in the Chair, I think it is the most difficult matter in military tactics that we are likely to have in this House. I will leave my proposition where you cut me off.
  Major WILLOUGHBY: I cannot say that I thought the explanation with regard to the Reserves was satisfactory. First of all the hon. Gentleman stated that there was no change of policy, and then we were told that it could not be foreseen. How can these two statements be reconciled? If there is no change of policy, why could the cost not have been foreseen? Personally, I am opposed to this policy, and whether it is a new policy or an old policy I still object to it. It seems to me a costly policy, because if these men had been retained in the Service and kept there as trained soldiers it would have been a great advantage to the country, and so long as we kept them there they would have cost less than they have cost by sending them into the Reserve. It certainly is a great misfortune that these men's services were not

  541
  retained up to the last minute in the standing Army, so that if necessary they might have been called upon. On the contrary, they have been taken away, and it does seem an extraordinary thing that in consequence of that we should have less efficiency and increased cost. As to the principle of the alteration, I have no doubt it has been brought about owing to the change of service about 1906, but, if that be so, it could have been foreseen, and I say it is a very unsatisfactory explanation, and I shall support my hon. Friend in the Lobby unless there is a more clear and consistent statement from the Government Benches.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: There are still three or four points which I want to be clear about. The Secretary of State for War told us practically nothing, and I imagine that the Financial Secretary and the Under-Secretary said a great deal more than the Secretary of State wished them to say. With regard to the explanation of the Under-Secretary, he said that the Treasury had given orders that the Insurance Act was not to be mentioned in the old Estimates.
  Mr. TENNANT: What I said was that no sum had to be taken.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: It is as broad as it is long, and I hope he may be able to explain to us how that was. I cannot talk about the Insurance Act, as that would be out of order, but it does seem strange that when hon. Members knew perfectly well that these expenses were coming on they were not included in the old Estimates. They knew all about the Insurance Act, at least as much as anybody did, but they put in no figures at all; they kept it all back for the Supplementary Estimates. That could only have been for one of two reasons: either they wished to keep the Army expenses down or to keep the insurance expenses down. Judging from what the hon. Member said just now it was to keep the insurance expenses down as the orders were received from the Treasury. The War Office must have asked for it and had it sent back. I infer that, at any rate, from what he has said. It is a pity the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not here to support him when he said that. The Financial Secretary made several astounding statements. One was that forage was bought by index number. I do not understand what he means. It is just possible he meant the allowance for forage per horse per day,
  542
  but I am afraid I do not know what the index number means in buying forage. He told us that nothing but British hay was bought in this country for the Army. May I ask whether he is going to stick to that? Does he really say that it was all British hay that was bought for the whole of the Army in this country last year? If that be the case, nobody would sooner congratulate him than I would, but it is news to some of us, and if that is the case, and he is going to stick to British goods, could he not buy British oats at the same time? If the War Office would only take the trouble they could get British oats of far better quality.
  The CHAIRMAN: Unless the Noble Lord can show that this subject is covered by the Estimates he cannot raise that.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: I thought it had been decided. This is the first occasion on which the Army has ever bought only British hay, and it is a very important point to this country. Am I to understand that no Canadian hay was bought this year for the British Army? The last thing he mentioned amounted to a charge against a certain Department of the Army that the only person capable of making out Estimates and specifications in the Barrack Department was the head of the staff, and that the rest of the staff were practically useless; that they were only capable of doing their work when he was there looking after them. That is a reflection upon those who are responsible for choosing the staff.
  Mr. HAROLD BAKER: I did not say they were not capable of doing their own work; I said they were not capable of doing his work.
  MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINE: There is an old saying which might be applied to the Government, that in every well-ordered regiment, if you move off one man, there is another man ready to take his place. The War Office might attempt to run its staff on the same idea; it is not only a question of pay, but a question of choice. There are people who are capable of doing it. What I suppose he did not wish to say, and neither he nor I would wish to say it of any Department that is working well and hard, is that probably the staff is not sufficient, or the War Office, or the Treasury will not pay sufficient to have it propery staffed. If he would remedy that, no one would be more ready to support him than I would. I should like to have an answer on these three

  543
  points, and especially upon the latter one, the statement that not a blade of foreign hay has been bought for the British Army this year.
  Mr. WATT: I desire to associate myself with the hon. Baronet (Sir Frederick Banbury) and yourself, Mr. Chairman, ten years ago, in raising objections altogether to these Supplementary Estimates. I venture to think the House should be very jealous indeed of Supplementary Estimates. They indicate a blunder on the part of the Department. When a Supplementary Estimate is brought forward, it clearly shows that those who are in the Department, who had to make the original Estimate, did not make a proper Estimate of the circumstancces at the time. Of course things will arise at odd times which are unforeseen, as for example the China expenses in this case, which no Department could have foreseen; but generally speaking it is the business of the Department to make its original Estimate with some approach to accuracy. The accuracy of the Department in this case is not remarkable. Take the two Items A and B, cost of provisions £30,000, and of forage £65,000. They are £95,000 out. We have had what was thought to be an explanation from the Under-Secretary. For my part as a mere civilian, it did not bring any light to my mind. Some vague figures were given that they had estimated that 1s. 5d. would be the price, that it might go up to 1s. 6d., and that actually it went up to 1s. 7d. None of us has the slightest idea what he means by that information, and I desire that he would give us more enlightenment in a form which we could understand as to why the Department was £95,000 out in this Estimate. I would like to know what percentage that represents—£95,000 out in how much? Was the principal Estimate £500,000 or £1,000,000? Taking it at £1,000,000, the Department has been wrong by 10 per cent. in its forecast. I venture to think the Department should be almost censured for such inability to perceive the possible rise in prices. Can the Under-Secretary tell us what are the actual facts? Can he say that, cheese is so much up or down, or that other items or food for horses or soldiers have gone up, that he anticipated it would be so much, and what the actual price is? These are plain facts and figures, but he gives us instead those cryptic figures of 1s. 5d. to 1s. 7d., and does not even tell us
  544
  whether they apply to so much per day, or per horse, or per man. I should also like to know whether any censure has been passed by the War Secretary on those members of his staff who have failed to foresee the wants of his Department? Will he take care in future that their Estimates will be nearer to the actual wants of the Department than they have been this year?
  Mr. CHARLES PRICE: I should like to ask whether it is the custom in getting these provisions for use in Scotland to ask for Estimates in Scotland? I have received a great number of complaints from merchants and manufacturers that goods have been sent from London to Scotland for this Department.
  The CHAIRMAN: That must be raised on the main Estimate.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am afraid that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman was not so satisfactory as I could wish. He told me that if I had listened to the explanation of his hon. Friend I should have been converted, but if the explanation of his hon. Friend was no better than his own, I certainly could not be satisfied. I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions, first, whether he could explain why it was necessary to have a Supplementary Vote for provisions and also for fodder, and why the price for provisions and forage could not have been foreseen when the Estimates were made, which generally takes place in January or February? The hon. Gentleman gave no explanation whatever with regard to the price of provisions, beyond stating that everything was dearer. With that rather perfunctory remark he passed on to the question of fodder, and told us that the Department originally based their Estimates upon the price of 1s. 5d., but that it was now 1s. 7d. I asked him whether that referred to corn or to hay and he said it referred to hay.
  Colonel SEELY: No, no. I will reply to that later.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not see where the 1s. 5d. comes in. I presume the allowance to a Cavalry horse is about 12 pounds a day. That at £5 a ton would cost 3s. 9d. a week, or 6½d. a day. Supposing it is hay, may I ask the hon. Gentleman how it is that the Estimate was not made in a proper manner last January or February? My belief is that last, January or February hay was about £5 or £5 10s. a ton. It went up in September and October to

  545
  about £6 a ton, but has since gone down and is now about £5 to £5 10s. per ton. I am buying Canadian hay at £5 per ton at the present moment. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he picked out the two months when hay was at a much higher price in order to lay in a store? If he did not, seeing that there has been such little variation between the price of hay last February and at the present moment, why is there this large increase in the cost of forage? Oats have varied, but not very much, during the last year. I believe they are dearer now than they have been for a long time, and that I am correct in saying that about 2s. a quarter is the utmost rise that has taken place from last January or February to the present time. It would have been more satisfactory if we had been told exactly how the increased expenditure arises, instead of being referred to an index number, which I suppose indicates a certain fixed amount for the whole of the Army.
  Mr. C. PRICE: On a point of Order, Sir. Am I entitled to ask whether any portion of the £30,000 applies to Scotland, and, if any portion does apply to Scotland, whether I am not entitled to ask what proportion of the goods was secured in Scotland?
  The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary of State informs me that there has been no change of policy as to the method of purchasing; therefore, if any hon. Member wishes to advocate a change, he should raise the question on the main Estimates when they come up.
  Mr. C. PRICE: I was not advocating a change, but simply asking a question, because I do not know what the War Office are in the habit of doing. I want to get at the facts, because I have had certain complaints made to me.
  The CHAIRMAN: Then Question Time will be the right time for that.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: There is a small point with reference to Sub-head G, "Pay of the Army Reserve, £28,000." If a number of men have been sent into the Army Reserve, the number not being known when the Army Estimates were before the House last year, there must have been a repayment under some head for the pay of these men. The pay of men willing to serve in the Army is much higher than that of men serving in the Reserve. There is no mention here of a repayment of the pay of those men which would have been
  546
  drawn had they remained in the Army, and it must have exceeded this £28,000 by a considerable sum. No doubt there is a full explanation of the matter, for I do not know what are the ramifications of War Office finance. With regard to hay, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up the matter whether this is British hay or British and Canadian hay.
  Mr. NEWMAN: The Under-Secretary and the Financial Secretary have thrown a certain amount of vagueness over the Votes relating to the expenses of the China Command and the transport of troops. With all respect to the Under-Secretary, I do not think he knows how many troops we have in South China, or the exact stations. I have taken the trouble to turn up the Army List, and I find that in April, 1912, we had only a comparatively small force in Southern China, which has been largely increased, and I should say the increase took place some time after January and February of last year. According to the Army List, in the South China Command we had one battalion of British Infantry, eight Rajputs, and 126 Native Infantry. In January, 1913, the force had been increased to two battalions of British Infantry, eight Rajputs, twenty-five Punjabis, 126 Native Infantry, and twenty-four Hazara Mountain Batteries, three companies Hong Kong and Singapore Royal Garrison Artillery, and two companies of Royal Engineers. We want to know exactly how this big sum of £97,000 has been arrived at. Who pays for the South ChinaCommand—the Indian authorities or ourselves? If it is paid for by the Indian authorities and they pay the staff, I should like to point out that at present the staff is not large enough. In April, 1912, there was a major-general and a staff, consisting of ten people, of whom five were colonels. Although there was the increase in the number of troops, we have the same major-general, and practically the same staff, only one man being added. Surely that is not right. With regard to the withdrawal of troops from South Africa, the Vote is rather excessive. We have withdrawn from the Pretoria command one battalion of Infantry, one brigade of Artillery, and one Cavalry regiment; from the Orange Free State a regiment of Cavalry, a brigade of Artillery, and one battalion of Infantry; and for that we have had to pay £68,000. I know that the cost of freights has gone up, and that those who have the good luck to hold shares in ship-

  547
  ping companies have done well; but I think that is a very excessive price for the withdrawal of foreign units.
  Captain JESSEL: I should like to have an explanation of the increase of £28,000 for men going into the Army Reserve. Is it because men are being sent into the Reserve earlier than is necessary? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware of complaints which are made, especially at Aldershot, of men being sent into the Army Reserve just before brigade training, so that the brigades on manœuvres were full of partially untrained men. More care should be taken to send men into the Reserve at the proper time, and not at the time when they are getting ready for manœuvres. As to the bringing home of troops from South Africa, does the money include the cost of the accommodation of the troops who have returned? The right hon. Gentleman has stationed the 15th Hussars at Longmore. I understand there is no accommodation there for their wives and families, and that a great deal of inconvenience has arisen.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the troops which are brought home from South Africa are not going to be disbanded?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of policy, which cannot be discussed now.
  Colonel YATE: As regards the surplus of £75,000 under the head of "New works," could not the right hon. Gentleman, instead of allowing the sum to lapse, expend the money in the purchase of houses which are so much required for officers. In many cases houses have been marked for purchase, and here is the money ready for them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will complete those purchases and not allow the money to lapse. As to the Army Reserve, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the battalions at home will be kept at full strength, and I trust he will consider the question of paying Reservists in the same way as old age pensioners are paid, namely, weekly through the Post Office, and not by giving them £2 5s. in a lump sum.
  Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: There was a remark made by the Under-Secretary of which I should like an explanation. I understood him to say it was on account
  548
  of brisk employment that more men joined the Reserve. Are we to understand that when employment is brisk we are to lose part of our fighting force, because certainly that remark opens the door to such thoughts, and I should like an explanation of it.
  Colonel SEELY: Before we dispose of the Vote, the Committee would probably like me to reply to the points which have-been raised in all parts of the House. I will first deal with the general question as to whether we ought not to have foreseen that this money would have been required. I think this is a case where the House would have reason to complain if we had over-Budgeted to such an extent that we did not require a Supplementary Estimate, and it is very rash ground to take up, in view of the fact that we may some day be sitting on that side—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]—it is just conceivable—that a Supplementary Estimate is always a sign of bad management. It is a sign that a Department does not over-Budget. In this case we have several very large items which could not have been foreseen. The first was for troops in China, which amount (without their transport) to £97,000. We pay for the troops in China because it is not an Indian charge. On that point I am asked how many there are. There are 2,200 extra troops over and above the normal, and if I am asked where their station is the answer is; It is in and around Tientsin. If I am asked why we could not have foreseen this charge, it is because we had always reason to hope that the situation in China would be such that internal order would be completely restored, and we could return the troops to India. I am in hopes that we may be able to do so in the near future, but I cannot be sure. If next year I come and ask for a Supplementary Estimate on the same grounds, I am sure the Committee will not grudge it, because the one thing they would object to would be that I should ask them to stay there, and have a large extra amount to play with over which the Committee will have no control.
  The second point is as to insurance. I am asked why we did not foresee that insurance might be required, and my hon. Friend says it was laid down as a general principle by the Government that the sums for insurance should not be put in the original Estimate, but should be asked for from the House by way of Supplementary Estimate. I think no criticism can be made

  549
  of that, because the Act did not come into full operation till long after the Estimates were framed; indeed, not till the 15th January. It is true that we had reason to hope and believe that the Act would become effective, but we could not be certain, and the Leader of the Opposition himself said definitely that if he were responsible for affairs, he would repeal the Act in order to amend it drastically. That would have meant that a totally different charge would be required; so, from the point of view of financial purity, it was the proper course to take until the Act was effective, and we knew whether the Government would remain in office and keep the Act in its present form, and no one knows better than the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that our existence has been at times, precarious.
  Sir F. BANBURY: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to put it on the ground that the Government may soon go out, I will forgive him everything.
  Colonel SEELY: I am putting it on the ground that if the hon. Baronet is always as acute as he has been on at least one occasion, the Government might go out. Therefore, although we may look forward with some confidence to continuing to administer affairs for some time to come, it would be rash, in view of the opportunities the hon. Baronet has taken advantage of already, to assume for the purposes of finance, that every Act that we propose shall become wholly effective before that time has come. So much for the Insurance Act. There remains the third point of transport. We could not foresee that we should be able to bring home troops from South Africa, nor could we foresee that we should require to transport these extra troops and their reliefs to China. With regard to South Africa, it has been said, "Surely you knew that when the Defence Scheme became effective you would withdraw your troops from South Africa. It was the common policy of all parties in the State." Yes, it was. But we could not foresee that the Defence Act would be passed and would be accepted, as it has been, with remarkable success in South Africa. Therefore, I again submit that we were right not to assume that a thing was going to happen in South Africa, even if we hoped it would, as I think everyone else hoped it would, and as, happily, has been the case.
  There remains the question of the increase in prices. The increase in prices
  550
  has been general, both for what is eaten by man and beast, and what is borne by beast for man, and it is owing to these facts that we have to ask for a Supplementary Estimate. It may be said we ought to have foreseen the increase in prices. I do not think we could have foreseen it, and I think it is far better to make as just an Estimate as you can and frankly to come to the House of Commons and confess there has been an increase beyond what could reasonably have been expected. The hon. Baronet was pleased to be somewhat sarcastic at our expense with regard to the increase in prices. I am not going to reply that it was the dread of Tariff Reform which made prices go up. I do not think that was so; for if so, prices would now have gone down. I will only say that, although I do not think it can be fairly urged at this stage that the increase has been due to any such cause, we could not have foreesen the general world rise in prices, for it is the world price we are dealing with here. It has affected every country in the world simultaneously with our own.
  There is one point which I have not yet touched upon, that is Items F and G on this Vote—Transfer to Reserve. The reason why more men have gone to the Reserve than was anticipated is, as has been truly stated, the wonderful degree of employment. Nearly every man knows that he is sure of good employment if he goes to the Reserve, therefore more men have gone into the Reserve than we could have foreseen. But it is said, "Why did you allow any man to go to the Reserve before his time? May I explain? Mr. Arnold Forster proposed a new scheme for the Army of enlistment for three years. A very considerable number of these men took on for six more, making nine years. The consequence is that in the year 1914—that is next year—a very abnormal number of men will leave the Army. If then my military advisers had done nothing, what would have happened would be that this year we should have had a rather smaller number of men leaving the Army, and unless we had been able to enlist a large extra number over and above what appears in Vote A, we should obviously have lost a large number of recruits. But we are not allowed to make allowances in this way; therefore, had we not arranged for more men to leave and take their gratuity a year before the time, we should have lost an immense number of potential recruits. Then in the following

  551
  year, in 1914, there would have been a very large efflux, we should have wanted recruits for two years, and we should only have found recruits for one.
  Viscount DALRYMPLE: You are sending men to the Reserve to bring in more recruits.
  Colonel SEELY: The Noble Lord has not quite apprehended. I am only allowed to have a certain number of men in Vote A. If he will look at Vote A for last year he will see the total number of men we are permitted to enlist. We are not allowed to have any more. But very few men would normally go this year for the reason I have stated. I am convinced that my military advisers were right in the course they took, and, of course, I take the fullest responsibility; but even if I had any doubt as to whether it was right, there are two points: firstly, allowing that this efflux is necessary in order to take in the recruits, has it taken place at the right time; and, secondly, have too many men gone, and will you not therefore be a little short. Take the first point. That is a matter of administrative detail which I do not think the Chairman would allow me to discuss. I am advised that every effort has been made to avoid a large transference at inconvenient moments, but if 1 find on further inquiry that the point has real substance in it, I will undertake to see that every effort is made to avoid a recurrence of such a state of affairs in future in carrying out what I believe to be an absolutely necessary policy. Now with regard to the second point: Have we encouraged too many to go, and have we got enough recruits to fill up? Owing to the good state of employment, I think just a little too many have gone—not much; it is a matter of a very small percentage—but that is why a Supplementary Estimate is necessary, because rather more have gone than my military advisers, who watch the recruiting market with great care and have figures of a great many years to go upon, have estimated, because no one could have foreseen the remarkable state of employment which prevailed last year. Therefore I anticipate, though I must not be taken as making a prophecy on the subject, that we shall have been too optimistic with regard to the attractions of the Army both for keeping the men there and for enlisting them, and that we shall be a few thousand short on this business—not
  552
  many, I trust—but I think, owing to the coincidence of the wonderful state of employment and the necessity for promoting an efflux in order to get in recruits, we shall probably be a little short.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE: Do I understand that the number sent to the Reserve is made good by the number of recruits who are being entered to take their place? Is the number of recruits who have entered equal to the number of men sent to the Reserve, so that the amount of pay is the same; or has there been a large number of recruits, and, if so, why is there no mention of repayment?
  Colonel SEELY: I am afraid the two do not quite balance. It is not a serious matter. It will be a small percentage on the total. If the two do not balance, it will appear when we come to the Army Estimates where every penny of the money has gone. The deficit we have now on one side is owing to the extraordinary efflux. As to hay, I am afraid I cannot help the Noble Lord (Marquess of Tullibardine) much in his speeches in the country, for I think it is the fact that practically all the hay was British this year. That was not a change of policy. It was because we found British hay which could be procured was best and cheapest.
  Sir C. HUNTER: What about the Colonies?
  Colonel SEELY: My hon. Friend, having been actually called to order on that subject, thinks perhaps that I may be permitted to say what he was not permitted to ask. The particular point he raised is one I do not wish to reply to. But what was in order was the question where these sums came from. They came from Ceylon, Mauritius, Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements and Malta.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: It is difficult to accept as final or conclusive the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to insurance. He says the Government instructed his Department not to enter the item because they might be turned out of office, and a new Prime Minister might frame a drastic Insurance Act which would not include this item at all. It is a little difficult to suppose that the Government did not frame the Estimates long enough to pass the Appropriation Act. It is not a question of getting an Estimate only in the year. It would have done quite well in August to have an

  553
  item of this kind, and surely, when that is within a few days of getting the Appropriation Act, it could have been put off until then. They would then have been in a position to say whether they were going to work the Insurance Act which was to come into operation on 15th July. But as a matter of fact this was an agreed provision, and whatever else might have been altered, this would not have been altered. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) really arranged this charge with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Colonel SEELY: In justice to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, who is absent, I have to say that he would protest if it was said that it was an agreed provision, because he wanted better terms.
  Mr. J. HOPE: No doubt he wanted better terms, but agreed to take what he could get. That makes my case all the stronger. If he had got his way, there would have been a further Estimate. It is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to protest that if another Government had come into power, this £50,000 would not have appeared on the Estimate.
  Colonel SEELY: I do not wish the House to be under any misapprehension. Had the Act not come into full operation, the sum would not have been required. The claim made by some hon. Members was that the soldier should not be included in the Act at all, and if the Leader of the Opposition had had to amend the Act, he might have exempted the soldier.
  Mr. J. HOPE Mr. J. HOPE: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester wanted more. Really I would have supposed that this item would not have been left until August. Whether passed or not, it was part of the policy of the Treasury to conceal this from the House. I think before the right hon. Gentleman offers an explanation again he had better go back to the Treasury and ask what they did mean.
  Major ARCHER-SHEE Major ARCHER-SHEE: I accompanied the hon. Member to the Treasury before these provisions for insurance in the Army were brought before the House. Therefore he was in communication with the Treasury on the matter beforehand. I know also that the hon. Member for Colchester moved two Amendments very largely increasing the amount to be paid by the Government with reference specially to the Army. I myself moved an Amendment in favour of the Government paying the whole contribution. I also moved another Amendment with reference to the Army Reserve, to provide that the Government should pay the portion for the insurance of men in the Army Reserve. There was no doubt that any alteration made would be in the direction rather of an increase than a decrease.
  Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £247,900 be granted to His Majesty for said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 234.

  Division No. 588.]

  AYES.

  [5.55 p.m

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Amery, L. C. M. S

  Falle, Bertram Godfrey

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B.(Antrim, Mid)

  Barnston, Harry

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bird, Alfred

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hills, John Waller

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Butcher, John George

  Hohier, Gera d Fitzroy

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)

  Cassel, Felix

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Sailsbury)

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Archer-Shee and Major Willoughby.

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O Dowd, John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Grady, James

  Alden, Percy

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Malley, William

  Allen. Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Shee, James John

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwaite, R, L.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hinds, John

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick)

  Hodge, John

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Hogg, David C.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hogge, James Myles

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bentham, G. J.

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon Augustine

  Hughes, S. L.

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Boland, John Pius

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Radford, G. H.

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Raphael, Sir Herbert H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Reddy, M.

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Keating, Matthew

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robertson, Sir Scott (Bradford)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Clancy, John Joseph

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

  Robinson, Sidney

  Clough, William

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  Leach, Charles

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Crooks, William

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Cullinan, John

  Lynch, A. A.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  McGhee, Richard

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

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

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

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Snowden, Philip

  Dawes, J. A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Dickinson, W. H.

  MacVeagh, Jeremlah

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Doris, William

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Sutton, John E.

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Lei cs.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Falconer, James

  M`Micking, Major Gilbert

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Ffrench, Peter

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Meagher, Michael

  Wadsworth, J.

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gill, A. H.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wardie, George J.

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Molloy, Michael

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Money, L. G. Chlozza

  Webb, H.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mooney, John J.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  Morgan, George Hay

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Morrell, Philip

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Morison, Hector

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Muldoon, John

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

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

  Munro, R.

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hackett, John

  Neilson, Francis

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Young, William (Perthshire, E.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1912–13.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Service of the Ordnance Factories."
  Mr. BARNES: I notice that there is a saving on this Vote, and I should like to have some explanation of the source of the saving, as I understand the workmen in the arsenal and the ordnance factories generally are not being paid as they ought to be paid. Their wages are not up to the ordinary standard paid by good employers. This saving may be the result of that, and I would like some explanation from the tight hon. Gentleman as to how it arises.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I would join the hon. Member in asking for information as to the exact nature of this saving. No one will deny that while it has been a good year for trade, expenses of living have gone up and wages do not command the same buying power as they did several years ago. Therefore many of my Constituents are anxious to know what is the exact meaning of the saving in wages. Of course, it must mean a reduced staff. We have got a reduced staff, I believe, in the small arms factory, and consequently the wages are less than last year. I put it to the Secretary of State if it is a wise policy to reduce our staff just now? In the near future we are bound to have a lot of work in the ordnance and small arms factories at Enfield and elsewhere. We have got, for instance, a new rifle nearing completion, and there are other things we want. We want, I understand, a better and a stronger Maxim gun. The question of motor transport is—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is a matter for the main Vote and not for Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Then I confine myself to asking what about these wages? Has any representation been made during the last two years from those employed in ordnance factories, that the wages they get now are really not a fair wage owing to the increased cost of living?
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter to be raised when we get to the Estimates for the year.
  Mr. NEWMAN: I will make a third trial, and ask how has this estimated saving of £38,000 in wages and police come about? It must be in police. Is it that the men are so well behaved that fewer police are employed than before?
  Sir F. BANBURY: I take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having made a saving on the Estimates. There is no reason to suppose that the result of that saving has been in any way detrimental to the public service. I am sorry that my hon. Friend behind should suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has done wrong merely because he has shown a small decrease in the amount of wages paid. I am not in favour of vote-catching of that description, and unless it can be shown, which no one has attempted to prove, that the right hon. Gentleman has reduced wages in an unfair degree, we should congratulate him on having had the courage and the sound common sense to conduct the affairs of the Ordnance Factories in a businesslike manner. I would like some slight explanation of the increase in material and stores and how the Appropriation-in-Aid for Vote 9 of the Navy has been so much larger than was originally supposed.
  Mr. CROOKS: I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. Baronet did not keep on a little longer. He congratulated the Secretary of State upon his courage in standing up against the demand for an increase of wages, and looked upon it, as a matter of fact, as common sense. That is the delightful kind of argument we are so used to in this House. On platforms a different kind of story is always told about the desirability of His Majesty's Government giving at least a living wage to every man who needs it Of course, you do not get the same kind of argument here. The Ordnance Vote, fortunately for the House and those of us who, for good or evil, represent Government constituencies, is always put down for the fag-end of the Session, and we get few opportunities throughout the year of raising the grievances that exist, because whenever we raise them on the Estimates we are told that they come up on the Ordnance Vote, which represents a vote of £100 in this case. Then we learn that there is a saving of £38,000 on last year's Estimate, which is a little bewildering to the ordinary mind. I want to put clearly that a request has been made that some of this money should be spent on wages. A very long letter has

  559
  just been sent from the War Office. It is always a long letter when they do not want to give anything. They use language like this which the workman does not understand, and they call attention to the fact that it is 66D, 1972. Whatever that has to do with the subject, nobody knows. It may be some kind of identification mark. The request has been made by a deputation asking the War Office seriously to consider paying the same rates of wages as other common-sense employers outside.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter which must be raised on the main question.
  Mr. CROOKS: I am after some of that £38,000, and I thought I was in order in showing how much better it could be spent than saved. An application has been made to the War Office that they should give an addition to the recognised rates of wages for engineers. This has been declined because somebody in the War Office says that the rates paid are the current rates.
  The CHAIRMAN: This really does not arise on the Supplementary Vote. You can ask the Minister how this saving of £38,000 has been made. There can be no indication of any change of policy in what the hon. Member asks. That must be on the Votes for the year.
  Mr. CROOKS: We never get the Ordnance Vote in the ordinary way. This is the only opportunity which I have seen.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure, but I think Vote A might be used by the hon. Member to raise a question of the kind, in addition to the Ordnance Vote.
  Mr. CROOKS: Should I be in order in moving a reduction of £25?
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that would not make any difference to the subject.
  Mr. CROOKS: The appeal has been made that no money should be spent and the answer is we cannot get any more money. We have pleaded in this House, and our plea has met with general approval, that the money paid to boys and workmen should be extended to widows of workmen if the men die unexpectedly before they are dismissed or the medical certificate was sent out saying that they were medically fit for discharge. It was said that the War Office had no money to do this sort of thing. Then they come
  560
  down calmly and say they have saved £38,000. There ought to be some explanation. In this Supplementary Estimate the right hon. Gentleman said, "How little I want compared with what I might have wanted." It does seem to be a favourable opportunity to do what has been asked. We are entitled to have some ray of hope held out for these widows.
  I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £50.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to ask a question or two about Item E. It has reference to "buildings and fixed machinery for other Departments." I do not know what that refers to, whether to some other Department than the Ordnance Department, and whether it means buildings generally.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman may ask the Government what the buildings are, but he cannot raise any general question about buildings.
  Mr. J. WARD: I had better proceed with buildings, then, until you, Sir, say that you do not think they are within the item, or until someone representing the War Office says he thinks they are. It is rather haphazard.
  The CHAIRMAN: It would be very much better for the Government to say what the buildings are.
  Mr. BAKER: I quite agree that it is convenient that I should make some explanation on the points which have been raised. Attention has been called to the saving of £38,000 in wages, and a suggestion has been made as to the motives underlying that saving. A few words of explanation will clear away some misconception. As yell, Sir, stated, no new policy underlies any of the details of this Estimate. We stand precisely where we did in regard to policy and to pledges given through the Secretary of State. With regard to this particular saving, it has arisen in this way: The Ordnance Factories Estimates were brought forward, and were—contrary to what was said by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway—discussed in the early part of last year. Provision was made for some margin in regard to the orders which it was thought would likely be required to be dealt with. That margin has not been found necessary. I need hardly say that it is quite impossible for the War Office or the authorities of the Ordnance Factories to foresee the

  561
  orders which may come in to them during the year from the Navy, from India, from the Dominions, and from other Departments. We provided rather in excess of the orders that came in, and the result is that, not having had the full amount of orders we expected, a smaller amount of labour, has been necessary and a smaller amount paid in wages A further point which makes the matter clearer, is that the work we have had to execute has been extremely expensive in the way of materials. It depends entirely upon the particular kind of work brought to us, and it has been expensive work that we have had to do. For example, there were large orders from the Admiralty for filling cartridges and shells with explosives, the materials of which are of the most expensive kind—cordite and things of that sort. The amount required for labour was not at all in proportion to the amount spent on materials.
  Mr. CROOKS: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me when I point out that the words "Wages and Police" are on the Paper, and not the words "Materials."
  Mr. BAKER: I do not complain in the least of the hon. Member having raised this point, and I am only endeavouring to give an explanation of why there is an apparent reduction in wages. It is not a reduction of the rate of wages at all; it is simply a reduction of the original Estimate presented to this House, because it so happens that there was less work than we anticipated there would be. I assure the hon. Member that it is nothing more than that. The hon. Member for Stoke asked me a question with reference to Item E, referring to "buildings and fixed machinery for other departments." There are two items of £16,000, and one cancels the other. This £16,000 has been spent entirely in one particular direction. It has been devoted to improving the proof butts at Woolwich—a very difficult and a very necessary work to have done, because modern guns are growing heavier and heavier, and we have to alter the proof butts in order to keep pace with modern gunnery, and to bring them up to the modern fireproof test for the new and heavy guns manufactured at the Arsenal.
  Mr. J. WARD: Now I know what the buildings are, I wish to ask a question on the subject. I want to know whether the Department employed a contractor for the work on these butts and whether the contractor paid the wages recognised as fair for this class of work; or, if the
  562
  Department did it themselves, whether they paid wages considered as fair in London? I grant that the Department is not nearly as bad as the Admiralty, but at the same time it has once or twice tried to back up the Admiralty by making reductions in the wages of its own workmen for the purpose of supporting the other Department. I would like to know whether the work is done by contract, and, if so, whether fair wages were paid to the men?
  Mr. NEWMAN: I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the wages are not so great because less work than they expected came forward. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a big order came from Australia for 50,000 rifles, and that the small arms factory lost the order because they could not tender a low enough price, and, when the hon. Gentleman says less work came forward, was it that the small arms factory could not tender successfully owing to their high rate of charges?
  Sir F. BANBURY: Am I right in saying that there is an Amendment for the reduction of the Vote before the Committee? If that be so, there is really no danger to the Government, and it would be an excellent opportunity for the hon. Member who moved the reduction to take a Division.
  Mr. CROOKS: How good of you!
  Captain CRAIG: In view of the fact that the prices of materials have gone up, may I ask whether the bulk of the £142,000, arises from the price of materials? May I ask further whether a higher price is being paid for cordite very much better in quality than the cordite for the purposes of the ordnance factory was in past years? If the Department are paying more for material it is obvious there must have been some change made in the class of cordite, or is it of the same class as before? The present Lord Chancellor when he was Secretary for War made a most interesting speech one afternoon upon the subject, pointing out the difference between various classes of cordite, and explaining to the House that, in view of spontaneous combustion that took place in some of the stores, it was hoped by scientific research to be able to discover whether something could not be done to preserve the cordite and to secure for the ordnance factories a better quality of it than had been in use in the Army and Navy for blasting purposes and so on. I

  563
  ask therefore whether this item covers an improved class of cordite in the various services?
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I take it this particular item covers the workmen employed at Woolwich Arsenal, and that therefore it covers the wages of the men employed there.
  The CHAIRMAN: We have been informed that there has been no change in the rate of wages or position at all. It is simply a difference in the amount of labour employed, and therefore any question dealing with the rate of wages or position is not in order.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: That is exactly the point. We contend that there has been a change which was partially given to one section of the men, and not to another.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member means that sonic increase of wages was given to one set of men and not to another.
  Mr. CROOKS: A decrease of wages.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: As I understand the position is that 2½ per cent. has been given to skilled workers at Woolwich Arsenal in lieu of advantages they had prior to the introduction of the Insurance Act. The 2½ per cent. was not given to unskilled workmen although they have equally with the skilled men lost privileges.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of policy which should come up on the Vote for the year.
  Mr. BAKER: I was asked a question as to the rate of wages paid by contractors. There is no question of a contractor's rate of wages.
  Mr. CROOKS: May I ask the representative of the War Office whether it is not the fact that those employed on turning shells are now paid a considerably less rate than was originally estimated for in the year's Estimate, and that there has been a serious reduction in the amount of money paid for shell turning compared with the earlier part of the year? May I ask whether boys have not been employed at lower rates, so reducing the charge throughout and making a considerable reduction in the amount of wages paid?
  Question, "That a sum not exceeding £50 be granted for the said service," put, and negatived.
  Original Question again put.
  Captain CRAIG: Will the hon. Gentleman give some explanation with regard to the question I asked about cordite?
  Mr. BAKER: There has been no change whatever in the cordite, which I only introduced by way of illustration. There has been no change of policy, and the question of cordite really does not arise at all.
  Captain CRAIG: I distinctly gathered from what the hon. Member said that the question of labour did not enter into this at all, and that it was really the cost of materials, such as cordite, that had risen in the market, and that a higher price had to be paid for explosives to fill the shells.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I see an item of reduction on police. In that connection I desire to be assured that none of those police have been withdrawn from any of the magazines of the country, because it must be perfectly apparent the great importance of looking after the magazines.
  Mr. BAKER: No change of that sort has occurred. With reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Down (Captain Craig), I did not say that the price of cordite had changed; but what I pointed out was that orders involving the use of cordite meant the employment of less labour in proportion.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

CIVIL SERVICES.—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1912–13.

  BOARD OF TRADE.—(Class II.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "8. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
  Mr. SANDYS: I do not complain that this Supplementary Vote is necessary, because it was obviously quite impossible for the Government to have anticipated the terrible disaster to the "Titanic," which aroused such deep sympathy and regret, not only in this country, but throughout the civilised world, with those who lost their lives in that calamity. Under the circumstances it was highly desirable that the Government should avail themselves

  565
  of, I think, Section 466 of the Merchant Shipping Act, to hold a formal investigation. Sub-section 8 of that Section allows the Court to make such orders as the Court thinks fit respecting the costs of the investigation. It is, I suppose, in accordance with the provisions of that Section that the Board of Trade are now applying to this House for these payments. I think that we have cause, if not to object to this very considerable sum, at any rate, to demand that we shall have a very clear explanation of exactly how the money is going to be expended. Not only is there this sum of £16,000 for law charges, but there is also, later on, another sum of £1,720 for the salary of the Wreck Commissioner and clerical and other assistance and hire of court in connection with this special inquiry. Thus the law charges deal solely, I suppose, with the remuneration which it was thought desirable to give to those members of the legal profession who represented the Board of Trade on that occasion. I do not think it is altogether satisfactory, since, first of all, the findings of the Court were largely disregarded by the subsequent rules issued by the Board of Trade. I am not suggesting that the members of the legal profession should be paid by practical results obtained, because, if that was to be the case, no doubt a large number of very deserving gentlemen would find their incomes very substantially reduced.
  We are anxious that those members of the legal profession who attended to represent the Board of Trade shall receive proper and adequate remuneration, but I cannot help thinking that the amount asked for is rather a large one. I hope the hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear as to whether this sum of £16,000 does actually cover all the law charges in connection with the inquiry, because he will notice that there was an original Estimate Of £20,700. Although it was impossible to anticipate that an inquiry on such a scale would be necessary, I conclude they had anticipated that some inquiry of this kind would be required, and they allocated a sum of money for that purpose. I should therefore like to know if this £16,000 includes all the law charges, or is there to be a sum of money deducted from the £20,700 and added to the £16,000, so as to make up the sum total of the law charges. I notice that the inquiry lasted thirty-five days, and that the members of the legal profession on behalf of the Board of Trade were the right hon.
  566
  the Attorney-General, the right hon. the Solicitor-General, Mr. Butler Aspinall, Mr. Rowlatt, and Mr. Raymond Asquith. I am not suggesting that the sum of money was equally divided amongst them, but if it had been they would each have received £90 per day, which is very fair remuneration. I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether the £16,000 covers all the law charges, and to afford any other information as to the payment given which he may think desirable.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: I think we ought to have, in dealing with an Estimate of this kind, the fullest information, and that we ought to know how this money has been spent. I understand the Board of Trade printed and published a book containing a verbatim report of the whole of the evidence of the "Titanic" Inquiry. It was printed before we had the debate in the House, and how is it we did not get a copy of it?
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote, which only deals with the law charges in connection with that inquiry.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Possibly that might be part of the law charges, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us if it is. This is a very big sum when you have salaried Members of the Government to represent the Government at inquiries of the sort. Surely, if one class are to get extra fees, a claim might also be made by the officials of the Board of Trade for extra remuneration. One knows that it is the custom of the Law Officers to get extra remuneration in special cases. It seems to me the amount now charged is a very excessive sum indeed.
  Mr. PETO: I would like to ask whether this additional £16,000 is in addition to the sum provided in Class III., Vote 2, for inquiries before the Wreck Commissioners, travelling expenses, shorthand writers, and so on. If so, we really have a totally different sum to deal with. If you are to take the whole of the additional legal expenses as part and parcel in the main of the inquiry in respect of the sinking of the "Titanic," then I want to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in this particular case it was agreed, owing to the pressure of public opinion, to defray the expenses of the different parties representing the seafarers' section at the inquiry, and that that should not form a precedent for the future. I suppose

  567
  because of the magnitude of the disaster it was felt that the magnitude of the legal expenses paid to Members of the Government and other legal gentlemen should be in proportion. What is the case in the ordinary wreck inquiry? There we have an addition of—
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we cannot take these two Votes together. We must, first, dispose of the Vote before the Committee.
  Mr. PETO: I wanted to contrast the extraordinary liberality of the Department in this particular case with the extraordinary parsimony which is their invariable practice in cases where smaller people are concerned, and in which the legal charges do not come to a large figure, but which are of a disastrous nature to the people into whose conduct inquiry is held. We certainly want considerably more information as to what was done with this money. What was the real reason why the invariable practice in the matter of legal charges was departed from in this particular case?
  Mr. G. TERRELL: May I call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the footnote:—
  "Expenses under the Merchant shipping Act. 1894, on account of the inquiry into the loss of the ss. 'Titanic.'"
  Does that mean that this £16,000 is simply a Vote on Account, and that there are further charges to follow?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): This sum is for the whole of the expenses on account of the "Titanic" Inquiry. The items were circulated with the Votes in answer to a question in the month of December last. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) has asked what connection there is between this total of £16,000 and the sum of £4,000 in connection with wreck inquiries in general. In the answer to which I have referred the items were given separately. The sum of £4,000 was paid direct by the Treasury in connection with general legal expenses, whereas this item of £16,000 represents the whole of the sums paid under the authority of the Board of Trade solely in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry. I may remind the Committee that the inquiry lasted thirty-seven days; there were over 25,000 questions asked; the mass of documents with which counsel had to deal and the amount of printed matter were
  568
  enormous; the inquiry was of the very greatest importance, and the fees to the Law Officers and other legal gentlemen concerned were according to what is held in the profession to be the usual scale for great and important inquiries. These fees were all fixed in consultation with the Treasury. As regards the further provision made for the legal expenses of various outside interests, it will be remembered that in response to pressure from several Members the Government promised that legal representation would be given to those interests at the inquiry. As regards the payments made on that score, the bill of costs was taxed by Lord Mersey himself, and the sums paid represent his decision as to what was proper payment. They do not rest on the decision of the Board of Trade. An hon. Member asked whether this £16,000 was made up solely of payments made to the Law Officers and the solicitors concerned. There were other incidental expenses, such as payments to the Consul at New York, for a transcript of the notes of the proceedings in America, and so on. The detention expenses of witnesses accounts for a fairly large item, £1,908, and £574 were paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff for supplying plans and models. These items are included in addition to the payments made to the legal gentlemen concerned.
  Captain CRAIG: I beg to move to reduce the vote by £100. I do not regard the explanation just given as at all satisfactory. I always think in connection with these Votes that if the Minister in charge would take the trouble to give details beforehand it would save a great deal of time.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The items were circulated with the Votes in answer to a question on the 17th December.
  Captain CRAIG: That may be. I had no knowledge of it. It would have been only courteous if a foot-note to that effect had been added to the Estimate. My hon. Friend asked whether the £16,000 covered only the legal expenditure, and the Parliamentary Secretary read out certain figures with regard to the detention of witnesses, expenditure on models, and other items; but we have not yet discovered whether those are in addition to this amount.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I said that they were included. They are in addition to the payments made to barristers, but they, all come under the head of legal expenses.
  Captain CRAIG: I am obliged to the hon. Member. But we do not know yet what were the actual legal charges as far as Members of this House are concerned. Seeing that we pay the Attorney-General £8,000 and the Solicitor-General £6,000 a year, these charges seem very excessive for thirty-five days' work. I have always held that the enormous salaries paid to officers of this House for doing the work of the Government ought to cover a great deal of the expenses incurred in cases of this sort. Moreover, the payments are altogether out of proportion to the amounts paid to the assessors and others who had to do a great deal of hard work in connection with the inquiry. For these reasons I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  Mr. FARRELL: I wish to put a question with reference to the administration of the "Titanic" Relief Fund.
  The CHAIRMAN: That must be raised on the main Board of Trade Vote. The Supplementary Estimate is only for law charges in connection with the inquiry.
  Mr. JOWETT: I understand the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to be that because the Commission sat for thirty-five days, and 25,000 questions were asked, the country had got its money's worth. In my opinion, and in that of many others, the country has not got its money's worth. The Commission was entirely futile; it was never intended to do the work that it was supposed to do; from beginning to end it was a whitewashing Commission, and it effected its purpose. If the country thinks that that is worth all the money that has been paid for it, the country is easily satisfied.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The Parliamentary Secretary has not yet answered the question put by my hon. Friend. He has told us that a White Paper was issued and circulated with the Votes on the 17th December. If the hon. Member says so, it is doubtless the case; but after we have been sitting here for thirteen months we do not every morning read all the papers that are circulated with the Votes. If the hon. Gentleman has the figures with him I should be extremely obliged if he would tell us what these particular items were. The hon. Member for Bradford says that the Commission was a whitewashing Commission, and that no good or practical result has been secured for this large expen-
  570
  diture. I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member on that point. I think the Commission was a good Commission, and that it did its work, but it did it at rather greater length than was absolutely necessary. There was a considerable amount of discussion raised by learned gentlemen which I think was rather unnecessary.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet cannot discuss the nature or the action of the Commission on this Vote.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was not presuming to do so. We are asked to vote £16,000, part of which goes in fees to learned gentlemen. I was discussing whether or not it was wise to spend so much in fees to learned gentlemen, and I was going on to say that I think it would have been better if we had given smaller fees. The discussion would then very likely have been shorter, because the larger the fee the longer the discussion by the counsel in receipt of the fee. I presume that when he is paid a large sum of money he thinks he must do his best to show that the payment is justified. As the expenditure of the country is very large we might endeavour to save a little money in these matters by pointing out to the Law Officers—but I do not wish to particularise the Law Officers of the Crown—and other gentlemen of the long robe that if they discuss at such great length the various matters committed to their care—
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in the last year in which the Conservative Government held office the Law Officers received, the one £30,000, and the other £20,000 in special fees?
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I never stood up in this House and said that the Conservative Government had never made mistakes. I particularly observed, and hon. Members opposite heard me, that I did not wish to deal particularly with the Law Officers of the Crown, but with other Members of the long robe as well. If others received a portion of this money then my remarks apply equally to them. I understand that the hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, will be good enough to give us the actual amounts which were paid in fees. May I ask him when he gives the explanation if he will tell us why there has been an increase in the salaries of the Official Receivers of the

  571
  High Court? The increase has been from £11,842 to £13,842, or £2,000. A note at the bottom of the White Paper says that this is an allowance due to additional work. I should like to know what that additional work was. It may be right or it may not be right, but I think we ought to have some information about it. Unless some of us exercise vigilance in respect to some of these Supplementary Estimates there is no control in this House over the expenditure of the Government. Personally when I was sitting on the opposite side of the House I always welcomed the criticism of the hon. Members on this side so long as it was devoted to the furtherance of economy and not to the furtherance of extravagance.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: We all recognise the constant vigilance of the hon. Baronet, and I have pleasure in giving him the details that he asks for—that is to say, the payments made to counsel in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry. The particulars, as I have said, were issued with the Votes on 17th December. There were paid to five counsel, in all the sum of£9,341. The leading counsel received together £7,228, divided as follows: The Attorney-General, £2,458; the Solicitor-General, £2,425; Mr. Aspinall, the eminent Admiralty barrister, £2,345; two junior counsel, Mr. Rowlatt, £1,249, and Mr. Raymond Asquith, £864—these payments being, of course, proportionate in the usual way to the fees paid to leading counsel. I do not know whether the hon. Baronet wants any of the items of payment made to the solicitors who instructed counsel on behalf of the seafaring interests concerned.
  Sir CHARLES HENRY: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these barristers came in by order of Lord Mersey?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Mr. Alexander Smith, solicitor, who instructed Mr. Thomas Scanlan, M.P., as counsel on behalf of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, £750; Messrs. Helder, Roberts and Company—
  Mr. GILL: What were counsel's fees?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have already explained that these were fixed by Lord Mersey.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: What was the fee received by Mr. Scanlan?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not think I have the accounts separately. I have given first of all the items for the five counsel representing the Board of Trade—that is three leading and two junior counsel. I have just given the items of the bills paid for the solicitors who instructed the various counsel representing the special interests that the Government promised should be represented. Mr. Alexander Smith received £750; Messrs. Helder, Roberts and Company, solicitors, who instructed Mr. A. Clement Edwards, M.P., as counsel on behalf of the Dock, Wharf, Riverside and General Workers' Union, £750; Mr. C. G. P. Farrell, solicitor, who instructed Mr. H. D. Harbinson as counsel on behalf of the third-class passengers, £630; Messrs. C. G. Bradshaw and Waterson, solicitors, who instructed Mr. Adair Roche as counsel on behalf of the Marine Engineers' Association, £212; Messrs. Miller, Taylor and Holmes, solicitors, who appeared by their Mr. L. S. Holmes, on behalf of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, £250; with two other smaller items—Mr. Lewis, charges and expenses in connection with his appearance on behalf of the British Seafarers' Union, £72; and Mr. Cotter, charges and expenses in connection with his appearance on behalf of the National Union of Stewards, £68.
  These were all the items paid in connection with the legal inquiry. I find, as regards the bill of Mr. Alexander Smith, and the same applies to Messrs. Helder, Roberts and Company, that the fee of counsel was £500 and that the solicitors' bill—as taxed by Lord Mersey—was £250. I think that I have now given all the items that the hon. Baronet wishes. With regard to the further Vote as to the salaries of the Official Receivers on which he asks—and quite rightly—for information, the extra payments were for clerical services rendered in connection with very heavy work during the year in connection with the Birkbeck Bank investigation and the Bank of Egypt. The amount of work done during the past year was considerably in excess of that done the year before.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The deplorable accident to the "Titanic" seems in one sense to have been a harvest to the legal profession. I think the amount of the Vote now presented should have been presented in a far different way to the House, because, may I point out, with the exception of the details given in the reply to a question on 17th December, the Board of Trade have

  573
  not even taken the trouble to print as a Parliamentary Paper this Estimate and the details now asked for—the details they now ask the House to sanction. I want to know, lastly, in connection with this £20,000 legal expenses, why the Wreck Commissioner's salary is £1,050? Is it a special fee? If so, who settled it? I can only take the total Estimate as shown in the reply to the question on 17th December. The Wreck Commissioner's salary is there £1,050. The total cost of the legal inquiry, in reply to a question, was stated to be £20,231. We are asked for a Vote of £16,000, but we have no details other than those furnished in reply to the question which I have already quoted from. That is a very unsatisfactory way of presenting accounts, particularly when they come from the Board of Trade.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): On a point of Order. I have not the slightest objection to my hon. Friend asking these questions, but they are not relevant to this Vote. The Vote on which that salary is borne is the Vote for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, Class 2, which we will come to later. I shall then be willing to give the fullest information.
  Mr. PETO: Is it not, Mr. Whitley, extremely unfortunate to sandwich the two portions of what are practically a Vote on Account to some extent, with such a thing as the Stationery Vote in between, so as to give hon. Members no possible opportunity of discussing the thing as a whole? Cannot we take it that it would not be out of order to take these Votes one after another?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have no control over that. I have to take the Votes in the order in which they are set down in the day's proceedings.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: It is a slipshod method either of the Board of Trade or the Treasury to present these details so badly. Why should we not have the accounts presented in a proper and businesslike manner so that we can see the details? I want to know why this payment of £574 11s. was paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, according to the information we have, for numerous plans, models, work, and attendance at the inquiry. Was this account sent into Messrs. Harland and Wolff, or did the Board of Trade ask them to produce an account for payment? I cannot for a moment think that a large
  574
  firm like Messrs. Harland and Wolff would, particularly under the circumstances of this appalling disaster, have sent in an account for this small sum in connection with what, after all, was an inquiry touching the stability of the ship. It is not an account that, if sent to the Board of Trade, ought in any case to have been paid. With regard to the legal charges, we are told that the amounts cannot be severed, or that it cannot be said how the amount of £750 paid to the solicitors who instructed Mr. Thomas Scanlan, M.P., on behalf of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union, is made up.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: £500 fee and £250 to the solicitor.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: With regard to the fees of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, I think it is most undesirable that we should be asked to vote these special fees to these learned Gentlemen. It seems to me that the better way would be for the country to pay the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General a certain fixed sum for their services. These specially heavy fees ought not to he borne by the country when any disaster of this character takes place. In point of fact, I submit that we had best pay the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General a lump sum for the financial year. At all events, in my opinion, the total charges in connection with this Vote, £20,000 for legal expenses are so out of proportion to what they ought to be, that I will record my vote in favour of the Amendment that has been moved on the other side.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: In the case of such a terrible disaster as the "Titanic," it was absolutely necessary that the whole of the circumstances should be examined into, and that reasonable expenses should be paid, which the Department itself should bear. When I come to look at this item and try to find out how this £16,000 is made up, it becomes a serious matter. We are not told in the Supplementary Estimate how it is made up, and we have to try and quarry it out for ourselves. It appears in 1360 of the OFFICIAL DEBATES, Volume V., and there we get some indication as to how the amount is made up. I find that the assessors' remuneration and subsistence allowance and travelling expenses came to £950 17s. 2d. out of the £16,000.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at the Vote we have passed, he

  575
  will find it is better than reading the accounts from the OFFICIAL REPORT, which include all sorts of things. We are now dealing with page 3, and if he looks at page 11, he will find the amounts.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I am much obliged, Sir, for pointing that out, but I do not find anything on page 11 which explains how the £16,000 is made up. I think the Committee are entitled to know the items. It is quite true that ordinarily speaking in Supplementary Estimates, there is usually some part in which we find a detailed explanation. So far as I am personally concerned I have been unable to find the full details.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when all the heads were read out under which this £16,000 was divided.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I regret I was at work at that time in another part of the building trying to find out the details, and therefore I had not the advantage of hearing them, but what I was about to call attention to was that the Attorney-General seems to have received £2,458 2s., and the Solicitor-General £2,125 4s., in respect of this inquiry. Various other counsel received other sums. I do not so much object to these sums being paid because I presume under the existing arrangement where the Law Officers of the Crown do not get absolutely fixed salaries for all the services they render to the Government Department these sums would be properly paid, but what I cannot understand is how the Government came to pay solicitors to instruct counsel on behalf, for instance, of the National Seamen and Firemen's Union. I daresay it was quite right, but it is quite clear that they were not employed by the public department, and there is no authority, so far as I can gather, for the Board of Trade paying a whole pile of solicitors and counsel to appear on behalf of a variety of people. Probably they may have the right to appear before the inquiry, but they did not appear for the public generally, but for private purposes. There may be a complete answer, and there may have been authority given by the House to pay on behalf of the Government. I do not suggest that they have been overpaid. What I want to know is where the authority for the State to pay for solicitors of private people and to pay for counsel who appear
  576
  for them? Other solicitors receive £750. Solicitors are a very deserving body. I know something about them myself, and they are fully entitled to be paid full remuneration for their work, but why the State should pay these particular gentlemen I do not know. Then there was a solicitor who instructed Mr. Roche, who appeared for the Marine Engineers' Association, and got £212, and the solicitor who appeared for Mr. Holmes got £250. Mr. Lewis, who appeared for the British Seafarers' Union, got £72. He comes off badly. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not a solicitor."] Mr. Cotter got £68 2s., His Majesty's Consul at New York got £550 17s. 1d., and other counsel got £11 1s. 2d. There, again, these counsels seems to have done very well. General witnesses got £980 12s. 2d., the Marconi Company got a slice, the Cunard Company got something, and Messrs. Harland and Wolff got £574 11s. for bringing their models and plans to the inquiry. One would have thought that firms like Messrs Harland and Wolff which built the ship which on its first voyage went to the bottom, would bring their plans and models without asking the country to pay them £574 11s. I join with the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) in strongly objecting to this £574 11s., and I think we are entitled to an explanation from the Board of Trade as to what authority they had for paying these miscellaneous expenses and for paying solicitors' and counsels' charges. I do not say they ought not to have been paid. I do not say they are excessive. But I do think that before these sums of money are paid there ought to have been some authority from this House authorising the Department to pay them, particularly in this case, where the sums of money are so extremely large.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The case the hon. Member put is: What is the authority for making these payments to solicitors and counsel who represented outside interests? This matter comes before the House in this way. Appeals were made from various quarters of the House to the Government—the hon. Members will find the matter recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 22nd April and 2nd May—to give facilities for the representation of various interests, some of them seafaring interests or interests connected with shipping, and the Government, in response to the pressure put upon them, promised, in view of the extreme gravity of the matter and of the widespread desire

  577
  that there should be the fullest representation of all interests, to give that permission, and such facilities were given.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Did they promise that the costs should be paid?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Who else was to pay the costs? The costs were put upon the Government, and, as I already explained fully, they were actually taxed by Lord Mersey. The hon. Member declares there was no power to do that. I think the power is complete.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Although authority is given to those parties to appear, there does not appear to have been authority for paying the whole of their expenses; that is quite a different thing.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I am informed that there was no power in the Court to order the Government to pay the expenses.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The authority must have been adequate from our point of view. Not only were they ordered to be paid, but Lord Mersey taxed the costs.
  Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: Of course, there is power under the Merchant Shipping Act.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Of course, there is a complete answer. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants to know what service was rendered by Harland and Wolff. The services they rendered were—
  "submitting numerous plans, models, and work, and attendance at the inquiry of their Mr. Wilding and three others in their service."
  As regards the payment for the Consul at New York, that was for transcripts of the legal proceedings in America, for legal expenses and the expenses of taking depositions outside.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: I remember very well when this question of the legal representation of various interests was raised and the form of pressure that was put upon the Government, but that related entirely to the question of locus standi and in no way to the payment of expenses. The hon. Gentleman must see it is a very unprecedented and an entirely new principle to admit that counsel and solicitors who appear before the tribunal for outside interests should receive remuneration from the Government when these people were not selected by the Government. It is stated that there is power to order this under the Merchant Shipping Act, but I
  578
  should like to see the Section in which that power exists. Let us remember that the power to grant costs does not exist at all, except in Statutes, and that it is a power only in cases of a litigous character, and is intended to penalise the parties in litigous proceedings found by the proper tribunal to be at fault. Is it that the Government were at fault in this instance, in such a way that they had to pay the costs in respect of an issue in which they had been defeated? It must be remarked that this is a practice which should be watched very narrowly by the House of Commons.
  I am very glad the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade has abandoned his unwillingness to give details, because if he simply told me to read the White Paper in order to find out the details, I would have told him I was not going to do anything of the kind. When hon. Members ask for information, especially upon a Supplementary Estimate, they are entitled to get it, notwithstanding any Ministerial reluctance. I am not surprised that there was a certain reluctance shown in giving these details. It is an innovation bringing these proceedings and bearing these expenses. It may be all right from the public point of view to give all facilities for attending the inquiry and to make quite sure that the interests of the humbler classes of passengers and the men in the humbler ranks of the merchant service should have all their interests represented, and to make sure that in future they should be exposed to the minimum of risk and danger, but, after all, when you have a Government which is supposed to have democratic sympathies, and is supposed to be very deeply attached to the interests of labour, and which maintains expensive Departments advised by a hierarchy of lawyers. I want to know what we get for the fees we pay to our own Law Officers? They are supposed to put skilled questions which tend to the elucidation of the sources of danger connected with the lives of the humbler classes. I do not say there has been anything wrong in this case, but the hon. Gentleman opposite must see that this question raises an important principle, and I want to know whether it is going to be made a precedent or whether any precedent can be quoted for any action of this kind?
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I wish to know if it is claimed that the power to legalise this practice is to be found under Section

  579
  491 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894? Section 491 of that Act provides:—
  "There may be paid out of money provided by Parliament to any Wreck Commissioner, Judge of a Court of Survey, Assessor in any Court of Survey, or investigation under this Part of this Act, Registrar of a Court of Survey, Scientific Referee, or any other officer or person appointed for the purpose of any Court of Survey or investigation under this Part of this Act, such salary or remuneration (if any) as the Treasury may direct."
  I cannot find anything in that Section that would admit of this practice that has been complained of. I do not wish to go into a legal argument, because I have no conception of the law, but it seems to me that by Section 491 the practice complained of by my hon. Friend is quite illegal. There is one other small point I wish to raise in connection with the payment of these fees, and it is that I think we ought to know on what basis these fees are paid. I do not ask this is in any unpleasant mood, but the House of Commons cannot possibly keep control over expenditure of this sort unless we know on what basis it was calculated. The hon. Member who spoke for the Government laid great stress upon the fact that 25,000 questions had been asked upon it. I suppose the number of questions is no criterion of the importance of the subject, and I hope fees are not calculated on that basis, because it would work out that each question would cost about 14s. 6d. I think we are entitled to have an explanation in order that we may keep proper control over such expenditure.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: In reply to what has been said by the hon. Member opposite, may I point out that the hon. Member for Sunderland has shown that under the Act the Court has power to order certain fees to be paid. I only wish to make my position perfectly clear. I understand that there are some further details with regard to the item of £574 paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and this item was not charged for models alone. I believe that is the firm who built the "Titanic," and no doubt they have models. I want to know why there should be a charge of £574 for sending models which no doubt they had at their disposal. Perhaps the hon. Member would give us the other details of that item.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman has quite misapprehended my statement; because I read over twice the items paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff. It has not been stated that that payment was for models, but it was for the attendance of three officials from Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and the mere sending of the models was the first item named. The hon. Member opposite has just read Section 491 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. May I call his attention to Section 479 of the same Act, which provides:—
  "(1) The Lord Chancellor may (with the consent of the Treasury so far as relates to fees) make general rules for carrying into effect the enactments relating to formal investigations, and to the rehearing of, or an appeal from, any investigation or inquiry held under this part of this Act, and in particular with respect to the appointment and summoning of Assessors."
  What has been done has been done under rules made by the Lord Chancellor under that Section of the Act and under the Shipping Casualty Rules of 1907, under which a judge may order the costs or expenditure of any parties to be paid. This order was made on that authority, and I think the fact is fully made out. As regards the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley), I am sure that we all hope there will never again be such a disaster as that which happened to the "Titanic." The right hon. Gentleman said he hoped that this would not be made a precedent, and we hope that no other such disaster will ever have to be inquired into. It must be within the recollection of hon. Members that at the time of the disaster there was a desire expressed in every quarter of the House that there should be the fullest investigation. The right hon. Gentleman stated that I exhibited an unwillingness to give information, but surely that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, because when the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London asked for details, I gave them, and if any one had put the same question before I should have read the details. The whole of the items were printed, not in a White Paper, but circulated with the Votes on the 13th December, and the hon. Member opposite read the items because he found them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Under these circumstances to suggest that in regard to a series of items printed in the OFFICLAL REPORT there is a reluctance to give them

  581
  is an absurd kind of argument. I gave all the items, and if any other items had been asked for, I was ready to give them, but I do not want to occupy the time of the House by reciting items which are printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEY: The only answer which the hon. Gentleman gave was a reference which I say was quite an insufficient answer.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to refer to this payment of £475 to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and to the principle of paying the costs of solicitors and counsel employed by private people. With regard to the amount paid to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, the Under-Secretary says it was not only for models, but also for the attendance of certain officials connected with that firm. Really I do not think that that makes the case any better. Let us consider the position which arose, and which implicated Messrs. Harland and Wolff. They were the builders of this enormous vessel, and it was her first voyage across the Atlantic. She was a very fine vessel, and her voyage was announced in a great many newspaper paragraphs, and the extraordinary way in which the builders had made this great vessel an advance in shipbuilding science was eulogised in nearly every newspaper under the sun. I presume that Messrs. Harland and Wolff received a very large sum of money for this ship, and made a very large profit upon it, and it would have enhanced their reputation considerably if it had gone across the Atlantic safely. There comes this unfortunate catastrophe. Messrs. Harland and Wolff are very rich people, and anyone would have thought that the first thing they would have done would have been to have said to the Board of Trade, "Anything we can do is at your disposal, and any plan, models, or officials connected with the building of that ship, are at your disposal in order to show how accidents of this sort may be avoided in the future." Now we have it, on the authority of the hon. Member opposite, that this great and rich firm come to the Government and say, "We require the taxpayers to pay us £574 to recoup us for having brought up models already in existence, and for some of our officials having to spend time upon this inquiry." I could not have believed that people in that position would have taken up such an attitude, and if I had been President of the Board of Trade I would
  582
  certainly have refused to pay that money, and I think I should have refused it in such terms that Messrs. Harland and Wolff would not have insisted upon payment.
  The other question which arises is whether it is advisable for the State to pay the cost of legal proceedings instituted by private individuals? I am not quite certain who all these private individuals were whose legal costs were paid, but whether they were deserving people or not does not enter into the question. My hon. Friend beside me informs me that two Members of this House got £500 each. I think this is really a much more important question than a mere personal one, and it should be considered carefully and seriously by every hon. Member in this Committee, upon whichever side of the House he may happen to sit. Are we to take it that in future, when a serious disaster of this sort occurs, that the House of Commons and the taxpayers are to be asked to contribute towards the legal expenses of private individuals? My right hon. Friend below me pointed out that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General had large fees. I make no complaint about that, because they were employed by the Government to look into this matter; but why on earth they did not look after the interests of the other people who employed these legal gentlemen, I do not know. If all these interests were not properly served by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, then I think the other parties should have paid for their own legal assistance, and it will lead to a very dangerous precedent if it is to be assumed that whenever an accident of this sort occurs, and an inquiry is held, that anyone who chooses to come forward and appear for certain people who are unfortunate enough to have been connected with the disaster is to have their legal expenses paid. If we are going to admit this principle, I do not see where we are going to stop. We are always having inquiries, and there may be many other inquiries of an important character in which a very large number of people are interested and, if at all these inquiries any persons appearing are entitled to have their expenses paid by the Board of Trade or any other Government office, then, I say, we shall be setting up a very bad precedent, because we shall be spending the money of the taxpayer in a way in which it was never intended to be spent, and we shall be encouraging unnecessary litigation,

  583
  which I think would be a regrettable thing to do. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, he certainly gave me the information most courteously the moment I asked for it, and I have no complaint of any sort to make; but I do earnestly hope hon. Members opposite will regard this as a very serious procedure. I am not sure, but I think it is a novel precedent. I should rather like to know whether there is any precedent at all, and I think we might have had the presence of one of the Law Officers of the Crown, because it is a legal question. 1 ant not quite sure whether the Statute from which the hon. Gentleman opposite quoted bears the interpretation he put upon it, but it is a very wide Statute, and no doubt the Lord Chancellor has made the rules which he says have been made. This is only further evidence of the great mistake we very often make now in passing Acts of Parliament giving other people power to make rules. We are led into all this sort of thing. Very large expenditure is entailed, and directly the House of Commons endeavours to go into the matter they are met with the statement that some great official has made rules. This is a very serious question which demands very careful investigation by the Members of the Committee on all sides of the House.
  Mr. JOWETT: I intend to vote for the reduction if it is pressed to a Division, but. I shall not do so because I agree with some of the reasons that have been given in favour of it, particularly the reason advanced by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke earlier in the Debate. The hon. Baronet, so far as I could gather, supported the same view, namely, that it was the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to represent the humbler persons affected by this disaster. If I read the situation aright, the Law Officers of the Crown represented the Board of Trade. I contend that the Board of Trade was on its trial, and it would have taken all the energy and skill of the Law Officers of the Crown to have protected the Board of Trade if serious inquiry had been made into its action and administration. That is my view. I want also to call attention to what I consider to be an important omission on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in his explanation. He has certainly not explained to my satisfaction the position of Messrs. Harland and Wolff as receivers of a certain amount
  584
  of public money, when, as a matter of fact, they ought to have been on their trial. They were really defending. They built the ship, and, if the ship was constructed in a faulty manner, it was certainly for them to be ready and willing, and even eager, to show to the Committee at any possible expense to themselves that they were not at fault.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Was the statement ever made that they were at fault?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Oh, yes, at the inquiry.
  Mr. JOWETT: I simply speak as an ordinary Member of the public, and I imagine most people were of the view that they were affected by that inquiry. I do not know whether the evidence was paid for or not, but, if so, then a further sum must be added to the amount of £574 paid to that firm. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will answer that question. The Parliamentary Secretary, in my opinion, has not explained why £574 of public money was given to Messrs. Harland and Wolff for their own protection at that Commission. It appears to me it would have been just as reasonable for the Government to have paid Sir Robert Finlay, who represented the White Star Line. The two cases, to my mind, are almost exactly identical. Previous speakers in this Debate have been exceedingly anxious to dissociate themselves from any criticism of the Law Officers of the Crown for the large amount they have received. I quite agree the hon. Baronet behind me is not included in that remark. I refer particularly to the hon. Baronet opposite who spoke earlier, and several others. They appear to be exceedingly anxious to dissociate themselves from any intention of criticising these amounts that have been paid to the Law Officers. I have no wish to dissociate myself from that criticism. I want to know—a reason has never yet been given—why Law Officers of the Crown, paid in one case £7,000 a year, and in the other case £6,000 a year, are entitled to receive for any efforts they put forward £2,400 extra? The whole business, to my mind, is discreditable from beginning to end. Following on this disaster, which struck with horror the whole civilised world, we were given an inquiry which has turned out to be a monster pie into which Members of the legal profession have dipped their hands up to the very elbows and taken everything they could.
  Mr. MORTON: Last December I asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could give the total cost of the Wreck Commission Inquiry into the loss of the "Titanic," and he gave the particulars of a considerable amount of expenditure, totalling altogether £20,231 5s. 10d. He added a note saying that was not all the expenditure, because a few of the items were merely approximate figures, and the total cost was exclusive of the cost of printing and reprinting various Departmental memoranda, and was also exclusive of a comparatively small amount of remuneration for extra work incurred in connection with the inquiry. I should like to know the real figures. Some time previous to the inquiry, I asked who was going to represent the public, and especially the travelling public. I was told by the Prime Minister the travelling public would be represented by the Attorney-General. The Law Officers of the Crown, as far as I can understand, were not there representing the public but the Board of Trade. The whole of their duty at the inquiry appeared to be to try and clear the Board of Trade from the charge of not having done their duty in allowing the ship to sail without proper inquiry about boat accommodation, etc. I do not know whether it is so or not, but apparently the salary given to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General is only a sort of retainer, and they have to be paid again directly they begin to do work. I never really understood that was the proper meaning of paying a large salary. One would have thought it was their business at the inquiry to represent the public who paid them, and look after their interests. I find the only people who appeared for the public were Mr. Alexander Smith, solicitor who instructed Mr. Thomas Scanlan, M.P., as counsel on behalf of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union. Another firm of solicitors and a barrister, a Member of Parliament, represented the Dock, Wharf, Riverside, and General Workers' Union, and Mr. Adair Roche, instructed by a further firm of solicitors, who appeared on behalf of the Marine Engineers' Association. Unless the independent parties had taken the matter up there would have been no one to represent the public at all. The business of the Attorney-General apparently was to try and whitewash the Board of Trade.
  8.0 P.M.
  I should like to know how it is two Members of Parliament, besides the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, get very
  586
  large sums of public money. Complaint has recently been made with regard to the transactions between the India Office and Messrs. Montagu and Company, and why it should be wrong for them to have public money in that way and right for Members of Parliament in the case of the loss of the "Titanic" I do not know, but I do say we are entitled to have some explanation from the Government why it is illegal in one case, when in the other the money can be taken without any complaint whatever. I should like to complain, too, as to the way in which this statement has been brought forward in driblets. Why is it the Government did not immediately after the inquiry, if they did not do so before, come and ask the House for power to pay the whole of these amounts and allow us an opportunity of discussing them? There was a proposal to discuss the question on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Summer Holidays, but the President of the Board of Trade requested that it should be put off until the autumn. It was put off, and it was probably not so well discussed then as it might have been earlier. Things are forgotten after a lapse of time, and I was very sorry indeed that I was closured and was not allowed to make any statement or to make any inquiry on that occasion, although I had a promise from the President of the Board of Trade that we should have an ample opportunity of discussing it. We have gone to this enormous expense for apparently doing nothing at all, and it is, to my mind, a great waste of public money, because really the inquiry we wanted was into who was responsible for allowing that vessel to go out improperly equipped. The certificate—
  The CHAIRMAN: We are not concerned now with the character of the inquiry. The Estimates we are dealing with are for the legal expenses.
  Mr. MORTON: Then will you kindly tell me when we are going to have an opportunity of discussing it?
  The CHAIRMAN: I should like to advise the hon. Member privately on that.
  Mr. MORTON: I think we ought to have an opportunity of discussing this matter, because no Government and nobody else should be screened by the procedure of this House. Why should we not have an opportunity of discussing the matter on an occasion like this, when they ask for money? I thought that the ancient custom

  587
  of this House was that you were entitled to ventilate your grievances before any money was granted. The grievance I wish to complain of is that the vessel was improperly certified.
  The CHAIRMAN: I also remember that the hon. Gentleman has a grievance about third-class sleeping-cars, but you cannot raise that on every opportunity. It is not relevant to the Vote.
  Mr. MORTON: I was not saying a word about third-class sleepers. I am very much obliged to you for giving me an opportunity of saying something. If you would allow me to go into the question of the third-class sleepers I should like to do so. I am very glad that you have it in your thoughts as well as I have. Between us I hope we shall succeed in doing justice to the British people in that connection.
  The CHAIRMAN: We shall get it much sooner if we do not waste time over irrelevancies.
  Mr. MORTON: It was not I who called attention to that subject. I am sorry that this little point of Order should at all interfere with us in getting a proper account from the Government in regard to these matters. It ought not to be so, and there is no doubt at all that there has been a great waste of public money. I hope still that we may get some explanation and that we shall be told by the Government when the time will arrive when we shall have an opportunity of considering the whole of this which we regard as wasteful expenditure. The whole inquiry came to nothing so far as we are concerned; we are no better off than before. I hope we will bear in mind that we have other expenditure to meet besides getting pay for lawyers. I do not know why the President of the Board of Trade is not here, because he is the Gentleman who ought to give us the fullest information and see that the explanation is clear. So far as the hon. Member is in order or I am in order, we ought to have the fullest statement to-night on this matter. I can only conclude by adding that I am much obliged to you for mentioning the third-class sleepers.
  Mr. ALDEN: I am independent entirely of the firm which has been mentioned; I know nobody connected with that firm; I do not hold a brief for them, but I think that firm has not been fairly treated; it has been attacked all round. One hon.
  588
  Gentleman has gone so far as to say it was not the White Star Company but Messrs. Harland and Wolff who were on their trial, and he inferred that as they were on their trial this money should not have been paid at all. I think that is very unfair. The firm built the finest ship that has ever been built; it was passed by the Board of Trade and by every expert who was called in. That ships goes to sea under the White Star Line and under the conduct of the White Star Line it goes down. That is not the fault of Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and I think they are perfectly justified in claiming for sending their officers and experts and models to the inquiry. They have just as much right as any other firm would have under the circumstances. I rise because I think the reflections which have been cast upon this firm are extremely unfair. I had not the remotest idea of speaking, but simply because the firm has been attacked in every direction I think somebody ought to stand up and defend them, and make it clearly understood that all the Members of the House do not approve of the attack made upon certainly one of the finest shipbuilding firms in the world.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I am not sure whether some hon. Members do not suppose that all the legal expenses of Messrs. Harland and Wolff in connection with this trial have been met in this way. Messrs. Harland and Wolff were simply paid for the full services rendered by their experts in the course of the trial—very full and valuable services. In so far as they were represented for themselves that was their own matter. So far as the suggestion was made by hon. Gentlemen that they were the people on trial I hope hon. Members do not suggest that the judge found that they were in any way at fault in the loss of the vessel.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: It was one of the questions that had to be tried and reported upon, the question of stability.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The judge has not suggested that they were at fault in the matter. If the Committee suggested that payment should not be made in this case it would probably lead to considerable difficulty in getting similar services in other circumstances. There is really nothing abnormal in respect to this particular payment. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Sutherland-shire (Mr. Morton), we gave the details on 17th December last.
  Mr. MORTON: You say in a note it is not full.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I quite agree a few of the items were approximations, but I think the hon. Member would admit that we gave the fullest information we could at that particular date. As for the argument that the Law Officers should not be paid special fees, it is obviously a point that I cannot discuss in a discussion upon one Supplementary Estimate. It is a matter of old-established practice.
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I rose about a quarter of an hour ago to ask the hon. Gentleman a question as regards these fees. Who settles them? How are they settled, and who are they settled by? I do not ask the question idly. I think it is of some interest to the House in order that we should keep some control in these matters, and now I repeat the question.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I think I said in one of my previous answers that the fees paid to counsel representing the Board of Trade were settled, in accordance with legal precedent, between the Board of Trade and the Treasury. The Treasury looks into these matters with the fullest knowledge of such precedents. With regard to the fees paid to solicitors who briefed counsel for parties who had outside interests, at the request of this House these fees were settled by Lord Mersey; he taxed the bills.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: How is it that a barrister who was only called to the Bar a few months could be paid £500 for services in a case of that kind?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I said Lord Mersey taxed the bills. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who taxes Lord Mersey?"]
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I think some of the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench must never do any business until they get into that position where they have to do the business of the country, and we get landed into the position in which we find ourselves. Would any responsible business people carry on business in the way in which the Board of Trade have acted in this matter? To my mind it is perfectly outrageous. They pay Messrs. Harland and Wolff a sum of £585 for producing before a Commission witnesses and models, a Commission which, without casting any reflection upon the firm, was in some respects due to the failure on the part of the company to build a stable ship. [HON.
  590
  MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is no use saying "No, no," when they are rebuilding the other ship and putting a new bottom into it. The hon. Member below is acting as advocate for Messrs. Harland and Wolff.
  Mr. ALDEN: No, I am defending them against attack.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I am not making an attack upon them. I am merely saying as a business man that when the Board of Trade hold an inquiry in which the building of a ship and the stability of a ship was one of the questions referred to the Commission, and dealt with by Lord Mersey in his report in detail, and when the other ship is sent back to Belfast for a new copper bottom to be put into her, the Government have no right to pay public money to the amount of £585 for the purpose of this firm producing experts and models. No business firm, nobody but officials, would have proceeded in that way. The hon. Member below the Gangway said that Messrs. Harland and Wolff had been attacked. I say no attack has been made upon them. I cannot think that if Lord Pirrie had been aware that he would have permitted an account of this kind to go forward, but in that easy way in which our officials, our servants, pay out public money they simply say, "Here is an account from Harland and Wolff; we ought to pay it." This is acting as no business firm would ever act; they would exercise more common sense in such matters. One other question with regard to this payment, this monstrous payment, which should never have been made to people who had been more or less on their trial. 'The ship was found to be an unstable ship.
  Mr. ALDEN: She was not found to be unstable.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The White Star people have satisfied themselves, and they are rebuilding their ship at the present moment. When the ship was first designed, the designs were sent to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade made certain recommendations to Messrs Harland and Wolff, but they were not carried out. Will the hon. Member explain why that was so? Messrs. Harland and Wolff persuaded the Board of Trade, and following that persuasion the vessel was lost. Is there no liability, therefore, on the Board of Trade about this matter? Of course there is. The payment was a most improper one. One other question as to the precise form

  591
  in which this account is presented. We have here to look through the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to obtain the particulars we require. The officials of the Board of Trade seem to think it is quite easy for Members of the House to go into the Library and get the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to make up the total cost. When a Supplementary Estimate is put down it ought to bear on the face of it all the details of the money which the House is asked to vote. We waste plenty of money on stationery without this information being withheld, which would cost only a few pence. I wish to ask whether with regard to this item of £980, were any payments made out of that to the White Star people?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have no list of witnesses.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: We are here asked to vote £20,000, and when I ask whether any payment was made to the White Star Line the hon. Gentleman says he has no list of witnesses. I should like to know what the briefs were marked in the case of the Attorney-General, Sir J. A. Simon, Mr. Aspinall, Mr. Rowlatt, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Scanlan. All these details ought to have been placed on the Paper for the information of hon. Members. If this House were a free and independent Assembly it would never pass this Vote, when the men on the Treasury Bench come and throw large sums in this slipshod way at our heads. I shall give my vote against this Estimate, and I believe that many Members, if they had been present instead of being at dinner, would likewise record their votes against the way in which the Board of Trade have presented these Estimates to the House.
  Captain CRAIG: I should like the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate to clear up one or two points. I moved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to call attention to the careless way in which the Estimate was presented to the Committee, and the extraordinary way in which the funds necessary to defray the legal expenses in connection with this inquiry seem to have been spread over such a large number of Members of this House. Out of this sum of £16,000 the Attorney-General received £2,458, the Solicitor-General £2,425, Mr. Asquith (the son of the Prime Minister) £864, the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), whom I do not see in his place, £500, the hon. Member for East
  592
  Glamorgan (Mr. Clement Edwards) £500, Mr. Farrell £630, Mr. Roche £212, and Lord Pirrie (for Harland and Wolff) £574. In choosing counsel to appear before a Wreck Commissioner or a Special Commissioner, would it not give some assurance to the outside public to choose outside counsel altogether, except where it is necessary for the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General to represent the Department which is involved? This sordid tale will strike everybody as being an extraordinary coincidence, to call it nothing more. It is extraordinary that a large amount of public money should, at a time of a national disaster, be distributed among hon. Members of this House and their friends. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether the fact that hon. Members outside the Law Officers of the Crown were briefed to take up a case such as this, which involved a Public Department, does not gravely imperil the seats of those hon. Members? In view of what has occurred in the case of other Members of this House it seems to me that there is not a whit to choose between them and those private Members who have accepted briefs and been paid by the House in a case of this kind.
  One hon. Member said that it had to be borne in mind that the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General could not represent the other interests involved, such as the third-class passengers and the Firemen's Union and others, and that it was necessary for this House to spend another 15,000 guineas in order to obtain counsel to act for those parties? On what grounds? The ground given by the hon. Member was that the Board of Trade to a certain extent was on its trial. If the Board of Trade is on its trial, surely the worst possible people you could ask to come forward and drive home a charge against the Board of Trade are hon. Members who sit opposite. We have a glimpse behind the scenes as to how these things are managed. Why was it necessary, in order that there should be no mistake in driving home a possible condemnation of the hon. Member in charge of the Board, that he should employ two tame ducks who sit behind him to drive the charge home and give them one thousand guineas for doing so? If any body of men were really genuine in finding fault with the Board of Trade and in driving home a case against any Department of the Government it would be much better to employ members of the Bar who are outside this House, and not to employ hon. Members who sit

  593
  behind them. I do not accuse the Board of Trade for having employed these men. This £20,000 is all gone. There is nothing to be recovered in regard to it. Has any value at all been obtained for the country for this large sum of money?
  Mr. J. WARD: None whatever.
  Captain CRAIG: I am only referring now to the £16,000. It would be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the Board of Trade are acting on this Report, and are taking any precautions against anything of the kind recurring, so far as that can be done. The hon. Member fell out with another hon. Member as to the responsibility of Messrs. Harland and Wolff. The hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) was perfectly right, because the sister ship of the "Titanic," the "Olympic," has been docked for some time past, for three months at any rate, undergoing repairs which, I presume, the managers considered necessary in order to prevent her meeting a similar fate in case she gets a scrape along one of her sides. The hon. Baronet is perfectly right.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: He is absolutely wrong. He talks about the stability of a ship. He knows more about coal mines than ships.
  Captain CRAIG: I should not be in order in going into the merits of that particular point, but the hon. Baronet is perfectly right in saying this at all events, that the outcome of this inquiry has been that the managers have seen fit to dry dock the "Olympic" for the purpose of putting into her something which they believe will prevent her meeting the same fate if she has a similar accident, and which would, we believe, have saved the "Titanic." I wish to know, in that regard, whether the Board of Trade are going to play their part. If private owners or public shipping companies like the White Star Line, are playing their part by taking all precautions, will the Board of Trade insist on something being done to prevent similar accidents?
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what appears to me an amazing anomaly, that whereas the Balkan war has thrust upon the Foreign Secretary an enormous amount of increased work and responsibility, involving perhaps the whole peace of Europe, and he receives no addition to his
  594
  salary, two of his colleagues for sitting for thirty-five days—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This is going into a question of policy affecting the appointment of the Law Officers of the Crown, which does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that part of this £16,000 is for the Law Officers. Is it not in order to discuss whether or not it is advisable to give these fees to the Law Officers, and may we not ask and give reasons why these fees should not be given to the Law Officers?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is, as I understand, part of the appointment of the Law Officers of the Crown that they should receive a certain salary for their services as Law Officers, and, in addition to that, be paid fees for their services, and the hon. Member as I understand, is dealing with the policy which underlies that appointment. He can only deal with this particular item as it affects the "Titanic" Inquiry alone. I hone he will confine his remarks solely to that point.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is rather a serious point, and I think we must get a clear understanding upon it. I have always understood—in fact, I have been looking up Erskine May—that if there was a Supplementary Estimate which put an additional charge upon a certain sum it was quite in order to discuss whether or not that additional charge should be made, and incidentally whether or not, as an additional charge was necessary, the original policy was right. I remember a ruling being given that it might not be in order on a Grant to a railway in Uganda to discuss the policy of giving Grants to different railways, but it would be in order to discuss whether or not it was right to give a Grant to Uganda.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am obliged to the hon. Baronet for the argument he has put to me, but it does not in the least degree affect the opinion I have already expressed, that it is not in order on this Supplementary Estimate, no matter what the amount, to discuss the policy which underlies their appointment as, Officers of the Crown.
  Sir A. MARKHAMrose—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Baronet going to address me on the same point of Order that I have already disposed of?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: On a different point.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I want to speak to you on the same point.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member, but I have already decided the point. I shall be very glad to hear any fresh point.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: My point is that the Attorney-General at that particular period was engaged in prosecuting other people and having fees, and, therefore, the point I raise is that he ought not to have received any payment at all beyond his salary, and, if any additional payment is proposed, we are entitled to ask why the Treasury put the additional charges on the Estimates.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I wish now to put a point of Order which is somewhat different. Surely the hon. Member is entitled to argue that instead of these large sums being paid to the Law Officers the services of other competent barristers at a lesser figure could have been obtained and the Law Officers left to discharge their ordinary sufficiently onerous functions?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point has not arisen.
  Dr. CHAPPLE: I am not going to refer to the policy of the appointment of the Law Officers of the Crown, but to the enormous fees which they have been able to divide up amongst themselves for the services which they rendered in sitting for thirty-five days listening to an interesting explanation of why a ship sinks if you knock her bottom out, and to contrast these services with the services rendered by the Foreign Secretary, who has enormously increased duties placed upon him through a sudden emergency, namely, the Balkan war. Here is a sudden emergency, the wreck of the "Titanic," and the Law Officers of the Crown, receiving their ordinary salaries, are called upon in this emergency to act for the Board of Trade, and for those services, which are infinitely less than the services which any other Member of the Government performs in analogous circumstances, they are paid—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the same point again. I am afraid I cannot allow the Parliamentatry Secretary to reply.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: It seems to me that the House is entitled to have much fuller information than the hon. Member has given us. I was very much impressed with the fact that the hon. Member so lightly dismissed criticisms which came from all sides of the House and particularly from his hon. Friends behind him. One cannot imagine how he can be satisfied, after hearing the criticism of Messrs. Harland and Wolff's action, with dismissing it in the few almost contemptuous words which he used. Whatever indictment has been brought against Messrs. Harland and Wolff by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) or the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham), I submit it pales into insignificance compared with the indictment which the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade himself brought against them, because when asked why these heavy expenses were sanctioned, he said they had to be sanctioned, because if they did not get these sums paid them there would be very great difficulty in getting them to appear again.
  Mr. ROBERTSONdissented.
  Mr. H. SMITH: I am in the recollection of the House. While I cannot pretend to use the hon. Member's words that was in substance what he said. The only explanation which he gave of this expenditure was that if the Board of Trade did not pay the money to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, the Board would have great difficulty in future in getting similar assistance. Does that represent his view? That is a most important point, and I think I have not misrepresented what the hon. Gentleman said. Does he accept the challenge to contradict me? If he will do so, I will give way to him.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I think it would be more convenient that I should answer at the finish, but, if the hon. Gentleman wants an answer now, it is that I stated that the payment to Messrs. Harland and Wolff is perfectly reasonable in respect of the great services which they rendered during the whole course of the inquiry.
  Mr. JOWETT: In defending themselves.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I added to that that if the House is going to veto such payments on such grounds, which I imagine have behind them political reasons—
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Political?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: On the part of some speakers. If the House is going to veto such payments for such services on these grounds, it seems to me that we shall find it exceedingly difficult to get similar services from this firm or any other firm in future.
  Mr. H. SMITH: I think the hon. Gentleman's explanation has carried us no further. I think what he admits he said is exactly what I charged him with having Said.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I did not give as a reason for paying the money what the hon. Gentleman stated.
  Mr. H. SMITH: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that if they did not pay this money to Messrs. Harland and Wolff, they would have very great difficulty in getting similar assistance.
  Mr. ROBERTSONmade a remark which was inaudible.
  Mr. H. SMITH: That is a mere quibble. The hon. Gentleman contradicted me and stated that what I had said was inaccurate. I think I can claim on the hon. Gentleman's own showing that I did not do him any injustice. Let the Committee consider what that really means. If the words have any meaning at all, they mean that the Board of Trade could not look to Messrs. Harland and Wolff to give similar help unless they got this £500 in respect of the last catastrophe. I repeat that no such indictment has been brought by any other hon. Gentleman against Messrs. Harland and Wolff as that which is brought against them by the hon. Member who represents the Board of Trade. Is it conceivable that a great firm like that would want to shirk any responsibility attaching to them? They cannot avoid sharing the responsibility for the boat in connection with which, through this accident, 1,000 lives were lost. Having, at any rate, a share in the responsibility, the Board of Trade come to the Committee and say they are bound to pay this firm, the builders of the boat, £500, because, forsooth, they might not come forward in future and give similar assistance, which they only were able to give.
  Sir F. BANBURY: They lost nothing.
  Mr. H. SMITH: As my hon. Friend says, they themselves lost nothing through the catastrophe that took place, except a certain amount of prestige. I was impressed with the fact that in regard to the item of
  598
  £1,908 for "general witnesses" the hon. Gentleman knows absolutely nothing about it. He was asked about it, not by my hon. Friends on this side, but by hon. Gentlemen on his own side, who have enormous business experience, and he was able to give no information at all. He simply dismissed it by saying that he has no information. The sum of £1,908 is a large sum for witnesses expenses. I would point out that it is larger than it looks, for it obviously refers to witnesses who were called other than those enumerated in the Return given by the Board of Trade. It does not cover the witnesses for the Dock, Wharf, Riverside, and General Workers' Union, the third-class passengers, the Marine Engineers' Association, or any of the parties who were represented at the inquiry by solicitors and counsel. I think it is treating the House of Commons with contempt for a Minister representing a great Department like this to dismiss questions put from both sides of the House without giving any information, and, in fact, by admitting that he has no information, and suggesting by his manner that he takes not the slightest interest in the questions put to him. It would not be in order, I conceive, at this moment to discuss the imaginary benefits which, I have not the slightest doubt, the hon. Member will claim in due course. He will claim every credit to the Board of Trade as the result of this enormously expensive inquiry. I think the hon. Member will hear something about the results of the inquiry when opportunity offers itself. The hon. Member has not attempted, and I do not think he ever will attempt, to satisfy the House that the money has been well spent. I have not gathered from his manner or words that he has any idea that the Board of Trade has benefited at all. It doe's look to me as if this vast expenditure of £20,000 has been incurred largely to satisfy public opinion for the time—public opinion which was so much aroused. It seems to me that it has been spent solely with the idea of closing the mouths of the public and whitewashing the Board of Trade, which was largely responsible for allowing the ship to go out under the circumstances which have been described. Having briefly and inadequately called attention to this matter, and having regard to the serious nature of the questions which we are discussing, and the fact that little information has been vouchsafed to us, I move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I suppose if one searched the records of the House it would not be difficult to find similar Debates where hon. Members on both sides of the House waxed indignant at the corruption of those on the Treasury Bench. Personally, I am going to vote against this Estimate just as I did when on the other side of the House as to Votes proposed by the Conservative Government. What I rose for was to ascertain, with respect to the item of £1,900, who is really paid? The position appears to me, as outlined by the Under-Secretary, to be that the whole of this £20,000 has been expended, because it was alleged that the Board of Trade was on its trial. It is equally true to say that the White Star Company were on their trial. It is difficult in going through these items to come to any other conclusion than that this £1,900 for witnesses was paid to the witnesses of the White Star Company themselves. Therefore, I desire to ask someone on the Treasury Bench to tell us exactly who has received this £1,900, and whether the White Star Company's witnesses themselves received any payment whatever and what payment they have received.
  Mr. J. WARD: The Under-Secretary for the Board of Trade in an interjection just now stated he thought that some of the Members were debating this subject on political grounds.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Monstrous!
  Mr. J. WARD: In view of the record relating to a similar matter, it is impossible for either side to discuss this question quite on political grounds, because both sides have done just the same thing. For instance, the last Attorney-General secured for similar work in the last Administration £65,000 during five years, and the Solicitor-General secured £30,000 in five years in similar cases.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate. The hon. Member must confine himself to this particular item.
  Mr. J. WARD: I was only pointing out that it was impossible to regard this as a party question. Coming to the subject under discussion, I suppose we are entitled to ask whether this £16,000 has been spent judiciously, whether it was spent on the sort of inquiry that was likely to throw light on the matter. The majority of this House privately, I do not say publicly or politically, and the
  600
  majority of the people, I believe, have come to the conclusion that this money is absolutely wasted on a Commission whose decision was a foregone conclusion, and that it is largely £16,000 for whitewash, and it is a question whether it was good whitewash. That is what we are discussing to-night. If one faces the problem on that understanding I think that the Government, the Board of Trade and the White Star Company have got value for their money in staving off any real inquiry and giving a decision that whitewashed everybody, and did not blame anybody, but said that it was an act of the Almighty, although I suppose the Under-Secretary would not agree to take Him into account in relation to this subject.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The House had an opportunity of discussing the report of the "Titanic" Inquiry and I cannot allow that to be gone into. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Estimate.
  Mr. MORTON: On a point of Order. I would ask is it forgotten that in discussing that matter we were closured?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
  Mr. J. WARD: The Under-Secretary has explained that the Government were justified in making this payment in the case of Harland and Wolff, because Harland and Wolff themselves were involved to some extent as the builders of the ship, and questions of its construction whether right or wrong might be before the Court, and therefore they were entitled to be heard in reference to matters of that description. That was a fairly reasonable explanation of their position. When you come to the question which has just been raised as to a considerable portion of this money being paid to the White Star Company for their own witnesses one would think they would have been too delighted to explain every item relating to the business, and that the country should be saddled with their expenses as well as the others seems an outrageous proposition. In inquiries of this kind, as the hon. Member for Mansfield knows, relating to colliery disasters and things of that sort where colliery owners, railway companies, contractors or other big corporations are concerned, they are only too delighted to produce their own witnesses and brief counsel and put before the Court to the best of their ability all the circumstances of the accident that has

  601
  resulted in loss of life, and they would never dream of asking the State to pay expenses of this description. Here is a great wealthy company. One of its vessels meets with a tremendous disaster. Hundreds of people are killed. The Government holds an inquiry, and, to use a navvy phrase, so "measly" is this company that it does not produce its witnesses and does not brief counsel to explain all the circumstances of the case, and perhaps even assist other people in bringing forward witnesses, but actually saddles all the burden of this upon the British taxpayer.
  Mr. ROBERTSONdissented.
  Mr. J. WARD: The hon. Members for Derby and Mansfield stated that the sum of £1,900 included a large sum of money paid to the White Star Company's witnesses themselves. I was only pointing out that that was at variance with every other similar inquiry in other walks of life, and this practice acts as a great deterrent because firms know that an enormous liability is immediately placed upon them if such an inquiry has to be held. Yet apparently from the discussion—of course, I understand we can get no information relating to it—the Government have gone in an entirely different direction in this one case. I do not blame the White Star Company, but they should pay for their own witnesses. We should not make it as easy as possible for them for a similar occurrence to happen at any other time by limiting their liability to any great extent. The mere fact that companies and corporations know that it will be a very expensive matter to present their case properly to any tribunal that might inquire into the disaster is in itself a great deterrent against similar occurrences. If the Government are going out of their way for the purpose of providing at the expense of the British taxpayer, the costs of these corporations that have caused these disasters so that they shall not have any expense thrown upon them as a result of their negligence indirectly or directly, that is a bad policy to initiate by the expenditure before us at the present moment. But I am, of course, arguing on the supposition that is so. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade says it is a matter of fact that not a farthing of this money has been spent in procuring evidence for the White Star Line or their witnesses, and that the Department was not in any
  602
  way essentially connected with the setting forth of their case, then I should at once be prepared to withdraw every word I have said.
  The question is: Is it so? Has a large part of this money really been spent in presenting the White Star case so as to whitewash them? We know that all the other people connected with the affair were whitewashed—nobody was to blame, everything was done that could be done, unless genii from some other world had come to suggest something better. And now we are called upon to foot the Bill, as is usual with Britishers, who only grumble when they are called upon to pay. A sum of £16,000 for the purpose of this inquiry requires some consideration, and apart from what was referred to by the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Mansfield Division, there ought to be at least some explanation before we arrive at a decision. I have not said that I am not going to vote in favour of this sum; I am not prepared to do that yet. I can understand that unions and all the interests concerned in this dispute, and all those who had friends involved in it, had a right to look to the Government, whose duty it was to see that their case was properly presented. I do not even complain of the Attorney—General's fees or anything of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No; really I think the State, if it was to act fairly, was bound to present all the facts placed at its disposal from any quarter whatever to a tribunal of that description, and I make no complaint about spending money on presenting the case from the public point of view—whether those concerned were work-people or passengers. But I most certainly protest if it be proved that the ratepayer and taxpayer, in addition to being called upon to bear these charges, should also have to bear the cost of whitewashing the White Star Line, for that would be about the last straw to break the camel's back.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will answer the various relevant questions which have been put in the course of the discussion. One or two of the Members who put questions have left the House, among them the hon. Member for county Down (Captain Craig), who wished to know to what extent the Board of Trade had responded to the lessons conveyed by the findings of the Court. He was good enough to say that the Board of Trade was on its trial in the matter, and he wished to know how far—
  Sit A. MARKHAM: On a point of Order, Sir. Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade entitled to go into the question of how far the inquiry would assist the Department in preventing future wrecks?
  The CHAIRMAN: A discussion on that point would be quite out of order.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I was simply trying to answer one or two questions from a desire that it should not be suggested that information was being withheld. Among the questions addressed to me was one by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, who asked the amount of the fees paid to counsel. The fees to the Law Officers were 350 guineas each, and a refresher of 50 guineas.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: A day?
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes, I understand so. The hon. Member for Stoke and an hon. Member opposite, in connection with the special question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Mansfield Division, raised a point as to the payment of witnesses. I admit that I read out that for the detention and expenses of witnesses the amount was £1,908. The hon. Member for the Mansfield Division put to me what I could not but feel was an ambiguous question—he asked whether that sum included the White Star witnesses. I was unable to find the information at the moment in order to reply to the hon. Baronet when he used that phrase. It will be in the recollection of the House that a very strong demand was made from these benches to the Board of Trade to take ample means to procure as witnesses members of the crew, and that they should be detained if necessary. I confessed I had not studied the list of witnesses, but I am informed that this sum of £1,908 largely includes that particular class of witnesses. The phrase used by the hon. Baronet, "White Star witnesses" has apparently been used by the hon. Member for Stoke in the sense of witnesses called by the White Star Line in their defence. Of course, we have nothing to do with the payment of those witnesses. It was because for the moment I was unable to distinguish to which witnesses the hon. Baronet referred that I told him the simple truth. I have no list of witnesses, and, without such a list, I obviously could not make a detailed reply. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that
  604
  if he puts down a question I should be very glad to give all the details in an itemised account in regard to these witnesses to whom £1,908 was paid. That could be given just as in reply to the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire an itemised statement was made. Hon. Members will understand that with regard to an Estimate it is totally impossible for the Minister to give every item to the extent of £1,900. You might as well ask the Secretary for War to give the name of every individual private of the Army who receives payment. We cannot give Estimates to that detailed extent, but the hon. Baronet can have all information which it is in our power to afford him. Only those White Star witnesses who were detained by us to give evidence were paid for by us, and the hon. Member for Stoke would have complained if we had not paid the expenses of those witnesses.
  Mr. J. WARD: I quite agree.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member has made a sweeping attack, and has thought fit to make charges in regard to the inquiry of whitewashing and so forth. I am bound to protest against that description of an extremely exhaustive inquiry, as to the result of which there can be no question that it will prove of great service to the public in future as regards navigation. I regret the accusation which the hon. Gentleman made, besides which it was a reflection on the judge who presided.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has somewhat improved his tone in his last speech. Yet I would like to have an explanation of what he means by getting up and saying that we have attacked Messrs. Harland and Wolff for party purposes. That is not the kind of way to make a charge, a perfectly unfounded charge, so far as any question of party is concerned. The members of Harland and Wolff are great personal friends of mine, but I thought that this payment on the Estimates ought never to have been made, and I believe that Lord Pirrie has not the remotest idea that this account was sent in by his company, and that it is only the wooden-headedness of officials that would pass this kind of account.
  Mr. MORTON: Having got practically no answer to my remarks, I shall put a definite question, which I hope will be answered. I am not making any complaint

  605
  of Harland and Wolff and the White Star Line. Those are eminently respectable firms, but I do say, seeing that they lost no money by the transaction, it would have been much better if they kept their fingers off the public purse altogether. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that he had given particulars in reply to a question put by me. It was only by my asking a question that we got any particulars at all. My question was as follows:—
  "Mr. Morton asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could now give the total cost of the Wreck Commission Inquiry on the loss of the steamship 'Titanic,' with the details of such expenditure and the names of those who received payment?"
  It is admitted in a note that the full list of names has not been given, although I asked definitely for the names of those who had received payment. I now ask when will the Government give us a proper return of the whole expenditure in connection with the "Titanic" Inquiry?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We can only deal with the question of the law charges in connection with the inquiry at this stage.
  Mr. MORTON: You did not stop the Parliamentary Secretary saying that he had given an answer to a question by me. We have been discussing the general inquiry on this Supplementary Estimate. If we are to be confined to considering only the law expenses, it stops us debating the question altogether. If in order, I would like to ask whether the Government will give us a full return. Surely that ought to be done at some time—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that the item before the Committee is that of law charges.
  Mr. MORTON: I should like to complain of the word "politics" being brought in. The complaint has been from this side, and we ought not to be stopped from discussing a question of the expenditure of public money on the ground that it is politics; but if it is to object to extravagant, reckless expenditure, then the more politics we have the better. When, I ask, will the Government give us a full and proper return of all the expenses in connection with this inquiry, and when shall we have the opportunity of properly considering the question before it is sanctioned?
  Viscount DALRYMPLE: May I ask whether it would be competent for the
  606
  Law Officers of the Crown to refuse their services at an inquiry of this kind, and whether it is not for those very services they are paid enormous salaries?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is a question of general policy as to the mode of payment of those officers. I may tell the hon. Gentleman it has always been the rule, so far as I am aware, that the Law Officers under all Administrations have been paid salaries, and are paid fees for services in special cases. This was one of the special cases.
  Viscount DALRYMPLE: Could they refuse?
  Mr. COTTON: I am not going to object to this, but I do join my hon. Friends opposite in saying that we ought to have an account in detail. That is done in other cases, and I do not see why it should not be done in this.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Why is it necessary to have the Law Officers at all in a case like this? It was during the middle of the Session when they were extremely hard worked, and we might have had other counsel for less fees than this large sum. I quite admit it is a matter of policy if they are engaged at all that they should be paid extra fees, but I suggest it would be perfectly possible to have engaged other counsel at lesser fees. Surely you could have perfectly competent counsel not occupied with the many harassing duties of the Law Officers in giving fiats for prosecutions and the like, and at far less fees, who would have done the work equally well and with advantage to the public service, and with the saving of hundreds and probably thousands of pounds.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The fee paid to Mr. Aspinall, the eminent Admiralty lawyer, was £2,345, which is within £100 of the fees paid to the Law Officers, showing that fees to other counsel of equal competence and standing would have been as high.
  Mr. WATT: Is it the case that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General during the currency of this inquiry were engaged in other important cases? Was the Attorney-General prosecuting suffragettes and getting them severe punishment and forcible feeding, and was the Solicitor-General engaged in the telephone case? I understand from remarks that have been made, that those

  607
  two gentlemen were engaged in the three cases concurrently. Had they not only these fees but three sets of fees at the same time, and their salaries?
  Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,900, be granted to His Majesty for the said service."
  The Committee divided:
  Sir A. MARKHAM (seated and covered): Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I beg to call your

  Division No. 589.]

  AYES.

  [9.15 p.m.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hills, John Waller

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Boyton, James

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stanley, Hon, G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hunt, Rowland

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Jewett, Frederick William

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Carlile, Sir Hildred

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Down, North)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Newman, John R. P.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Viscount

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Dalrymple and Lord N. Crichton-Stuart.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Furness, Stephen

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Gill, A. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lundon, Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Glanville, H. J.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Goldstone, Frank

  McGhee, Richard

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

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

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Greig, Colonel J, W.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Gulland, John William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bentham, G. J.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Boland, John Pius

  Hackett, John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

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

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Millar, James Duncan

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Molloy, Michael

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hayward, Evan

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Hazleton, Richard

  Mond Sir Alfred M.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, John J.

  Clough, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Morgan, George Hay

  Clynes, John R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Muldoon, John

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hinds, John

  Munro, R.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Hodge, John

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Crooks, William

  Hogg, David C.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cullinan, John

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Doherty, Philip

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

  Hughes, S. L,

  O'Dowd, John

  Dawes, J. A.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Grady, James

  De Forest, Baron

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Malley, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Doris, William

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Shaughnessy, P.J.

  Duffy, William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Shee, James John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  King, J. (Somerset, North)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th),

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

  attention to the fact that the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan) has voted in respect of a payment in which he is personally interested. I would ask you, therefore, what is the hon. Member's position in the matter?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet will have an opportunity of raising the point when the figures of the Division are announce at the Table.
  Ayes, 47; Noes, 172.

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Wadsworth, J.

  Pointer, Joseph

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A, W. H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Webb, H.

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Sheeby, David

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Reddy, M.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Smith, H. B. L. (Normantan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Rendall, Athel stan

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Strauss, Edward A, (Southwark, West)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Sutton, John E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, James Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. W. Jones and Captain Guest.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Sir A. MARKHAM: May I ask for your ruling now with regard to the hon. Member for North Sligo? I saw him going through the Lobby, and I told him he was not entitled to vote. I would ask for your ruling, first, whether the hon. Member's vote should be struck out from the numbers handed in at the Table, and, secondly, as to the position of the hon. Member?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hardly think the point arises now. The position of the Committee at present is that no sum has been granted. The Question I put was, "That the reduced sum of £15,900 be granted," and that has been refused. I must now put the main Question, that the sum be granted.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: On a point of Order. May I submit, as it seemed to me, that the way in which you put the matter from the Chair was rather unusual? Be that as it may, I submit that on a matter in which an hon. Member is personally interested, it is not permissible for him to give a vote on the question, seeing that he receives a direct payment out of the Vote. He has, therefore, no right to take part in the Division, either for or against.
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I put the point of Order in this way? The Question, as I understand, that you put was: That a reduced sum should be voted. The hon. Member concerned did not vote for that reduced sum. On the contrary, he voted that the sum should not be reduced—that is to say, he voted that his fee should not be reduced. That, I venture to say, is contrary to all precedent.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question I put was a perfectly clear one. There was an Amendment to the original Resolution, which the hon. Member no doubt heard, which was: That a sum not exceeding £16,000 should be granted to His
  610
  Majesty. The Amendment I put was this: That a reduced sum of £15,900 be granted to His Majesty. That sum the Committee has just refused to grant. The next step is to put the original Motion again to the Committee: That a sum not exceeding £16,000 should be granted to His Majesty for the purposes enumerated for the year ending 31st March, 1913.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Mr. Maclean, I want your ruling on the second item of this Vote—the £2,000 extra for the Official Receivers' salaries. The explanation which is given is that it is an increased clerical allowance due to additional work. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade if there has been a greatly additional number of bankruptcies in the current financial year? If that is so, from what classes have the bankrupts mostly come? Have they been found amongst speculative builders, for example, or licensed victuallers, or amongst the other classes who have been unjustly penalised in recent years? If there have not been more bankruptcies, why this additional sum asked for?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have already said in answer to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that that particular item was in respect of extra work done over the case of the Birkbeck Bank and the Bank of Egypt. That has meant a much larger amount of work in the year 1912 than in 1911.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question I have to put is that the sum of £16,000—
  Mr. MORTON: I notice that we are asked to vote £16,000, whereas the real amount that we are going to vote is £18,000. The £2,000 has been taken out, I know. But in ordinary bookkeeping one puts down the total money expended on the other side to balance the receipts. I

  611
  do not want to delay the Committee, but I ask the hon. Member if he will explain why he does not ask for £18,000, which is what he has spent?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If the hon. Member will look at the Estimates he will see that the sum of £2,000 is balanced by an Appropriation-in-Aid of £2,000 in the manner which is usual in such cases.
  Mr. MORTON: I know; but that is not an answer to my question. We are asked to vote £18,000 really to be expended on certain matters, and the £2,000 comes in differently altogether, because the hon. Gentleman might as well bring in the Income Tax or any other item. I dare say he has not yet learnt properly how they keep these accounts, but I am sure that every good accountant will agree with me that the proper way is to ask for the amount you want to expend, leaving the Income Tax and every other income included to go on the other side of the account. If the hon. Member cannot answer it, let us know it and understand it.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: Before we take a vote on the main Question, I would just like to say a word or two about the question of Members of this House. Part of this Vote, to the extent of £2,500, goes to the Attorney-General; another part, about the same amount, with £25 difference, goes to the Solicitor-General—though how that £25 comes about in a sum of £2,500 I do not know. It is £25 in favour of the Attorney-General, and against the Solicitor-General. Then we have got two other Members of Parliament, the hon. Member for North Sligo (Mr. Scanlan), who apparently receives £500—and if there was an arrangement between the Treasury and the parties who appeared and instructed that learned Gentleman, and if he appeared for them under an arrangement by which he was to receive fees, that clearly is a contract; it would be a breach of the privileges of this House and would involve that hon. Member's resignation of his seat. There is another Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Glamorgan, who also receives about £500, and the same points applies to him. There is an hon. Member who is not quite a Member of Parliament, but who happens to be the son of the Prime Minister, and he has bad £800 of this money. I do not say that he is any the worse barrister for being
  612
  the son of the Prime Minister—probably he is a better one. I would not, in making these observations, cast the slightest reflection either upon the Prime Minister or upon his son, who probably is—in fact I am sure he is—a most able and conscientious young man. The fact remains that he has had £800 of this Vote—
  Mr. J. WARD: Sour grapes.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I dare say it would have been a very good thing for us if we had had the chance of getting some of it. But I contend that a Vote that is covered with slime like this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—is one into which a Committee of this House is entitled to have full investigation. I would like to have some complete answer to the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Mansfield Division. There is £1,900 for miscellaneous witnesses. I would like to know whether among those witnesses there were a few Members of Parliament on the opposite side of the House or on any side of the House. We do not know. I think, seeing that the Government Whips are put on, that this Vote of £16,000 for a whitewashing inquiry of the Board of Trade, which has yielded a report which has not done a particle of good to anybody—because the Board of Trade are not going to carry out a good part of it—they have succeeded in getting this whitewashing report—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of the law costs.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: If I understand the ruling you gave just now, Mr. Maclean, that we cannot discuss the question as to whether the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General should receive these fees—a ruling which I feel bound to say came as a shock to me—although I have no doubt you were perfectly right, or you would not have given it—if I understand the matter aright, you are going to rule me now out of Order because I was referring to the items of these fees. If it is not going to be possible to discuss the merits of the expenditure of £16,000 of public money in this Committee because some of the parties who are under the sheltering wing of the Government are getting some of the money, I think it is time that we protested. We have a right to protest! Having regard to your ruling, Sir, and to the howls coming from some of our

  613
  Friends opposite, who are so anxious to support the Government, I will say nothing further about it.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not mean to use precisely the same kind of language as the hon. Member who has just sat down, but on the general question I think the House must see that these payments to Members
  of Parliament are indefensible. I think the whole principle is wrong, and I shall certainly vote against it.
  Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,000, be granted to His Majesty for the said service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 54.

  Grant, J. A.

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Sutton, John E.

  Hewins, William Herbert Samuel

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Hills, John Waller

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Touche, George Alexander

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Watt, Henry A.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Jowett, F. W.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Lockwood. Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Markham and Mr. R. P. Newman.

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  STATIONERY AND PRINTING.—(Class II.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I beg to move, "That Item B (Horses and Carts and Carriage) be reduced by £1,000."
  Of all these Votes there is none more extraordinary and none which requires more explanation than the items which are now before the Committee. At the commencement of this Session a very generous Estimate was made with regard to stationery and printing expenses, and it was pointed out in this House that that Estimate was made in consequence of the increased cast of paper, charges for printing, increased labour bill, and, above all, the unexpected and unparalleled expenditure in connection with National Insurance. In the light of that very generous estimate this Supplementary Estimate is simply astounding. I invite the Committee to look at the several items connected with salaries, wages, and allowances under this head, which show an increase of no less than 20 per cent. on the original Estimate. The item for horses, carts, and carriage shows an increase of 180 per cent., printing for public Departments an increase of 20 per cent., paper for public Departments an increase of 25 per cent., printing papers, binding, etc., for Stationery Office publications an increase of 40 per cent., making an average increase of something like 17½ per cent. upon the whole Vote. I think the Committee is entitled to a much more detailed explanation of these items than appears on the Paper placed in our hands. I assume that a very large proportion of this expenditure is in connection with the leaflets, and the regulations and printing
  616
  of the papers supplied for the purpose of the National Insurance Health Commission.
  In answer to a question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman about a fortnight ago, I learned that up to date there had been something like £250,000 expended in connection with the National Health Insurance Office upon leaflets and other publications and papers in connection with the National Insurance Act. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has been well spent."] I very much question it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in the prosperity of the printing trade, but if he is I congratulate him upon what must be a very thriving industry. If £250,000 has been expended by the National Insurance Commissioners, or in connection with their office, I think the Committee is entitled to some details of this particular grant of expenditure. As regards the second item, I should very much like to find out from the right hon. Gentleman what is the meaning of a total vote of £11,280, involving an additional Estimate of £7,200, which has been expended upon horses and carts and carriages. I do not know whether it means a single carriage for the Chairman of the National Insurance Commission or the cost of consignments over the railway apart from over the roads. Horses and carts presumably have been employed to convey this vast tonnage of literature from the Stationery Office or the Government publishers to Buckingham Gate or other premises of the National Insurance Commission. It is a very large sum, and involves an increase on the original Estimate of nearly 200 per cent., and I think we ought to know something more about the details of the cost of the conveyance of these new publications. Now we come to the printing for public Departments which is represented by the astounding aggregate figure of £337,000. I assume that that also is mainly in respect of documents issued from the Insurance Commission offices. I think we have had far too much literature from the National Insurance office, and this is such a bewildering amount and such a variety dealing with the same subject that it has

  617
  become wholly impossible for the general public and the over-tired Members of this House to properly digest this literature.
  The next item is perhaps the most surprising of all. I think we ought to take the next two items together because apparently they are both represented mainly by paper. The amount for paper for public Departments is £424,000, or nearly half a million. What is all this paper for? Is it paper that is printed on or paper used for a variety of other purposes? The next item is one which is largely for paper, and this is for Stationery Office publications. In addition to the £424,000 I have mentioned, there is another item of £48,000, bringing up the total to nearly £500,000 in respect of paper and printing for other public Departments and for the Stationery Office. What I want is details of all these very large sums, of which we have no detailed information at all. I have the honour of being a member of the Publications Committee of this House, and it is a most disheartening task at the present time dealing with the cost of stationery and printing in respect of the publications of this House and of the various Government Departments. We do all in our power to suggest economies in connection with the various Government Departments, which are very fond of plans, diagrams, and the like, which are of an extremely expensive character, but while we did prevail upon the officials of certain Departments to amend their Estimates for these publications, other Departments seem to delight in vieing with each other to exceed their own former Estimates, and apparently the Insurance Commission Department is the greatest sinner of all, and has commenced its existence with extravagance which ought to be condemned at an early stage before it develops into a vast national bill which would mean a serious increase in taxation. I want to ask a question in connection with the Regulations issued from the Insurance Commission, which represents, I imagine, a considerable part of this money, and we have asked that those Regulations should be available to Members of this House. The right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend, the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) the other day that he was prepared to provide Members of this House with copies of these regulations. Some hon. Members asked for the whole of the regulations that have been issued, and, on being supplied with them, they discovered that a very large number have
  618
  not been supplied in due course to Members of this House. There are serious gaps in that literature. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what is the meaning of it. I notice, Sir, you are inclined to be a little restless of my observations. I was going to bring forward a question of a similar kind. If I am out of Order, I have no doubt you will stop me before I get very far. These regulations are of two distinct types. One type is for the purpose of the necessary administration of the Insurance Act—
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. H. Whitley): The hon. Member will perhaps be aware that this Department merely carries out that which originates in other Departments. It does not control either the regulations or certainly the policy of the National Insurance Commission.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I was going to suggest an addition of a little red ink on one type of these regulations in order to indicate they were Amendments of the Act and not merely Amendments for the purposes of administration.
  The CHAIRMAN: That would have to be done on the order of some other Department; it would not be done by the Stationery Office.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: The Stationery Office have very large powers, and I thought perhaps they might extend thus far. I honestly consider every one of these items, representing enormous sums of public money and particularly that relating to paper, requires some detailed explanation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not quite sure I shall be in order in dealing with anything but item (b).
  The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: All I can do is to tell the hon. Gentleman the cause of the increase. It was entirely due to two items, one expenses under the National Insurance Act, and the other extra expenses incurred by the Stationery Office in connection with the Dock Strike during the summer months of this year. If the hon. Gentleman would like the items in connection with insurance, there is £1,200 for the cartage through London of various insurance publications, including enormous masses of insurance cards, weighing tons, £5,000 railway charges for the carriage of cards to the provinces, and

  619
  £1,000 extra charges incurred through the dock strike, not specifically for insurance purposes, but incurred by the Stationery Office owing to the imposibility of dealing with the matter by the ordinary methods of cartage, making a total of £7,020. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that none of those items are exaggerated, and that none of them could have been foreseen. I could deal with the whole question of the necessary expenses in connection with the Insurance Act on the Vote, but I may say here that if the cards had to be printed they had to be delivered, and this is the expense of delivering them. The dock strike could not have been foreseen by the Stationery Office. The work had to go on during those months, and it was necessary to provide extra money—
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the use of horses and carts an expensive mode of locomotion?
  10.0 P.M.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: No, this is the general head to the Vote and it has been the head for a good many years, "horses, carts, and carriage"; it includes all methods of carriage. The great bulk has been spent on railway carriage, or I imagine motor carriage.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman has told us this expenditure was largely in respect of the delivery of insurance cards. I should have thought that was a matter which could have been provided for in the original Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman himself says it is perfectly obvious if the cards were to be printed they would have to be delivered. Then surely it is a matter which ought to have been dealt with in the original Estimates. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how much was provided for in the original Estimates, and how much is provided for in this additional Estimate in respect of the same matter, and why that additional sum was required. I can understand the additional amount caused by the dock strike. That, of course, could not have been foreseen. He told us there was £1,200 in respect of the carriage of these cards, quite independent of the dock strike. Why was not that provided for in the original Estimate? It seems to me quite unintelligible that a Department should have entirely overlooked this matter when they originally framed the Estimates.
  Mr. C. E. PRICE: I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to Item A?
  The CHAIRMAN: No, we have passed Item A; we are now on Item B.
  Mr. PRICE: Do I understand that by accepting the Motion for a reduction on Item B we cannot discuss Item A?
  The CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, that is a very old rule, and the Committee cannot go back.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not know whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury really understands that he has given a very lame and inadequate defence of an increase of 180 per cent. on the original Estimate under Item B. Taking the £1,000 due to the dock strike off altogether, it leaves an increase of something over 100 per cent. I understand £1,200 is simply for dragging insurance cards about London. If he had made a contract with Pickfords or some other eminent firm, I cannot imagine that they would have required all this. I gather the sum of £5,000 is for railway carriage, not the delivery of insurance cards through the Post Office, but merely consignments from London to the provinces. Will he tell us what was the weight of them? We can then compare them with the railway charges, and, in view of the Bill we are to discuss tomorrow, see if the railway companies have taken an unfair advantage. On the face of it, it would seem to require an enormous tonnage of insurance cards to justify the railway companies charging £5,000 for their consignment to the different depots in the provinces, and I really must press him on this matter. In former days an increase of this sort would have aroused men like Gladstone, Joseph Hume, and Cobden, to protest, and they would have voted in this matter apart from party lines. In these days there is no one of that calibre, except the hon. Baronet who represents the City of London, but in our small way we feel bound to enter our protest against this colossal under-estimate of 180 per cent., of which only from 20 to 25 per cent. can be justified. I hope my hon. Friend will press his Motion to a Division.
  Mr. CASSEL: Before a decision is taken, will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury not give us some further explanation. In his statement he admitted that it was a matter of comparison with

  621
  the original estimate. Will he tell us how much the original estimate was in respect to this matter? Is it not the case that the Insurance Commission only delivered those cards to the societies? They did not deliver them to the individually insured person; they merely distributed them to the societies and the post offices. Does he say that the increased cost of delivering those cards to the societies, of which I believe there are 20,000, including branches, and to the post offices was this enormous sum? A great many of these societies have their offices in London, and I believe I am right in saying that they made delivery to the societies, and not to the branches. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain that.
  Mr. J. WARD: And how much the vanboy got?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have furnished to the Committee all the information at my disposal, but I have to regret that the hon. Member in proposing a Vote of Censure upon this particular item, has prevented me from giving a general explanation dealing with the Insurance Act as a whole. His Amendment refers to this one item, and therefore makes out of order the general question of the expenses under the Insurance Act. If I were at liberty to go into that, I think I could show him that the Stationery Office, both in the original estimate and in the subsequent expenditure, especially so far as this particular item is concerned, can have no censure attached to it. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) has altogether under-estimated the gigantic nature of the work done by the Stationery Office in connection with the National Insurance Act.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: You under-estimated it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, I under-estimated it, when I had no facts to go upon, but you under-estimated it when you have all the facts before you. It was a question of bringing from place to place a gigantic mass of material which was literally measured, not by ounces and pounds, but by tons. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) asks what was the original Estimate in this particular item. I believe the original Estimate was £5,500, and the swelling of it in connection with this item is no greater than the swelling in connection with all the other items of the general Vote which I should not be in order in dealing with.
  Mr. CASSEL: The original Estimate was only £4,000. The total Estimate, not for insurance alone, is £4,300.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That may be so; I will try to obtain the information desired by the hon. Member. I agree that the original Estimate was very much less. I admit that the Estimate before the Act was passed of what the total requirements would be in connection with the Act was nothing near the actual requirements as they have proved. On that I wish to make the general statement I have referred to. The hon. Member says that these cards had only to be delivered to offices of approved societies. They were delivered to every post office, and especially in last July, when the Act was started, to the offices of every approved society and to the post offices in very great numbers, almost twice as much as will be required in future. There was the greatest necessity of getting every card to every insured person for the 15th July. I think they were delivered to branches of approved societies as well as to the approved societies themselves. That is my impression at the moment. In any case, we had to send this great mass of necessary literature, cards, tickets and medical tickets, leaflets explanatory of the Insurance Act, and all the literature which I think any student of the Act will realise was necessary.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Were there any posters?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In so far as the Stationery Office printed any posters, they had to be issued the same as the others; and I think they did the work with great economy, smoothness, efficiency, and celerity. They had to be issued to the various societies and to every tiny post office in the United Kingdom, and I think that hon. Members will agree that this is a Vote which might be passed without any reductions.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to explain that this Vote refers to horses, carts, and carriages. I presume the horses and carts are those which took those heavy bundles of paper about London?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I gave particulars of the items of the Vote, including the item of railway carriage, when the hon. Baronet was not present.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That accounts for railway carriage; do I understand that

  623
  these cards were delivered at the Post Office, or did the Post Office not take charge of them and forward them to their destination in the ordinary way? Or were they forwarded by the Stationery Department from the railway station, and the expenses paid by the Stationery Department?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The distribution of cards and tickets are the main items; they were delivered at the Post Office for distribution, and also to the offices of the approved societies, their registered offices.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Were they delivered at the Post Office in London to be sent, say, to Birmingham, or were they delivered to the London and North-Western, to be forwarded by them?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They were delivered at the chief district offices; I will take Birmingham, which I think is a chief district office. They were delivered by the Stationery Office, and this is the cost.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Then the whole cost is to be paid not by the Post Office, but by the Stationery Office?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: £5,000.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That makes the difference. It is a very enormous sum to be spent in distributing literature. It would not be in order to go into the merits of the National Insurance Act, but I think it ought to be put down to advertising. What we are paying now is for advertising the National Insurance Act, and I object to that expenditure.
  Mr. CASSEL: I did not wish my remarks in any way to be a reflection upon the Stationery Office, who have done their work most marvellously, having regard to the difficulties with which they had to contend. My attack was on the Estimate, and was based upon the fact that the original Estimate was for £4,080, and that it has now been increased to £11,280. It was of that fact that we required an explanation, which has not been given, and if we press the matter to a Division it is only because the right hon. Gentleman has not given it. He told us that the item relating to insurance was £5,000.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It is only £1,000 so far as insurance is concerned.
  Mr. CASSEL: It is an important matter for the Committee that the Estimate
  624
  should have some relation to the actual facts. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the amount for insurance was £5,000. He now says it is £1,000. We want to know how much of the £11,000 is in respect of insurance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to supply us with the figure, because it is only then that we shall be in a position to form a judgment whether it bears any reasonable relation to the original Estimate.
  Mr. J. WARD: We have been questioning the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this, that, and the other. I am interested in another side of the question. The Estimate is for horses, carts, and carriage. Has the increased cartage necessitated any new contract with the cartage contractors or the railway companies? If so, I should like to know whether proper wages have been paid to those who drive these horses, and whether any of this extra sum is represented by overtime for those who drive the horses and carts? Another matter, which is much more important than voting millions without discussion for the Navy, is what wages were paid to the van boys?
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote.
  Mr. J. WARD: I understood the Vote was for horses, carts, and carriage generally, and that it represented extra work beyond the ordinary work of the Department. Therefore, I thought I was entitled to ask whether it had necessitated any extra work for these people, and whether any extra wages had been paid. I thought that would be quite as interesting as some of the stuff to which we have had to listen from the Opposition.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Of course I cannot enter into any question as to Government rates of wages or pay for overtime under your ruling, but I can assure the hon. Member that the extra work that has been done in connection with cartage and Moving about has been done under exactly the same conditions as the ordinary work of cartage. It was done by contract; the Fair-Wages Clause prevails in the extra work just as it prevails in the ordinary work, and the overtime was paid under the same conditions as the ordinary work.
  Mr. PETO: I should like to know whether, in the course of this flood of literature and cards from time to time the

  625
  Department took any steps to find out whether there was any real demand for the literature, for the distribution of which we are asked to sanction this expenditure. I took the opportunity to ask the Insurance Commissioners to send a copy—
  The CHAIRMAN: That comes on another Vote.
  Mr. PETO: This is a question of the distribution of this literature. I want to know whether it was by horses and carts or by any other methods; whether from time to time the Department took any steps to find out what percentage of the literature which was sent out was going to be really effective, and what percentage of it was going to be put into the waste-paper basket—
  The CHAIRMAN: I pointed out a little earlier that the Stationery Department has to execute the orders which are sent to it. It does not control that matter.
  Mr. NEWMAN: There is one point I should like to have explained. Diving into ancient history, going back to 1905, the last year of the Conservative Government, one point comes out, that the Horses Vote is about the only Vote which this Government have not radically increased by Supplementary Estimates. In 1905 the then Government spent on horses, carts, and carriage £3,900, and the original Estimate was £4,080. Now it has suddenly jumped from £4,080 to £11,280. In other words the Financial Secretary did not make any Estimate for the extra cost of carting about literature for the Insurance Act. That is incomprehensible. I should like to know why he did not foresee any of this cost of cartage.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I have tried to make that clear. The Estimates of the Stationery Office were made before the Insurance Act was passed. After it was passed it was many months before it was possible to realise what particular methods would be adopted through the regulations. Take one thing in which the hon. Member is interested—the contribution cards of which now some 13,000,000 are filled up every week. It was a long time after the Estimates had been made and published and after a good deal of inquiry, in other countries as well as in our own, that the Insurance Commissioners came to the conclusion that the cheapest and most satisfactory method of dealing with contributions was by the method of a card for each contributor to possess. If they had
  626
  not had a card this extra Estimate would not have been required. As they had cards to the extent of some 14,000,000, it was necessary to deliver them. No mistake has been made in the original Estimate. The Stationery Office has shown its usual astonishing accuracy. I am very glad that the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) paid a well merited tribute to the Stationery Office in respect of what they did. The Act was not passed when they made their estimate. They made a rough estimate, but cards and books had to be devised after that estimate was made. Therefore it is not a legitimate criticism to say that the amount was under-estimated. There is not a penny more required for this purpose except the special amount required owing to the exigencies of the Dock Strike. I think the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. C. Bathurst) will see that it would be a graceful thing if he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: I am afraid I am not in a position to carry out the act of grace which the right hon. Gentleman has demanded of me. He suggested, after addressed the House first, that I was making an attack upon the Stationery Department. I assure him that his answer that the Stationery Office has to execute the orders sent to it shows that if the estimate is at fault, it is not the fault of the Stationery Office. I have some intimate knowledge of the working of the Stationery Office, and I should like to testify that there is no Department better qualified controlled and managed than that office. But there is a most gross system of under-calculation on the part of the Government Departments in presenting their estimates at the beginning of the financial year This particular Estimate of £4,080 was presented a considerable time after the Act was passed, and there was plenty of time between the passing of the Act and April last to form something like an accurate estimate, except in respect of £1,000 which may be said to be due to unforeseen expenses in connection with the Dock Strike. The original Estimates were nearly trebled, and I am going to divide the House upon this vote. It is only one of many instances of gross miscalculation by the Government Departments.
  Mr. KEATING: As we have been informed on a good many points of the expenses under the Vote, I was wondering

  627
  whether the right hon. Gentleman has made an estimate of cost of Government printing as compared with the amount spent for literature by the Opposition in endeavouring to defame the Act.

  Division No. 591.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Barrie, H. T.

  Grant, J. A.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Bigland, Alfred

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Bird, Alfred

  Hills, John Waller

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Boyton, James

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kerry, Earl of

  Touche, George Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Newman, John R. P.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. C. Bathurst and Mr. Falle.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Furness, Stephen

  Lundon, Thomas

  Alden, Percy

  Gill, A. H.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Lynch, A. A.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Glanville, H. J.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Baker, Harold T. Accrington)

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  McGhee, Richard

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Goldstone, Frank

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert Lanark

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Gulland, John William

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Gwynn, Stephen (Galway)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)

  Hackett, John

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

  Bentham, G. J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Boland, John Plus

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molloy, Michael

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mond, Sir Alfred M.

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Hayward, Evan

  Morgan, George Hay

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Morton, Alpheus Cleephas

  Clough, William

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Muldoon, John

  Clynes, John R.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Munro, R.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hodge, John

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Cotton, William Francis

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  Nolan, Joseph

  Crooks, William

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Cullinan, John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Grady, James

  Dawes, J. A.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)

  O Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  De Forest, Baron

  Janes, W. (Carnarvon)

  O'Malley, William

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Dickinson, W. H,

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Keating, Matthew

  O'Shee, James John

  Doris, William

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Duffy, William J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  King, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

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

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Falconer, James

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

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

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Pointer, Joseph

  Question put, "That Item B (Horses and Carts and Carriage) be reduced by £1,000."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 191.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Pringle, William M. R.

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

  Webb, H.

  Radford, G. H.

  Sheehy, David

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

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

  Reddy, Michael

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Wiles, Thomas

  Roberts, Cranes H. (Lincoln)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Sutton, John E.

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

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, James Henry

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Robinson, Sidney

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. G. Howard and Captain Guest.

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move "That Item E ('printing for public Departments') be reduced by £10,000."
  I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was not only prepared but desirous of making a statement with regard to the large increases due to the Insurance Act, and therefore we ought not to proceed to a Division until we have had some explanation of the £310,000 and the £370,000 for printing, and £337,000 and £424,000 for paper. No doubt the increase of £60,000 for printing requires some explanation.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The same general considerations apply to this sub-head as to the previous sub-head. The question of policy, that is to say, what leaflets ought to be reduced or what powers ought to be reduced, is a question, as I have already pointed out, which must be challenged on the Insurance Vote, and not on the Stationery Office Vote. I have already given, in some detail, the reason why it was impossible to accurately frame an Estimate. It is that this is a new service. Although I think there would be considerable criticism of the Stationery Office if, under the old service, the Estimate had been swollen to such an enormous amount as required by this Supplementary Estimate, yet, where it is a new service in which the items were continually increasing, in which regulations had to be made, and of which an Estimate had to be made even before the Act was passed, it was quite impossible that anything like an accurate Estimate could be made at the time of what amount would be spent, but it was always recognised, and it was said several times in the Insurance Debates that in such a gigantic new service it would certainly be years, or months—I believe months will be the limit
  now—before the Stationery Office and other offices would have settled down to the normal amount expected year by year. The increase for printing is almost en-
  630
  tirely due to the services for the Insurance Commissioners. The increase of £48,000 is due to the issue of a directory of the new subscribers to the telephones, and to the cost of printing the arbitration proceedings and judgment, which had such a desirable
  result—£6,000.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: What was the amount which resulted?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: About £8,000,000. The printing and the paper Votes go together, and necessarily rise or fall together, for the printing is on the paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No; is it? "] For leaflets and pamphlets for the Health Insurance Commissioners—
  The CHAIRMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to Item F?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is the idea.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Question is—
  Mr. CASSEL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what this item of £60,000 includes. He was commencing to tell us how many leaflets. Will he tell us how much represents the cost of printing orders under the former to remove difficulties, and how much represents the printing of orders repealing or modifying the Act without consulting this House? This raises a very important point. How much of this represents the cost of printing medical tickets and matters of that description, which I submit are not properly chargeable at all on the Estimates, but ought to be charged on the Insurance Fund, and that that really is part of the cost of administration of medical benefit, and to which the nation contributes two-ninths? There are the various documents which the doctors are required to deal with and about which we hear so many complaints from the doctors.
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing in a by-

  631
  product which does not belong to this question. The Stationery Office has to carry out orders received, and other matters are not really relevant. The hon. and learned Gentleman must wait until the right hon. Gentleman is answering in another capacity.
  Mr. CASSEL: I desire to know whether this is really a proper charge on public money, and whether the cost of administering the medical benefit does not fall on the insurance committees?
  The CHAIRMAN: If the Insurance Commissioners have given a wrong order it is on their Vote the matter must be raised, and not on the Stationery Office Vote.
  Mr. CASSEL: My point is that if certain documents which are necessary for the purposes of administering medical relief are issued, and have to be paid for, they ought really not to be charged upon the Estimates. I should like to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman what is the principle upon which some of the documents in connection with the administration of medical benefits and other benefits under the Act are to be charged to societies and to insurance committees or upon the Estimates. I desire to know how much is included which ought not properly to be chargeable to the approved societies or the insurance committees. You have all the forms sent out to the doctors for names of patients, description, prescription papers, and so on partly sent out by the Insurance Commissioners and partly by the committees. There are two forms—one for special drugs and one for ordinary drugs. It is important that the Committee should know whether any of the cost of those forms is included in this Estimate, because it raises a large question of principle.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is hardly a matter within the control of the Stationery Office. Whether the cost should be charged to the Insurance Commission might be a question to be raised on the Vote for the Insurance Commission, but certainly not on this Vote. I must ask the hon. Member to defer to my ruling.
  Mr. POLLOCK: Is not my hon. Friend in order in asking how this sum ought to be divided, in order to ascertain what different classes of items are contained in it,
  632
  with a view to making appropriate criticisms on other Votes? Unless he is able to elicit what are the items covered by this sum, it will be impossible to offer criticism in the appropriate place in respect of the expenses incurred in this Vote. I submit that my hon. Friend is quite right in getting details on this Vote, in order that they may be dealt with seriatim upon other Votes where they are properly the subject of criticism.
  Captain CRAIG: Will it not be very awkward if this discussion is ruled out of Order? This sum will not appear on any other Vote; consequently there will not be any other specific item upon which a discussion could be raised.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) contended that something is being charged here which ought to be charged to the Insurance Commission. That is a point which can be raised on the Insurance Commission Vote. I should certainly have raised no objection if the hon. and learned Member had simply asked whether there was included in this item any sum for cards dealing with medical benefits; but he was going into an elaboration of the simple question, which I think rightly called me to my feet. If he wishes to put a question on which to base future action, he may certainly do so.
  Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether this item includes anything in respect of cards for medical benefit; doctors' day-books; doctors' prescription forms; forms issued to approved societies for keeping accounts; forms on which claims for the various benefits are made; or any other items of a similar nature?
  Mr. MASTER MAN: These are not primarily Estimates, but Supplementary Estimates, and supplementing to the Estimates that have already been voted. They are not split up into sub-heads. Nor in the original Estimates would there be an allocation of the various forms of literature the Estimate was supposed to cover, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman asked for. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman I am only anxious to give him the fullest information within the Rules of Order. All I can give him is a kind of estimate that has been made of the amount by which this is supplementary to the original Estimate, which was £36,800. The House agreed to these items. I cannot split them up smaller than to say in regard to

  633
  what has been spent on printing—I cannot deal with paper—that printing forms under Clause 78—I have not an estimate—would not, I should think, amount to three figures—certainly it would be a good deal less than £100. Supplementary expenditures are as follow: Leaflets and pamphlets, £14,000; forms and posters, £4,000; contribution cards, £11,000; contribution books, £8,500; index cards, £1,500; index and contribution cards, £2,000; cards for reserve values, medical benefits, and sickness disablements, £2,500; transfer division registers, £2,000; ballot papers, £500; miscellaneous stationery, £2,000.
  All those, I think, were estimated for in the original Estimate, and the need for the Supplementary Estimate is that the exigencies of the National Insurance Act have compelled the Stationery Office to print a larger supply of all these items than was estimated for.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the printing matter for Ireland done there, as distinct from Great Britain?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am not quite sure whether any supplementary money was required for the Irish printing, but all insurance work, so far as it can be, is printed in Ireland on the Irish Estimate—if included in the Stationery Estimate.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is it not a fact that the items read out by the right hon. Gentleman were necessary for the working of the approved societies, and if not supplied, as at present, out of public funds, would be paid out of the funds contributed by the members and the employers, and be tantamount to a reduction of the benefits?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That would be the case, but I am afraid the ruling of the Chairman has prevented me discussing that particular aspect.
  Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: I would ask hon. Members opposite to pause before they go to a Division. They complain of the under calculating and the flood of literature. I think there was a great deal of reason for it. There was misrepresentation and lying statements made—
  The CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
  Mr. MORTON: I want to ask a question concerning economic dealing. I notice that with reference to items sent out in connection with the Insurance Act, there is a considerable piece of paper accompanying
  634
  each bundle, on which is printed, "With the secretary's compliments." I have no objection to the "Secretary's compliments," but it involves an absolute waste of money for printing. I dare say that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench will not care to be economical with regard to such a small sum, but I would like to remind them of the old adage, "Take Care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves." I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to kindly consider this matter. I am mentioning it entirely in their interests. The Insurance Act must be expensive to work, but I hope he will reduce the expenses as far as he possibly can.
  Mr. NEWMAN: In the original Estimate the Government were so very careful as even to put in an item of £1 in connection with a change of colour in some documents and when they were so careful as that in the original Estimate, I confess I am surprised we get so little information in connection with this supplementary item a £60,000, which shows a rise of £87,000 in two years.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. CASSEL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the questions I put to him. I should like him to get some fuller information, because I intend to use it on future Votes. I want to know whether the doctors' books are included in this Vote. We are dealing here with £1,000,000 of money of the nation. It is our duty as trustees of the national funds to see that no part of the expenditure is put upon the nation that does not properly fall upon it. For my part, I should like to spend as much for the benefit of the societies and the Insurance Committees as is possible, but if we are to do that we must do it deliberately and knowingly. If two-ninths of the cost is to be defrayed by the nation, I say it is our business to see that the nation is not charged more than two-ninths. It is our duty to investigate the accounts properly. I notice that the original Estimate for printing and stationery for the National Insurance Act was £28,000. The condition of these Supplementary Estimates and the very slight information we have had leaves the matter in a most unsatisfactory state, and unless we probe this question fully we are not doing our duty as trustees of national finance. One of the reasons why the expenditure is going up is because we are not doing our duty by

  635
  inquiring more into these matters. It is our duty to see that this expenditure is properly allocated. The original Estimate was for £28,000, and this included £5,400 for the Joint Committee, £17,600 for England, £2,000 for Wales, £3,000 for Ireland, and I have not got the figures for Scotland. We do not know in the least why there is this increase, and if we pass it without any protest we are not doing our duty.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: We have been told that these additional amounts are for unforeseen liabilities in regard to the administration of the National Insurance Act. If you turn to Class VIII. you will find that the Supplementary Estimate is for "the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1913, for Grants-in-Aid of National Health Insurance (United Kingdom), in addition to the sums payable under Section 3 of the National Insurance Act, 1911." I take it that these sums for stationery must be for matters dealt with under some Section other than Section 3. I understand that the Government have put off the other Vote until to-morrow, and I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what is the amount in this item which is attributable to National Insurance printing, and under what Section of the Act of last year the expense is incurred?
  Mr. STEPHEN COLLINS: I am sure all hon. Members on this side and many hon. Gentlemen opposite agree that the Government were most anxious to give all the information possible and the fullest explanation in connection with this Act. Many hon. Members and many other good people outside did not understand the Act. They could not see the bearings of it, and the Government had to print extra literature to inform the people and adopt many other methods. May I give just one illustration of the difficulties the Government had to contend with. There was one great trade union—
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot have been present during the whole of our proceedings or he would have observed that no question of policy arises. The Stationery Office carry out the orders sent to them and the hon. Member must raise those points on some other Vote.
  Mr. S. COLLINS: Thank you; I am sure the Government did all they could.
  Mr. PETO: I understood on the previous Vote that you ruled out of order the question whether any check whatever had been placed on the Stationery Department, and that we were wholly limited to the question whether that Department had correctly executed the orders they had received, and if they had correctly executed those orders, that we could raise no other question whatever. Now I understand you have a little enlarged your ruling, and that on this Vote I am at liberty to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he took any steps whatever, in view of the enormous increase in the cost for printing and paper which was obviously inevitable, to ascertain if this great quantity of printing was really required, and whether it would be any effective help to the friendly societies, trade unions, and other organisations that had to administer the National Insurance Act. I entirely agree that we do not want to throw any expense that should be a public charge on to the funds of the trade unions or friendly societies, but these societies have had to encounter a veritable snowstorm of paper and printing which has simply confused the issue, wasted public money, and made it more difficult and not more easy to put the Act into execution. Did the hon. Gentleman by the simple means of sending a postcard to the societies concerned ever ask whether they required a ton or two of literature? If there had been no response to such a postcard the cost of the paper, the printing, and the carriage of the ton or two of literature could have been saved. My experience is that those responsible for the administration of the Act, as soon as they had arrived at a formula, issued an edict to print so many million, and everybody, whether he wanted them or not, was bombarded through the Press or the post, or by horses and carts, with what they considered was the necessary supply of this particular formula. I do not consider that is the proper way to spend public money. I do not believe it helped one iota in the smooth working of the Act; and I believe, if they had taken the ordinary precaution that every business firm in the country would have taken, and had found out whether the printed matter was likely to receive consideration or do the business any good, they would have saved a large amount of the expense. It is putting the cart before the horse to get an idea, put it into print, and force it upon everybody

  637
  whether it is good for them or not. I believe that with ordinary business management and judicious expenditure of public money we could have done for £5,000 quite as much work as has been done for £60,000, with a saving of the actual despair of the wretched recipients of this mass of literature, most of which went into the fire or the waste paper basket. They were inundated with this stuff every day in connection with the Insurance Act. Whether it is proposed to reduce this Vote by £100, or £1,000, or £10,000, I shall vote for it.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Member has spoken under a misapprehension. The Stationery Office has nothing to do with the giving of orders. In this case the Stationery Office acted under orders given by the Insurance Commissioners, and properly delivered what is was asked, and therefore the Department properly to be criticised is not the Stationery Office, but those who gave the orders, the National Insurance Commissioners, for whom I answer in this House. I do not think the hon. Member has any case to bring forward—if he had I should regard it with great interest—where the Stationery Office, as a business concern has made mistakes in executing the orders given. So far from that being the case, most of hon. Gentlmen opposite, I am glad to say, have gone out of their way to emphasise the excellence of the work of the Stationery Office. Therefore the only criticism that has been made is one which it would be impossible for me to answer in this Debate. The hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) is perfectly right in his assumption that the money voted for the Stationery Office dealing with the expenses of the National Insurance Commission has nothing to do with Section 3. That Section merely deals with the proportion of benefits to be paid out of the public funds. If he will look at Section 57 he will see that—
  "Any expenses incurred by the Treasury or the Commissioners in carrying this part of the Act into effect to such extent as the Treasury may sanction shall be defrayed out of monies provided by Parliament."
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is that Clause 8. I asked a question about the £1,800,000 and was refused an answer on Friday by the Closure.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will raise it on the
  638
  Report stage. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel) put a question, and as he was allowed to put it I suppose I may be allowed to answer it, as to whether certain forms and books were paid for out of Government money instead of out of the moneys of friendly societies. He was very indignant because the Government provided the money for the doctors' day-books instead of the friendly societies.
  Mr. CASSEL: I was not expressing indignation; I was simply asking a question with reference to the cost of doctors' day-books and medical cards—whether they were included in this Vote or not?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I thought I had heard some criticism of them being included. The whole question is whether they should be allocated to be paid out of Government money, the funds of the insurance Commissioners, or should be paid out of the Insurance Fund, which ultimately means the approved society. These doctors' day books are not kept in the interests of the approved societies. So far as the friendly societies are concerned, they need not be kept. They are kept in the public interest and in the national interest, so that we may have statistics of disease and may be able to find more adequate methods of coping with disease. The information will come to the central office of the Commissioners and it would be unfair to throw the cost upon the friendly societies.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Is the National Insurance Commissioners' Office a Government Office?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: They are answered for by the Government in this House. I would not like to give it as a legal opinion, but I should say they are.
  Mr. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to economy in dealing with this fund?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Any suggestions for economy I will most gladly consider.
  Mr. CASSEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the prescription forms, and the forms for obtaining the benefits? There are about six or seven forms to be sent in before benefit can be claimed.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The differentiation which has been carried out is that the Government fund shall meet all expenses pro-

  639
  perly appropriate to the Insurance Commission, and which are required by the Government. I think that both the prescription forms and the certificates, in so far as they are national, will be paid for out of Government funds, while all those which are purely local and which are required by the friendly societies will be raid for by the friendly societies.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not wish to press the reduction of this particular item to a Division. I think it will be necessary to offer some protest against the Vote as a whole. One can see from the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury that any attempt to reduce this particular item would be open to misrepresentation as tending to put charges upon the friendly societies; therefore I do not intend to press the reduction to a Division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I understand that we are asked in this Vote for money to provide the doctors' books. What is our position with regard to the medical men who receive the books, and, through great pressure of work, are not able to fill them in?
  The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote.
  Mr. H. SMITH: May I submit, Sir, with great respect to your ruling, that it is not out of order, on a Vote to provide the books, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the books we are providing are being used? If these books have been thrown away, obviously it would be in order. If the books are not being used, it is equally in order.
  The CHAIRMAN: That would carry us a long way. The hon. Member might, for instance, have the view that they were being misused.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: In regard to Item F, are we to understand, in respect to the goods ordered under that item, that the best article is selected?
  Mr. MASTER MAN: I do not understand the question.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: If the right hon. Gentleman's imagination does not enable him to understand the point, I think I must explain it to him in private.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  OFFICE OF WORRS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.—(Class II.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
  Sir F. BANBURY: The additional sum required is not very large—£4,400 on an original estimate of £136,000—but the explanations are by no means satisfactory. May I draw attention to the footnote.
  "(a) Salaries, wages and allowances. Provision for addition to staff sanctioned to meet the addition to the work of the Department caused by the requirements of the Labour Exchanges and Insurance Offices."
  Everyone of these Supplementary Estimates has some considerable charge in it for expenses owing to Insurance and Labour Exchanges. They seem to have taken the whole amount and divided it up in little bits, and even taken the hon. Gentleman opposite and given him a small share—only £1,600—in order that he might not be left out in the cold. That is, of course, a very easy way of showing that the total expenses are not very large, but I do not know that it is very satisfactory. They were given travelling expenses and so we see "Provision for additional expenditure due to the same cause." May I call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to a very excellent, explanation given under (c). "Incidental expenses. The original provision has proved insufficient." May I advise the right hon. Gentleman to take a lesson from the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood Benn) who in a very modest way, having no explanations to give, has put a very simple explanation in six words.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: The explanation of this Supplementary Vote is very simple. In July last a Supplementary Vote was asked for by the Office of Works for the provision of additional accommodation in connection with the Insurance Act under the Unemployment part of it and that money was voted by Parliament. A corresponding increase in the charges following on the establishment of the Office of Works was necessitated and that increase is explained in this Vote. Under Salaries, Wages and Allowances there is an increase of £1,700, partly for the examiners of accounts and partly for

  641
  draughtsmen who had to prepare designs for the changes in buildings for Labour Exchanges and Insurance offices. Travelling expenses are due to the fact that these officers had to go to different parts of the country to hire premises and the incidental expenses are largely due to the necessity for advertising for premises in order to get the most suitable for the purpose.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: What are the travelling expenses of these gentlemen—how much a day?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: There is a fixed rate. The higher grade of officers receive first class fares and a subsistence allowance of 15s. for twenty-four hours and 5s. for an absence not exceeding ten hours.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: What amount is included under (a) for salaries of the permanent architects who advise the Board of Trade and the Office of Works?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I think there is no increase in wages of the architects' staff. The increase will be found on pages 124 and 125 of the original Estimates—Allowances to Examiners and Draughtsmen.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: I do not think any proper explanation has been given, and Parliament ought not to allow so gross a miscalculation to pass without protest. I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £600.
  Mr. PRICE: There would be some charges in connection with the Calton Hill site. May I ask whether it would be posible for the hon. Member who represents the Office of Works to give some information in regard to that matter?
  Captain CRAIG: The hon. Member has not explained to the Committee what are the proportions charged as between Labour Exchanges and National Insurance offices, or what is the amount allocated for travelling expenses as between these two services. Everybody who has followed the Debates throughout the afternoon must have been impressed with the fact that, in Vote after Vote something has slipped in in connection with the National Insurance scheme. Unless the hon. Gentleman can disintegrate the various amounts and show the items for Labour Exchanges and National Insurance, it is very difficult for hon. Members to keep an accurate record of the cost to the country for the different Departments. We will eventually reach the original Estimates for Labour Exchanges, hut it will be impossible for anybody to
  642
  tell whether they have cost £40,000, £50,000, or £60,000, because we will have at the back of our heads the knowledge that Votes for that Department were included in other Votes. When the Bill was passing through the House it was urged that the cost of the Labour Exchanges, whatever it was to be, should be in a watertight compartment so that the country would know what it was to be. We should be very careful to guard against excessive expenditure on the Exchanges when it is borne in mind that they do not meet any general want, and that they have really broken down so far as any benefit to the working classes is concerned. If it is found impossible to get the different items in watertight compartments, the suspicion will be confirmed that the Government are not keeping their bargain with the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us how much of the £1,700 is apportioned to Labour Exchanges and how much to the National Insurance scheme.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I should be glad to afford the information asked for but it is quite impossible to do so. The one officer might go down to a place in connection with a new Labour Exchange and at the same time do some business in connection with the National Insurance Act, and other matters, and his expenses could not be divided up because it is impossible to say what part of his services were devoted to each.
  Captain CRAIG: That is the most absurd explanation I ever heard. There is not a business firm in any city in this country who when it sends a man to a place to do two or three particular jobs does not get from him a scrupulous account of how much of the cost is to be put against each job. Every business firm in this country does exactly what the hon. Member says it is impossible to do in the case of his Department. Suppose he was having a house built in his Constituency so as to live there, and a friend of his was building another house and a third person was laying out a garden, and all the jobs were being done by the one contractor, does anyone imagine that if an expert went down to look after all these jobs all the expenses would be charged to the hon. Member, or that the firm would say "it is too much trouble to spread the expenses over each job separately: we will charge them all up to the hon. Member? Yet that is what he has done. If the hon. Member sends a man to do work for one Government Department and asks him while in

  643
  the district to do some work for another Government Department surely it is a matter of book-keeping to separate the accounts so that we may know how much cost has been incurred by each Department. Otherwise the whole system of Government Departments and book-keeping is most faulty and a vote of censure should be passed on the hon. Member for permitting his Department to carry out its work in such a manner. I know that he always tries to shift the blame on to his neighbour at Question Time and says that it is the fault of the Treasury, but he cannot blame the Treasury now.

  Division No. 592.]

  AYES.

  [11.40 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Acland, Francis D.

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Shee, James John

  Addison, Dr. Christopher

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwaite, R. L

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hogge, J. M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Holmes, D. T.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rothe nam)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pointer, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Ponsonby, Arthur W. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Been, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. George)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

  Radford, George Haynes

  Boland, John Pius

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Reddy, Michael

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William A. (Tyrone, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John (Battersea)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rendall, Atheistan

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

  King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Molten, S.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clancy, John Joseph Lambert,

  Richard (Cricklade)

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Robinson, Sidney

  Clynes, John R.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbr'ld, Cockerm'th)

  Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Cullinan, John

  Lundon, Thomas

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Louth)

  Lyell, C. H.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton).

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

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Col.

  Dawes, James Arthur

  MacGhee, Richard

  Sheehy, David

  De Forest, Baron

  Maclean, Donald

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Doris, William

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Thomas J.

  Smith, Albert (Clitheroe)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S,)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  MacPherson, James Ian

  Sutherland, John E.

  Falconer, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sutton, John E.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Wadsworth, John

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Meagher, Michael

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Millar, Duncan

  Watt, Henry A.

  Glanville, Harold James

  Molloy, Michael

  Webb, H.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  White, James Dundas (Tradeston).

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

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

  Greig, Colonel James William

  Morgan, George Hay

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Muldoon, John

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Gulland, John William

  Munro, Robert

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Murray, Capt., Hon. Arthur C.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Hackett, John

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. M'Kinnon (Glas.)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, William (Perth, East)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Deherty, Phillip

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Dowd, John

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. G. Howard and Capt. Guest.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Malley, William

  Havelock-Allen, Sir Henry

  O'Neill, Dr Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Mr. C. E. PRICE: Can the hon. Member give us any information with regard to the different buildings taken in Edinburgh for working the Insurance Act? Certain offices have been started.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I would remind the hon. Member that this Vote is a Supplementary Estimate for Salaries. It is not a Vote for building of any kind.
  Amendment negatived.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 46.

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Aitken, Sir William M.

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Benn, Arthur S. (Plymouth)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bird, Alfred

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Burn, Col. C. R. (Torquay)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

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

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerry, Earl of

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A Boner (Bootle)

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Newman and Mr. Sandys.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL EXPENSES.—(Class III.)
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses."
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move "That Item B (Expenses incurred under various Treaties with Foreign Powers and under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 44 and 45 Vic., c. 69) be reduced by £100."
  I desire to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Item B:—
  "Expenses incurred under various Treaties with Foreign Powers. And under the Fugitive Offenders Act."
  The vote has been increased by £750. The explanation at the end is:—
  "Additional sum required for expenses incurred in arresting and delivering up to the proper authorities persons whose extradition from the United Kingdom may be demanded under various Treaties with Foreign Powers which impose this charge upon the United Kingdom."
  If one wished to be hypercritical, one might object to the suggestion that any treaty could impose a charge on the United Kingdom; because from the purely constitutional point of view a treaty is the act of the Sovereign acting on the advice of his responsible Ministers, and the Sovereign has no power to impose a charge. But the question I wish to ask is whether there was any particular reason for this increase, and in respect of what countries the extra charge became due. I have always understood that under these treaties the expenses of extradition were borne by the country making the demand for extradition. I have not had time to consult many treaties, but I can give two
  646
  cases. In the treaty with Servia in 1902, Article XVI. provides:—
  "All expenses connected with extradition shall be borne by the demanding State."
  Again, in the treaty with Peru in 1904, Article XVI. provides:—
  "All expenses connected with extradition shall be borne by the demanding State."
  In the face of that, I should like to know what are the countries to whose demands for extradition the extra charge is due, and whether in point of fact we are bound to make these payments.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the names of the countries with which these treaties exist, and I am not sure that I should be in order in doing so on a Supplementary Estimate. I am informed that in many cases the treaties take the form of reciprocal obligations, although that is evidently not the case with regard to Servia. I should be happy to give further information on that point if the hon. Gentleman puts down a question. As to the fresh expenditure, there has been some unusually costly cases, in connection with extradition from our colonies. One had to be borne from West Australia and another from South Africa. There was also a very expensive case in the London Extradition Court, which obtained considerable notoriety in the public Press—the case concerning a gentleman named Wells, "Monte Carlo Wells." In such a Vote a very close estimate is impossible. There must be a certain amount of variation from year to year in accordance with the number of cases that arise. Under these circumstances no criticism lies against the extra amount which we have to vote on the Supplementary Estimates.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not anxious to press the right hon. Gentle-

  647
  man, but I would point out to him that his explanation is not consistent with the explanation given on the Paper. He has referred to the extra cost of extradition from Western Australia and South Africa.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: In part.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In part; but that is wholly besides this explanation on the Paper. These extraditions from South Africa and Western Australia took place under the Fugitive Offenders Act. In the second place the explanation on the Paper says that the cost is due to extradition from the United Kingdom and not to extradition from the Colonies. Therefore the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman does not pull the Government out. But it would be unfair to press the right hon. Gentleman hardly. At the same time the Committee must remember that this is the only opportunity we have to discuss this matter. I shall take the opportunity in the usual way by Question and Answer of getting further information, and on that understanding, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move "That Item F 1 (inquiries before the Wreck Commissioner) be reduced by £100."
  The items of this estimate have been divided by a number of other matters wholly irrelevant to the question, which will increase the time and add to the inconvenience of hon. Members in dealing with it. When I was speaking on Class II. (8) of the Board of Trade (certain law charges) I referred to the exception that had been made in the case of the inquiry that followed the "Titanic" disaster. Here the Government decided that the Law costs of those connected with the disaster should be paid by the Government. They not only allowed solicitors' charges, but authorised solicitors to brief counsel. It is perfectly true that it was expressly understood that this was not to create a precedent. I called the attention of the Committee to the fact that in this particular case of an appalling disaster the Government felt it necessary that they should bear the expense, and that the poor people should not.
  I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the particular Sub-section of the Vote it states in
  648
  the explanation (F) that the additional sum is required to pay fees to stipendiary magistrates, magistrates' clerks, local court keepers, etc. It has been very rightly said that there is much virtue in the word "if." I venture to say that there is much virtue, so far as this case, that I want to put before the Committee is concerned, in the little abbreviation "et cetera." If it were not the fact that it has become the general rule under the rules of the Board of Trade that law costs should not be allowed the question of law costs, up or down, would be, no doubt, of annual consideration in Committee upon these Estimates. But there have been some cases quite recently in which the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to this matter, and it appeared obvious to the legal officials, Wreck Commissioners, magistrates, and others considering these cases that they should be disabled from allowing law costs as they would in any other case. And because it has been the invariable rule not to allow these law costs they have been forced to disallow them.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have some difficulty in apprehending the point the hon. Gentleman is making. I think his point is that because the costs in the preceding Votes were allowed to other parties similar practice ought to be followed in connection with these Votes and that a similar practice ought to be followed.
  Mr. PETO: That is not entirely it. This Vote deals with the sum required under the heading of Inquiries before Magistrates and Wreck Commissioners, and, therefore, this is the only Vote on which the question can possibly be raised as to whether or not the law costs of the officers and masters are or are not included in this Vote.
  The CHAIRMAN: As I understand the hon. Gentleman, he thinks the present practice requires to be varied. Is that his point?
  Mr. PETO: The present general practice, and that the special practice put into force in the case of the "Titanic" Inquiry should become general.
  The CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise here.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:
  Ayes, 162; Noes, 38.

  Division No. 593.]

  AYES.

  [12.1 a.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Hayward, Evan

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Shee, James John

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Outhwa te, R. L.

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Hodge, John

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Hogge, James Myles

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Barnes, George N.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Pointer, Joseph

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

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

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Radford, G. H.

  Boland, John Plus

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Joyce, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Brady, P. J.

  Keating, Matthew

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  King, J.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Clough, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Lundon, T.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cullinan, John

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

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

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

  Dawes, J. A.

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Sheehy, David

  De Forest, Baron

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Doris, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Duffy, William J.

  McGhee, Richard

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Falconer, James

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Sutton, John E.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Harold John

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Gladstone, W G. C.

  Meagher, Michael

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Glanville, H. J.

  Millar, James Duncan

  Wadsworth, J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Griffith, Ellis Jones

  Morgan, George Hay

  Watt, Henry Anderson

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

  Muldoon, John

  Webb, H.

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Munro, R.

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Hackett, J.

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, W. T.(Westhoughton)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O'Malley, William

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Baird, J. L.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Greene, W. R.

  Sandys, G. J.

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bird, A.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Wills, Sir Gilbert

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Clive, Captain Percy Archer

  Locker-Lampoon, O. (Ramsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Watson Rutherford and Mr. Peto.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE.—(Class III.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending
  650
  on the 31st day of March, 1913, for the Salaries of the Office of Public Trustee."
  Mr. EYRES-MONSELL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do now report: Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

  651
  I think it is time when the Committee might usefully postpone its deliberations until to-morrow. I will give my reasons very shortly. First, it is now after Twelve o'clock. It might be argued that this is Monday, the first day of the week; but it is not the ordinary first day of the week, because we have had a Saturday Sitting, and Members are not as refreshed as they usually are when they come back to the House on a Monday. Speaking for myself, I feel as though it were the eighth day of last week instead of the first day of this. Secondly, we have voted a good deal of money this afternoon, at the rate of about £350 per minute since Four o'clock; and, thirdly, I think it is too late to keep the Committee up correcting the mistakes of various Government Departments who grossly under-estimated the expenditure in their original Estimates.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I hope I may appeal to the Committee not to do anything of the kind. The sole reason for proceeding with these Estimates is for the general convenience of the House. The only alternative, as the Prime Minister pointed out last week, is to sit next week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Saturday Sitting."] I do not think that would be for the general convenience of the House, certainly not judging by the attendance last Saturday. The Debate is proceeding in a perfectly tranquil and pleasant fashion, and the speeches are quite clear and intelligible. The big controversial subjects have all been disposed of. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, the subjects that have involved considerable questions of policy, such as the Insurance or the "Titanic" Estimate have been disposed of, and I am quite sure the Committee is perfectly willing and fit to continue a sane and reasonable discussion of this public expenditure.
  I want to point out that if on any Vote there is any matter which was not thoroughly debated or reported this evening it can be discussed when it comes up again on the Report stage. It has been a very usual thing. I am not trying to go into any controversial point. It was done last year, and I believe in previous years. Hon. Members agreed that certain Votes should be passed quickly in the Committee stage; that not having been fully discussed in the Committee stage, they should be debated at some length on the Report
  652
  stage. If the Report stage proves insufficient for Debate of some of these points they may be discussed on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill on the next day, and if omitted from that discussion they may be brought up on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. There are, therefore, these two or three days on which they can be debated, and, therefore, I ask hon. Members whether they cannot see their way to finish the Committee stage on these Supplementary Estimates to-night. It is not so much to the advantage of the Government, as for the convenience of the whole House. Without the conclusion of the Committee stage to-night, it will be impossible for the business of the House to be finished this week.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree that the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill gives an opportunity for the effectual discussion of the remaining Supplementay Votes. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill the discussion is switched off from one subject to another and that there is not the advantage of seeing the Minister opposite and nailing into him the point you wish to insist upon, and compelling an answer to the points you have raised. With regard to the convenience of the House I must say that I do not think it matters very much whether we adjourn on Friday or Monday. We have been here thirteen months and if you multiply thirty by thirteen you get 390 days. Really it does not matter whether we sit 390 days or 391 If the right hon. Gentleman had said three months ago that we should adjourn, then it would have been a different matter altogether. I think it is necessary that we should not discuss these important matters, which still remain, at an early hour of the morning. The right hon. Gentleman said that all the controversial matters had been passed, but I must remind him that one of those remaining is the Civil Contingencies Fund. That is a very vital and important question and if we go on we should probably be discussing it at Two o'clock in the morning. I think he should postpone that Vote at least until tomorrow. There is also the Treasury Chest. I think that is a fair proposal. He sees the amiable spirit in which we are at the present moment and I think he should respond in the same spirit.
  Captain CRAIG: May I point out the very great difference between offering us

  653
  a discussion on the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates and having a full discussion in Committee. As every hon. Member knows you cannot probe financial matters to the bottom on the Report stage. You can only speak once in moving a reduction and the consequence is that you have to make a more or less set speech. In Committee where you have question and answer across the floor of the House you can get very much quicker to the real point. With regard to the alternative of sitting next week that is what we have been urging upon the Prime Minister from time to time, because that alternative means that you will get proper discussion for these very important subjects. Nobody can pretend that these important subjects can be properly discussed at this hour, or, probably, during the whole of this week. Business of great importance has to come on upon these Estimates, not only to-night but to-morrow night. The consequence is that Bills are brought in in a most unfinished state. We had an example of that last Thursday, when the Chief Secretary, after a long, tiring day, moved the Second Reading of a Bill of far-reaching importance, and although stating that it was an agreed Bill, explained that he had to cut out Clauses 1 and 2. It is impossible to have proper discussion at this late period of the Session, with the result that legislation is slipshod, and further legislation is necessary in a future Session to correct the mistakes made by tired legislators.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that all the important points were disposed of, but my hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) has given an instance of one question he desires to raise, another hon. Member wants to discuss the Treasury Chest Vote, and my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Baird) desires to discuss the Vote for Colonial Services. That contradicts the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that only trivial matters remain for discussion. If ever a case was made out for reporting Progress, it is made now. As to a Saturday sitting my hon. Friends and the Nationalist party will agree that seldom has there been a better discussion than the one we had on Saturday last, when everybody felt free to protest against the Government's action. No one can deny that it was conducted in good temper, with the result that the country was informed as to the views held on that important matter. If the business cannot be finished by Saturday, let us sit next week. In these days of prolonged Sessions,
  654
  what does it matter if we begin a fresh week, so long as the work we are sent here to do, and are paid for doing, is properly done. The Government's plan is to do the work badly; ours is to earn our pay, stay on, and legislate properly.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: My reason for supporting this Motion is that I have been taken by surprise by your ruling, Sir, and I wanted an opportunity of investigating the matter. I have no doubt your ruling was perfectly right—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss my ruling.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I was so much taken by surprise that it was impossible for us to continue the discussion on the lines upon which we started out. I very strongly object to these Supplementary Estimates being rushed. We have in this Paper a list of the mistakes of the Government Departments. They have over-estimated and they have under-estimated. They have made mistakes with regard to Appropriations-in-Aid and they have made mistakes, both up and down, with regard to sums wanted for the different Departments. It has been the invariable practice in past years to give abundant opportunity to go into these questions of the Supplementary Estimates. I have looked through the reports of several years gone by and I find that no Government has ever sought to curtail discussion or to try to evade points which have been raised. This is the first time that there is a decided attempt on the part of a Government to shirk investigation into their mistakes. They have deliberately announced the House is to adjourn, if possible, on a certain day, and they have sought to push the business up against that day in such a manner as to evade a proper discussion upon this series of errors disclosed in the Supplementary Estimates. It is shabby behaviour.
  I do not know that any right hon. Gentleman opposite is more responsible than another, except perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman). It is clear that he has not exercised that care over the expenses incurred by his colleagues which he ought to have exercised. One thing I particularly complain about is the way that this Paper has been prepared. In past years we have always had the items given us showing what the different sums really consist of. On this occasion it has been considered sufficient

  655
  to lump them altogether, to give the total amount and to give a more or less misleading note underneath as to what it is about. A certain sum is put down as being incurred under the Fugitive Offenders Act. When you look at it and the explanation you find it has not been incurred under that Act, but in consequence of some of the treaties with foreign countries being different from others. We have got to pay, not as was explained from the Treasury Bench, but on an entirely different head. I am using that

  Division NO.594.]

  AYES.

  [12.25 a.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Aitken, Sir W. M.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Greene, W. R.

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby),

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bird, A.

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Sandys, G. J.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Mildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Clive, Captain Perecy Archer

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Eyres-Monsell and Captain Gilmour.

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Pete, Basil Edward

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Muldoon, John

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Munro, R.

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

  Barnes, George N.

  Hayward. Evan

  Needham, Christopher Thomas

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Hazleton, Richard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Henry, Sir Charles

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hogge, James Myles

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Boland, John Pius

  Holmes, Daniel Turner

  O'Dowd, John

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Brady, P, J.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  O'Malley, William

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cawley, H. T. (Heywood)

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  O'Shee, James John

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Clough, William

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Keating, Matthew

  Parry, Thomas H.

  Cotton, William Francis

  King, J.

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

  Crumley, Patrick

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

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Cullinan, John

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Pointer, Joseph

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

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Dawes, J. A.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  De Forest, Baron

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Doris, William

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Duffy, William J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare, E.)

  Falconer, James

  Lundon, T

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lynch, A. A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Robinson, Sidney

  Glanville, H. J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Goldstone, Frank

  McGhee, Richard

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Griffiths, Ellis Jones

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

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

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

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

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

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Sheehy, David

  Hackett, J.

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  point as an illustration of the slipshod and misleading manner in which these items are brought up. At this hour it is reasonable that we should adjourn in order that we may have an opportunity of looking further into these items, and especially in view of the decision already given from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 32; Noes, 158.

  Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Wason, John (Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Webb, H.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)

  Toulmin, Sir George

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

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

  Ure, Rt. Hon, Alexander

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I assume it is a very small amount of increase we are asked for on this Vote, but I think it will be generally conceded that it is a very important matter. When you come to refer to the original Estimate it will be found that that Department of the Public Trustee is very largely self-supporting. As I was responsible principally in this House for the opposition to the Act which appointed the Trustee, and, I confess, did my very best to oppose its being passed, I think it is only reasonable I should take this opportunity of admitting that, having had some experience of the working of that office, it is carried on in the most efficient and excellent manner. A good many of the anticipations which many of us formed in regard to its general working have not been achieved. It is a very excellent thing to see we are asked for so little both on the original Estimate and on this Vote. In this Estimate there is evidently only a nominal sum of £10 affected.
  I take it that the object of preparing Supplementary Estimates in this rather surprising manner is to give that opportunity which the House ought to take to deal with these matters of the office and the expenses in the office of the Public Trustee. It is very satisfactory to find that we have still got £14,000 or £15,000, more of fees, in addition to the amount that is voted and that these fees are practically all profit. I do not think that anybody could reasonably object to pass this Vote which only asks us now for £10 in a formal manner in order to authorise the closing of the accounts of the Public Trustee. I am very grateful to you and to the Committee for allowing me at this late hour of the morning to say a few words of appreciation of the very excellent manner in which the Public Trustee and his staff are carrying their onerous and exceedingly difficult, on many occasions, duties cast upon them. It may not be known generally that a vast quantity of the cases that come to the Public Trustee are cases of great complexity and difficulty. I am very grateful
  658
  for the way in which the Treasury have put this Vote. They need not have asked for £10, but seeing that they are giving £1,000 in extra salaries I have not the slightest doubt that the extra wages this represents have been very well earned.
  Mr. PETO: Before the Vote is passed, I would like to ask whether the hon. Member who has just spoken is right in saying that this sum of £14,000 represents a real profit to the State from the beginning of the Public Trustee? Will the right hon. Gentleman responsible for this. Department state the actual profit to the State by the appointment of the Public Trustee?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I could not do that on a Supplementary Estimate. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute he has paid. This is merely a token vote in order that the House may be conversant with the fact that there is a great expansion of work—more salaries to pay; more fees to receive.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  COLONIAL SERVICES.—(Class V.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
  Mr. BAIRD: I do not want to move a reduction of this amount. On the contrary, I think that it is one of the best things the Government have done since they adopted the deplorable policy with regard to Somaliland, introduced some two and a half years ago. But I should like to call attention to the extraordinary proceeding of this Estimate. I suppose there was no other way of dealing with the question, and I am not disposed to cavil at that, but I think we are entitled on this occasion to treat it is a complete change of policy, and I hope we may be allowed to treat the subject rather more broadly than it has been possible to do in

  659
  connection with the other Votes. That this is a change of policy I think is made clear by a passage in the speech of the Colonial Secretary on 21st January. He said:—
  "In order to stop any tribal looting I thought it desirable that steps should be taken, and last summer I authorised the raising of a camel constabulary of roughly about 150 men and three officers."
  That was a new departure, and what I should like to know is how far the Colonial Secretary can say at the present time that policy of increasing the armed forces in the Protectorate is to be extended, and what reason he has for thinking that this attempt to arm and train a body of 150 men is adequate to deal with a population of some 200,000 tribes in the Interior. There is this danger, as it seems to me, in this policy, that if you decide to withdraw to the coast and live inside barbed-wire entanglements, it is not necessary to have any armed bodies to operate outside. You cannot move outside, and you must leave the unfortunate tribes who live outside to suffer the fate with which anybody who knows the country prophesied they would suffer when we abandoned it. They are handed over to the Mullah, and have to make the best of a bad job. This new policy of arming a body of constabulary indicates the readiness of the Government to intervene once more in the internal affairs of the tribes of Somaliland. Indeed, as the Colonial Secretary says, the object of raising this force was to stop inter-tribal looting—that is to say, looting outside the towns which we occupy—and that certainly is a very important new departure. I should like, in this connection, to remind the House of the extent to which we are involved by this new departure. In March, 1910, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who was at that time, I think, Under-Secretary for the Colonies, in the course of his speech said:—
  "I hope the Committee will have confidence in the Government, and will believe that we are endeavouring to relieve the coast to strengthen the situation, and to contract the area of our responsibilities in Somaliland, and, at the same time, in justice to our obligations to those who, through mistaken policy on our part, have been led to rely to some extent, at any rate, upon the protection of our Military forces."
  I had not any confidence in the Government then, and have not got any now. What happened was precisely what everybody prophesied would happen. Somaliland was then in a more or less peaceful and contented condition—at least a large part of it, or, at any rate, it was shared between the Mullah and ourselves, he
  660
  keeping order in his part and we in ours; but now we not only arm the tribes who are friendly to us, but by so doing make a very handsome present of arms to the Mullah. Let me quote a passage from the report of the Commissioner of Somaliland, issued in 1910. He said:—
  "The total population of the tribes with whom we have treaties of protection may be roughly estimated at 200,000, though only about one-half that number will he immediately affected by the withdrawal."
  One hundred thousand is quite a considerable number of men, and they were affected, and very unfavourably affected, by the withdrawal, because they were handed over to the tender mercies of the Mullah. The Commissioner went on—
  "They (that is these 200,000) have for the most part been in co-operation, and, though some are not in immediate danger, may be described as luke-warm, and their apathy is due more to their reliance on us to protect them against danger, than any disloyalty to us or leaning towards the Mullah whom they have now learnt by experience to hate and fear."
  I expect they hate and fear him a great deal more now, and I venture to say it is a serious thing when you remember that we bad nine or ten treaties with these tribes which, so far as I am aware, have never been abrogated. We have simply informed the tribes we cannot do any more for them, and they must look after themselves. We cannot behave like that in Africa when you have a large native population under a native sovereign, as you have in Abyssinia, next door. It is bound to react on our prestige, and, indeed, does, as was made perfectly clear in the speech delivered only a night or two ago by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Glazebrook), who had just returned from Somaliland and Abyssinia:—
  "Of course, there has always been inter-tribal fighting and feuds from time immemorial, but during the British occupation those feuds were in a state of suspension and there was comparative prosperity in the country. Now that we have evacuated the country and handed over a large number of rifles, I think 20,000, to the Friendlies to protect themselves against the Mullah the inter-tribal fighting has broken out again throughout a very large portion of that country. The Mullah, partly probably for purposes of revenge and partly to collect rifles, has been attacking those small bodies which have been supporting us and whom we have now left in the lurch."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1913, col. 38, Vol. XLVII.]
  It is a remarkable thing that everyone who has been out to Somaliland comes home and definitely states that we have left these unfortunate people in the lurch. It is not a good thing to do, and the last thing we did in that connection was when we abandoned the Soudan, and eventually had to undertake a costly expedition to reconquer it. There is no Nile running through Somaliland—I wish there were—but, as the intervening district between

  661
  the coast towns we hold and Abyssinia, owing to the proximity of the Soudan and Uganda, is bound to be an important place for us, we cannot afford to have chaos prevailing in Somaliland, and there is no doubt chaos is the prevailing condition at the present time. It applies not only to Somaliland but also to the neighbouring country of Abyssinia. In Abyssinia, as my hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester, made quite clear, it is impossible now to get justice done in the case of the dispute between Somaliland and Abyssinia and that has affected our prestage very considerably. I hope the Secretary of State for the Colonies will realise that I do not impute blame to him, because I know that, since he has taken over the management of Somaliland and the Colonies in general, there has been a great improvement. He is therefore the last man I wish to quarrel with in this matter. But the Minister for War was so exceedingly confident of the success of this changed policy that he fell upon me with considerable vigour when I ventured to criticise, with rather more knowledge than the right hon. Gentleman had at his disposal, the changes contemplated by the Government.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): I think the hon. Gentleman will admit I have allowed him some considerable latitude, and I hope he will not enlarge upon the point he has now reached but will come back more particularly to the question of the cause for the large increase in respect of the administration and policing of Somaliland.
  Mr. BAIRD: I will endeavour to keep as nearly to the point as I can, but I find it difficult to do so without pointing out that this was the inevitable result of the policy pursued by the Government and advocated by them.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is one of the unfortunate consequences, from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen, of Supplementary Estimates which, as a matter of fact, are as difficult for the Chair as for Members of the Committee. But we must deal with supplementary points and not with those questions which are properly dealt with in discussing the original Estimates.
  Mr. BAIRD: With great respect, Mr. Maclean, we can have no other opportunity for discussing this very important question. It is only for that reason that I have ventured to detain the Committee
  662
  at greater length than I would have dreamt of under other circumstances. The whole principle is at stake in regard to our dealings with subject races in Somaliland and elsewhere. My object is not to quarrel for a moment with the creation of this force; I think it is perfectly right that it is created. But I wish to know how far it is going to lead the Secretary of State. Here is a Supplementary Estimate of £18,000 upon an original Estimate of £8,000. He is now enormously widening the degree in which he is meeting his responsibilities, and I want to know whether he is going to continue on the same lines, and what reason he has for thinking that this is a sufficient and satisfactory sum for meeting, not only the immediate difficulty he has to contend with, but whether he contemplates in the future further increases which I for one would certainly not be disposed to quarrel with if rendered necessary. But I venture to think that if a wiser policy had been pursued in the past it would not have been necessary to ask for this sum.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): It is a complete delusion to suggest, as the hon. Member for Rugby has just done, that this is a complete change of policy. It is nothing of the kind. It is only a continuation of the policy which was adopted by His Majesty's Government years ago. It is notoriously dangerous to prophesy, and with regard to no place more dangerous than Somaliland; but I should like to assure the hon. Member that, so far as foresight and prophesy is possible, there will be no further increase of this force which has just been set up. It is believed to be amply sufficient for the purpose for which it has been established, and I venture to say that it has already had very considerable effect. The punitive expedition of December led to the settlement of two long standing feuds. I think that, even including the cost of the new camel force, the total Protectorate estimate of expenditure in the year 1913–14 is not likely to exceed £50,000. I think the provision we have made is ample to deal with the difficulties, and I think we may anticipate better times in Somaliland.
  1.0 A.M.
  Mr. SANDYS: I am surprised at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he has declared that this sum of £18,000 we are now asked to Vote in connection with military and policing

  663
  measures does not involve any change in the system of administration.
  What is this policy which the right hon. Gentleman tells us he is going to pursue in the future, and for which he requires this armed force to be paid for by the sum of £18,000? If he will forgive me for saying so, our original policy in that country was totally different. We assumed the administration of Somaliland nearly thirty years ago, when we entered into the military occupation of Egypt, because Somaliland was one of the out-lying territories of Ismael Pasha. At that time we undertook the protection of the country, and we had previously made definite arrangements with the chiefs of that country that we would assist and protect them with the help of the British Sovereign. This promise, I admit, we could only carry out with considerable difficulty and expense. On the ground, principally of the cost, we decided to change our policy altogether, and we came to a decision to evacuate the country and to concentrate on the coast—in fact, to adopt a policy which was very strongly advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the present Colonial Secretary's predecessor in office, but which was equally strongly opposed by the then Commissioner of Somaliland, Captain Cordeaux, who had had ten years' experience of the country, and who, as was admitted by the Government, was quite the most able and efficient administrator that the country had ever had. This gentleman's advice was absolutely ignored—as can be seen by an examination of the correspondence published a year or two ago. Captain Cordeaux was removed from his appointment and given another position in another part of Africa, and General Sir William Manning was appointed to succeed him, in order to carry out the Government's policy of evacuation. This discreditable policy was carried out in an equally discreditable way. The tribes for whose protection we had been responsible for over twenty-five years were not given any due notice of what was going to happen.
  Mr. DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean): This is a question of policy affecting Somaliland.
  Mr. SANDYS: My point is that it did affect the whole of Somaliland, and that this is the policy which the right hon. Gentleman now says he is going to carry
  664
  on, and for which purpose he requires this sum of £18,000. At any rate, these instructions were carried out, and this evacuation was carried into effect. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was extremely optimistic of what the result would be. General Sir William Manning, who had had previous experience of the country, because he was in command of the forces there in 1902–1903, was not nearly so optimistic as the right hon. Gentleman was, here in the House of Commons. I do not want to trouble the Committee with quotations from General Manning's letters, but it was quite obvious that, although he was carrying out that policy, he was not at all sanguine as to what the result of it would be. Now, the right hon. Gentleman's speech the other day was equally unsatisfactory. His remarks were more than confirmed by the statement which was made by the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, who had recently visited the country, and who described the absolute state of chaos, anarchy and confusion into which the whole country was thrown. He told us that the country was closed, that the Europeans were now living entirely in the towns, and that the trade routes were quite impassable. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had been passing through some anxious months in connection with the administration of Somaliland. He told us a good deal about cattle driving which was taking place in that country—to which he seems rather leniently disposed, in view of the constitutional attitude of his party in regard to that particular offence—and what struck me as a complete admission on his part was that the policy which he now contends he is continuing—that, of his predecessor—was a complete failure, and he regarded it as a subject for congratulation that the friendly tribes had now practically expended their ammunition.
  When the right hon. Gentleman addressed us on the subject two years ago, he told us that the friendly tribes would be able to look after themselves, and would keep order in the country, because they were going to be provided with rifles and ammunition by the British commander before he completed the evacuation. It is quite obvious, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that all the forecasts of the present Secretary of State for War were completely unreliable, that exactly the opposite has occurred, and that it has happened, exactly as Captain Cordeaux and General Sir William

  665
  Manning pointed out would happen, that instead of there being a fair order and peace in the interior of Somaliland, the whole country has been thrown into chaos and confusion. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do now? He tells us he is going to continue this disastrous policy. He admits, however, that this force, for which he is asking us to vote this money, is necessary, in order to preserve some semblance of order in the immediate neighbourhood of the towns on the coast. When it is remembered that only a few years ago it was quite possible to traverse a very large portion of that country in complete safety, it cannot be described as a continuity of the policy which was previously adopted. At any rate, I hope the fact that we are asked to vote this money for this military force, is an admission on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that this anarchy, which admittedly exists, cannot be allowed to go on, and that these unfortunate people, whom it was part of our policy for many years entirely to discourage from their warlike habits, and to attempt to transform into a peaceful, pastoral people—but whom we have now abandoned to the care of the Mullah—have some claim to our consideration. Our previous policy must be admitted to have been a complete failure. It is perfectly evident, from the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, that what Captain Cordeaux told us was right, and that the Secretary of State for War was absolutely wrong. I do hope that now we are voting this money it is, at any rate, the first step towards restoring order and rescuing from what appears to be absolute ruin, barbarism, and savagery these unfortunate natives, whom we took under our protection between twenty-five and thirty years ago, and the wiping off the slate of this somewhat discreditable episode in our Colonial administration.
  Captain CRAIG: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to my hon. Friend, I want to ask one question with regard to the footnote to this Vote. I would like to point out to him, first of all, that this sum, which is now required, is in addition to, and over and above, the Supplementary Estimate made in July, 1912. This is the second time the right hon. Gentleman has had to correct his Estimate, and to come to this House for more money. I do not think attention has been drawn to that. But what I wish particularly to
  666
  make inquiry about is this, at the bottom Of the page it will be observed that—
  "No surrender will be made, at the close of the year, of such sum as may be issued out of this Grant-in-Aid."
  I think it has been the general practice of the House—and if anyone cares to turn back to the Votes which we have already gone through, it will be observed that that note does not appear in any of the other Votes—that after a Grant-in-Aid has been made towards any Department, or towards, in this case, the Colonial Office—
  Sir A. MARKHAM: On a point of Order, Sir. Hon. Members are snoring here, and we cannot hear what the hon. Member is saying.
  Captain CRAIG: I think it is the custom of the Chair to rule that Members are not allowed to sleep in the House.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see any Members asleep.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: There they are—there.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Any noises associated with somnolence on the part of any Member of the House are certainly not orderly.
  Captain CRAIG: I would like to ask an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, because it has hitherto been the custom that if a specific Vote was made and if it was found possible to effect a saving on that Vote, such saving went towards clearing off the National Debt in the ordinary course. It is quite possible that if that rule was not observed in connection with these sums, which total up nearly £2,500,000, it would be possible to get from the House large sums of money voted towards a specific object, that there would, owing to administration, be a specific saving which could be spent on a policy this House would not have had an opportunity of reviewing.
  Mr. PETO: Have you no authority to get these disorderly persons outside the House?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have no control over persons, orderly or disorderly, outside the precincts of the House. I have heard sounds connected with sleep coming from the Government corner of the House. If these Members are now awake I would ask them, if they desire to resume their slumbers to do so outside the Chamber itself.
  Captain CRAIG: I have just finished. I am sure there is more in this than appears on the surface, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain.
  Mr. HARCOURT: This footnote always appears in these Estimates. This is no new departure. The money is not surrendered at the end of the financial year, but of course if there was a balance over it would decrease the Grant-in-Aid.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  TREASURY CHEST FUND.—(Class V.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £47,418 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for making good the net loss on transactions connected with the raising of money for the various Treasury chests abroad in the year 1911–12."
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are one or two questions I would like to ask, and there is a suggestion I wish to make to the Secretary to the Treasury, who I assume will, in the ordinary course of events, take his place on that Bench. Meantime it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I explain the exact position in which apparently this Vote stands at present. The Committee is going to be asked to vote a sum of £47,418 for making good the net loss on the transactions of the year 1911–12, in regard to the Treasury Chest Fund. It may be there are some Members of the Committee who have not got precisely a recollection of what the Treasury Chest Fund is. I may therefore explain that the Treasury Chest Fund is a somewhat ancient institution indeed, and dates from as far back as I think 1832 or 1833. It has gone under one or two names in the course of its Parliamentary history. Its capital has been successfully or rather progressively diminished fom £1,300,000, which was the original capital sum, to £1,000,000 in 1873 and to £700,000 in 1877. Briefly put I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the fund is really a central banking account under Parliamentary control, for the purpose of laying down money abroad for the public services. I say purposely laying down money for purposes abroad.
  The question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is whether any of this loss has been incurred from the providing of money through the Treasury Chest for home services. It will be within
  668
  the recollection of the Committee that my hon. Friend who sits near me called attention to a gross irregularity on the part of the Government in regard to the administation of this Fund, at an earlier period of the Session. Now since my hon. Friend spoke and since the Secretary to the Treasury rather advocated the attitude of the Government, the Public Accounts Committee of the House have presented a report in which the action of the Government in relation to that has been condemned in the most emphatic manner. What occurred was that the Government being short of £3,400,000 for Post Office purposes and £50,000 for National School teachers in Ireland—both very estimable purposes—they went to this particular fund and used the money from the Treasury Chest Fund for the purpose not of foreign services but for the purpose of these home services. That action has been emphatically condemned in the report of the Public Accounts Committee for this year. They say:—
  "Your Committee adhere to the principle laid down by the Treasury in 1902, based upon the Report of the Public Expenditure Committee of 1861, that the Treasury Chest is a central banking fund which exists for the purpose of laying down funds abroad to carry on the public service generally, and they view with great jealousy any departure from that principle. In the case under review, the Treasury, not having the money to carry on the approved Parliamentary services, and there being no margin in the Civil Contingencies Fund, allowed an encroachment upon the Treasury Chest Fund, although there was no Vote of Parliament to guarantee that the sum borrowed would be repaid to the Fund. Your Committee recognise that an unforseen emergency had arisen and that the course adopted by the Treasury involved no ultimate loss of public funds, but they cannot admit that the emergency justified an encroachment upon the Treasury Chest Fund, which in the words of the Treasury Minute of 1902, 'should only be employed for the legitimate banking operations of the Treasury Chest abroad, and for advances for public and colonial services, repayable out of Votes of Parliament or other funds applicable thereto.' Your Committee are strongly of opinion that to use the Treasury Chest Fund as an auxiliary reserve to the Civil Contingencies Fund is contrary to the wishes of Parliament, and they are glad to learn that the Treasury have no intention, in the event of future emergencies, of repeating the procedure in this case."
  After that emphatic condemnation of the Government, for which the Government apologised on a previous occasion, may we, take it that none of this loss is due to the repetition of a similar transaction—that no money has been advanced from the Treasury Chest for Home service apart from Foreign service. I think it well, in face of the statement of the Public Accounts Committee, that the right hon. Gentleman should give a definite undertaking that it will not be used so again in the future. I come to the more detailed question of how this loss has arisen.

  669
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I might ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I am correct in saying that a great part of this cost has arisen in connection with exchange operations in Hong-Kong?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes, certainly; practically the whole of the loss is in connection with that.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is rather my assumption, but of course the right hon. Gentleman knows, and the Committee will see, the precise extent of the loss in connection with Hong-Kong is not stated, and, therefore, one had rather to assume it. I presume I am right in saying that the general practice in regard to this Fund is that any loss on exchange or any profit on it is charged to Profit and Loss Account. In case of any loss this House is asked to make it good. In the case of profit it is surrendered. This brings me to a matter in regard to which I am glad to have the presence of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City of London (Sir F.
  Banbury), as Chairman of the Estimates Committee. I think there is an important question of policy here. It deals with the public service concerning the Army and Navy. This money which has to be paid in Hong Kong is for the Army and Navy there. It is paid them in local currency, and ever since 1889, under an arrangement made by Mr. Goschen, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, it has been paid to them on the basis of a rate which is fixed on the price of silver in London during the preceding quarter. I think that is a true statement of the case. The Committee will see at once that the effect of that is that if, in the interval, between the preceding quarter in which the rate is fixed and the quarter in which the troops are paid, there is a rise in the market that means a loss to this Fund. If there is a fall in the silver market it means a loss to the troops. In one case the troops are getting more money's worth than is provided for under the ordinary estimate; in the other case they are getting less.
  I have been at some little pains to take out the actual position of the Fund in regard to profit and loss during the twenty-four years in which it has been in existence. I may say that the amount varies very
  670
  considerably. Usually the Fund has made a loss. I think there have only been nine years in which a profit has actually been made, and fifteen years in which there has been a loss. This year the loss is £53,288; in 1902, the profit was £38,359. The total is, roughly speaking, £404,000 for loss, and £108,000 for profit, or a loss over twenty-four years of £295,000. I do not think that is a very satisfactory state of affairs, either from the point of view of the troops or from that of the taxpayers of this country, and may I say in passing, in connection with the loss which has apparently accrued in the year we have under consideration now, and for which the supplementary sum is wanted, that I think a certain amount of it has been due to a want of communication which ought to exist between different Departments. For instance, the loss has been largely caused by the rise in the price of silver since the rate has been struck, very largely due to the operations of the India Office, which went into the market as a large buyer of silver, and I question very much whether the India Office communicated at all with the Treasury their intention of going into the market as a buyer of silver.
  If the Treasury had had that information it is quite obvious they might have made arrangements to avoid the necessity of this further Supplementary Estate. I think a good deal more might be done by communication between the different Departments, but what I want to urge on the Committee is that the Estimates Committee should consider this question about the payment of troops abroad very seriously, because it does not seem that the present system is working in a satisfactory manner. If the price of silver falls in the interval, the troops are getting less money than they ought to have, and the taxpayer is making a profit out of the troops. They are being paid in a nominal amount of currency which is not in practice worth the amount it purports to be worth. I do not think that is right. I do not think this country ought to make a profit out of the troops. If, on the other hand, the price of silver rises, the taxpayer loses. That means the troops are getting more money's worth than this House sanctioned when it passed the original Estimate. I do not think that it is satisfactory either. I admit it is very difficult to suggest the precise method by which it can be avoided. Attempts have been made, and the Public Accounts Committee have called attention

  671
  to it more than once, but I do think it is a very proper matter for the Estimates Committee to consider, and I raise it now in order that, if the right hon. Gentleman does not see any insuperable objection, the Estimates Committee in the coming year may go into the matter with the Treasury, and try to see whether some other arrangement than the present one which has now lasted for twenty-four years and I do not think has ever been satiisfactory, cannot be devised.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I appreciate both the preciseness and the excellent material of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and there was very little in it with which I have any controversy at all. I will briefly deal with both the points he has raised. The hon. Gentleman has very rightly pointed out that since 1878 the Treasury Chest has been in the main confined to the Foreign and Colonial service, and, I believe, although the Act is not specific on the point, the Treasury have always regarded it as the main purpose of the Fund. He also pointed out that the question of the violation of that principle was thoroughly discussed last year and that I came in for a considerable amount of criticism for the works of my predecessors who used some of the money, for a few days only, for the Post Office and for Teachers' Pensions. There is a Minute of the Public Accounts Committee on the subject. We hope to be able to recommend to the Committee in regard to the next Vote a course which will render it altogether unnecessary in the future to suggest that the Treasury Chest Fund should be used for anything but Foreign and Colonial purposes. As the Public Accounts Committee have pointed out, this irregular procedure did not involve any actual loss to the Treasury Chest; the money was replaced in ten days. The hon. Member has pointed out that there is another case this year in regard to the Local Government Board, but this was done on accounts that have not yet come before the Public Accounts Committee. It is not, however, the case that we have deliberately adopted a course against the recommendations of that Committee since the Debate took place in this House.
  I will reserve any remarks I have to make on that until we come to deal with the Civil Contingency Fund. The second point raised by the hon. Member is one of considerable interest. For years we
  672
  have lost on the Treasury Chest Fund. It is due to one cause and one cause alone, that is the loss on the purchase of dollars to pay the troops at Hong Kong. It was due to the system invented by Lord Goschen in 1889, to strike the rate of exchange some months before the money is bought and keep the rate constant for three months. Anything but a constant rate would be absolutely impossible. The Army and Navy do not understand the elaborate operations of exchange, and if the men did not get paid in the usual way there would probably be mutiny. A constant definite rate of pay from one Saturday to another is absolutely essential. The rise in price of silver must continue a loss to the Treasury Chest. Lord Goschen cleverly devised this scheme when there was a continual fall, in consequence of which for years afterwards the Treasury was making a large profit out of the soldiers and sailors. The hon. Member has suggested that the continual loss of £40,000 or £50,000 a year is a subject that should be looked into, and he advised us to refer it to the Estimates Committee. I do not think that is the right Committee for the matter. I think it would be better to have a Committee of Experts to deal with the question of exchange and currency, for it is a larger question than that merely of the Treasury Chest. We think that after this period of twenty-four years it is time to take a review of the whole situation, and we are quite willing to appoint a Committee, I hope an Expert Committee, to go into the whole subject and see if some better method can be devised. I hope after that promise the hon. Member will see that his protest has not been wasted.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I appreciate very much the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I am much obliged to him for his promise. I think it will be for the advantage of the public control of finance and for the public services generally that it should be carried out.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND.—(Class VII.)
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £180,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, for providing an Increase in the Capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund."
  Sir F. BANBURY: I had a little conversation with a Member of the Government on this point, and I do not think it would be advisable to discuss the Estimate now. I understand that the Government will put down the Report stage early, if not first Order, to-morrow, so that we can have the Debate on that stage. Under these circumstances, I am prepared to give them this stage.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If we can put it first, we will, if not we will put it as early as possible. I am most anxious that this should be discussed early to-morrow.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does this mean that the order of the Votes will be reversed?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I made a promise that this Vote should be discussed on Report as early as possible.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I strongly protest against an arrangement which will put off the Insurance Vote. That is at it may be. I certainly protest against any suggestion that such a Vote as the Insurance Vote, which is for £1,800,000, should be placed after a Vote of a comparatively insignificant character, especially as I hold that the whole of these Supplementary Votes arc introduced to mask the fraud connected with the Insurance Vote. These are little trifling, peddling Votes, and there is no necessity whatever for these Votes being put down as Supplementary Estimates. The whole arrangement I regard as fraudulent; I have no hesitation in saying so. To put forward a Civil Contingencies Vote, and to put it in front of the most important Vote of the series which, by a most extraordinary arrangement, is the last of the Votes, is a wholly intolerable proceeding, and would, in my judgment, seem entirely to invert the due importance of these Votes. If anyone would look at the relative amounts of the Votes, I think they will see that. The Civil Contingencies Vote is a small Vote—
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the amount of the Vote does not always indicate the principle which is at stake. This is rather a large principle, and it has not been discussed at all; but, as far as I am concerned, I think the discussion of this Vote on the Report stage would not take more than forty minutes. I do not in the least mind in which order the Vote is taken, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes for the Insurance Vote, so long as it comes on early in the list.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I should be very sorry to inconvenience anybody, but I do think that after the way in which we were treated on Friday night, after the Closure, that this is a Vote of a good deal of importance—£1,825,000—and that, from its amount alone, it is of far more importance than a Vote of £180,000.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: It has always been, the custom—at least ever since I have been Financial Secretary—to take Votes on Report, in order to meet the convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House—which have not been taken on the Committee stage. The Insurance Vote is Vote 8, because it appears last on the Estimates, but so far from being burked or shirked, the whole day was given on Friday, and it is the only Vote for which a whole day has been given. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is quite right in saying that though the Civil Contingency sum is small, the principle is an important one, and we ought to have a good discussion. If we can arrange it, it should go down first on the Report stage. In so far as we can meet the wishes of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. M. Healy) we will see how far we can meet them.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am quite satisfied.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: If we cannot meet his wishes on that day, the hon. and learned Gentleman can raise the whole question on the Appropriation Bill, and we will try to meet him then.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I always recognise the right hon. Gentleman's efforts, and I will accept his promise, but if I raise this Question on the Second and Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, I shall also raise it on the Report stage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday).

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  Resolved, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1913, the sum of £2,618,516 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Masterman.]
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  AERIAL NAVIGATION BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill, which will enable us to be in the same position with regard to air craft which we are in already with regard to ships or boats on the sea. Under the Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1875, approximately the same powers are conferred on the proper authorities as would be conferred on the proper authorities under the Bill, but owing to the fact that in our country air craft are not considered, under our law, to come under the same category as ships or boats or vessels on the sea, it is necessary to have this power to enable us to meet possible difficulties. I would point out to the House that this is not aimed at the air craft of any foreign power, but rather at preventing mischievous persons—possibly from over-sea—from hovering over places where there are combustible stores, to the great inconvenience of the people of this country. As a matter of detail, it will be necessary, in order to put the law on the same footing, that we should have the same power in regard to air craft as to ships.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I simply want to remind the House that we passed a Bill not very long ago, giving the Home Secretary power to prevent our own airmen, I presume, from passing over places such as London and other populous centres, where there might be danger or difficulty, and I confess that I cannot see any reference in this Bill to the provisions of that other Act. Is this Bill intended merely to refer to air craft from overseas, or does it affect any of our own airmen as well?
  Colonel SEELY: If I may explain to the hon. Gentleman. This Bill is to amend that Act, in order to deal with the defences
  676
  of the realm, as in the first Clause, as well as with the safety of the public. The first Act—the Aerial Navigation Act—as he says, prevents aircraft from flying over places like London. This would enable us to prevent aircraft from flying over places where there are combustible stores. This is an Amendment of the other Act, and must be read with it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS).
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient that for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of The Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Act, 1911, service in the permanent Civil Service of the State shall include, and shall be deemed always to have included, pensionable employment in British Protectorates, and other like employment, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any charges which may be incurred by reason thereof."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harcourt, Mr. Masterman, and the Solicitor-General. Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 363.]
  The Orders for the remaining Government business were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes before Two a.m., Tuesday, 11th February.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  MEDICAL BENEFIT.
  NURSES INSURANCE SOCIETY.
  NURSES INSURANCE SOCIETY.
  HOMŒOPATHS (SUPPLY OF DRUGS).
  HOMŒOPATHS (SUPPLY OF DRUGS).
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
  Pension Commutation Acts.
  Pension Commutation Acts.
  Alcohol (Customs Duty).
  Alcohol (Customs Duty).
  Budget, 1913.
  Budget, 1913.
  House of Commons (Refreshment Department).
  House of Commons (Refreshment Department).
  Hackney Carriage Tax.
  Hackney Carriage Tax.
  Customs and Excise Department.
  Customs and Excise Department.
  Land Valuation.
  Land Valuation.
  Government Departments (Soliciting Trade Orders).
  Government Departments (Soliciting Trade Orders).
  Skerries Harbour.
  Skerries Harbour.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Harbour Accommodation (County Down).
  Harbour Accommodation (County Down).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Employment of Children Act (Ireland).
  Employment of Children Act (Ireland).
  Loans for Housing (Ireland).
  Loans for Housing (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  National Education (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants (County Donegal).
  Evicted Tenants (County Donegal).
  River Gunboats.
  River Gunboats.
  Pension Document.
  Pension Document.
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  New Rifle.
  New Rifle.
  Shortage of Teachers (Essex).
  Shortage of Teachers (Essex).
  Barrister Members.
  Barrister Members.
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  Civil Service (Royal Commission).
  British Preferential Tariff (Canada).
  British Preferential Tariff (Canada).
  Johore (Murder of Planter).
  Johore (Murder of Planter).
  West Africa (New Coinage).
  West Africa (New Coinage).
  Abor Expedition.
  Abor Expedition.
  Indian Students (Edinburgh University).
  Indian Students (Edinburgh University).
  Death Sentences (India).
  Death Sentences (India).
  Injured Workmen (Lambeth).
  Injured Workmen (Lambeth).
  Vaccination (Beckenham).
  Vaccination (Beckenham).
  Collapsible Lifeboat.
  Collapsible Lifeboat.
  Labour Exchanges (Hire of Rooms).
  Labour Exchanges (Hire of Rooms).
  Port of London (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Port of London (Fair-Wages Clause).
  Irish Pig Traffic.
  Irish Pig Traffic.
  Marine Department (Board of Trade).
  Marine Department (Board of Trade).
  Taxi-Cab Fares.
  Taxi-Cab Fares.
  Sight Tests (Mercantile Marine).
  Sight Tests (Mercantile Marine).
  Deck Loads.
  Deck Loads.
  Labour Exchanges (Waiters and Domestic Servants).
  Labour Exchanges (Waiters and Domestic Servants).
  Suffragist Outrages.
  Suffragist Outrages.
  State-Owned Atlantic Cable.
  State-Owned Atlantic Cable.
  Table Telephones.
  Table Telephones.
  Inverurie Academy.
  Inverurie Academy.
  Small-Pox (Kirkcaldy).
  Small-Pox (Kirkcaldy).
TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to, one other agreed to with an Amendment, and with several others disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement: The said Amendment and reasons to be printed. (No. 208.)

THE TERRITORIAL FORCE.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON*VISCOUNT MIDLETON rose to call attention to the statistics recently published by His Majesty's Government as to the condition of the Territorial Force; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether the military advisers of the Secretary of State for War are satisfied that the present condition of this Force is such as to enable it to take the field at once upon the despatch of the Expeditionary Force of 160,000 men, and to guarantee the safety of the country in case of invasion by 70,000 Continental troops.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in the course of the present session, which has now lasted for more than a year, we have had an almost unprecedented number of discussions on the condition of the Army and of the Territorial Force. Great as has undoubtedly been the value of these discussions, I hope I may be allowed to plead with your Lordships to-night that we should address ourselves to the question I have ventured to put on the Paper with some limitation. Though it would be possible to do so, I would suggest that we should not discuss one scheme of Army reform as against another scheme; that we should not enter into the many contingencies which we might discuss in connection with foreign politics, either of possible attacks on this country or of nations who may probably be expected to be friendly to us; and that, if possible, we should reserve for some occasion other than this a detailed discussion of our naval, position—that is to say, whether or not we are safe in having the number of ships which are desired by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, a proportion of sixteen to ten, or whether, as has been contended I think from this side of the House, we should attempt a proportion of two to one. What I ask your Lordships to do is to
896
concentrate your minds as far as possible, not on subjects of difference, but on subjects of agreement; not on criticisms of policy of this Government or of the last Government, but rather on the difficulties which are common to all Governments, and with which, I submit, we have not yet found any methods of dealing. Even if we are unable entirely to shut out past controversies, which is, perhaps, not an easy matter, I think we may confine our attention as closely as possible to the difficulty in which we stand in regard to home defence under existing conditions.
Two points are common ground, and are admitted by both sides of the House and by all those who discuss questions of defence. The first is that His Majesty's Government hold themselves liable to despatch abroad a Force the numbers of which they have placed at 160,000 men. Of course it makes a great deal of difference whether the destination of that Force is to protect our own possessions in the East or elsewhere, or whether it is designed to act on the Continent of Europe. But if we admit, as I think his Majesty's Government must admit, that that last contingency has been regarded by them as more than a possibility, then I feel that we have a right to ask that the very certainty of having to face home defence within a fortnight or three weeks with whatever force remains to us after the Expeditionary Force has gone is the only basis on which we can properly discuss the question of defence.
The second point is the degree of vulnerability to foreign attack. Whatever we say with regard to the Navy; whatever may be the relative forces of battleships, of cruisers, and of torpedo boats; whatever we may feel as to the effect of the increased range of submarines, as to the effect also of aeroplanes or wireless telegraphy; and, above all, even if we feel, and I know thin may be argued, that the increased range of submarines will render it difficult for fleets to encounter in the narrow seas and they may be driven out into the Atlantic—whatever conclusion, in fact, you may arrive at, I say that if we were to argue at length all the points involved in the constantly changing conditions of naval strategy and equipment there would still remain one point that does not change: that is that naval warfare never can be an exact science. It is impossible for

897
anybody to argue, I think, that if you are going to handicap your commanders by telling them that they must be at all points round our coasts in a majority at any given moment you are not going to put upon them limitations of their activity and their strategy which in war can only lead to disaster. Therefore I think I am justified in saving that the first point is established—that our Expeditionary Force will go; and the second point, that we have to provide against naval attack, is one that is accepted by all parties in this House.
I hope that in this debate, at all events, we shall not be too closely bound by what may be the exact naval opinion as to the degree of our vulnerability. There has been one naval war in recent experience—that between Russia and Japan. I know that I am speaking by the book when I say that the calculations of our Admiralty as to the probable results of the encounters in that war were as far removed from the actual results as were the calculations of our War Office as to the probable results of the South African War in the earlier stages when they had to equip the first expedition. Those two affirmative points I would ask your Lordships to couple with one which is a negative. I hope we shall not be met on this question by the statement, which it is so easy for the Government to make, that it is quite true it is part of our policy to equip an Expeditionary Force which at any time can leave these islands, but we should never think of despatching it, or should only despatch a portion of it, if we were in danger at home. I believe that to be an absolute fallacy. You cannot make war on a limited liability of that description any more than you cannot go into battle without incurring risks. It is obvious that you may have to send your Force abroad when the sky looks comparatively clear, and that the sky may become overcast after they have been some months engaged. Again, I do not believe that if the Government ever have it in their minds to send an Army to the Continent they will be permitted to send an Army which is weaker by a single man than that which we can afford to despatch. I do not want to go into this most difficult and debatable question, but if we are to support any allies in striking a blow because we recognise that war cannot be brought to an end by defensive action alone, you will have barely enough to make an Army if you send 160,000 men, and to send fewer
898
—to reserve them at home—would, I think, be a cause of great criticism in this country.
There is one point which makes me feel strongly on this question. I know it has been the custom in the past to assure the War Office that certain things would be required of them, and that for certain other things they need make no preparation at all. I had twelve years experience at the War Office, and I can assure your Lordships that in every single case where we had the declarations of Cabinets in public and in private that we were not to prepare for certain contingencies we had ultimately to meet those contingencies. Great as had been the criticism in Parliament against the attempt to organise our forces so that we could send a large number of them out of this country with great promptitude in case of need, every man in this House will recollect what a disappointment it was to the nation when at the beginning of the South African War it was found that the noble Marquess behind me, who had equipped and despatched 70,000 men, was not able to send 200,000 abroad within three months, although he did send them probably within six months after the outbreak of hostilities. It is in the recollection also of every man in this House that there was no subject in regard to which the Government of that day incurred more odium and reproach than the supply of horses, although we were sending out to South Africa in a single week between 2,000 and 3,000 horses. That was the number which was normally bought for the British Army in a year, and yet people were surprised that out of the 120,000 horses sent in a single year there were 117,000 that did not come up to the standard of the 2,000 or 3,000 normally purchased. Therefore I say that we must act up to our own commonsense in the matter, and must not be put off by the Government's professions that they honestly believe they will not require certain services when all experience shows that those services will undoubtedly be required.
My submission is that if we have to send 160,000 men abroad our position at home must fill every man who has studied it independently with the greatest disquietude. The comments of all the leading military authorities in this House, of all those who

899
have served in the Army and are now doing their best for the Territorial Force, and of all those who have had a share in administering the Army, have been in the same direction. I do not want to go back on the weakening of any part of our military forces, because I think it is desirable that we should have regard rather to the condition of things as they now exist. But may I say that I have always deeply regretted the reduction effected in the Regular Army, a reduction which was in opposition to the opinion of every military administrator who had sat at the War Office for twenty years before. Our Regular Army being 20,000 or 30,000 men weaker than it was, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, when at the head of the War Office, hoped to make it up by the increased number of the Special Reserve who would go abroad, and by the increased efficiency of the Territorial Army who would remain at home. These are the figures: You require 160,000 men to go out with the Expeditionary Force. I understand that the wastage of war in the case of the men of an Army landed on the Continent may be taken at about 25 per cent. in the first month. The whole story of the Franco-German war, from the skirmish at Saarbrück to the great surrender at Sedan, was only about a month, and I believe that you could not take fewer than 30,000 or 40,000 men as the probable numbers of the drafts which would have to be shovelled after the main Army, thus making a total of 200,000 in all to be provided. Against this you have the Home Establishment of 130,000 men; you have 140,000 Army Reserve; and you have about 50,000 of the Special Reserve who might be considered available for foreign service by the terms of their engagement. You have, therefore, 320,000 men, of whom 200,000 would have to go with the main Expeditionary Force, or would have to follow as drafts to repair the wastage of war. The margin that is left is an illusory one. The 120,000 men include about 25,000 in the Army Reserve, which when it falls to its normal level of 115,000 in two years time will no longer exist as a practical force. The 120,000 also include the whole percentage of the sick and temporarily incapacitated among the 320,000 men. They include about 45,000 recruits who will not even have done their drills. I think you may say, therefore, that out of that 120,000 men there will be enough to man the seventy-four battalions of the Special
900
Reserve after a manner, but the whole, or nearly the whole, of the trained men in this country ready to go abroad will have been exhausted when you have sent out the Army of 160,000 and the drafts which must go within three weeks of its landing to repair the wastage.
But the position is worse than that, Not only will all the trained men have gone, but you will have more than exhausted the whole number of trained officers available. What is left behind? I do not want to draw a lurid picture of the Special Reserve. I know everything has been done that the War Office can do to try to induce men by pay, and officers by every consideration that can be offered to join the Special Reserve. But the truth is that you cannot get men in time of peace to agree to serve abroad wherever they may be required on the outbreak of war unless you put them on an entirely different footing from that on which you are putting the officers of the Special Reserve. They are men with other avocations, they have their, own lives to lead, and to ask them to take upon themselves this enormous liability, which even in the case of the voluntary progress to South Africa of the Militia caused some very heavy losses, is to require of them something which in point of fact they are not willing to undertake. The condition of the Special Reserve at this moment is deplorable. There are 60,000 men and 2,000 commissioned officers. They are short of 30,000 men and 1,000 officers, The Infantry alone is short of one-third of its officers, and those it has have only been obtained by cutting down by one-half the training which the noble and learned Viscount said was necessary for them, when he first established them. Moreover, of the total of 60,000 no fewer than 20,000 are boys under 19 years of age. From what I have said your Lordships can judge what will be the state of the 74 Special Reserve battalions which are the sole remnant that will be left in this country of Regulars or semi-Regulars after the Expeditionary Force has gone. They will no doubt be strong in men. But what can a battalion do which is made up of untrained and immature boys, beginning at the age of 17; of the sick remnants of other battalions; and of a few trained men who were not fit to go out with the Expeditionary Force? These battalions, without cohesion, without knowledge of each other, with very little more than half their non-commissioned

901
officers, and with so great a depletion of officers, cannot be regarded as complete battalions. They really could not be supposed by any military man to be fit to take part in the operations of a mobile force. I really think I shall not be going beyond the mark if I adopt a phrase used some years ago and say that the state of the Special Reserve, after it has furnished what it will be called upon to do to the Regular Army, will be one in which peace is a necessity so far as they are concerned. I know the present Secretary of State for War is doing his best to devise means to fill up the numbers of men so as to make good the shortage, and to find the required total of officers; but I contend that until the whole force is in a different position from what it is at present, it must be admitted that the entire defence of England, after the Expeditionary Force has gone, will fall on the Territorial Army.
What is the burden you ask them to bear? I have put in the Question which I have addressed to the Government the number of 70,000 men as the possible total who would be engaged in an invasion, because that has been taken as the number which it was held was possible might invade the country under certain conditions. But I do not mind even if the Government were to say that they are no longer apprehensive of an invasion by 70,000 men, but they think it is more likely that small raids of less than one-third of that number in some cases might possibly be the contingency we should have to meet. It sounds very magnificent to say, "If we have 10,000 or 15,000 men of the enemy landing in two different places, do you really think 250,000 men of the Territorial Army could not deal with them?" But I go back and I think of the trouble which less than 20,000 untrained men gave to the 50,000 best troops in the British Army for nearly six months in Natal, ten years ago; and I think of that same number of trained Continental troops, landed no matter where in this country, and having to be put out by the Territorial Army. I do not know whether it is realised that at the very time when such raids were taking place it would not be possible to denude London and our other leading ports of all the men of the Territorial Army; so that in any event there would not be a very large number left for the purpose of expelling these invaders, even if they came only in the small force which I have mentioned.
I do not think we ought to be denounced as unpatriotic or ungenerous if we look these facts in the face. It is not in the least unpatriotic to tell the country what every military critic on the Continent knows perfectly well is the condition of our Territorial Force. It is not ungenerous because I am inviting your Lordships and the Government to do their best to supplement the great efforts which have been made in order to render this Force more effective for the service which it is designed to carry out. What is unpatriotic and ungenerous is to attempt continually to shroud the defects of the Territorial Force, and to tell them they are fit to do that which every one who knows anything about military affairs is aware they cannot accomplish. I deprecate the spirit in which the Under-Secretary for War spoke the other night when he said that all you have to do is to tell the Territorials they are fine fellows and they will become finer fellows. They are, I grant, doing all that they can, and really more than they can afford to do, in trying to meet our demands, and I think you cannot do a more ungenerous or a more unpatriotic action than to send them to carry out a duty for which their military training has not enabled them to fit themselves; to shepherd them into what Lord Wolseley called "a certain shambles"; to make them what Lord Roberts has described as a "national danger." I do not feel in saying this that I am casting any slur on the scheme of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, because what he laid down as a necessity has not been realised.
Your Lordships all know the figures, but perhaps for the sake of putting them on record I ought to give them, so that it may be shown how far short the numbers have fallen of the intentions of the originator of the scheme. The establishment is 11,200 officers, and the strength is 9,200; the establishment of men is 303,000, and the strength is 252,000. Of the officers, nearly 1,400, and of the men 33,000 did not attend camp last year. From 40,000 to 50,000 of the men are recruits, and 112,000, or nearly one-half the Force, either failed in musketry or were not tested in musketry last year. As regards the Artillery, its value, I say, speaking as a civilian but after listening to military critics, is doubtful. There is one aspect of the Territorial Force which I am sure every man of military knowledge will agree with me is most

903
serious. If any man accustomed to war were asked to take command of that Force to-morrow, he would find it quite impossible to judge of the value of the troops he had under him. Some regiments are first-rate and some are less reliable; but there has been no attempt, such as was made by the last Government, to brigade for the purposes of a field army only those on whom the reports were such by the brigadiers as to show that they were fit to take their place in a large body of troops. You have mixed the good, the bad, and the indifferent indiscriminately. I sympathise greatly with the noble Viscount in that he has not been able to obtain all that he asked for. He has treated the Force with the utmost liberality; he has shown every sympathy that he could do with their efforts; and I believe that in placing them under the County Authorities he has taken a most important step towards promoting their efficiency. I dare say the eminent Military Correspondent of The Times may be correct when he says that their value is double that of the old Volunteers; but whether that be so or not, the fact remains that they are not able to give the training which was asked of them. They have not the officers without whom they cannot possibly be really efficient, and they have not the numbers behind them which it was assumed would be there.
We were told that the whole essence of the scheme was that you should have 50,000 or 60,000 men of these battalions of the Special Reserve on whom the first demand would come. Those battalions have been rolled up in the First Line and the Territorials are not to have even the six months' training without which the noble Viscount himself said they would not be fit to act in the field. With all those deficiencies I ask your Lordships whether I am going too far in making the request that we should have some military opinion given us as to the value of the Territorial Army for the urgent work and the heavy burden that would be placed upon them should an emergency arise. One or two of my noble friends have spoken to me about the wording of this Motion, as if there were something unusual in asking whether the military advisers of the Secretary of State are satisfied that the present condition of the Force is such as to enable it to take the field at once upon the despatch of the Expeditionary Force of 160,000 men and to guarantee the safety of the country in case
904
of invasion by 70,000 Continental troops. I am not asking the opinion of the military advisers of the Government on any question of policy. That is a question for the Government. If the Government say they will not send troops abroad, then we have no right to ask whether their military advisers think that they ought to do. But as regards the efficiency of any particular Force to carry out the work which the Government have laid upon it, it is, I contend, the military advisers and they alone whose opinion we have a right to ask for, and in whose opinion we have a right to trust.
I speak with experience of many years of combat in the House of Commons, in the course of which the House insisted on knowing the opinion of the military advisers on the proposals of the Minister. When the noble Marquess behind me was Secretary of State for War he introduced a scheme in 1897 which involved a considerable increase in the number of troops; and I was asked specifically, as representing him in the House of Commons, "Is this the scheme of Lord Wolseley, or is it, as alleged in the newspapers, the scheme of Sir Arthur Halliburton, the Permanent Under-Secretary?" It was considered absolutely correct that I should reply stating exactly what Lord Wolseley's opinion was—namely, that it satisfied him as being a great step forward in the organisation of the Army. That kind of thing occurred on countless occasions. I could refer to occasions on which we were specifically asked what were the numbers of the Force to be sent to South Africa, and what were the opinions of the military advisers to the Secretary of State in regard to that Force. I am bound to confess that I regret extremely that we hear so little of military opinion on these subjects since the change which gave us an Army Council instead of a Commander-in-Chief. I know I belonged to the Government which took that step; but ever since it took place the tendency has been for the military advisers to become simply the echo of the Secretary of State. I can only say, for my own part, that had I known that the effect of that change would be to deprive the Army of its legitimate mouthpiece, the Commander-in-Chief, I, for one, would sooner have resigned office than have placed the Army in the position in which it has been since the Army Council was established. We have never, on one single occasion,

905
heard in this House the opinion of the military advisers since the abolition of the Commander-in-Chief. What the opinion of those advisers is I can only surmise; but I saw the other day that the present Chief of the General Staff, General French, had spoken of this Force as being a cause for grave anxiety; and although Lord Nicholson is not, I think, present this evening, it would not be indiscreet of me to say that his opinions must have changed very greatly since the days when he was at the War Office as one of the most trusted advisers of Lord Roberts if he is prepared now to say that the present Territorial Army is fit for the work which is being set before it.
Therefore what I invite the Government to do to-night is to tell us frankly whether they are themselves satisfied, and whether their military advisers are satisfied with the condition of the Territorial Force. I may be asked what is the value, of that admission if it is in the negative. If I am asked, "Do you wish to found on that a demand for compulsory service, or what have you in your mind?" I would say that we on this Bench have not the advantage of knowing what the course has been of the Defence Committee, and what the advice has been of the military advisers for some time past. I would say, however, that I deprecate the Government attempting to bolster up the existing Territorial Force by simply giving it more money, because that money must come from some other Force; and I do not believe you will get by spending £15 or £18 anything much better than you get by spending £12 as you now do, as compared with the £6 which was spent in the days of the Volunteers. We may, of course, take advantage of that really splendid body the National Reserve, of whom the noble Lord opposite told us the other night. There are in that fine body 157,000 men who have all passed through the service and are under fifty-five years of age, from whom no doubt we could get a considerable reinforcement as a Territorial Reserve in case of war; but I believe that all this tinkering will in the end only be found to have been insufficient because, if anything, the danger keeps on increasing and the burden which you put on the Force becomes proportionately heavier.
I believe that you must go to the root of the matter, as in his original speech in
906
the House of Commons the noble Viscount did when he said you want to get the nation trained in the work of defending itself. We are the only one among the great nations, except the United States, who are not in any way organised or trained as a nation for defence. The position in which we stand is not that we have neglected training in other respects. I do not know whether it has occurred to the Government that they are spending in education alone something like £50,000,000 a year, and nobody has said to the parents of the children, "We have taken these children off your hands for ten or twelve years of their lives. During that time we have not merely educated them, but if necessary we have fed them, and we have provided them with medical attendance. We do for them nearly all that fifty years ago parents were supposed to do entirely out of their own pockets." Have we not the right to say to the parents, "You should consider that some national service is demanded from these children in future?" I believe Marzini once said, "Every man ought to consider how many years of his life he should give to his country." We do not even teach these children that there is any advantage in belonging to this country, much less that any service should be demanded of them. We do not say to the children, "You are here to be educated in many subjects; we shall give such an education in drill and marksmanship as will, if you are disposed, enable you to give your voluntary service to the Territorials later on, and save you half the sacrifice you would then have to make, because you will have learnt many of your duties in the interstices of your schoolwork."
We must also, I submit, look at the whole question as one of economy. We should save half the time of the staff of the Territorials if we could only send them the raw material prepared at school to that extent, instead of youths coming into the Force at the age of eighteen with everything to learn in the evenings and during the intervals of their work. I believe also we should do a very good turn to the physical and moral health of the younger generation by forcing them to undertake a certain amount of drill. We should do something also for national character if we taught children when they were young that national service was a part of their duty even when rendered at the expense of personal sacrifice. I know it has been

907
urged very frequently that if a moment of danger comes we have great wealth and we shall find an expedient and shall muddle through somehow as we have done before. I deprecate our going back to that state of things and salving our consciences for neglecting a work of organisation which, of course, is troublesome. There is an idea that the majority of individuals in this country infinitely prefer not to be bothered with these high considerations; that the average Briton would much rather be lulled by soothing memories of centuries of immunity from invasion than be troubled by these dangers which he rightly regards as problematical, but which he wrongly regards as remote. I think that those who still argue that, or by their silence give force to those views, might remember that two centuries ago when this nation was at war with the Netherlands, it was said to the Netherlands, "What can you who are a mountain of gold do when you encounter a mountain of iron?" At least we can remember the advice which Solon gave to Croesus, "If any man comes who has better iron than you, he will be master of all your gold." Therefore we ought not to salve our consciences with the easy course, but we should remember that nations have gained by striking some rather hard note of national sacrifice, and we should make a special effort to bring up our ranks to the full demands of those whose professional advice enables us to estimate the danger.
If anything could have roused this nation I am sure that the efforts of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Earl Roberts, would have done it. But we go on, day after day, and year after year, and we are no nearer being ready to meet these emergencies now than we were seven years ago, not because we have not made progress under the noble Viscount's scheme, but because the emergency has become greater. Although the Government may be able to say that the present emergency can be met, he would be a bold man who would tell us that in the rapidly changing conditions we should be fit for an emergency which may arise in a few years' time. We cannot reproduce the hard conditions under which our nation organised itself a century ago. We cannot, of course, get rid of the enervating influences which make people willing to subsist with danger staring them in the face and ignore it; but we can
908
secure—and at all events this is what I ask the Government to do—that in the training we give to our youth national training and national necessity shall come first, and that in the sphere of politics national safety shall not be put behind the exigencies of different parties. I believe the time has come when you might find a concensus of opinion among both Parties in favour of some step forward; and it is in the hope that His Majesty's Government will admit that there is something which remains to be done that I have ventured to address this Question to them to-night.
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I rise to make a statement on behalf of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, because I think he would wish your Lordships to be in possession of it at an early moment in this debate. I would first of all draw your Lordships' attention to the statement of the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on July 29, 1909, in which he dealt with the conclusions then arrived at by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The right hon. gentleman said—
"In the first place, so long as the naval supremacy of this country is adequately assured, invasion on a large scale—by which I mean invasion on such a scale as was contemplated by Lord Roberts, i.e. the transport to these shores of 120,000 to 150,000 men—is an absolutely impracticable operation; and on the other hand, if we were to lose the command of the sea, then whatever might be the strength and organisation of our military forces—even allowing that you had an Army like the Army of Germany—whatever might be its strength, or whatever might be its organisation, it would not only be impossible that this country should escape invasion—invasion might not even be necessary—but the subjection of the country to the enemy would be inevitable."
Then, dealing with the question of a raid, the Prime Minister further said—
"No one will undertake the task of invasion with a smaller force than something like 70,000 men. I do not believe 70,000 men would ever get through at all, but you must have in these matters an ample margin of safety. It does not do to rely less or more upon nicely calculated numbers, and we must have an ample margin of safety."
This is still the opinion of His Majesty's Government; but while they are satisfied that proper provision is made to meet the particular danger which was investigated by the Committee of Imperial Defence in 1908, there are many new factors to consider.
Among these I may mention the establishment of a second line of naval defence, consisting of torpedo craft and submarines; the improvement in the sea-going qualities of these vessels; the technical develop-

909
ment of the torpedo; the use of oil fuel which enables vessels to remain longer at sea without returning to port; the use of aircraft for scouting over sea; the progress of wireless telegraphy; the development of aerial forces abroad; and the increase in the size and speed of mercantile navies of foreign Powers; and I might also mention the general improvement in military organisation, and the detailed and comprehensive arrangements for co-ordinating the responsibilities of the various Departments of State in time of war which was alluded to by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons when introducing the Committee of Imperial Defence Estimates last year. These factors certainly have a bearing on the problem, and their weight on one side or the other demands attention. In view of all these circumstances, the Prime Minister decided some few weeks ago that the time had again arrived when special consideration of these questions should be continued by the Committee of Imperial Defence under his chairmanship.
Before turning to the Territorial Force, I should like to say one Word on the subject of conscription as opposed to voluntary service. This question is so vest and so many-sided that I shall only ask to be allowed to deal with one aspect of the case. I shall say nothing of the financial aspect, which goes in reality to the very root of the whole matter, involving as it does the consideration of the relative value of one pound spent on the Navy and one pound spent on the Army. Nor shall I attempt to discuss the working value of the average citizen to the State, or the amount of loss which the State would inflict on itself by removing him from his work. Nor shall I say anything as to the comparative worth of a period of unwilling, listless service, and the same period of zealous and energetic service. But, the aspect of the case on which I should like to say a word is the effect of conscription upon the morale and physique of the nation. It is frequently alleged that the adoption of national service would elevate the whole morale of the nation by making the people of these islands more patriotic and better disciplined. In order to examine the truth of this contention, let us look for a moment at a few of the characteristics of this country as compared with foreign countries. Can it be maintained that the citizens of the United Kingdom are less
910
patriotic or less disciplined than those of Continental countries? Are riots or strikes less common or less violent in those countries which have compulsory service than in those which prefer the voluntary system? The answer is most certainly in the negative. In many European countries we have heard of the penetration, even into the ranks, of anti-militarism to a degree which is unknown in this country. Hooligans and Apaches are just as common on the Continent as here. There have even been cases of rioting owing to the despatch of conscripts to fight abroad in an unpopular war—an incident which is probably without precedent in this country. And as regards the contention that compulsory service is necessary for the purpose of educating the electorate to the importance of military questions, it may be worthy of consideration whether there is not a positive danger in concentrating attention too closely on the military side of defence questions and thereby running the risk of overlooking the importance of the naval side, which is so absolutely essential to our very existence as an Empire.
Then as to physique. Here, again, we are told unceasingly that even those who fail to see the necessity of conscription from the military point of view must, unless they are wilfully blind, perceive the immense amount of good which it would do to the physique of the nation. But would compulsory service really benefit the physique of the nation? If we adopted a scheme of compulsory service would the physically weak and unfit be included in the scheme? Most certainly not. It is inconceivable that the funds at the disposal of the War Office would ever be used for this purpose. You will find that the National Service League itself makes the following statement—
"In Switzerland the number of medical rejections annually amounts to an average of 47 per cent., and a similar result is experienced in France and Germany."
I do not know where these figures come from nor how they have been computed, and naturally I do not propose to quote them as authoritative, but at least we may assume that the number of rejections for unfitness would be very large.
No one, however, can deny the importance of the question of improving the

911
physique of the nation. But it is not by adopting a scheme which while taking the strong exempts the weak and physically unfit that we can hope to improve the physique of the manhood of this country. It we wish to attain this object, some other means must be devised, such as a system of physical training in connection with continuation schools, whereby the bodies as well as the minds of the country's youth would be developed, and developed at a much earlier age than that at which they would be ripe for conscription. In this process of training in gymnastics, physique, and discipline it may well be that the use of arms and simple military formations would add to the self-respect of our people and lay a foundation on which a great scheme of national defence might be based if unforeseen dangers and combinations should menace the integrity and liberty of the country.
With regard to the Territorial Force I would say a word upon numbers, upon efficiency, and upon zeal. Taking in the first place the number for the year which ended on September 30, 1912, there was a fall in strength of 199 officers and 2,534 non-commissioned officers and men, as compared with a net fall of 284 officers and 2,649 non-commissioned officers and men during the previous year. The recruiting improved considerably as compared with the two previous years, and it is worthy of note that the increase was not spasmodic, but taking each quarter's recruiting separately a considerable improvement occurred as compared with the same quarters of 1910 and 1911. This improvement, however, was more than counterbalanced by the increase in the wastage, mainly occasioned by the discharges on termination of engagement, which rose from 15,962 in the previous year to 34,832. This, again, was chiefly due to there being a much larger number whose engagements expired during the year than during the preceding year, the numbers due to go within the years ended on October 1, 1911, and October 1, 1910, being 80,403 and 45,957 respectively. There is nothing particularly noticeable about the other heads of wastage. The free discharges which have steadily increased since the Force was started have apparently now reached a maximum and show a slight decline, but they are responsible for the heavy loss of 10,352 men during the year.
912
With regard to the prospects for the current year, the numbers whose engagements are due to expire again show a rise, being 114,543 as against 80,403. We must therefore assume that unless recruiting still goes on increasing there will be a further drop in numbers during the current year. The figures, however, for January 1, 1913, show that the wastage has been just about what was expected, but that 3,000 more recruits have been taken than in the same period last year, which in its turn showed an increase on the two preceding years. The fact is, my Lords, that in spite of, or perhaps thanks to, the campaign which has been carried on against the Territorial Force, recruiting is really in a buoyant condition. And here a word of praise should be said in favour of the Director-General of the Territorial Force, General Bethune, whose zeal and whose efforts in the interests of the Force are deserving of the highest testimony. It may interest your Lordships to know that last week in one town alone—Portsmouth—no fewer than 530 recruits joined the Territorials as the result of a special appeal which was made by the chairman and members of the Hampshire County Association, who were materially assisted by the efforts of the Mayor of Portsmouth. At the same time every one knows that this is the critical year for the Force. There is a larger deficiency to be made up this year than there has been at any previous period. Whatever others may do, I feel confident that your Lordships, so many of whom have worked so whole-heartedly in the interests of the Force, will be the last to choose this critical year to throw obstacles in its way.
As to efficiency, I should like to give a few figures which show a decided improvement. Of the 293 units of the Yeomanry, Infantry, and Engineer field companies, 1S4 in 1911 and 224 in 1912 qualified 75 per cent. of their strength and over—a very large increase. In 1911, out of the 293 units, 286 tested 50 per cent. of their strength and over, and in the last year the whole 293 tested 50 per cent, of their strength and over. In 1911, 30,605 recruits and 111,830 trained men qualified, making a total of 142,435; and in 1912, 40,581 recruits and 112,929 trained men qualified, making a total of 153,510. The number of existing Territorial Force open rifle ranges rose from 795 on January 1, 1911, to 805 on January 1, 1912, and to

913
830 on January 1 of this year, which means approximately a rise in the number of targets from 3,430 to 3,500 and now to 3,700. The numbers of the Officers Training Corps cadets in the senior division on October 1, 1912, were 5,569, and in the junior division 18,914. During the period from the inception of the Territorial Force up to September 30 of last year 776 cadets of the Officers Training Corps joined the Territorial Force, and during the December quarter of last year an additional 120 joined the Force, making the total 896; and by the latest figures the number has further risen to 924. During the period from May 1, 1910, to October 30, 1911, the number of cadets of recognised cadets corps who joined the Territorial Force was 854, though this figure is probably below the number who actually joined, as I believe no very accurate record was kept at that time. During the cadet year which ended on October 30, 1912, 1,196 cadets of recognised cadet corps joined the Territorial Force. These, of course, only refer to those corps which are recognised by the County Associations. There are many others, notably the Boys' Brigades in England and in Scotland, who do admirable service in sending officers and men to the Territorial Force. We have reason to believe that in the near future all these excellent organisations will have combined in assisting the development of the defensive forces of the country. That, my Lords, is all that I shall say on the question of numbers and efficiency at the moment.
I should like to say a word now on the question of zeal. The spirit of zeal which permeates the Territorial Force cannot be praised too highly, more especially perhaps in view of the discouragement which it has had to face in addition to other existing difficulties, owing, I will not say to the National Service League, but to the manner in which the League has placed its proposal before the country. I acknowledge at once that the most prominent members of the League have again and again disclaimed all intention of discouraging those who have been doing their duty to their country; we know that they could have had no intention of discouraging those now serving because an action such as that would resemble nothing so much as that of a starving man who throws away a crust of bread on the chance that someone will give him what he thinks will be a square meal. No one, however, can com-
914
plain of people who, holding strong views upon a subject of national importance, are desirous of placing those views before the country as prominently as possible, but I cannot help expressing regret, a regret which I am sure is shared by none more than by the leading supporters of the League, that the manner in which the views of the National Service League have been promulgated should have been such as to discourage those who are already doing their best.
Now, my Lords, let us imagine that this country is in a state of war. We have in these islands 263,000 men of the Territorial Force. Quite apart from the National Reserve, we know that the officers and men who have recently left the Force would in those circumstances rejoin in far greater numbers than would be necessary to raise the Force from its present strength to its establishment. And I may say that arms and equipment for the whole number are available. I should like to emphasise the fact that the numbers required to complete the Territorial Force so as to raise its present strength up to its establishment represent a far smaller percentage than in the case of any other army to bring that army from peace to war establishment.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Has the noble Lord allowed for all those who have gone out of the Territorial Force?
LORD HERSCHELL: I believe I am correct in stating that the percentage to be made up in any foreign army is greater than in the case of the Territorial Force, owing to the fact that in the Territorial Force we have the same establishment for peace and war.
LORD LOVAT: The noble Lord is making a comparison with men who have already done two or three years service.
LORD HERSCHELL: It may be said that, although the numbers may be complete, the standard of training owing to their short service is insufficient to meet hostile troops with longer training. I will not prejudge this question, but it would appear that if this view be accepted a comparatively small number of our long service Regular Army on the same

915
hypothesis would be able to cope with the invading enemy. Whether such a force is required at all, and whether, if it is required, it should be created anew or detached temporarily from the Expeditionary Force—all these are questions which can only be decided by the Committee of Imperial Defence.
The view of the Government—and this is really the answer to the noble Viscount's question—is as follows. The Government hold the view that they can now guarantee under any present circumstances that this country can be safeguarded against a blow delivered at its heart. They also consider that any largely increased expenditure purely for home defence purposes would be a disastrous policy. I think that, in spite of what the noble Viscount said, it is my duty to enter a respectful protest against the precise form in which he has put his Question on the Paper, but as the point has been raised I can tell the noble Viscount that all the individual members of the Army Council concur in this view, which is also strongly held by the General Staff. At the same time I venture to express the hope that this form of Question will not be taken as a precedent, for I think your Lordships will see that it would be fatal to the efficiency of the Department if when questions of this kind were raised it were to be asked what Sir J. French thought, or what was the opinion of Sir S. Ewart, or Sir C. Hadden.
I will say one word with regard to Special Reserve Officers and the large admitted deficiency in their numbers. This very important question is engaging the earnest attention of the Secretary of State, and I may perhaps here take the opportunity of expressing his cordial appreciation of the manner in which certain members of your Lordships' House and of the other House of Parliament have co-operated with him in deliberating on this matter and will, I hope, continue to do so. At the same time, while the Government are convinced that proper provision is made to meet a particular danger which has to be faced, and while they have every hope of improvement in the condition of the Territorial Force, I can say perfectly frankly that they are not satisfied because they have not got that at which they aimed. They aimed at an establishment of 313,000 men; they have only 263,000.
916
They would like to be in a position to make good this deficiency, and this subject has been for some time past receiving grave consideration at the hands of the Secretary of State. There has grown up in the last few years a very remarkable movement in this country—a movement actuated by a patriotic desire to do something for the country, a movement in praise of which too much cannot be said, I allude to the National Reserve, which numbers at present 190,000 officers and men, of whom 109,000 are officers under fifty-five and men under forty-five years of age. The Government then, having before them on the one hand a deficiency in the strength of the Territorial Force, and, on the other hand, the new movement to which I have alluded, considered whether it would not be possible to utilise the one to fill up the gaps in the other. Accordingly a new scheme was framed for this purpose, and before very briefly outlining this scheme I may say that the cordial co-operation of the County Associations has already been secured, as have also the services of National Reserve officers.
The plan which has been considered and approved by His Majesty's Government is briefly as follows. No money is to be paid to the men themselves in time of peace. Indeed, they have asked for none. But in the case of each man who expresses his desire to place his services at the disposal of His Majesty for Home Defence in a time of grave national emergency a sum of 5s. will be paid to the County Associations, and in the case of those who take a more extended obligation for service in any part of the world under similar circumstances a sum of 10 s. per man will be paid to the County Associations, both sums being in addition to the shilling which is already paid for registration purposes. I wish to say here most emphatically that there is no intention of turning any one out of the National Reserve by the imposition of obligations. Obviously nothing could be further from the Government's intention. These men have already on joining expressed their willingness to serve at a time of great national peril, and all it is sought to do is to classify them and to regularise their position for statistical purposes, at the same time greatly increasing the funds at the disposal of the County Associations to these ends. I may mention two more small points in the

917
scheme—first, that uniforms and equipment will be provided on mobilisation just as in the case of the ordinary Army Reserve; and, secondly, in the interests of the men themselves a careful medical examination will be made of those who decide to take the oversea obligation. Such, my Lords, in a few words is the scheme decided upon by His Majesty's Government, but this utilisation of the National Reserve must not be looked upon as constituting a Third Line Army. Such is not the intention. The scheme merely seeks to take advantage of a most valuable reinforcement of men, many of whom have had long training in what is admitted on all hands in point of view of quality to be the finest Regular Army in the world.
To sum up. I have said that the Prime Minister has decided that the time has again arrived when the special consideration of the question of defence referred to on your Lordships' Order Paper should be continued by the Committee on Imperial Defence under his chairmanship. I have also said that the question of the deficiency in the number of officers of the Special Reserve is engaging the earnest attention of the Secretary of State; and I have very briefly outlined the new scheme which has been adopted by the Government for the purpose of utilising the National Reserve. In conclusion, my Lords, I have only one more word to say. It is not in the capacity of man to foresee what possibilities the future may have in store for us, what new dangers we may be called upon to face, what new situations may arise on the kaleidoscope of world politics. We therefore ask for voluntary service from every man, and this Second Line Army should be looked upon not only as an end in itself, but also as a national school of arms, a great school of patriotism for the manhood of the nation. We urge the young men of the country to come forward, and if they do so, as we hope they will, the Government will be prepared so to expand our military organisation as to find a place for all of them.
EARL ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not propose to take up your time by referring in detail to the several matters brought forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken, but there are one or two points in regard to which I should like to say a word. The noble Lord rather took the National Service League to task for what it has been
918
doing, but I would remark that the National Service League was started eleven years ago before the Territorial Army was thought of. It was founded in 1902 because it was quite clear, from the results of the Boer War and from the Reports of the two Royal Commissions, that it was impossible to get men in this country for home defence under a voluntary system. Eleven years have passed since the National Service League was started, and there has been no improvement in the efficiency of the men who come forward on the voluntary system for home defence. The voluntary system must always apply to our Regular Army and the men who go into the Regular Army can be properly trained, but it is impossible for the men who join the Territorial Force to be properly trained. It is impossible because employers will not let the men give the necessary time, and the men themselves cannot give the time.
Reference has been made by the noble Lord who has just sat down and by Lord Midleton to the number of men who did nothing last year in the shape of training, but only passed the shooting test. How can those men be called soldiers? What is the use of them? They are practically of no use. The National Service League has never said a word against the men themselves. I have spoken to them over and over again, and I have given them all praise for what they have done; but to tell me as a soldier that I am to let the Territorial Force think that it is fit for war is nonsense; I could not do it. When I am asked to speak to them I tell them candidly that all praise is due to them for their patriotism, but I have always said that what we require is what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack called a "nation in arms." Until you get a "nation in a ms" you will never have anything in the shape of a home defence army. The figure of 70,000 was mentioned as a possible invading force, but, when the subject was discussed in this House some time ago, it was pointed out that it was merely a hypothetical figure based upon the number of men who could come over in a certain number of transports. But Lord Lovat and I clearly showed that in the same number of ships you could put double or treble this number of men for a short voyage. Indeed, no reliability can be placed on the number 70,000 any more than on the number of 315,000 fixed by the noble and learned Viscount as the required

919
strength of the Territorial Force. That number was decided upon because the noble and learned Viscount discovered that the old Volunteers never rose to a greater number than 300,000, and so he fixed the Territorial Army at 315,000. But they have never come near that. Nothing you can do in the way of patching or tinkering will give you a home defence army unless it can be raised on some other system than that now in force.
I do not think that any one in this House can pretend that the speech to which your Lordships have just listened is a satisfying answer to that of the noble Viscount who opened this debate; but it is cheering to find from one or two sentences in Lord Herschell's speech that His Majesty's Government are themselves aware that all is not as it should be with the defences of our country. If this be acknowledged, an important step will have been taken towards the end that we all must desire—that end being the peace and security of this nation and this Empire. For, my Lords, our chief difficulty is to arouse the attention of the people of this country to the hopelessness of our present position, and so long as the Government of the day—I am not speaking in any Party spirit—assures them that all is well, my own efforts, and those of other private individuals, to dispel the apathy that exists amongst our countrymen must, to a great extent, remain unavailing.
My Lords, the facts of the case are indisputable. However deplorable war may be—and no one desires peace more fervently than I do—no one can review the events of the past three years, or regard those of the present moment, without recognising the possibility of our being drawn into a great war as the only means of self-preservation. The first principle of sound strategy is the concentration of superior force at the decisive place and at the decisive time—and, for our own sakes, as far away from this country as possible. This principle, my Lords, imposes upon us the necessity for our entire Expeditionary Force being despatched from these shores immediately on the outbreak of war.
Now, I would ask His Majesty's Government in all seriousness two questions:—First, Are they prepared, under existing conditions, to despatch the whole Expeditionary Force immediately on the outbreak
920
of war—for, please remember, my Lords, that the outbreak of war is the decisive time in modern warfare—and to send it abroad to the decisive place? Secondly, are they prepared to meet firmly the timid councillors who, undoubtedly, will point out at such a time the weakness of the Territorial Force. However much they may cry up the efficiency of that Force in times of peace, they will certainly protest against being left to its sole protection in time of war? My Lords, there is no doubt a danger in leaving this country without Regular troops in time of war—a danger that will increase year by year, so long as the country insists upon the Citizen Army being raised on the voluntary system. But, great as is this danger, it is infinitely less than the danger of the position in which Great Britain would be placed if the Balance of Power in Europe were not maintained. One of the chief reasons for our keeping up an Expeditionary Force is to enable us to take our share in maintaining that Balance; but unfortunately it has never been explained to the people what the Balance of Power in Europe means to us. Consequently, there are no arrangements for meeting the demands that would be made upon our military resources in the event of our having to take part in a war on the Continent.
There is only one way by which the required arrangements can be made, and that is by the introduction of universal military training. This would give us an Army which would render all thought of the invasion of this country out of the question, and, in addition, it would provide a potential reserve, from which we could confidently rely on a sufficient number of properly trained men voluntarily coming forward to replace casualties and strengthen the Regular Army fighting abroad. For five years every means, except compulsion, has been tried to fill the ranks of the Territorial Force—means some of which must appear to our foreign neighbours unworthy of a great nation. The general officer appointed to administer the Territorial Force at Headquarters spends the first three months of his tenure of office in perambulating the country as a chief recruiting officer, endeavouring to get mere boys to join a Force which he must feel is only a makeshift. And it will be difficult for your Lordships to believe it, but within the last few weeks I have myself been invited to join a dancing club in the metropolis, which

921
has for its object the inducing of young men to take commissions in the National Army!
My Lords, I should despair of my country-men if I thought they were chiefly to blame in this matter. But they are not. So far they have never been told the truth by the authorities whose duty it is to tell them the truth. For my own part I am convinced that, if it were clearly pointed out to the people by their political leaders that the voluntary system for Home Defence has always been, and must always be, a failure, they would no longer refuse to adopt the compulsory system. The question, my Lords, is a national, not a Party question, and it can only be settled by the two Parties acting in concert. Both Parties, if I may be allowed to say so, are practically responsible for the useless condition of the Home Army, and I appeal to both Parties to sink all considerations save patriotism, and by united action to secure the safety of the country and the Empire. If it were a question of numbers alone, I would do all in my power to fill the ranks; but it is because I know that without careful and continuous training the Territorial Force, even if it were double or treble the strength laid down, could not be trusted with the defence of these islands, that I am such a strong advocate for universal military training.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I wish to take part in this debate because I was commanding the Eastern Command at the time when the noble and gallant Viscount on the Woolsack assumed the office of Secretary of State for War, and I afterwards went to South Africa and had the unique experience of seeing a citizen army formed there during the four perhaps most interesting years of my life. I wish to say this in the first place regarding the Territorial Army, that no one could have had a more difficult position than Lord Haldane did when he took over the work of Secretary of State for War. He found a machine which was more or less ineffective and which the public had been hoodwinked about to a considerable extent, and he has formed a Territorial Army which it is generally admitted is twice as efficient as the Auxiliary Force which he found when he took office. It is a very easy thing to know how that efficiency occurred. The Lord Chancellor gave the Territorial Force a chance which the old Volunteers never had. He gave
922
them more capable officers and introduced organisation where there was chaos, and at any rate we felt that we had the skeleton of a force to come.
I drew the attention of Lord Haldane at the time to the condition of one arm, and I will read what I then said because it has been referred to by Lord Midleton. It was the question of the Artillery, Horse and Field, for the Territorial Force, and I said—
"It is this arm which causes me the greatest anxiety, for I am sure we are all agreed that the last thing we wish to see in this country is a paper Army. I have my doubts if so large a number of men and horses of the proper stamp can be obtained, or if so large a number of guns is needed in this enclosed country. But let me assume that men and horses are forthcoming. I think no one will join issue with me when I say that unless the Artillery are properly trained the guns are not only useless but a positive danger to the commander, blocking the roads and requiring protection. Unless steps, therefore, are taken to render this branch of the Territorial Army efficient in the field, I look on the money spent upon it as wasted, and would far rather see it spent on the other arms; and I own it is with surprise I see to-day that money is spent on our Territorial Army while at the same time it is reduced on the Regular Army."
Let me speak quite frankly regarding the Territorial Army, and I speak with the greatest respect of my old Chief the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Lord Roberts. I say this quite fairly regarding the Territorial Army, as Lord Kitchener said with regard to the Australian scheme, that unless it gets the support of the country, unless it recognises that it is respected by the country, you cannot expect the Territorial Army to succeed; and I say to the National Service League, although I read in its official statement that "the National Service League has consistently given the warmest support to the Territorial Force from its inception, recognising the great superiority in organisation and capabilities that this Force provides as compared with the old Volunteer Force"—I say to the National Service League that it has not helped, but has done harm to the recruiting of the Territorial Force. I say so from the conversations I have had with a capable chairman of a County Association and with a General Officer who has had as great experience as any one in the Territorial Force from its inception. I am not blaming the National Service League for what they have done. Their mind is perfectly clear. They say, "We think that there is nothing that can save this country but national training in some sort of form, and we look now upon the Territorial Army as in such a

923
condition that if we bolster it up it will do harm to our view, which is to introduce national training."
Well, my Lords, let me quit this country entirely and take you to South Africa; and here is a point I want to impress upon your Lordships. When I arrived at Pretoria I saw on the first day General Botha and General Smuts, and I thought to myself of the enormous difficulties as compared to this country that faced South Africa. There were two nations, two peoples let me call them; there were the enormous distances which the farmers had to go to do their training; there was everything that made it ten times more difficult than here at home. But I said to General Botha and General Smuts, "What are my riding orders?" and I remember so well General Smuts saying to me—
"My feeling is this, that the spirit is so strong in South Africa that I do not believe we shall have to use compulsion at all. I believe we shall get Volunteers entirely, and I shall not do away with the Volunteer Force."
On Saturday last I received a letter from General Aston, who was responsible for the training of the Army. Though I got the credit to a great extent, he did it all. Tie writes—
"I think you will be glad to know that from accounts which have reached me it seems that 80 to 90 per cent. of the youths of 17 to 21 will join the active citizen force of their own accord, and there seems little likelihood of the ballot being required."
I also read in the Press that—
"The new Defence Force has been arranged to include the taking over of the old Volunteer Regiments, most of which have long and honourable records. The results of the voluntary enrolment under the Defence Act show that, apart from these existing regiments, 37,600 young men have come forward for voluntary peace training, making, with the already existing force, no less than 45,6000 men, which is considerably in excess of the Government's anticipations and requirements. This is a fine example of practical patriotism, and we hope its significance will not be lost on the rest of the Empire and especially the Mother Country. It is young South Africa which has spoken. It has not stopped to enquire whether its parentage is native born or from oversea. There was a duty to be done, a country to be held, and young South Africa means to hold it."
Let me speak quite frankly. We have waited for the leaders of both Parties to go to the country and tell the country what we want. The leaders of both sides have waited for us to push them on. It is just as in the hunting field when you have a big fence before you. You fight shy of it and
924
wait for others to take it. You will be glad enough to see that fence knocked down until it is small enough to allow even the Lord Chancellor to get over it. That is not the way in which to bring about national training in this country.
I go back to 1907 when I brought before your Lordships the question of compulsory cadet training. We all know in Parliamentary Committees that the expert witnesses a little bit shift with the case they have to represent, and a curious thing is that my best witness was the Lord Chancellor himself, who in a remarkably short space of time changed his opinion. He said—
"They wanted the youth of the country to undergo training so that the reservoir might always be filled—namely, the National Army of 300,000 men. They wanted to work the cadet corps into a much more important position than they had been up to the present, and by so doing they would allay fear and give people a sense of security such as they never had before. Could any one look upon a cadet corps without feeling that every member of it was better and stronger mentally and physically because of the training, and that they were helped not only in military but in civilian duties, and from every point of view cadet corps were things that ought to be encouraged."
I ask the Lord Chancellor to go to the country and say that now. As I said in 1907, I say again now that the hope of the country is the youth of the country, and I do not feel prepared to burn my boats until the leaders of both Parties have the courage of their opinions and go to the country and say they consider that national training is necessary. They can then introduce compulsory training and the country will accept it to-morrow, and just as we had in Natal and the Transvaal you will have your junior and your senior cadet corps. That is to say, front the age of twelve up to eighteen you will have a set of lads who will willingly give a hand to their country when required, and still more so when those lads know that if they wish they can go over and give a helping hand to the Force fighting abroad. You can depend upon it that any Territorial Force you have here will wish to give a helping hand to the Force across the sea. No defence is worth having that is not an offensive defence. I do not for one moment believe that any danger to England itself will be at home, but across the seas, and I hope that history may not have a second time to mark a nation stricken with disaster before it knows how to seek the remedy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANE): My Lords, no one can say that this has not been an interesting debate. It was opened by the noble Viscount in a speech of studied moderation, to the tone of which no exception could be taken. He was replied to by my noble friend who spoke with a lucidity which had something of a hereditary quality about it. Then we listened to a speech from one to whom we all look up, for he has rendered great services to his country—I refer to the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, who has addressed us before on this subject and who to-night expressed a deep-felt conviction. Then we had a speech from yet another standpoint from my noble and gallant friend Lord Methuen, who spoke with the knowledge and experience which he had acquired in South Africa. He detached himself from the position of Lord Roberts, and spoke as one who was not ready to be off with the old love before he was sure that he was on with the new. That is a very important point; but the noble and gallant Lord went on to make some criticisms upon us in connection with this subject. He did speak, and I think with justice, of the great value of cadet training. I have no doubt he had chiefly in his mind what he had seen in Natal and what has taken shape in great measure in South Africa. So far from differing from him about the value of physical training as a part of the national education of the youth of this country, I agree with him, but I regret to say that this cause has been damaged—I hope not irreparably—by being turned into a military cause instead of being treated as a branch of national education. As soon as you make up your mind that in a system of national education you cannot exclude the physical side and that physical training ought to be admitted, you will get rid of many of the difficulties and obstacles which the noble Field-Marshal seemed to think insuperable, and we shall none of us have to take fences in our course.
The real interest in this debate centres, as Lord Methuen says, in this—that the question between the two Parties is the value of the principle of compulsory service. Lord Methuen put it in a nutshell. He said this is the real root of the controversy. All the divergencies as to details flow from the view you take on one side or on the other of that principle. You may put, the principle of compulsory service into a nutshell, but it is one thing to put
926
it there and another to keep it there, and I shall venture to submit to the House some reasons for the belief which I hold firmly that the proposals of the noble Field-Marshal not only are impracticable, but would be highly disadvantageous from the point of view of national defence if they could be adopted. We live in an island which is the centre of a great Empire, and an island centre of a great Empire possess disadvantages as well as advantages. One of our disadvantages is that we have to make ourselves responsible for the defence of distant and outlying parts of the Empire which are incapable of defending themselves. For that purpose we must possess the command of the sea, and, in addition, we must possess oversea garrisons, long-service garrisons, which can only be recruited upon a voluntary basis because it must be professional. Then we must have the means of sending an Expeditionary Force to strengthen these distant garrisons to fight, it may be, long campaigns. Again, that is a force that can only be recruited and maintained on a professional and therefore voluntary basis. Those are two disadvantages of an island centre of a great Empire, and they impose upon us a burden which we must bear. The time no doubt will come, but it cannot be for a quarter of a century, when the outlying parts of the Empire will more and more relieve us of the burden of their defence and contribute both militarily and navally to the defence of their own interests. But that time has not come and is not near, and the principle of which I have spoken, the principle of voluntary service, lies at the root of the whole matter. That, is one reason why I say that you cannot leave the decision of what sort of army we ought to have to soldiers alone.
I have the deepest respect for soldiers, but they have the tendency, common to every profession, to look first at the things they know most about and which interest them chiefly. With them the military point of view dominates everything else. Of course five soldiers out of six will tell you that they are in favour of compulsory service. If you go to them they will tell you, "Of course we are in favour of compulsory service; we shall have a much better Army if we can get more men and train them as we think right." No doubt; but one has to consider the consequences of those views. If you go to sailors the same thing applies in another form. I have

927
talked to Admirals and naval men, and they tell you of the amount of money that is wasted on military service. They say that if we would only increase the Fleet they would not only guarantee us against attack, but do everything except furnish us with the comparatively small number of troops necessary for the defence of these islands on shore. The result is you cannot take the word of the soldier or the sailor as being the last word on the subject. The view must come in of those whose business it is to consider these matters from the point of view of statesmanship, and who weigh carefully the naval and military sides alike, and also those most important considerations of foreign and colonial policy which lie at the root of the whole matter. Economic questions come in, too, for unless you attend to economic questions you may not be able to support any Army or Navy whatever. It was to consider these questions that the Committee of Imperial Defence was founded. No nation requires such a Committee as we do, because no other nation has in anything approaching to the same degree the complicated problem to deal with which I have endeavoured to sketch to your Lordships.
The Committee of Imperial Defence has worked out a solution of the problem on the lines which I have indicated. They have said that the first consideration in an Empire like ours is command of the sea. That is the first consideration, and you must put that first. The second consideration is the maintenance of the overseas garrisons and the power to reinforce them with an Expeditionary Force. Then, as you have still the vitally important problem of home defence to consider, you must aim at solving it upon a naval basis primarily, and on a military basis secondarily. That is why we have all seen the great naval developments of the last few years. Not only has our naval distribution shifted as the character of the problem has shifted, but there has been the development of that second line of defence which my noble friend Lord Herschell spoke of—the flotilla craft along the coast which constitutes an outer defence, and which stands between us and the possibility of the landing of any considerable number of foreign troops. The noble Field-Marshal spoke, I think, with some contempt of the figure of 70,000 which the Committee of Imperial Defence has named as the
928
figure of the force which it would be necessary to bring to this country before it would have any possible chance of success That figure is often misunderstood. The figure of 70,000 was taken because it was said that if you were to force an enemy, by your military preparations, to come in numbers exceeding 70,000 then the Navy would be able to deal with them. It was also said that if they came, not in one large body but broken up in raids of 9,000 or 10,000, or whatever it may be, small sections which might escape the vigilance of the Fleet, they might be able to land and therefore you must have a military organisation to deal with them.
The reason why we have concentrated so much importance upon the naval side of home defence is that it is not possible for us, with a problem like ours, to organise the military defence at home which will allow us to let down that naval ring with which we seek to surround our shores and have been surrounding our shores with increasing strength in the last few years. Of course it is true that we should be from a military point of view enormously better off if we had an Army, say, of 500,000 or 600,000 men, trained for two or three years as is the case on the Continent. I admit that at once. But what would be the consequence? The consequence would be that you would not be able to maintain at the same time an Expeditionary Force for the overseas garrisons on a professional and military basis. I see on the Front Opposition Bench two noble Lords who have filled the office of Secretary of State for War, and they, I am sure, know what the difficulties are. If you endeavour by this compulsory system to raise any force which would nearly reach these dimensions you would be face to face with this difficulty, that you could not get your drafts for India and your distant overseas drafts, and you would be in a position which would put the Empire in great peril. I am not talking of merely theoretical considerations. The noble Field-Marshal himself has had some experience of this question. When he was Commander-in-Chief he had a plan which he carried into execution of substituting three years as the term of military engagement for the Regulars for the seven years which obtained before. He believed that the military ardour and enthusiasm of those who had had experience of the Army would induce the men to re-engage in large numbers, and that

929
he would get his drafts for India and the overseas dominions. They did not, however, re-engage in anything like the proportion he expected, and the result was we were in the utmost difficulty and betook ourselves to a much longer term of service. Therefore if you aim at raising the only kind of home defence army which would put us on anything like a Continental level, you must dismiss from your minds all hope of being able to fulfil your first duty of providing the Overseas Army and Expeditionary Force which the Empire requires.
I know that the noble Field-Marshal says, "My proposals are much less ambitious—four months for Infantry and six months for the other arms." I said just now that five out of six soldiers agreed that they wanted the principle of compulsory service, but when they have said that their agreement ends and there is a chord of discord at once. I hardly know a serving officer who does not scout the plan of the noble Field-Marshal and the National Service League. "That is not what we want," they say; and I am not sure that the noble Field-Marshal himself has not on consideration come to take that view. In the book entitled "Fallacies and Facts," of which he wrote the first part himself, there is a very significant note on page 14. He says that he is aware that distinguished Regular officers take exception to the term of service which the National Service League proposes, as quite inadequate; and he is not prepared to controvert that criticism. He says the important thing is the principle, and that, once granted, it will blossom out into possibly something much better. Then there is Part 2 to the book. I do not think it is written by a soldier, but it is highly instructive as showing the difficulties we get into when with an Empire like ours we try to introduce compulsory service. In Part 2 of the noble Field-Marshal's book—I do not put the responsibility for that part on him; it is obviously not written by him, and I think he would say very fairly that he is not responsible for it; I only use it as an illustration of what appears when you let this principle out of the nutshell—in Part 2 we have the considered opinion of an authority whom the noble Field-Marshal invited to write in Ids book, who gives an account of what ought to be the naval and military defence
930
of the Empire. First of all he starts with this, that we must maintain our command of the seas, and we require at least the two-Power standard, and the Navy Estimates he puts at a cost of from £60,000,000 to £80,000,000. Next he says we require the overseas garrisons of to-day and also reserves to support them, and that we want an Army for home defence trained for much longer than the National Service League proposes, and to consist of 300,000 men, with a possibility of reserves of expansion to 500,000. Then at the end comes the plan of the National Service League. He wants the 500,000 men trained for six months, who will serve as a sort of extra force. This army of 300,000 men expandable to 500,000 is to serve on the Continent and to be used for the purpose of asserting our power to maintain the balance on the Continent. I can only say for myself that I think several consequences would follow speedily. First of all, with such a force, formidable nation as we should be, we should find other nations gravitating together and huddling together fur safety, and instead of our friendly relations that exist with certain powers on the Continent increasing we should have relations of suspicion with them all. In the second place, the country would speedily be in the Bankruptcy Court, whereby the fears of our Continental critics would be relieved. In the third place, long before either of these two events had happened an indignant nation would have cast from power the Party which had put forward proposals of such a kind.
Then I come to another branch, to a much more modest variety of these suggestions based on the principle of compulsory service. There are many soldiers to-day who say, "What we really want is an Army of 300,000 men trained at home but available for the Continent and capable of holding their own against Continental troops." But can we get that Army along with the overseas garrisons and the Expeditionary Force which we possess at the present time? I myself do not think so. I have gone into the calculations about this both in men and money, and had consultations with several Adjutants-General, and I can only say that I do not believe you could get your drafts for the Regular Army or anything approaching them if you endeavoured to organise such a force as that in this country. Secondly, you could not provide a force of that

931
description without adding at least £30,000,000 to the Army Estimates. I therefore dismiss that suggestion also as an impossible one. Now I come to the last proposal, that of the National Service League—four months training for the Infantry and six months for the Artillery and Cavalry. I can only say again of that that if the Regular soldiers criticise the Territorials they criticise no less this proposition. "What is the use," they say, "of such a force to us?" We are not afraid of invasion. I have never known military advisers of the Government proceed on the footing that we are afraid of invasion. They say, "It is not invasion we want to guard against; it is to increase the military strength of the country as seems to us necessary." Then they put the question, "What is the use of this force thus trained for four or six months if its only advantage is that it may be called upon to go abroad? There is no use obviously, because they are not trained on the level of Continental troops." Therefore the plan of the National Service League has always been looked upon coldly by military critics, and not the less because the estimated cost would be £8,000,000 or £8,500,000. Naturally the soldiers say that with £8,000,000 they could do a great deal more than that. The outcome of it all, to sum it up, is, the moment you try to apply the principle of compulsory service to a country like ours, the island centre of a great Empire, which has those obligations which I have endeavoured to sketch, that principle breaks down, in whatever form you try to apply it.
We are responsible for a large and distant Empire, we have to maintain an enormous Navy for its defence, and we can only do this on the basis of those traditions which have gone deep into the feelings of our people and to which we are accustomed. It is said that if people were to lay aside their Party feelings and appeal to the nation the nation would respond and sweep away all its objections to compulsory service and say, "We are willing to do our duty to the country to which we belong." I do not doubt that. I have always thought that if a real appeal based on reason and necessity were made to the nation there is nothing the people of the country would not do and do gladly. But, my Lords, deep down in the mind and memory of our people is the history and
932
sentiment of our military and naval traditions. It was not by piling up great armies for home defence and putting a ring round our shores that our forefathers won their victories and preserved this country; it was by the command of the sea and the bravery of those military commanders who, at the head of bodies of voluntary serving troops, seine of them not of great dimensions, were able to vindicate the cause for which they fought. It is in command of the sea, and in command of the sea mainly, that the people of this country base their faith, and you will find that faith very deep with them. The people say, "If your Navy is not large enough, spend more money on it. Increase the second line of naval defence. We do not desire to put any obstacle in your way; but we beg you not to take us away from what we are familiar with and from what we believe in and ask us to embark on a policy and principle the end of which we cannot foresee."
People talk very lightly of what an excellent thing it would be for young men to take them between the ages of eighteen and twenty and give them compulsory military training. I think there is a great deal to be said for military training. I think it is a very useful thing physically, but when you want a good thing you have to pay for it and you have to count the cost. I am not talking of physical training at school, which is in a different category. I am talking of what you propose to do, of taking young men of eighteen away from their avocations and giving them four or six months' training to enable them to be fit for service. What are the proposals? The National Service League suggest 6d. a day as against the sum of ½d. paid by the French and of 3½d. paid by the Germans. They propose to take away these young men of eighteen and twenty for four to six months and pay them at the rate of 6d. a day. What will happen if you seriously propose in the public interest to do this? Some of these men are married, others support aged parents, or help other members of their family. Every one of them would feel himself aggrieved. In our country the industrial output per head of the population is enormously greater and the earnings much higher than in any country on the Continent. Therefore the sacrifice is all the greater. These are young men most of them probably earning 4s., 5s., or 6s.

933
a day, and I cannot conceive any better way of damping military enthusiasm in this country than to drag them away from their work and give them 6d. a day. You would produce something like a revolution, and again I say that your plan would lead to the sweeping from power of any Government which tried it. That is one reason for your principle being, in the belief of a great many people, absolutely disadvantageous and unwelcome from the point of view of the Empire and the country generally.
If this opinion be true, what is our position? Are we so badly off? Several questions were put by the noble Viscount who opened the debate and also by the noble Field-Marshal. We were asked, "Will the Government say definitely what they intend to do with the Expeditionary Force in ease of war? Would they all be sent abroad?" That was one question. I think any one who attempted an answer to a question which is essentially a question of circumstances would be very ill-advised. It is essentially a question to be decided according to the circumstances and the conditions which prevailed and which we cannot predict. One would be very foolish if one attempted to answer such a question with a categorical "Yes" or "No." It must be a matter to be decided by the circumstances present at the moment. We might find that our naval dispositions were such that considering all the strategic positions, we might find it best to send all our Expeditionary Force abroad. Or it might be that owing to the operations of the Fleet there was not concentrated for the security of the country that amount of strength that we should desire, and we might think it better under the circumstances to keep the Expeditionary Force at home or only send away four divisions and keep two divisions at home. No one can give a categorical "Yes" or "No" to such a question.
But supposing it so happened that we had to rely largely upon the home defence forces and the Territorial Force for our security. The principles laid down by the Committee of Imperial Defence are that the military forces at home should be sufficient to deal with a raid by 70,000 men. Assuming we possess the command of the sea, the invaders could not effect a landing in any large numbers; and what is the position? small forces would be likely
934
to get cut off from their base and have their lines of communication severed. Again, with wireless telegraphy installations all along our coasts, intelligence is transmitted at very short notice, and any considerable farce attempting to disembark upon our coasts world probably find their transports torpedoed by the flotilla craft which now ranges along our coasts for the purpose of providing that second line of naval defence of which my noble friend Lord Herschell spoke. That is a policy which doubtless will find more favour in the future than is the case at present. In military and naval problems it is quite true there is no certainty. You have to act with a view to contingencies that are probable and not those which are unlikely, and as far as one can foresee that is a line of defence which is likely to remain and to be of permanent value. Still, it may be argued that a great many of the enemy will get through. What then?
I come to the Territorial Force. Within the last forty-eight hours I have been going pretty closely into the condition of the Territorial Force with the experts who are responsible for it. I admit to your Lordships that it has been a great disappointment to me that we have not been able to get the 50,000 by which the Force is short of its establishment. I cannot say that I had not prepared myself for such a possibility. Those of your Lordships who care to look into these things will find that in the speech I made in the other House on February 25, 1907, in introducing the plan of the Force to the House of Commons, I said I was not sure that we should in a time of peace be able to get more than 250,000 men together, but I felt pretty confident that if war came we should get the full complement. We have had more than 250,000 men, and I believe we shall always have more excepting in case of temporary disturbance. If the splendid work continues to be done to which Lord Methuen referred, which has been done by many of your Lordships and by the County Associations, it will set an example of public spirit to the whole country. One result of that work has been that this year the recruiting is better than it has been for some time. The Force is in a more settled condition. Men who come to the end of their period of engagement take on again. But we have still a very formidable situation to face in the present year. Four years ago there was a great boom

935
organised for the benefit of the Territorial Force. I took part in it myself. I think everybody helped, and we were too successful. We recruited 110,000 men in one year. In the light of the experience we now have that was a very foolish thing to do. The inevitable reaction set in. People cooled, and we have now to face the fact that the engagements of all those 110,000 men will come to an end this year, instead of our having only 40,000 or 50,000 men going out. A large number of those will no doubt rejoin, but we may have the Force come down to 230,000 or 240,000. If it does, I, for one, shall not be alarmed so long as the general public continues its interest in the Territorial Force, and so long as the old exertions are maintained. I will tell your Lordships why.
The very fact that there will be such an exodus this year means that next year there will be a much smaller number to go out, and the Force will fill up in a much more healthy way and not be recruited to an abnormal extent. Therefore I think the tendency is not an alarming one; and I agree with my noble friend Lord Herschell that a great number of those who have gone out, even if they refuse to re-engage, would, if there came a time of national need, at once return to the Colours and give you de facto the Reserve which you would like to be able to put your hand on in time of peace. In any period of stress I have no doubt that the Territorial Force will be filled to its full establishment. In any event, there are a large number of men who would rejoin, and then there are 157,000 men highly trained under fifty-five years of age in the National Reserve, many of whom we could reckon on at a time of national stress to come in. So I do not think your Lordships need have any misgivings about this, that if war became really imminent our Territorial Force would overflow not only with men but with officers. As regards officers, the investigations I have made have satisfied me that the same thing is true. That being so, how do we stand to-day? The Defence Committee surveyed the plans for the Territorial Force in 1907. It surveyed the conditions of invasion in 1908, and the Territorial Force was designed under exactly the same conditions which obtain to-day, with no material change, to solve the problem which now confronts us. If it be true that the Territorial Force can be mobilised, is there any reason why we
936
should go back upon the solution which the Committee of Imperial Defence deliberately adopted?
I have pointed out to your Lordships why it is impossible in our view to recommend compulsory service. I have pointed out that the command of the sea and the question of our distant garrisons and the Expeditionary Force makes such a system impracticable. And now I ask, What is it which has led people to go about saying that there is a great, change, and that the plans the Committee of Imperial Defence surveyed in 1907 and 1908 have broken down? If the Territorial Force is the right solution, why is it not the solution to-day? I see suggestions in the newspapers that the Committee of Imperial Defence have altered the old figure of 70,000. That is a sheer mistake. The figure has always been 70,000. It was 70,000 at the time the noble Viscount was in office; it was 70,000 when the subject was discussed before the House of Commons in the debates of 1902, 1903, and 1905 in the time of Mr. Balfour, and it has remained at 70,000. It is on the basis of our necessities that we have organised this scheme, and the Territorial Force fulfils it to-day just as much as it would have fulfilled it in those times. It is not to be supposed that the Territorial Force is not making progress. I do not go about now as I used to do from centre to centre of the Territorial Force making myself responsible for their well-being, but under my right hon. friend Colonel Seely the Territorial Force is making very distinct progress. Within the last few days I have had an opportunity of verifying the figures. Some of them Lord Herschell has given. It is very important to remember that you have now got uniforms and equipment for the full establishment of 316,000 men; you have the rifles, you have the ammunition, and all the impedimenta. There are a few small details required, but they are quite minor things which could be dispensed with, and I pledge myself to your Lordships that they will be produced within the next few months. As regards mobilisation, the wagons are all available and the horses are all marked down. Care is taken by the Regulars not to interfere with Territorial horses, so that the Yeomanry will ride upon their horses with the knowledge that they are not going to be taken away for Regular purposes. These things have been done. Two distinguished commanders of the Territorial Force whom I

937
have seen within the last few hours both told me this, "We can move our men quickly; we can mobilise them equally quickly; we can march them and they will fight like fiends"—that was the expression—" from the very first. They may fight in a rather irregular way, but they will improve day by day and week by week, and although it is quite true it will take them a long time before they can approach the condition of the Regulars they will be a very useful Force from the first day." I do not think that is an over-sanguine view, judging of the men I am speaking of. They have an organisation; they have Regular officers and definite functions assigned to them; they have a plan worked out, and they are men of keenness.
I have been often called an optimist. I do not want to be over-sanguine, but I do protest against the pessimism of those who declare that the Territorial Force is of no use without six months training. It would be of use from the very first day, and it would be of growing use every day after that. I have been quoted over and over again as having said that the Territorial Force must have six months' training before they could be used against an enemy. I need not remark that I never said anything of the kind. What I did say was, that on the outbreak of war it was proposed to mobilise the Territorial Force immediately with the mobilisation of the Regulars. I was thinking of a case in which the Expeditionary Force went away, say, to India, when we should want a Home Defence Force. The proposal of the scheme is to mobilise the Territorial Force, put it in war training for six months, and at the end of the six months dismiss the men to their homes, knowing that they had been fairly well trained, not to the level of the Regulars, of course; so that on the basis of a two to one advantage they might be very formidable. That is what I have said and nothing else. To speak of the Territorial Force as nonexistent until six months had elapsed is to say a thing which is not only totally contrary to what has been said by those who were responsible for the plan, but totally contrary to common-sense. Can it be imagined that the colliers of Durham or the men of the Royal Scots of the Lothians would sit down and say that without six months' training they could not deal with an invading detachment which they might outnumber by four or five to one?
938
What is our situation to-day? It is part of my case that our position in the Empire, the responsibilities which we have to bear and shall have to bear for many a long day to come, place us in a very difficult position as regards home defence. But it comes only to this, that we have to lay more stress on the naval side than other countries. We have to look to the Navy as our first and second lines of home defence, and devote ourselves to making such preparations as will enable us to deal with what may get through on the full scale, and deal with it on a footing that, with their lines of communication cut, the comparatively small force that may come in and do mischief will be swallowed up. The noble Viscount spoke of the Special Reserve. The primary function of the Special Reserve is to supply the wastage of war of the Expeditionary Force during the first six months, and it is in an ample position to do that according to its numbers at the present day. The Third Battalions, on the outbreak of war, would take in the partially-trained Regulars, men of eighteen months' service and under twenty years of age who are not in a position to go abroad, and the surplus of the Reserve, and would garrison forts and other places that have to be defended. There are seventy-four of these battalions, and behind them are the twenty-seven battalions of which I do not speak further because the problem is more difficult. I do not think that against these any small raiding force would make much headway. If they succeeded in landing, what position would such a raiding force be in? It would be surrounded and eventually wiped out even if they succeeded in killing three times their numbers.
In November, 1911, in this House I was able to read to your Lordships a suggested scheme of home defence so far as it was proper to go into details. Your Lordships will find it set out in full in Hansard at that time. Schemes of home defence have been worked out which provide for a central force. There are coast defence troops all along the coast, swift moving troops, cyclist battalions, yeomanry and other allotted troops, whose duty it is to see that no detachment which manages to land can penetrate any distance, and while they are holding them the central force, which is the striking force, thoroughly organised on a different pattern, comes up and completes the work which they have

939
begun. These things have been carefully and thoroughly worked out by some of the best officers that we have had at the War Office for a long time. Immense trouble has been taken. I say again that every scheme based on a voluntary system is defective, as you can never make quite sure of your numbers and you have to work under difficult conditions. That is a necessity put upon us by our island position, but our island position also gives us other advantages. If I were a Frenchman or a German I should accept without a doubt the notion of the entire manhood of the country, a nation in arms, trained to accept compulsory service, because I should feel that it was impossible without that to resist the enemy who might come over the imaginary land frontier and conquer my country. But we live in an island which enables us to make use of naval force for part of our defence. We have put our faith right through in the command of the sea. It is in accordance with our traditions that we should do so. I believe that we have, in addition, an organisation that is sufficient for our safety.
The appeal which I would make to your Lordships is this, that in a difficult time when it is vital that every help should be given to the Territorial Force, which is not five years old, your Lordships should continue that help which many of you have splendidly given in these years, and in co-operation with its military leaders bring it into the shape in which it can do its duty. I say, further, that we should do well to avoid the cry of "stinking fish," a cry of which too much is heard in this country in connection with our military and naval affairs. I often think we make ourselves a laughing stock to other countries by the extent to which we proclaim our own deficiencies. It is not that we are nervous or timid when we get into difficulties we always extricate ourselves, but we do produce a bad impression abroad. I feel that the best that can be done for the country is that people should quietly and resolutely make up their minds that until they have got something else they had better go on with what they already possess and endeavour to improve it, and should act in the spirit so aptly described to us by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal who spoke last, when he told us that until we had got something better we ought to make the best of what We now possess.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount at the opening of his speech expressed the opinion that the real question between the two Parties was the question of voluntary as against compulsory service, and he proceeded to put forward a number of arguments against compulsory service, a great many of which I fully admit ought not to be put aside without much consideration, but which he will pardon me for saving had not much relevance to the speech of my noble friend who introduced this question. The noble Lord who spoke for the War Office in his observations followed rather the mine tactics, for he too spoke at considerable length on the question of compulsory as against voluntary service. We are quite ready to discuss that question, but it is not the question which is at this moment before the House. The question raised by my noble friend relates to the present condition of the Territorial Force and its fitness for service in contingencies to which reference has been made.
With reference to the noble and learned Viscount's observation as to questions of Party, may I be permitted to associate myself with what was said by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches when he expressed his opinion that this is not a question which ought to be discussed upon Party lines. I hold that opinion very strongly. My dream has always been to see these great questions of Imperial defence taken out of the rut of Party politics. They are questions which concern the safety of our country, and I cannot put myself into the frame of mind of the man who would use them merely for the purpose of making Party capital out of them. May I say another word in the same direction. The noble Viscount appealed to me just now as an ex-Secretary of State for War. May I say that my recollections of the difficulties with which the Secretary of State for War for the time being has to contend are so vivid that I can assure him that I should never myself endeavour to put any Secretary of State for War who has followed me at the War Office in a difficulty merely with the idea of scoring points in discussion.
I think that the noble Viscount may very fairly admit that the Territorial scheme has not been dealt with on a Party basis. I doubt whether any scheme was ever launched with a greater amount of general good-will

941
behind it or a more sincere desire on the part of all who had an opportunity of promoting its success to do what they could to save it from failure. I admit that I thought that in these circumstances it was scarcely fair to talk as the noble and learned Viscount did of a campaign against the Territorial Force. I do not think that there has been any such campaign. The noble Viscount and those who think with him are surely not going to blame the noble and gallant Earl on the Cross Benches if, holding the views he does, he spares no pains to put before the country the merits of his own scheme and advocates it with all the energy and ability which he has displayed so conspicuously. The noble and learned Viscount's argument that these complaints and criticisms create a bad impression abroad leaves me perfectly cold. The people abroad are as well aware as we are of the imperfections of our own system, and I should never be deterred from criticism by the feeling that what I said might attract attention beyond the limits of this country.
It is our duty to face frankly and with courage the difficulties with which we are confronted. We should be wanting in patriotism if we did not take stock of the situation, and most of us have come to the conclusion with great regret that, so to speak, our assets have tended to diminish, and our liabilities have tended to increase. I say that in no spirit of complaint. With a voluntary Army such as ours we must necessarily be at the mercy of the labour market and of sentiment, and the responsible Minister is also at the mercy of those financial limitations from which no Secretary for War can extricate himself. Our liabilities, again, do not depend upon us, but upon the activities of other Powers. They depend upon the foreign policy of the Government of the day and to some extent upon the advice of our military experts, who are not always the same men and not always with the same ideas. The situation certainly seems to have altered for the worse. The demands upon us have reference to the maintenance of our garrisons abroad, to the preparation of our Expeditionary Force and the maintenance of the Home Army upon which the country relies for home defence and for the supply of wastage in war. The demand in respect of foreign and other garrisons is fairly constant, but the demands with respect to the Expeditionary. Force have certainly undergone
942
very considerable modifications, by no means to our advantage. I remember a time when we used to talk of an Expeditionary Force of 70,000 men; the number has now grown to 171,000 men. The noble and learned Viscount was asked a question as to our readiness to send that Force abroad at short notice. I think we have got from the noble and learned Viscount the admission that it is possible that the Expeditionary Force might have to leave these shores very soon after the outbreak of hostilities, although, as he very properly said, that must depend upon the circumstances of the time. What would happen? You would be met with a heavy demand for drafts at a very early moment, you would have a serious diminution of the forces left at home, and you would have largely diminished opportunities of training the Home Army which remains.
Let me say a word as to the responsibilities of the Home Army. It would have, in the first place, the duty of repelling an invasion. I gather that the Government and their military advisers admit that in the case of an invasion we may have to reckon with a force, possibly of 70,000 men landing on these shores. I think the noble Lord opposite told us that his military advisers did not believe that the force would get through but he went on very properly to say that the case was not one in which nicely calculated numbers could be suggested.
LORD HERSCHELL: The words the noble Marquess refers to are a quotation from the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons in 1909.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That is quite good enough. I do not want any higher authority. Then I would ask the noble Lord whether the naval manœuvres held in 1910 and 1912 did not show that the possibility of a successful landing As a much more serious matter than had been imagined up to that time. There is also another set of considerations which we cannot afford to lose sight of. I believe that it is undoubtedly the fact that on the Continent the facilities for concentrating troops, for putting them on the railway and for carrying them across the sea, are now infinitely greater than they were a few years ago. I gather from the reply of the noble Lord that the War Office fully admits the seriousness of this problem, and I think he told us that a

943
special committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence had been appointed or was to be appointed to consider the whole question. I will leave it there for the moment.
If the Expeditionary Force has to be sent abroad its departure will have the effect of eating very seriously into the strength of that part of the Regular Army which will remain. I have always regarded the reductions made in the Regular Army by the noble and learned Viscount when he was Secretary of State for War as unfortunate. They involved a reduction in the Army Reserve, and in my view it would have been better if, before making them, he had waited a little time to see how the new Force which he was calling into existence was likely to turn out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: After the reorganisation there are more troops at home than there were before.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Did not the noble Viscount reduce the strength of the home battalions?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not a single home battalion was knocked off, nor was their strength reduced; not a man was knocked off.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend behind me is evidently of a different impression, but the noble Viscount's knowledge is more recent than mine. It is quite clear at any rate that for the Expeditionary Force, for lines of communication, for the first drafts which you will have to send out, and for garrisons, you will want the whole Regular Army at home and I suppose about twenty-seven battalions of the Special Reserve. When those battalions have gone you will have left the Territorial Force, and seventy-four battalions of the Special Reserve—a very heterogeneous body of men, consisting in a great measure of recruits and invalids and of supernumerary Reservists, men who have never been trained together, who are without sufficient officers, and who in no sense of the word could be described as a fighting force. Beside those you have the National Reserve, which I gather it is designed to utilise in some way to fill up the deficiencies in the Territorial Force. We do not know what the scheme is; but it is quite clear that at this moment the National Reserve is not a very valuable asset for that purpose.
944
It comes then to this, that the Territorial Force will have to bear the whole brunt of home defence. Now the Territorial Force is considerably below its establishment in regard to both men and officers. The noble and learned Viscount spoke of improved recruiting, but I think the noble Lord opposite told us that that has been more than balanced by increased wastage. I should not be greatly alarmed at the shortage in numbers if there were any solid reason for believing that the shortage was likely to be made up; but the evidence in support of the view that it will be made up seems extremely unconvincing. In the current year the engagements of no fewer than 114,000 of these men will come to an end. The reason why I am inclined to fear that we are dealing with a falling market is that I hear from ail sides that both the men and the employers are beginning to rebel against an arrangement under which they bear the whole burden of the sacrifice. That is what I think the noble Viscount has described as a formidable situation, and I am not entirely comforted by his optimistic anticipation that in time of trouble all the old Territorials will flock back to the standard, and that it will be full to overflowing of both men and officers.
To my mind, much more serious than the question of numbers is the question of training and organisation. Without training and organisation I am not inclined to place too much confidence merely on numbers. I remember reading a speech of the noble and learned Viscount in which he anticipated that the whole nation would spring to arms at the call of duty. That is rather a nice phrase, but I am inclined to believe that if the whole nation were to spring to arms at the call of duty it would be very much in everybody's way, and particularly in the way of the War Office. I note two or three facts in connection with the question of training and organisation. In the first place, if I am warranted in assuming that the Expeditionary Force might be conceivably sent out of the country at the commencement of hostilities the six months' training which we always hope for in the ease of these Territorial troops would be unattainable. In the second place, I note that owing to the demands of the Expeditionary Force you will no longer have that stiffening of Regular troops upon which, in the clays when I was familiar with these matters, the military authorities so much relied whenever there

945
was any question of the efficiency of the Volunteers and the Militia. In the third place, I notice that, in spite of all the exertions of the Territorial Associations for the purpose of bringing about the efficiency of the Territorial Artillery, there seems to be no doubt that in that arm the Territorial Force still leaves much to be desired. There are other facts which one cannot exclude from consideration—the number of officers and men who have been absentees from camp; the number of failures in musketry; the dearth of officers, and probably the doubtful quality of some of them; and, perhaps most important of all, the insufficiency of the supply of horses. These are all weak points, and I hope that the War Office may find it possible to deal with them in a satisfactory manner.
But to my mind much the most serious of the difficulties with which the military authorities will have to contend is that of supplying the waste of the Army in time of war. I think it is now assumed that drafts to the extent of something like 25 per cent. of the total force will be wanted at the outset of hostilities. The noble and learned Viscount reminded me of the gravity of what he called the "drafts problem." I am the last person in the world who is likely to forget it. I still remember the situation in which we found ourselves at the beginning of the South African War. Our mobilisation went off without a hitch. Our Reservists came forward almost to a man; and we sent out an Army which was stronger and, I believe it has been said since, better equipped than any Army which has ever left these shores. But our troubles began when we had to find the drafts. We got plenty of men, but they were not even half-manufactured soldiers. They were absolute raw material, and the raw material had to be worked up under great difficulties and not always with very satisfactory results. What, so it seems to me, we want is a large supply—I should like to say an unlimited supply—of half-manufactured soldiers—men with some rudimentary knowledge of drill, used to handle a rifle, and used, above all, to military discipline. In order to obtain such a Reserve you do not want to have anything which can be described as conscription, or which would bear any analogy to conscription. You can get it by compulsory training at school continued for a year or two afterwards. And I hope I am not wrong in understanding from the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Herschell, that the War
946
Office have under their serious consideration some plan for introducing training of that kind.
LORD HERSCHELL: I should, perhaps, explain that no plan is under consideration. All that I indicated was that if it were desired to train the youth of the nation from the point of view of physique, it could not be done by taking them at an age at which they were ripe for conscription, but by some scheme, which I did not define, in connection with secondary education.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord is no doubt speaking under the instructions of the War Office. I greatly regret that the War Office have not given him instructions a little more distinct and to the purpose. Is not the time come when all these "ifs" might be put on one side? This is not a new proposal. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack himself, in his preface to a little hook by Sir Ian Hamilton, said, "I am with them"—that is, the National Service League—"in thinking that physical training ought to be organised as an essential part of an educational system." The noble Lord just now was extremely careful to explain that even that somewhat hypothetical policy of which he is the exponent. is limited to what you may call strictly educational training—physical training, I think, was the expression—and that the idea of any little soupçon of militarism is to be kept carefully out of sight. But the noble Lord, in a moment of candour, when dealing with this part of his case, talked of physical training and gymnastics and indicated that there would be no great harm if the use of arms and simple military formations were to be included in the course. I do hope the noble Lord and his friends will harden their hearts and look a little more closely and courageously into this matter. It does not matter in the least what you call it so long as these lads get the kind of training that I should like them to get; and if in addition the noble and learned Viscount is able to say, as I think he did, that he would be able to find room for these trained lads in his expanded military system, we might arrive at something which would le really the foundation of a general system of training in the rudiments of soldiering. If this could be done, you would provide the country with a kind of reservoir from which in time of trouble you would, without any preliminary assumption of liability on the part of the lads trained, be able to draw an almost

947
unlimited supply of trained men, for I have no doubt the youths so trained would come forward in time of emergency, as they did at the time of the South African War.
I am no new convert to this view. Three years ago I remember calling your attention to the recommendations of the Poor Law Commission, presided over by Lord George Hamilton, which contains what is virtually a recommendation of a scheme of this kind. I hold strongly that even if the men so trained were never to fire a shot in anger we should nevertheless have conferred a great benefit on the country by passing them through a course of training of this kind. I think I am right in saying that the great British Dominions have adopted this plan, and I do not see why their example should not be followed. But I do hope that if this idea is pursued, as I hope it will be, we shall not see what I think we see now—an attempt on the part of the War Office to shoulder the whole of the responsibility on to the Education Department. It is a national question. Let the two Departments join hands and see what they can do, and I feel little doubt they will be able to make something of it.
We spend, I think my noble friend told us, £50,000,000 a year upon education. Most people who have been paying attention to the question are pretty well convinced that we teach our boys at the elementary schools a great deal that is extremely wearisome to them and of little use as part of their equipment for the life that lies before them. Why should we not leave out a part of these somewhat uninteresting studies and substitute for them some of that—I will not call it military, for fear of offending the ears of my noble friend, but some of that physical, or gymnastic education which does not preclude the handling of arms and occasional military movements? I believe it would be very popular and would not involve any interference with the liberty of the subject, because, assuming you have a right to insist upon teaching a lad the three R's, you have also a perfect right to teach him how to hold himself and to submit to discipline. If this were done, I believe the result would be, not, as some suppose, to give us a colossal and expensive Army, a plaything for ambitious soldiers, but to give us a great national reserve which would be a source of strength and solidity to us in times of peace and a source of safety in the hour of peril.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Might I be allowed to correct one figure? The noble Viscount interrupted my noble friend to say he had not reduced the strength of the Army at all, and I dissented. Would your Lordships allow me to give the figures? This is from an answer given by the representative of the War Office in the House of Commons on April 27, 1911, in reply to a question by Mr. Long, who asked what the strength of the Regular Army was on January 1, 1905, and on January 1, 1911, serving at home, in India, and in the Colonies respectively. The answer was: With regard to all ranks except officers, January 1, 1905, 130,422; January 1, 1911, 121,688 at home. That is, a difference of 9,000 less at home. In the Colonies on January 1, 1905, there were 68,467, and on January 1, 1911, 45,257—a difference of 23,000 in the Colonies and 9,000 at home.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was talking of fighting units. I understood that was what was referred to. What I said was that there were more fighting units at home under the reorganisation than there were before, and that I had not knocked off a single man. I think what the noble Marquess was referring to was the paper establishments.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Those are the figures.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are all sorts of miscellaneous figures. Unless you analyse them you cannot tell what they are, but you will find, taking the actual fighting units, there has been no reduction.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am sorry to differ from the noble Viscount. He has reduced, according to these figures, the strength both at home and abroad. Surely the result of reducing the strength is to reduce the establishment.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, we have gathered from the speeches of noble Lords that none of them is likely to propose any very drastic alteration of the Territorial Force in the direction of compulsory service. It therefore becomes more necessary that the organisation of that Force should be put on a footing which will give it both adequate numbers and adequate training. I think that in the discussion we have had so far this evening the numbers of the

949
Territorial Force have been somewhat underrated; 300,000 recruits have joined it in the last five years though in irregular bodies and in a way which consequently upsets the establishment. But it, cannot be contended that a Force which attracts an average number of recruits of 60,000 a year is one which is altogether out of harmony with the feelings of the public from whom it is recruited, and the fact that nearly half the men re-engage when their time is up shows that they do not find service in the Territorial Force either onerous or disagreeable think that the number of recruits would have been considerably greater than it has been, especially among officers, had it not been for the exertions of the National Service League. Whatever their intentions may Lave been—and I am quite prepared to admit that their intentions are admirable—I am afraid there is no doubt that they have given numbers of young men a good excuse for shirking enlistment, especially among those who might have joined the Force as officers. That is my opinion, and it is an opinion I have formed from some study of the subject and from information I have received from commanding officers and others who are in a position to know, and there is no doubt that the want of officers has a very serious effect upon the recruiting, of the Force.
But what really has reduced the numbers more than any other single cause is the very great waste which has occurred among the men who joined. I was very much surprised when Lot d Herschell, after giving your Lordships some figures, said that there was nothing noticeable in the wastage that had occurred among the men who joined. In view of that, your Lordships will perhaps be surprised to hear that, out of the 110,000 recruits who joined in 1908 and 1909, over 4,000 had gone by October 1, 1909, and that that number had been diminishing almost at the rate of 1,000 a month up to October 1 last. Four thousand went in the first six months, another 12,000 the next year, 12,000 the year after, and 10,000 the year after that. If these men had only decreased in the proportion usual to men in the Infantry of the Line—that is to say, at the rate of about 7 per cent. per annum—the number of men who on October 1 last had done four years service would have been 86,000 instead of 71,000, and if the same rate of
950
wastage of 7 per cent. which obtains in the Infantry of the Line, who have to serve all over the world, had prevailed, the Force would be very nearly up to establishment now.
In Devonshire our establishment is 6,700. In the last three years the recruits were 4,000, but the net increase of strength was only 29. Three Infantry battalions raised 1,612 recruits in three years and left off 159 to the bad on balance. In the Field Artillery Brigade 68 men left time expired, and 88 went prematurely in three years. In the Army Service Corps company 28 left time expired, and 17 went prematurely in four Years. In the Field Ambulance in three years 52 left time expired, and 45 prematurely. It is not only that men disappear in this way but there is the awful waste of money besides. You cannot put the expense to an Association and the country on a man for his first years' service at a penny less than £5. The Government estimate is £4 10 s. per man who attends camp. That includes horses. The loss is chiefly in the Infantry, so I have not taken anything like that figure in making au estimate. The best estimate I can make is that you lose £5 on a man who goes at the end of his first year, and something over £9 on a man who goes at the end of his second year, and for all the military value they are to the country the money is absolutely thrown away. Consequently on the recruits of 1908 and 1909 at least £70,000 has been absolutely thrown away in consequence of the rate at which they have left the Force.
The reason the men go in this way, I think, in a great many cases is that they have to leave the locality in which they have been living to seek for work elsewhere. Great numbers, too, have emigrated, and incidentally these facts throw a little side light On the statistics of unemployment, of which we hear a good deal sometimes in another connection, for if thousands of young men, sound in wind and limb and certainly not inferior to their fellows in other respects, are leaving the country in great numbers to seek for work in other lands it accounts for men who are not their equals being able to find a job at home. People may say, why are not these men held to their engagement in the Force and why do the Associations let

951
them go. The answer is you cannot help it. The man goes first, and you find it out afterwards. His brother or his wife or somebody comes to the regimental store with his uniform in a bundle and says, "Here is William's regimentals; he has gone away." Of course, in theory if he has only gone to the next county or up to London or to some town in search of work, you can send a corporal and a file of men after him, but a lot of good that would do. It would be only throwing good money after bad and would be ruining your recruiting. If you are going to rely upon voluntary service you must give the men some inducements to complete their engagement and to make the best of their time while they are serving.
In this connection I should like to put before your Lordships a plan that has been suggested to me by a Mr. de Salis, a member of the Middlesex Association, which I think if it is found feasible in other ways would certainly have a good effect in this direction. His idea briefly is that any man who completes his four years and pays attention to drill and musketry and raises himself to a certain standard of military ability above the average should on completion of his engagement be given a substantial deferred bounty, and that any man re-engaging should be allowed to earn a similar bounty by another two or four years' service. Mr. de Salis suggests a bounty which would amount to several months' earnings. I should not like to commit myself to any particular sum without going very thoroughly into the whole scheme and weighing the advantages and the disadvantages, but certainly it is no use to give anything at all unless you offer a sum which will be a real inducement to a man and for which it would be worth his while to make some sacrifice. If it is thought well to adopt the suggestion I have very little doubt that the prospect of earning a sum of money which would form a nucleus of a small capital for setting up in a small holding or in a business of their own would be a great attraction to recruits, and besides that it would bring into the ranks a number of men of higher military attainments and a better standard altogether of drill and discipline.
I have no doubt that comparisons may be made between this and the system
952
of deferred pay in the Army which was given up a few years ago for the reason that in a great many cases the money was wasted and spent in dissipation in the first week at the barrack gates. But the circumstances are not the same. This money would not be paid over in barracks, and the men who received it would not be surrounded by a number of thirsty comrades quite ready and willing to join in a spree. Anyhow, I am quite convinced that any money to be given to the men would be better given in that way than by payment for compulsory drills. The men are content to do them now without payment provided that where they go above a certain distance their travelling expenses are paid. There is another very important reason, and that is that unless the men stay on and complete their engagement every penny you pay them for drills will be money added to that already wasted for payment in camp and for their ammunition and uniforms. I need not remind your Lordships what a discouragement it is to officers and men if men leave in this way. The officers see men on whom they have taken a lot of trouble going away before they have derived the full benefit of such training as they have been able to give them. The question of training is even more important than that of numbers, and I think the noble Viscount on the Woolsack hardly did justice to what he said a few years ago as to the necessity of extended training for the Territorials if they were to be of use. In February, 1907, he said the great feature is the six months' training. If, therefore, the Territorial Force is to be such that the Navy and the Expeditionary Force are to be free to go away as soon as they are wanted and anywhere they are wanted, the training which the Territorials at present get in camp must be supplemented by something more between whiles.
I do not think that a longer period of camp is possible. People complain of the number of men who go away at the end of eight days. They are pretty often spoken of as shirkers and wasters, but in many cases the reason is that they are good men and cannot be spared by their employers any longer and they have to return to their work. It is not a question of money. Even if you were to offer them 5s. a day they could not stay in camp more than a fortnight or so, because

953
a man who is a good enough workman to get and has a good enough character to keep a place cannot be spared from his employment for more than fifteen days or some similar period. I am confirmed in this view by what happened in the case of the Militia. For sonic few years before the alterations were made every trained Militiaman was paid in cash and allowances at the rate of 5s. a day for every day's soldiering he did, but notwithstanding that high rate of pay the Force was 40 per cent. below its establishment in 1905 and 30 per cent. weaker than it was in 1892 when the pay was a great deal less. If the Territorial Force is to be one that the country can rely upon when the Fleet and the Expeditionary Force are away it undoubtedly must get more training in time of peace. I know that is the feeling of a great number of thoughtful Territorial officers, who feel that under present circumstances the weapon which they would be called upon to use might be one which would break in their hands in the day of need.
I have already indicated a method by which I believe the Force could be certainly improved in numbers and stiffened, I believe, also in discipline and in drill. The system of cadet training which has been referred to on both sides of the House also would undoubtedly be most valuable from many points of view. Then I think it would be an advantage if commanding officers were allowed to enlist a certain number of ex-sergeants of the Line as sergeants, men who have finished their Reserve service. If those men come in now they have to come in as privates, and there is a great deal of difference between enlisting as a private and enlisting as a sergeant, and if a few of them were allowed to be enlisted directly as sergeants they would be very helpful both to officers and to the non-commissioned officers and men. I think also it would be wise to alter the terms of enlistment for the Regulars and to require them to serve with the Territorial Force Reserve for a couple of years after the expiry of their time in the Army Reserve. You would have to give them something like £4 or £5 a year, I suppose, but I believe the money would be well spent if it were to give you, as it would, on the present numbers something like 10 per cent. of ex-Regulars both to stiffen the Artillery and the Infantry. With regard to Garrison Artillery it would
954
be a good thing, I think, if the regulations were altered so that ex-seamen gunners and Royal Marine Artillery could be enrolled in the Territorial Reserve for them.
But what I think would do more than these minor expedients would be if you went on the same principle in regard to the command of units as you do in regard to the command of brigades—that is, only give the command to a Territorial officer if he is a man of special qualifications and aptitude. I do not believe that the Territorial officers as a body would at all resent that. I have the greatest possible respect for them, and I should grudge them no advancement for which they are qualified. The trouble they take over their work deserves the gratitude of the country in every way, but they are for the most part busy professional men. They know their limitations, and they know that there are not many people who can learn a second business in the leisure that can be spared from the other business on which they are dependent for their living; and a good many of them who have read history know also that the irregular corps of which we have heard a good deal in these discussions and who have done admirable service in every part of the world for the English flag have been invariably for the last hundred years employed against irregular troops. Except in the case of the Boer War, all our recent wars have been with natives. The only approach to Regular troops whom we have met since the Battle of Waterloo, except in the Crimea, were the Sikhs seventy years ago, and those irregular corps which have so constantly distinguished themselves have been in almost every case led by young capable officers of the Regular service who had a thorough knowledge of their profession. The amateurs who have shown themselves fit for anything more than subordinate commands have been few and far between. We shall hear in due time, no doubt, the lessons that are to be learnt from the war in the Balkans, but I think one lesson that is apparent is the difference between what the Montenegrins have achieved and what the Greeks have done. As fighting material the Montenegrins probably are as superior to the Greeks as the Afghans are to the Bengalis; but while the one are led by men who have studied soldiering as a profession and have achieved a great deal, the others have done remarkably little.

955
The comment on what I have said will no doubt be that it is all very fine, but that what I have suggested would do good, but that it will cost money, and where is the money to come from. I have indicated one source of waste at present where a good deal of money might be saved; and a little money, not a large sum, could be saved also by taking away the middle pair of horses and the middle driver from every gun team in the Field Artillery. There is an increasing difficulty every year in getting horses of the Artillery class, and a good many Artillery officers, ex-Regulars too, who have given their attention to this matter are quite convinced that their guns would do better and be able to move quite fast enough with four cart horses instead of six light draught horses. There would be a small saving there, and where there might possibly be a still larger saving would be in connection with the Artillery branch of the Territorial Force. At present the proportion of Field Artillery is about three guns to every thousand Infantry. I do not know whether the figure was adopted because it is an orthodox one, or whether it was adopted after full consideration of the circumstances likely to be associated with fighting in this country. Of course, an invader would not be likely to come with a great number of gulls, and if so it would be a great advantage to outnumber him with two or three guns to his one provided that our guns were able to shoot straight. Doubts have been cast upon that, and that is a subject on which I express no opinion; but I do know that a great many Generals—the Field-Marshal beside me is one—and a good many other people have considerable doubt whether in a country like ours where the field of vision is confined by hedges and woods, and the guns can seldom be moved off the roads, it would be possible for any General to make of anything approaching the number of guns provided. That, of course, is a matter for experts, but if, on second thoughts, it should be found that there is something in the suggestion, there might be money saved on the Artillery that would go a very long way towards paying for some of the other reforms which I have suggested. But whatever may be thought about them, I do hope that the authorities at the War Office will try to do something to stop the waste of the Force, a waste which is going on at the rate of something like 1,000 men a month, for that will infallibly imperil its existence if it is allowed to continue.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in a speech which I seem to have frequently heard before, informed us that t his was in his opinion an extremely interesting debate. I agree with him, but I think it was marked by what I can only term a singularly unsatisfactory statement by the official representative of the War Office in this House. The noble Lord who replied for the War Office began by making a portentious announcement that the Prime Minister was going to make a most important statement upon this particular question. I listened anxiously for, I think, something like hair an hour to hear something about that statement, but all I gathered at the end of the noble Lord's speech was that the National Defence Committee were at some indefinite period going to consider the subject. Like the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, I seem to have heard something of the same kind before. Then the noble Lord went on to deliver an elaborate essay which might have been written by Mr. Norman Angell or Mr. Keir Hardie directed against the curse of militarism, and he wound up, it is true, by making the admission that the Territorial Force was not altogether in a satisfactory state, but that nevertheless His Majesty's Government had not the smallest intention of doing anything whatsoever in order to remedy its deficiencies, unless it may be taken as evidence of what they are prepared to do that they are actually prepared to allow 1s. or 5d.—I forget what it is—per head to middle-aged gentlemen a few years younger than myself who have not yet reached the age of fifty-five. I think if there is one statement which has been made in the debate this afternoon which is calculated to cause surprise or disgust abroad it will be a statement of that character. I look upon it as one of the mast humiliating expedients I have ever heard suggested in this House.
I must confess that the Motion of my noble friend, to which by the way very scant attention was paid by the last speaker, or by some of the other speakers, is one which does not commend itself to me at all. I look upon this Motion with a somewhat suspicious eye. It looks to me rather like one of those put up jobs between the two Front Benches which we are more or less accustomed to when we are discussing questions of national defence, and

957
I am bound to say that as far as I am concerned the opinion of the Army Council upon the question of the Territorial Force would not convey any comfort to me whatsoever. I am firmly convinced in my own mind that the Government can always get precisely the opinion that it wants from its so-called military advisers. If the advice of these so-called military advisers did not happen to coincide with the political views of their political chiefs they would very soon cease to be advisers and would find themselves in the position of, say, Sir Francis Bridgeman or some-thing of that kind.
Who are these experts to whom we are invited to appeal? The Army Council. One of these military experts to whom we are expected to appeal for an independent opinion is at this moment, on the confession of the Government, stumping the country on behalf of the Territorial Force. That is the way in which high military talent is employed in this country. I really would as soon take the opinion of the Army Council upon the Secretary of State for War as I would take the opinion of my noble friend Lord Midleton's bailiff upon him in his capacity as a landowner, or I would as soon go to one of the Junior Lords of the Treasury and ask him what he thought about the financial policy of Mr. Lloyd George. You would be just as likely to get an independent opinion from them as you would from these so-called military advisers. I confess that I do not attach the smallest importance either to the opinion of the present Secretary of State for War. Years ago the present Secretary of State for War and I used to perambulate the country preaching the advantages of national service, and I am bound to say that our reception was a much more frigid one than that which we should obtain to-day, and now the present Secretary of State for War is one of the strongest opponents of the principles he then professed. He is a weathercock to whom we pay the handsome sum of £5,000 a year, and I should doubt whether he has the faintest confidence in his opinions himself and would not be surprised if people took him seriously. Surely things have come to such a pass that even an ignoramus like myself, or the most stupid person, can see what is going on and what the national situation is without having to appeal to these so-called military experts. Really it has ceased to be a
958
question to be decided by military experts. It has become a question of ordinary common-sense, and any person with an ordinary amount of common-sense can perfectly well form his opinion upon it. Now I wish to take this opportunity, the earliest I have got, to protest as strongly as I can against the positively brazen assertion of my noble friend Lord Fortescue that the unsatisfactory state of the Territorial Force is due to the action of the National Service League. I really do not think that any more unfounded charge has ever been made against any respectable body of citizens in tins country.
EARL FORTESCUE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not say that. I said I thought that the Force would have been stronger but for the action of the National Service League, because I think that their propaganda has been detrimental to the recruiting of the Force.
LORD NEWTON: That bears out what I say. The noble Lord says, "If it were not for you we should be in a perfectly satisfactory condition. Our numbers would be full, and we should be thoroughly efficient." What are the actual facts of the case? I put aside the eloquent fact that nearly every officer of the Territorial Force is in favour of the National Service League. But what is the argument against us? The position taken up by the thick and thin admirers of the Territorial Force and those who will not admit that there is a flaw in this perfect body is this—their charge against us amounts to this literally in so many words. They say, "Why will you educated men, from Lord Roberts downwards, go about persisting in speaking the truth? Why cannot you say what we want you to say? Why cannot you say, for instance, that an untrained man is quite as good as a trained man? Why cannot you say that a deficiency of 50,000 or 60,000 men is not a disadvantage at all, but, if anything, really an advantage? Why cannot you say that a boy, or perhaps even a girl, is as good as a full grown man. That is our opinion, and you ought to think so too and you ought to f ay it too. Why cannot you, in fact, instead of adopting the silly attitude of saying that two and two make four, say that two and two make five by way of a change, as we do, and then everything would be perfectly satisfactory."

959
I came across the other day a gentleman after the noble and learned Viscount's own heart. This gentleman said, "It is the greatest mistake in the world to suppose that the Territorial Force consists of only 260,000 men. It really consists of 2,600,000 men. That is perfectly plain, because every Territorial is worth ten of the old Volunteers; therefore all you have to do is to multiply their exact number by ten and you arrive at the correct figure." All I can say is, I should be quite prepared to compound with my conscience and make such statements if I thought it would do any good to say that the Territorial Force is ten times as strong as it really is. But I know better, and really these ridiculous charges, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Fortescue, against the National Service League amount to nothing at all, and nobody believes them and nobody is taken in by them. Is it likely that the youth or the boy who is going to enter the Territorial Force takes the trouble to sit down and study the speeches of, shall we say, Lord Roberts, or even the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, or even my own, before he enters the Territorial Force? Probably if he reads anything at all he reads something like Answers or Tit-Bits, and the opinions of politicians with respect to the Territorial Force do not exercise the smallest influence upon him. He goes into that Force either because he has some patriotic motive or because he has nothing better to do, and whether I or anybody else think well or badly of that Force has absolutely nothing to do with recruiting whatsoever.
The Government and all official personages for once in a way be honest and admit the truth, and admit as everybody knows perfectly well that your so-called voluntary system is absolutely on its last legs, and that all your dodges and your devices are no longer sufficient to keep it on its legs. Everything in the shape of an inducement has already been tried. Lord Lieutenants have been tried, and even they have been found wanting. Social influence has been tried, and even that has not been as successful as it might have been. The women have been turned on to the job. The Daily Mail has been turned on with a certain amount of success, and of course there have been all the innumerable inducements in the form of concerts, entertainments, and the various
960
means which are resorted to in order to secure recruits. Your Generals, as I have already said, have been sent on perambulating scouting tours in order to boom the Territorial Force, and other Generals have been turned on to write books in order to boom the Territorial system. Employers have been abjectly entreated to allow their men to go, and in certain cases half-crowns have been offered. That has often been done. Half-a-crown has been offered for a recruit much in the same way as you would offer half-a-crown for a plover's egg or some delicacy of that kind.
I hold in my hand the latest form of inducement to join the Territorial Force. Here is a handbook entitled "The Territorial Officers' Dance Club," and at the head of the Committee I notice the name of a noble friend of mine. It says, "The Territorial Officers' Dance Club has been formed with the primary object of endeavouring to obtain recruits for the commissioned ranks of the Territorial Force," and incidentally it may be mentioned that the great inducement is that the Territorial Dance Club should always appear in uniform in order to give satisfaction to the opposite sex. I do not want to dilate further upon measures of this kind. Will even this not show the country the contemptible and miserable expedients to which we are reduced at the present moment? Yet noble Lords have the audacity to get up here and say that some of the arguments used in this House will have a bad effect on foreign opinion abroad. I ask any honest man, Could anything have a more humiliating and despicable effect on foreign opinion than the fact that we should be reduced to these shifts and devices in order to endeavour to persuade young men to render that service to their country which is cheerfully rendered in every civilised country in existence.
I suppose I am different from other people, and I do not wish to enlarge on the subject too much now, but to my mind, so far from seeing anything admirable in the voluntary system, I look upon it as one of those worn-out expedients which we are only able to retain at enormous cost and inconvenience and from which we get hardly anything in the shape

961
of a satisfactory result. I have often expressed admiration of the way in which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack deluded this country for something like six years into believing that they actually obtained a new and a perfect military system. The noble Viscount made one great mistake, and I often wonder that it has not been pointed out to him by his critics, especially those critics who have not got any useful alternative to offer. The great mistake which the noble Viscount made, and I expect he has realised it himself long before now, was in fixing the establishment of the Territorial Force just about 50,000 or 60,000 men too high. Everybody knows, and I am sure my noble and gallant friend beside me will corroborate what I say, that the establishment of the Territorial Force, the 313,000 men or whatever it may be, bears no relation whatsoever to our military requirements. It was merely the number which the noble Viscount thought he could obtain under the voluntary system. Fortunately, although the noble Viscount is much sharper and cleverer than most people, he made the mistake of over-rating the number of men he could get. If he had only asked for 250,000 he would have been able, first of all, to show that it was better to have 250,000 than 500,000, and he would have been able to point to the Territorial Force at the present moment a5 a triumphant success. That is precisely what he is unable to do at present, and all his optimistic speeches and those of his colleagues will never persuade the majority of his countrymen that the Territorial Force is a success or ever can be under present circumstances. I would like to conclude by making a suggestion, which I flatter myself is a considerably more valuable one than that which is embodied in the Motion of my noble friend Lord Midleton. I suggest that the Government should come boldly out into the open and admit that they are in a difficulty, and should go to their opponents and ask them to assist them in getting out of the difficulty by adopting the principle of universal service, which is really the only panacea and remedy for the difficulties from which we are suffering at the present moment.
[The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes to eight and resumed at nine o'clock.]
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I can not but regret that this debate, important as it has been, did not take place at the same time as the discussion on the Question put down by my noble friend Lord Portsmouth three weeks ago. As the House will remember, Lord Portsmouth referred to the two speeches the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack had made recently in regard to strategy. It would have been instructive to this House to have learnt on what principles of strategy are founded the steps taken for the organisation of the defence of this country. We were told this evening by the noble and learned Viscount that it is necessary that soldiers and sailors and statesmen should come together in common conclave in order to consider the principles of strategy. It would be interesting to hear from the noble and learned Viscount how His Majesty's Government are giving effect to that axiom, and whether the study of these questions over a series of years, which he considered necessary, is limited to the time when an individual becomes a member of the Imperial Defence Committee and to the very occasional meetings held by that body.
To-night we are told that this question of home defence is again to be considered by the Imperial Defence Committee. What I wish to point out is this, that so far as it is possible to see, from an outsider's point of view, no soldier gets a chance of discussing questions of strategy with the statesmen of the day until he becomes a member of the Imperial Defence Committee. No more does a sailor. But the statesman comes to the question with a heaven-born knowledge of all questions, naval and military, and requires no information from outside. How often does this Committee meet? The man who is, after all, the hardest-worked man in the country, the Prime Minister, says that the Committee can only meet occasionally and for a comparatively short time. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack disputes that they only meet occasionally.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It meets by sub-committees also. It is constantly meeting every week, and almost every day, by a powerful sub-committee of soldiers and sailors selected for the particular questions to be discussed.
EARL STANHOPE: I quite understand that, but it is obvious that the whole question involves every point of strategy that can possibly be brought in, naval and military. For instance, till we know definitely how this country is going to support the balance of power in Europe it is impossible to consider what forces would be left in this country after the outbreak of a war. That involves considerations which would have to be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Then, again, the moment that comes to be considered we have to go to the chief authorities at the Admiralty in order to discover how many transports they think might be available at any particular moment, and we have to ask them whether they have considered the point as to transports starting from various points on the other side of the sea and concentrating on one point on this coast, but not coming together as one fleet. That would have to be discussed with the leaders of the day at the Admiralty. Now, my Lords, obviously it is an essential part of the question we are discussing that, in taking into consideration the position of the Territorial Force of this country, we should also go into questions of policy in some small degree. The noble Viscount, in opening the debate, said he did not propose to go into those questions, but it is vital that somebody in this House should tackle them, and I am prepared to do so.
I have discovered that it is no use interrogating this Government, or any Government, I presume, on this question, because practically one never can get an answer that cannot be construed in at least two, if not three, different ways. The only possible way to arrive at any conclusion is to draw one's own deductions from the facts as we know them, and to leave the Government to deny those deductions if they can. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has told the House that practically no member of the General Staff, as far as he knows, is in favour of the scheme of the National Service League, but many are in favour of compulsory service for two or three years. Now, my Lords, what is the reason of that? The reason, as I think will not be denied, is this, that every member of the General Staff realises fully that if we are to support the Balance of Power in Europe it is necessary that every available Regular soldier in this
964
country should be able to be sent abroad on the outbreak of war in order to support France in any struggle that she may be engaged in. He realises, further, that unless the whole Regular Army goes abroad as soon as it is mobilised—that is to say, within one week—that Army will not be in time to take part in any battle that may arise within three weeks of the outbreak of the war. Those are facts perfectly well known to a great many civilians even who take an interest in the strategy of this country. No one has yet said definitely and unequivocally that the whole Expeditionary Force must inevitably go abroad on the outbreak of a war. That is a fact that has to be stated, and realised by the country. It is perfectly well known that that is the general view of those in the Army, but so far, apparently, no statesman has adopted the advice of experts to the extent of having the courage to say that he cannot possibly substantiate the policy of the Government unless we send abroad every available Regular soldier that we have in this country. It is not a question of weeks, but of days, I for the whole of the Regular Army to leave this country.
Then there arises another point. We have been told that the landing force in this country would be about 70,000 men, and I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack told us at a very early stage of these discussions that that would be a constant number. I remember well, however, a remark made by a statesman from the Party to which I belong in which the House of Commons was informed that not even the crew of a dinghy would be able to land on the shores of these islands. Now the invading force has increased from the crew of a dinghy to somewhere about 70,000 men, and every fact we know of since that date has made us believe that that estimate is a low one rather than a high one. I refer to such facts as these, that the invading force in last year's Naval Manœuvres was completely successful, although the defensive force was double the strength of the invading force and more than we should be likely to have in the country, and although there was no element of surprise and everything was prepared by the defenders in order to meet the eventuality of an attack. It is true that some of us did comfort our feelings with the belief that the strategy of the defenders might have been somewhat

965
sketchy in view of the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, but our hopes have been dashed by the statement made in another place that the First Lord of the Admiralty had no voice whatever in the disposition of the defending fleet. Therefore, presumably, the experts who were charged with the command of the defensive forces were faced with the fact that the invading force was successful in achieving the invasion of these islands. The same scheme, or, rather, a scheme on different lines but for the same general object, has been the subject of war games on more than one occasion, and I know of at any rate two occasions on which an invasion has actually taken place, and an invasion by a very mach larger body than 70,000 men.
Then there is yet another fact. The ships entering the ports on the other side of the North Sea are increasing in numbers and in tonnage year by year, and it is now true to say that on any single day in Hamburg alone there are 160 ships averaging 900 tons a-piece. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. It is a fact that any noble Lord can trace for himself, without going for any confidential information which he ought not, to divulge. It is information that I myself have got, quite apart from things that I have heard elsewhere, from books that have been published and that I have bought in the ordinary course of investigation. Supposing the transports start individually instead of coming in one flotilla, what is the situation then of the Fleet? Supposing that the enemy's transports were ordered the moment they came in contact with any war-ship of the defending country to haul down their flag and surrender, what would happen next? If We merely ordered the ship to go into a British harbour, she would start to go in that direction till she got over the horizon, and would then proceed on her original course as if nothing at all had happened. The only possible way in which you could be certain that that ship would not continue her voyage and land her troops would be to escort her to a fortress. That must apply to every transport you capture, unless there are several captured in a small area. You would have to detach one ship from your Fleet in order to escort one ship to port. The more ships you captured the fewer war-ships you would have to stop others coming from a hostile shore. It is obvious,
966
if the enemy did not mind losing large numbers of men—even 10,000 or 15,000 men—they could land a very considerable force on the shores of this country which it would be utterly impossible to stop. In other words, the time would have arrived when, in the words of the noble and learned Viscount, all that we should have to look to would be that line of Territorials standing between us and the invasion of our hearths and homes.
That, my Lords, is a position the country has certainly not realised up to the present moment. We have been told that there will be a certain number of Regulars available. We are told that the Regulars will not have left the country, and we are told that invasion is not possible. All we ask for under I his Motion is that the experts should be allowed to give their opinion absolutely unfettered by the politicians of the day. There are two great reasons for saying that that opinion should be unfettered, because I know, and probably most of you know, of cases in which several officers have made statements about the Territorial Force and their career has come to an abrupt and untimely end. There are others who have published books and who have made flattering statements, and they have left the War Office with a Marshal's baton and commands in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, and no doubt their career is established. What we require is a definite statement from the Government of the day. It is perfectly true that Lord Herschell did say that a blow at the heart of the Empire would be safeguarded, but he entirely omitted to deal with any of the circumstances to which attention has been called. He did not say that the heart of the Empire would be safeguarded even if the Regular Forces had already gone abroad. That entirely alters the situation. No one in his wildest moments would deny that this country is perfectly safeguarded so long as the Regular Army is at home, but we want to know whether, within the first few weeks of a war and until the training of the Territorial Army is complete—we want to know whether during that period, when the Regular Army is abroad, we should still be quite certain that this country is safeguarded.
Now, what is the situation? Even supposing that the Government are prepared to take all liability, look at the position in which the country is placed.

967
The man in the street will merely know that the whole of the Regular Army, or rather such portion of it as is completely trained and physically fit, has already left the country; he will know that already a very large proportion of the Special Reserve is also leaving the country in the form of drafts; he will know that the Fleet is somewhere at sea; he will probably be reminded by the daily Press that on the last occasion on which there was a great Fleet action the Fleet pursued the enemy right across the Atlantic, and for all that the man in the street would know that might be the situation at the moment with which we are dealing. The Fleet might be pursuing a force right across the Atlantic or to Heaven knows where, and might be very far from his own shores, or from being in a position to be able to protect him from invasion by a fleet of transports. On such an occasion we are left with what? We are left with the Territorial Force. Now, my Lords, I as a member of the Territorial Force object, not to the criticisms of that Force which are honestly made, but to the sort of statement that is made by what I can only call the club critic who sits at home and says that the Force is perfect, and that anybody who attacks it is unpatriotic, while he himself has never made any effort of any sort or kind in a personal way to do anything for the Force either to assist it or to persuade anybody else to join it.
One knows perfectly well what would happen in such a case as I have referred to. After all, some of us have had to go through it already. We are first of all told that anybody who criticises the Regular Army is, of course, a fool, and knows nothing whatever about it. Then if the Army goes out, say, to South Africa, it is criticised, and then the individuals composing the Army are called fools by those who have never done anything for the Regular Army, and never will. We should compel them to join the Territorial Force and realise what the difficulties of soldiering are. When you have to deal with difficulties you realise that those difficulties exist. I am not going to give my own opinion about the Territorial Force because that opinion is quite valueless, and I am not going to deal with statistics, because I do not believe that you can ever criticise efficiently a Force by figures only. It entirely depends on the condition and the standard at which that Force is supposed to arrive. Whether it is
968
an efficient standard depends on how far people are excused from attaining it, and unless you know the whole of the details of how the figures are arrived at figures are practically useless. This is the opinion of a General Officer commanding who has had a considerable experience of the Territorial Force. This is not published in the Press, nor has it been written for political purposes. It is a paper that was sent round to the Territorial units in one of the commands, and it was published for the information of the officers and men belonging to that Force. This distinguished officer wrote as follows—
"The weakest point of the Territorial Force is its very moderate standard of discipline, and the Lieutenant-General feels that he cannot too strongly impress upon all ranks the fact that no Army no matter how well trained and inspired by enthusiasm can be a match in the field for the Army which is equally well trained but is, at the same time, thoroughly disciplined."
Surely at this moment a statement of that kind must weigh heavily on the minds of many people in this country.
It is only within the last few days that we have had a book published by a military correspondent who has been witnessing the great campaign in the Balkan Peninsula, and in it the noble Viscount will see that Major James, describing the battle of Lule Burgas, states that, despite the well known gallantry of the Turks and the fact that the Turkish nation as a nation is perhaps more than all nations particularly well trained naturally in war, yet from the lack of discipline they suffered an overthrow, and that involved not only an overthrow of the partially trained or untrained men of that Army, but the rout of the undisciplined portion of the Turkish Army threw the whole of the rest of the Army into a confusion which ended in the complete rout of the whole of the Turkish forces. Now that is not a question of opinion; it is a statement of fact. We know what happened at that battle. We know to a certain extent, no doubt not so fully as we shall know hereafter, the training of the Armies on each side, and we are therefore able to draw our own conclusions. Here is the fact, that this force occupied only a defensive position, not being the attacking force but merely holding a defensive position; and that would be the position of the Territorial Force to-morrow. In the case to which I am referring the force holding the defensive position was so completely routed that if only the victory had been followed up the

969
war would probably have come to a final ending within three weeks of the actual declaration of war. There at once comes in this question of discipline, and we are left with the fact that the Territorial Force, if invasion is possible at all, would have to face the trained troops and probably the best of the trained troops of the Continental Power with which we might be at war.
How in the world, my Lords, does any individual in this country imagine that discipline can be properly instilled into any force with only fifteen days training in the year? How in the world does anybody imagine that discipline can be maintained when the Force is unable to deal effectively with the black sheep because there is inevitably a black sheep in every Force? Supposing you get a man who is inclined to rebel against authority and not to obey the lawful commands of his superior officer, he would have to be court-martialled, and you know perfectly well that at the moment that that court-martial took place a very large number of your men would be leaving your company and that you would then have to look round for mom recruits. But what chance would you have of getting recruits when it was pointed out that any recruit who joined had at any rate a chance of being court-martialled for disobedience? Occasionally these facts are distorted, and no company officer of the Territorial Force dare run the risk of court-martialling any of his men for any offence, however serious, unless it is known that the man is of such a bad character that court-martialing him has no effect on the neighbourhood from which the men are drawn.
Here is another criticism which states that "the great lack of initiative or 'push' in the Territorial Force is mainly clue to indecision. This weakness, with some exceptions, pervades all ranks, and is due to ignorance of military duties and fear of adverse criticism." Now that is not my criticism. It is not even that of the National Service League. This is a criticism of a General-Officer commanding who knows the Force. Then "map reading is a subject which demands far greater attention than is devoted to it at present." How is that attention to be given to the subject? When are you going to get the men to give time to that training? It has been said by Lord Herschell and also by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that their keenness is magnificent. That is true; and
970
if so you cannot put in any further time on that subject than is already put in, but if the Force is not so keen as it might be there would be the hope of betterment in these subjects. Anybody who knows the Force knows perfectly well that it is utterly impossible. It is merely a red-herring trailed across the path for it to be said that because you say the Territorial Force is inefficient in map reading and other subjects therefore you are attacking the Territorial Force for lack of keenness or lack of patriotism.
Then there is the question of mutual support. I may say that these are not merely questions of detail, but questions on which the successful operation of troops in the field must inevitably depend. There is the question whether one arm is prepared to co-operate with another arm; whether for instance, the Artillery will back up the Infantry. We know, from what has happened in the Balkan Peninsula, the vital necessity of the Territorial Artillery backing up their Infantry attacks by fire. When has the Territorial Force had any chance of co-operating? We had a White Paper produced the other day giving the number of occasions on which the Territorial Force has co-operated in relation to particular units. There were about five instances in regard to the whole Force in which one Brigade had had a regiment of Yeomanry attached to it, and so forth. But that is not the practice of mutual support, and if the Territorial Force is not to get more training than that it is obvious that mutual cooperation in fact is utterly out of the question. There is no one knowing anything of military affairs who does not know that mutual support is one of the most difficult things to organise, and that it is only by constant practice of one arm with another and in every conceivable situation that that mutual support can be made adequate and complete. After all, with a Force which is not very well disciplined the one thing that Infantry, for instance, needs more than anything else is the support of Artillery fire, and that is the one thing that under the training now given they will inevitably not get.
There was last year the Report of the late Inspector-General of the Forces, Sir John French, and in that he stated that the manœuvres should be of a more elementary character, and that officers and men would then take more interest in them.

971
My Lords, if the Territorial Force is not fitted to manœuvre in large bodies it is obviously unfitted to fight in large bodies. Manœuvring is a good deal less trying than fighting, and unless you manœuvre in large bodies by way of training in manœuvring the greater will be the difficulty to be overcome when actual fighting takes place. It is manifest that the training to which I have referred will have to be begun after the Regular Army has left these shores. I put this question to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. If, as he states, distinguished officers are prepared to lead the troops anywhere now and they can practically do anything now, what in the world is the object of embodying the Territorial Force for six months' training? If they have been found to be fit to be led anywhere and to do anything, in Heaven's name why give them that training which they can only get to-day under compulsion? I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will not deny that you can search ninety-nine out of one hundred posters with every inducement to men to join the Territorial Force before finding any reference at all to the fact that on the outbreak of war the service of the Territorial Force is one embodying six months' training. There is many a man able to take eight days' training in the year, but if you are ever to give them six months' training in any year, even though this country might be at war, it is not fair to ask them to do it, because you are penalising those men against the unpatriotic men who have done nothing for their country and do not intend to do anything unless compelled.
To my mind, and to the minds of a great many soldiers, it does not appear that there is responsibility on the General Staff. It is perfectly true that they are held responsible, to the Secretary of State for War, but as citizens of this country they also have a duty to their country, and it is their duty, if they feel that the forces of this country are inadequate, to press their opinion home on the Secretary of State for War, and if he is not prepared to take any notice of those opinions and bring them before the Imperial Defence Committee then they should resign their positions on the Army General Staff. What is happening is this. The General Staff and a great ninny other persons in the Army say that it is no use our saying that the Territorial Force is inadequate in training and numbers for the work that it may be called upon
972
to do, because if we do we know quite well that the politicians will say that the Expeditionary Force is not to go abroad. The General Staff know perfectly well that it is essential to the safety of the country that the Expeditionary Force should go abroad and go abroad at once, and therefore as the lesser of two evils they prefer not to attack the Territorial Force. They do not realise that there is not a Government, and there never will be a Government, which will have the courage to send the whole of the Regular Army abroad, and let the Fleet disappear over the horizon, Heaven knows where to, and leave us with nothing more than the Territorial Force in this country. The outcry from the man in the street would be such that I do not believe that there would be a single Government that would be strong enough to maintain their position, and that would not at once send orders that the whole of the Regular Army should be brought back again to this country. That would be an infinitely worse situation than not sending the Expeditionary Force at all. It is the old game of bluffing; you must have your hand called, but when it is called it is usually found to have nothing in it. There would be nothing in it in this case. The General Staff and those who advise His Majesty's Government do not take that point into consideration. I know some of them have certainly not done so. I think that that is a point which should come before the Imperial Defence Committee at once and be considered on the occasion of their going over this problem once again.
The General Staff has been placed in this position. They have been told to formulate a scheme on these lines, What is the best Force you can get into the Army Estimates at the figure of to-day and maintaining the principle of voluntary enlistment? There is no question, I think, on either side of the House that the scheme we have to-day is the best you can possibly get so long as you maintain those two desiderata. No one will deny that the Territorial Force is infinitely superior, both in organisation and training, to the Volunteers as they existed just before the commencement of the Territorial Force. I have been told that the Volunteers in their early days were quite as good as the Territorial Force to-day. I was not there to see, and I do not pretend to know. But what we do wish for is

973
that there should be a consideration of this question of Imperial defence from the point of view of the necessity of asking whether we can have sufficient security while maintaining these desiderata, and, if that security is not sufficient, then what is it that it is necessary for this country to do. One is at once told that the country will not have compulsion. I do not think I can do better than quote the eloquent language of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack himself. He used these words on December 11, 1911, in relation to this point—
"The first principle is one which I need not discuss at length. It is the principle that to make a system of this kind effective it must be compulsory. All experience shows that, and this proposition has been so generally accepted after a great deal of discussion that I do not propose to trouble your Lordships by going into details on that point."
I need hardly say that he was talking about the question of national insurance; but your Lordships will agree that every word falling from the noble and learned Viscount on that subject will apply equally well to Imperial defence. Unless he is prepared to get up in his place and say that it is right to have compulsion when you demand payment in cash and it is wrong to have compulsion when you demand payment in kind; that it is right for the State to interfere in the affairs of the individual when those affairs merely entail the well-being of that individual himself, but that it is wrong for the State to interfere when the affair is the welfare of the State itself, then, my Lords, I do not know how the noble and learned Viscount will prove that his remarks are not equally applicable in both cases.
It is a curious commentary, as was once said at Spring Gardens, that these red herrings will come home to roost. The noble and learned Viscount is constantly drawing the red herring of compulsion across the trail of the adequate defence of this country. We all desire on both sides of the House that this question shall not be treated as a Party question. I have myself on more than one occasion referred to the position of the National Service League on this question, and I might also tell the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that there is another side to the question of hostility between the Territorial Force and the National Service League. I may say that in the County of Kent with which I am connected we
974
arranged with the Secretary of the National Service League to offer his services for a recruiting meeting to be addressed by the General-Officer who has recently been doing a recruiting tour throughout the country. I happen to know that that suggestion created the most appalling consternation in the War Office, and considerable time elapsed before our offer of going to assist General Bethune in his meeting at Bromley was accepted by the War Office. I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack realises that sometimes the boot is on the other leg, if I might put it in that way. At the meetings we go to we invariably ask for recruits for the Territorial Force, but at the same time we have pointed out that it is impossible to expect that Force to come up to the necessary training to meet Regular troops within the first few days of mobilisation. We are not hostile to that Force, although I am bound to confess that we are tempted to be hostile to it because we are continually being accused of hostility to it, and we are tempted to show what hostility really might mean. I think it is possible, if pressure be brought to bear upon us in that way, that hostility may actually occur. I trust it may not be so. What we all trust is that this question will be considered from a non-Party point of view.
A good deal of nonsense has been talked about the Referendum. I have talked to politicians in Australasia on that question, and most of the members of your Lordships' House know it is perfectly absurd to say that if a question is put to a Referendum and a decision is given against the Government the Government must inevitably resign. The Government at present in power in Australia, the Labour Government, has put several questions to the Referendum, and each one of them, or at least the last two, were decided against the Government of the day, and that Government is still in office. What we ask is that the expert shall be unmuzzled, that he shall be given a chance of saying definitely whether the Territorial Force is sufficient and efficient for purposes which, after all, have considerably changed in view of the altered circumstances on the Continent. We ask that when those experts have given their opinion the whole of the circumstances shall be placed before the country, and that they shall then be asked, is it your wish that these safeguards as laid down by experts shall be carried

975
out, or are you satisfied to go on as you are at the present moment? I am not one of those who believe that the spirit of the Englishman of to-day has so deteriorated that he is not prepared to accept responsibility and undertake duties when he realises that those duties are necessary, but so long as the politicians on both sides, and so long as those who are not in politics but are merely busybodies, keep on quarrelling amongst themselves, and so long as the expert is not allowed to give his opinion fully and frankly, so long will the people not realise the necessity for the Territorial Force or the necessity for national service. If this question is put before them, notwithstanding the bogey of compulsion, national service will be undertaken by the people of this country with the utmost readiness. I have found it so at meetings that I have addressed, as have others also, and it is merely because it is misunderstood that we find the position what it is to-day. I trust, therefore, as one of the results of this debate, that when His Majesty's Government again announce what they believe the policy of the country ought to be they will allow the experts to say fully and frankly what it is they have in mind to say, and not be tied up with qualifications about voluntary service and such like. I believe that the people of this country will then rise to their obligations.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I felt quite sorry for the noble Lord who spoke first from the other side. It was a rotten brief with which he had been furnished by his advisers at the War Office. I could not help thinking while he read it out, with that hereditary lucidity for which he was complimented by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that he must have been feeling very much ashamed of it. He had only been furnished with obsolete and discarded arguments, presumably on the same principle as the Volunteer is given a less up-to-date weapon than the Regular. The one more modern weapon was reserved for his chief. My noble friend opposite was obliged to rely upon those ancient weapons which have so long since been outranged, such as the argument of the loss to industry and trade which might result from universal service. Has it really not occurred to him to think that other nations rub along quite well in spite of universal service. I believe he really imagines that if we had universal service the whole of
976
the manhood in this country would be taken from their occupations for six months; but the fact is that it is only a certain number of young men who attain the military age in any given year, and it is only the pick of those who would be taken away for the six months. It is computed that the number would be about 2 per cent. Does he think really that any trade would suffer seriously if two young men out of every hundred were taken away and given a training which would undoubtedly, as is the case with other nations, make them more efficient workmen when they returned? He appealed to us and said that surely we are not less patriotic than other nations, but almost in the same breath he spoke of the period of listless and unwilling service which would, he said, be the result of universal service as compared with a period of cheerful and willing service rendered under the present system. I am tempted to ask whether the noble Lord has ever seen universal service in foreign countries? Is it really the result of his observation that the German or the French soldier is listless and unwilling? I venture, with all respect, to recommend him to take a little trip to the Continent just as some of his colleagues in the Ministry have already done in order to gain inspiration for measures which have actually been adopted in this country.
Then the noble Lord went on to the old argument about physique, and said, "How can military service improve the nation's physique when you take only the strong and exempt the weak?" Supposing the noble and learned Viscount owned a herd of cattle, or a pack of foxhounds, and he drafted into those hounds, say, ten hounds of a superior breed, or into the herd of cattle a certain number of superior cattle, would he not be justified in saying that he was improving that herd or pack and, what is more important, improving the future pedigree of his stock? We should think in this matter not only of the present generation, but of the descendants of those who physically are improved by military service. There is one point, however, which is more important in reference to this argument to which I should like to refer again, although my noble friend Earl Stanhope has done so very clearly already, and that is this. The noble Lord did not answer the question which was put to him from these Benches. In the very carefully worded statement which he gave us it was

977
said merely that the country can be guarded from a blow against the heart in present circumstances. He did not answer the question whether we could parry that blow at the heart while at the same time striking a blow at the enemy. It is the same as if you said to an ancient warrior, "Are you prepared to fight?" and he replied "I have got my shield all right," and carefully avoided mentioning that he had not got his sword or spear. You cannot fight unless you have your weapon of offence as well as your shield.
The noble Lord told us that the Government—and he considered it a handsome admission—were not satisfied as to the numbers of the Territorial Force. He could hardly have said less than that. But he did not mention whether they were satisfied with the present amount of training which is done by the existing strength. Lastly, he filled most of us, I think, on this side with grave apprehension by his announcement of the newest scheme for administering eye-wash to the people of this country. It appears that the National Reserve is to be used to fill up the gaps in our Home Defence Army. They are not going to be organised in battalions, or armed and equipped; all that is going to be done I think is this—and I carefully noted the words in order that I might give his explanation to those who in my own part of the country are constantly appealing to me and saying, "Why does not the Government do something for us? We have entered the National Reserve, and heard no more about it. We have joined and have not been asked to do anything, or told what we are expected to do, and we are not called out to drill, or to meet, or anything." What I shall be able to tell them, because I have it from the noble Lord, is that the only purpose of this latest scheme is to "classify them and regularise their position for statistical purposes." You are not going to defend the country by getting a list of names and classifying them and regularising them for statistical purposes.
Some of these things are merely amusing; but I confess what did anger me was the attack made by the noble Lord on the National Service League, in which his attitude was that of one who is willing to wound but yet afraid to strike. He guarded what he said by declaring that it was not what the members of the League
978
actually said but the manner in which they said it that had discouraged recruiting for the Territorial Force. I noticed that that was the only thing in his speech which was cheered by the circle of his friends around him, very few of whom have ever done a day's volunteering in their lives, and when those insinuations against the National Service League were repeated they cheered them again. That was the only thing that appealed to them. How they do hate the idea of discharging the first duty of citizenship! How they do hate the National Service League! Why? Because we will not join with them in flattering and deceiving the Territorials in the same way as they flatter and deceive the people of this country, and because we think it right to say what we believe to be true and to be necessary in order that our fellow citizens who are trying to do their duty may be given fair play and sufficient opportunity. I was sorry that that accusation was repeated by the noble Field-Marshal on my left, for it was only a very few weeks ago that I was standing with him on the same platform, and he said precisely the contrary.
What would those people do who object to our propaganda? Would they have us say what we believe to be untrue and know to be untrue? That certainly is not our conception of patriotic duty either in this matter or in any other matter which concerns our social and political life. Then there is no Territorial soldier or officer who is worth keeping in that Force who takes offence at the criticisms which are made by those who wish to give them the two things they lack—that is to say, sufficiency of numbers and sufficiency of training. After we had been exposed to this fire from obsolete weapons, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack brought in his modern armaments, and his argument was that you cannot provide drafts for your overseas garrisons if you have universal service. That was a roundabout, an unnecessarily roundabout way, it seems to me, of saying that if you have universal service you cannot get enough recruits for the Regular Army. We have heard that before, but we have never heard why. The Regular Army is not recruited from the same class altogether as the Territorial Army. The Regular Army is recruited more or less from one class of the population. If you had universal service of the kind we propose you would recruit your Home Defence Army from every class. Why

979
do men go into the professional Army now? A small percentage go in from sheer love of military life and adventure, but the majority enlist into the Regular Army because, poor fellows, they are cold and hungry, and out of a job, and so long as those conditions obtain recruiting will go on just in the same way as it goes on now. Not even the measures of the present Government will remove those evils from our midst unless, indeed, they succeed in creating a new Heaven and a new earth. So long as you have men who are in the position I have described you will get recruits for the Army, and others will join from the sheer love of military life. If the noble and learned Viscount is right and there is only a limited number of men in the country who will serve as soldiers either for home defence or in the professional Army, then if we were merely to raise the Territorial Force up to the full establishment we should be interfering with recruiting for the Regular Army. Then he sought to supplement that argument by scoffing at the idea of four months training at 6d. a day, and he said that this would affect married men with large families and dependents whom they supported. But we are talking of young men between eighteen and twenty years of age, and if they are married men with large families all I can say is that they have no business to have them, and universal service would have a very desirable effect in stopping early and improvident marriages. Lastly, the noble and learned Viscount said that this should have been treated not as a military cause but as a branch of national education. Why, then, did the noble and learned Viscount drop that part of his scheme at the very beginning?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may interrupt, I would say that is a myth. I saw it stated the other day in the newspapers that part of my scheme was a system of compulsory training in regard to cadet corps. I have heard it repeated often, and I have not taken the trouble to contradict it. But I may say it will be found that under subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, power is given to the Territorial Associations to assist cadet training in various ways, and in the House of Commons an Amendment was carried which excluded from the scope of that assistance boys under sixteen years of age in schools in the enjoyment of a Parliamentary grant.
980
There is all the difference in the world between that and compulsory cadet training. No such system was ever dreamed of. No trace of it has appeared. But the imputation was perfectly answered, and it did no harm. I only mention it now because the myth has been repeated quite recently in the newspapers.
LORD AMPTHILL: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his explanation, but unfortunately I have not had a legal training and I did not so read what took place in the other House during the discussion on the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. There was one point on which I agree with the noble Lord opposite, and that was iii regard to his wish that the Question of my noble friend had been put in some other way. Personally I should have preferred a more direct Question, and one admitting of a more direct answer. I cannot help agreeing with my noble friend behind me that when these Questions are not put so directly it does give us reason to suspect that there is some little agreement between the two Front Benches. But, my Lords, my objection to the form in which this Question was put was that it seemed to me irregular and unconstitutional. My noble friend asked for the opinion, not of His Majesty's Government, but of their military advisers. Now this is really not a trivial matter. It is a matter of those forms and conventions on which Parliamentary government actually depends. It was not merely in regard to administrative detail or military efficiency that my noble friend sought to obtain information. It was in regard to the policy of the Government. The whole of the speeches and the course of the debate are proof of that. He wanted to find out whether the Government were satisfied with the present system, and whether they had any intention of altering that system. I really do not think he can deny that that is what he had in mind, and certainly everybody who has spoken has assumed that to be the case. The very first thing the noble Lord opposite felt obliged to discuss was the one possible alternative—namely, that of universal service. Now, the noble Viscount has been Secretary of State for War, and I feel sure that if when he was in that responsible position a similar question had been put to him; that is to say, a question as to the whole direction of the military policy of the Government—
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: There was no question of policy whatever involved. It was whether they were satisfied that a certain Force was able to perform a certain military operation.
LORD AMPTHILL: Exactly; that was, of course, the way the Question was put. But nobody can doubt that the intention of the noble Viscount was to discover whether the Government was satisfied with the present system as a whole. National defence does not depend upon the Territorial Force alone. It depends, first of all, upon the Navy; secondly, upon the Regular Army; and, thirdly, upon the home Defence Army. I think he would have answered that it was contrary to the custom of Parliament and the traditions of the Constitution to ask for or to furnish information as to the opinions of officials on a question of policy. Officials have no responsibility for policy. They have, of course, to carry out the orders of the Government of the day, and I maintain it is unfair to hold them to or to make them responsible for the direction of affairs in regard to which they have no power. The perms who are alone responsible in such matters as these are the Ministers of the Crown, the Government of the day, and I think my noble friend, if he had been similarly placed, would have answered that he alone was responsible for what the War Office did and for what the War Office recommended, and it was not right or fair that he should allow any part of that responsibility to be laid on his official advisers. That I think, would have been his answer, for no other answer would have been possible because that has always been a well understood and undisputed principle. It is a fair principle, for the Parliamentary politician takes the credit as well as the blame of the work done for him by the permanent officials of this country, work which he could not, in any possible circumstances, do himself. It is true that times have changed and that the Constitution is in suspense, and it is true also that there have been recent violations of these Parliamentary and constitutional conventions. For instance, Mr. McKenna when he was holding the office of First Lord of the Admiralty more than once shielded himself behind "the opinion of my advisers," and pleaded that it was his duty to submit to the judgment of the permanent officials. We have the fact that the personal part
982
played in Admiralty affairs by Sir John Fisher, as he then was, was known and discussed by the nation at large. That is a very great change and a serious one, for whatever may be about the decay of the prestige of Parliament and the growing power of officialdom, I maintain we are not ready yet in this country for anything like bureaucracy, and to suggest that any question depends on whether officials are satisfied or not is to ignore the fact that we are still keeping up at any rate a show of Parliamentary government.
Who are the military advisers of the Government? There is no fixed body answering to that description with independent responsibility. The military advisers are, as a rule, those officers who can best work in harmony with the Government. But why ask them? They are mere soldiers, and therefore they cannot be—we have it on the highest, authority—experts in higher strategy. If my noble friend wanted an expert opinion, why did not he address the Question to an expert in higher strategy, to one who has been called our only strategist, to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who sits here and has a voice in this Assembly, which officials have not? But Lord Midleton himself has studied in that school in which these experts are trained. He has studied "alongside of experts in naval matters and experts in affairs of statesmanship," for the Imperial Defence Committee existed at the time he was Secretary of State for War. I say then why has not he formed a judgment of his own? The essential facts are simple enough, and it is only a matter of forming an opinion and drawing a conclusion, and that, I maintain, is simply a matter of common-sense. It has been well said, I think, by no less a personage than Napoleon that strategy and statesmanship are merely common-sense applied to knowledge of the facts, What are the facts here? The facts, broadly, are these, that our sea power is no longer unchallenged and unchallengeable. We have been through great periods of anxiety in regard to the maintenance of that sea power. Though our predominance is still strong, it is only conditional. For the first time for two centuries we are dependent in a new manner on foreign alliances and friendships. It does not need an expert or more than ordinary clear thinking to recognise that this fact affects the whole question of

983
national defence. Secondly, as regards our military power, we have been told by two great bodies of experts that the one thing the Regular Army wanted was capacity to expand, and that that expansion must be sought outside the Regular forces of the Crown. That capacity has not yet been supplied. Finally, as regards the Home Defence Army we have those deficiencies which have been pointed out more than once this evening. I should merely like to add that when the establishment of the Territorial Force was settled it was on the basis of an officially estimated invasion of 10,000 men, but since the Territorial scheme came into force the official estimate of possible invasion has been raised to 70,000. If there is anything in these estimates then we require a larger establishment. Those are the broad facts which we have to consider at the present time.
I pass on to a general principle which is not disputed, which is indeed universal—namely, that the Navy and Army depend for their freedom of action, for their mobility, on the security of the base; that is to say, on the readiness of the Home Defence Army, the Territorial Force, to undertake the whole duty of defending these shores at a moment's notice. If your Lordships will permit me to use a very simple metaphor, it is this—so long as we cannot rely on our goal keeper it is impossible for our forwards to play a bold and winning game. That is the position. Unless and until our Territorial Force is ready and able of itself to defend our base, our striking force cannot strike nor can our Navy be free to go anywhere and do anything. These are the main facts, and that is the main principle, and I hold that it is open and legitimate to any one to form an opinion on those facts and decide for himself without any expert assistance whether this present position is satisfactory or not, and if not what requires to be done. What we do appeal for, those of us, that is, who have given much time and thought to these matters, is some initiative from those who are holding or have held or will be likely to hold again a grave responsibility before the nation. They are the people who are listened to, and we want them to give us a confident and definite lead. They might be wrong if they ventured on an opinion, but, if so, what of that? It would lead to useful discussion. All we ask for is that I his question should have full and fair
984
discussion, and that those who take part in it should lay aside just for once those spectacles of the Party politician which distort true vision of every subject.
And why not, my Lords? Party politicians constantly profess their desire to keep the question of national defence outside of the arena of Party politics, as they call it. Why not act by that profession? Surely the leaders of all Parties might meet and confer and consider this question which is the very basis of our whole system of Imperial and national defence in a non-Party way. Why not? What is wanted is courage and candour on the part of all concerned. If I may say so, there is no man who has it in his power to do so much in this matter as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Since he has reached the summit of political ambition and attained to the highest place in the State, he has so far nothing to gain and nothing to lose, but there is still something that he can gain. He can still gain in vastly increased measure the respect, the gratitude, and the admiration of his fellow citizens, and I venture to think that is worth having for any statesman, even if he has attained to the summit of his personal ambition. But to win that—I say it with all respect—he has to lay aside a little personal pride in his scheme and a little Party prejudice, and to invite all to join with him in that process of clear thinking which he has so constantly and so eloquently advocated, clear thinking, that is, as to what it is best to do, not for the Party game, but for the nation's business.
THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, the point raised in the Question asked by Lord Midleton has already been answered by the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. gentleman is reported to have said, when speaking in London on December 5 last at the prize distribution of the London Scottish—
"I feel bound to add this, that, after most searching inquiry, and taking the position at its worst for us at every stage of the investigation, the Committee of Imperial Defence gave it as their considered opinion that with our naval and military forces as they stand the danger of invasion may now be faced without fear, and this, too, while leaving a great Expeditionary Force free to safeguard our vital interests overseas."
When the noble and learned Viscount now I on the Woolsack reorganised our military

985
forces a few years ago, he explained to us in a Memorandum dated February 25, 1907, that—
"Complete readiness for war at all times cannot be looked for in a citizen force raised on voluntary lines, and it is an essential feature of the scheme that a period of embodiment for training after mobilisation will be necessary before the Territorial Force can be regarded as fit to meet a highly trained and organised enemy."
Has anything happened in the last three or four years to enable the Territorial Army to dispense with that period of embodied training insisted upon by the noble and learned Viscount as an essential feature of the scheme?—a period during which the Regular Army must be retained at home, and consequently cannot be free to safeguard our vital interests overseas. Are the numbers of the Territorial Army larger, or is the training better than the noble and learned Viscount anticipated when he wrote his explanatory Memorandum?
As regards numbers, the Territorial Force is organised in 14 Infantry Divisions and 14 Cavalry Brigades. The establishment is 301,363 non-commissioned officers and men. The noble and learned Viscount, when explaining the Army Estimates on March 14, 1911, said—
"I indicated that in time of peace, which is the worst enemy to Territorial recruiting, we could hardly hope to have a force of more than 250,000 men."
The noble and learned Viscount has proved to be perfectly right; but 250,000 men cannot produce anything like the 14 Infantry Divisions and 14 Cavalry Brigades for which more than 300,000 men are required. The question was how to bring up the numbers of the Territorial Army to the required establishment on mobilisation. The noble and learned Viscount solved the problem by inventing the Territorial Force Reserve. On March 7, 1910, the noble and learned Viscount said—
"We have made preparations, which I hope will become effective in a few days, for calling the new Reserve into existence. The effect of that will be not only to mobilise quickly the 14 Divisions, but also to enable us to supply mature and trained men if mobilisation takes place."
A few months later, on June 27, in the same year, the noble Viscount informed us that—
"The Territorial Force Reserve gives you a bank behind the Territorial Force upon which you can draw for mobilisation up to the full establishment in the event of war breaking out, and to fill up the wastage of war."
986
We are now in a position to know accurately what balance we have at the Territorial Force Reserve bank, and the deficit which that balance has to meet. The balance on January 1 last was 884 to meet a deficit of 49,787.
When the Territorial Force Reserve proved a failure, great hopes were entertained that the National Reserve could be made to figure for the purpose of filling the ranks of the Territorial Army on mobilisation. There was much talk about a National Reserve of 170,000 men behind the Territorial Army. But we know now that the old soldiers of the Regular Army are not at all anxious to join the Territorial Force. They prefer, when they serve again, to return to their old associations and not to join an entirely new Force, which, either rightly or wrongly, is not attractive to them. The National Reserve no doubt has great possibilities, but it will not do what the Army Council wanted it to do—namely, fill up the ranks of the Territorial Army on mobilisation. At present the Territorial Army is 49,787 men below its establishment. Both attempts to provide it with a Reserve have failed. It is quite impossible to mobilise the 14 Infantry Divisions and 14 Cavalry Brigades, about which we have heard so much.
But bad as the condition of the Force is now numerically, it will be far worse a few months hence. In round numbers 95,000 men will become time-expired by October, 1913. We may assume that one-half of that number, 45,000, will re-engage for another year of service, and that the other half, 45,000, will leave the Force altogether. The loss of these 45,000 men who do not re-engage may reasonably be expected to be made good by 45,000 recruits. Thus 45,000 re-engaged men plus 45,000 recruits would make good the loss of the 95,000 men due to become time-expired. But then there is absolutely nothing to meet all causes of wastage from the Force other than expiration of period of service. In the last General Annual Report on the British Army, page 121, I see that this wastage—that is, the wastage not due to expiration of service—amounted to 30,442. The position is as follows. We can reasonably hope that the loss of time-expired men may be made good by recruits and by re-engagements, but the present deficit of 49,787, plus the 30,442

987
which past experience tells us is the annual wastage due to causes other than expiration of service, cannot be made good. Thus the Territorial Army by October, 1913, must be 80,229 below establishment, and that means the collapse of the Territorial Army.
As regards training, certainly nothing has happened to modify the noble and learned Viscount's statement of February 25, 1907, that "A period of embodied training is an essential feature of the scheme." The absence from the annual camp tends to increase. Last year upwards of 35,000 men did not attend camp at all. The immaturity of the Force increases. There are more boys and fewer men. Take the Infantry, the simplest arm by far to train. The Infantry soldier has three weapons—the rifle, the bayonet, and the spade. As regards the rifle, we have now full information about the musketry training of the Force in 1912. Without going into details, the situation can be summed up by the fact that 58,446 men failed in or did not fire the standard test in 1912. That means, in round numbers, a quarter of the firing line are known to be useless with their rifles. The bayonet was considered to have become an obsolete weapon, but the war in Turkey has shown that the contrary is the case. The use of the bayonet is not taught in the Territorial Army. More than that, it is deprecated. A War Office letter dated January 27, 1913, says—
"Instruction in bayonet fighting must take place at hours other than and in addition to those selected for obligatory drills."
Then as regards the spade, far the greater number of men in the Territorial Army are town men quite unaccustomed to dig. It is not in the least the fault of the men in the Infantry of the Territorial Army that they cannot use the rifle, the bayonet, and the spade. They have not the time to learn how to use them. That shows the need of the period of embodied training insisted upon by the noble and learned Viscount in 1907, but dispensed with by the present Secretary of State for War in 1913.
It is true that in the statement of the Secretary of State for War which I have quoted, the right hon. gentleman uses the words "a great Expeditionary Force." But he does not commit himself to saying that the Territorial Army will set free all six Divisions of the Regular Army. I
988
submit that if you are going to use the Expeditionary Force on the Continent of Europe, and that is the possibility which we have to contemplate, it must be used as a whole. The plan of dribbling the Expeditionary Force abroad is obviously futile. It is indeed unthinkable that any Government could adopt it. First you would send three or four Divisions, certain to be numerically over-matched. Then when they are in sorry case you send two more, but too late to retrieve an initial disaster due to insufficiency of numbers in the first instance. In short, you would adopt the policy of getting your Force beaten in detail. It is a case of all six Divisions at once or none at any time. At present it must be none. This is shown by considering for a moment what will be the field state of the Territorial Force. The strength of the Territorial Army on January 1, 1913, was 263,313 officers, non-commissioned officers and men. From that number the following deductions must be made in order to arrive at the strength effective for the field. In 1912 there were 12,830 non-combatants. There were 40,684 boys under 19 years of age, and in that figure all untrained recruits are included. There were 58,446 men who failed to pass the standard test for musketry. There were absent from camp last year without leave 6,056. That gives a total of non-effectives of 118,016, leaving as effective 145,297, from which 10 per cent. must be deducted for wastage on mobilisation, making the total of effectives available 130,768. I have not made any deduction for officers and men who will join the Regular Army on mobilisation.
There are at present in the Territorial Army 1,152 officers and 18,903 non-commissioned officers and men who are under obligation to serve abroad on mobilisation. That is very creditable to them. They will be a gain to the Regular Army but a loss to the Territorial Force. Then the garrison of Ireland must be provided for. There will be no Regular battalions or regiments of Cavalry in Ireland. Nothing less than 3 Infantry Divisions and 3 Cavalry Brigades will suffice for Ireland—that is 65,000 men, leaving effective for garrison duty in England, Scotland, and Wales, and for central field force, 65,768; in round numbers 70,000 men. We are in a complete fog as regards home defence. War Office figures show that we have 70,000 effectives for Great Britain. The

989
Prime Minister tells us to be ready for an invasion of 70,000 men. The late Secretary of State for War told us that a period of embodied training was an essential feature of the scheme. The present Secretary of State for War, speaking, not with the added weight of his Army Council but with that of the Committee of Imperial Defence, is prepared to dispense with that period of embodiment, and to defend the United Kingdom, and at the same time to send abroad a great Expeditionary Force. I hope that this debate may clear up this obscurity.
The noble and learned Viscount told us on March 20, 1912, that—
"Even if the whole Expeditionary Force had been sent abroad, there would still remain 410,000 men."
On the departure of the six Divisions of the Expeditionary Force, we are left with four or five battalions of the Regular Army. At the present moment there happens to be five, as one battalion has recently returned from Cairo, and three Cavalry regiments. Then there are the seventy-four Third Battalions of the Special Reserve, to whom the noble and learned Viscount has allotted different, duties on different occasions. These battalions were to defend ports and naval bases, to train drafts for the Army overseas, and to flock to assist the central field force in crushing raids. On March 8, 1910, the noble Viscount said—
"Is it supposed that all the troops in the garrisons would sit still? I should think they would flock to reinforce the central force."
It was pointed out that when these battalions flocked to the assistance of the central field force they necessarily left the naval bases unguarded, and that they possessed neither Brigade organisation nor transport. Unable to dispute these facts, the noble and learned Viscount recognised not only their truth but their consequence, and on March 20, 1912, he told us—
"Of course they have not got mobilisation equipment in the way of transport, because they are not intended to be mobile."
That completely disposes of the 74 Third Battalions as a field force. They are not and cannot be mobile. They are impossible as a field force for home defence. As regards their use as fixed garrisons, on May 13, 1912, the noble and learned Viscount referred to these Third Battalions of the Special Reserve as follows—
"The Unit would not be one in which the officers would know their men or the men their officers. That is inherent, and it therefore makes less difference to the fresh officers coming in."
990
There was on October 1 last a deficiency of 874 subalterns. As regards non-commissioned officers, if these battalions are to be 1,000 strong on mobilisation, as we are assured they will be by the noble and learned Viscount, then the 74 battalions would need 7,400 regular non-commissioned officers. As a matter of fact they would have 2,368, and no power of adding to their number. On the other hand, the noble and learned Viscount has assured us that their number will be reduced by promoting about three non-commissioned officers per battalion to commissioned rank.
To sum up, these 74 battalions are not intended to be mobile, it is inherent that the officers and men should not know each other, and there is a hopeless deficiency of officers and non-commissioned officers. I do not think that we need further consider the 74 Third Battalions of the Special Reserve as an asset for home defence. The fact is that after the departure of the Regular Army there is no organised force left at home except the Territorial Army, and the effective field strength of the Territorial Army for the defence of Great Britain after making the necessary deductions will be 70,000 men.
LORD SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I have no intention of going into the various points raised, but as a great admirer of the splendid work done by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and an opponent of compulsory service, I feel that I should not like this debate to close without expressing my regret that the noble Lord who replied for the War Office did not more definitely offer us encouragement by saying that an active part would be taken in promoting cadet corps. Every debate in this House upon military matters seems to me to go in the direction of want of recruits. I have before addressed your Lordships and expressed my great admiration of the good work done by cadet corps. There have been observations made during the debate to-day by noble Lords suggesting that we should begin with our schools by giving some sort of preliminary military training. I hope that course will be encouraged, and that when the boys leave school at fourteen they may then be transferred to some municipal cadet corps. I believe that if you are going to carry this out successfully you will have to do so systematically. I also think that they may cost the State a little money, but it will be

991
money well spent. I speak of the little money that would be needed to pay expenses in regard to these municipal corps. In that way I believe you would find an excellent recruiting ground. I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and other members of the Government must be convinced, from the course the debate has taken to-night, that if the voluntary system is to continue some special action will have to be taken to encourage that system, and for my part I see no better way than beginning at the bottom and encouraging this scheme liberally in our various schools, and then, as I say, going on to a systematic method of encouraging good cadet corps. It is my great pleasure and honour to be connected with the Duke of York's School, and I can say what a great pleasure it is to see the boys well trained and becoming efficient soldiers. I believe that if you had cadet corps systematically and properly organised you would find that at the end of their term, say at eighteen years of age, there would be plenty who would be anxious and willing to continue in military life, either as Volunteers or as soldiers in the Regular service. I wish I could impress upon my noble friend upon the Woolsack what I have tried to do upon others, the importance of carrying out a policy of this sort; and I hope that in the observations I have made the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ampthill, will not consider that he sees anything out of place, as I speak as a Volunteer of the year 1859.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, many of those interested in the defence of the country will feel that this is one of the most unsatisfactory debates we have ever had in this House. I do not think that the debate could have been more temperate or more broad-minded in regard to the speeches that have been delivered, especially speaking of that made by the noble Viscount, Lord Midleton. But where did that speech lead? The particular point of the Question he asked has been practically left out of the discussion, and has not been taken up by any speaker on the other side. I have listened to nearly five hours of debate, and I shall absolutely leave this House with not the least idea as to whether the noble Lord who represents the War Office thinks that they can send an Expeditionary Force oversea, and whether in case they should do so they can rely on the Territorials either to take the field or to be able to guarantee the safety of the country in the case of
992
70,000 troops invading it. We have often dealt with the subject, but we have had no authoritative speech from any Peer connected with the War Office on that point. I feel that we have absolutely no facts on which to conduct a debate. I do not know whether this arises from the weakness of the Government's case, or whether it arises from a deliberate wish to burke discussion.
There are a good many Peers on the other side of the House, but I never see them taking part in these discussions. Many of them have been in the Regular Army, and they know all about the work. They are not merely Volunteers or Territorial officers or men who have taken up the military idea late in life, but men thoroughly grounded in their profession. I have not for a couple of years now seen any of those noble Lords come forward and take part in these debates. Is it that they are all so shy? What facts we have been vouchsafed have cleared the air in not one single degree. We have had the old discussion about the Expeditionary Force and as to its being counted as six Divisions, and we have had the usual statistics brought forward. It has been said that perhaps we may have 3,000 volunteers more than we had last year, or so many more than the year before. At present Germany can put 80,000 men into this country. What is the use of discussing these battalions and men gathered out of the highways and byways to be called by the name of some Reserve when they have had no musketry practice, and when they are under no obligation to come forward and fight in any shape or form?
While I am on this subject I wish to make one remark on the, as I think, most vital statement I have heard from the Government Bench in this House, and that is that the Territorial Army when it is mobilised is in a wonderful state of efficiency from the fact that it does not add anything to its condition on mobilisation. Surely a statement like that should not be made in this House, because most of us have served in some branch of His Majesty's Service and feel the futility of that remark, for when it is made and read in that way it will reflect on the Territorial Force. We all know that the German and French and Austrian Armies do add to their numbers at times of mobilisation, but these are Reserves who have had two years' training; these men go into the

993
Army trained to that extent by practice at which every single officer has been present, and the average service of the officers is seven years instead of seven weeks, as in the Territorial Force. Surely it is not an improper comparison to say that we shall have men coming back to the Service to whom no opportunity of training is given, and who possibly may reach the age of forty years and never have learned the use of a rifle. As to a comparison of that sort, if it is not meant to deceive outsiders I do not see why it should be made here at all. But these are only minor points.
The point that strikes one most is that the Government appear to be going to do something, but, as far as I can see, with only very partial inquiry into the state of the Army. We have had a series of reforms. We have had Lord Haldane reforming the Territorial Army. That, I admit at once, was a great advance on anything we had before; but the weakness of the Territorial Force is this—a condition due either to lack of inquiry before the scheme was launched or to alteration since—that it is absolutely unable to fulfil the function for which it was created. Therefore we have lost a period of six years. We were at first told that we had only to consider the question of invasion by 10,000 men. But the question has come up since, and the position has altered altogether, and this Territorial Force which was then equal to do its duty has ceased to be equal to the performance of the duty expected of it. Now Colonel Seely, without as far as I know any inquiry, has decided on the policy of Reserves. I ask any soldier, Can a mass of untrained men without organisation and without anything characteristic of the class of people we want to have, answer the purpose? I very much doubt it. That is not what we want. It is not numbers, I humbly submit, that is important. It is organisation and training. You might have three tunes the number, but still they would not be efficient without organisation.
The noble Lord who replied for the War Office spoke in the most apologetic way as to the condition of military training in the Force. I am sure, when twitted by Lord Lansdowne, he must have had one eye on the Nonconformist body and an official glance at the War Office. He apologised that they were not going in
994
for training of any satisfactory sort or kind that the nation required. Surely we have come to a pretty pass if that is the attitude taken up by Ministers. Is it not necessary that we should have a full and thorough examination of all the units? Then may I say one word on the facts. We have very clearly defined the question to be faced. Firstly, we have to face the numbers that may have to be sent abroad; and, secondly, we have to find out what we ought to have at home when the Expeditionary Force goes out of the country. Is it not necessary, therefore, that the line of inquiry should be, first of all, what is the maximum force we could rely on for the defence of the Colonies; and, secondly, the minimum that we would require for home defence, to be absolutely safeguarded with regard to these shores?
The maximum force we may require to meet a contingency abroad was defined in 1905 by Mr. Balfour, who took India as the point of greatest danger and said the greatest problem was the defence of India. The situation has absolutely altered from what it was when Mr. Balfour spoke. Then India was a big subject, and now every one will admit that the alliance we have with France alters the situation. As I understand, the big question is what would be the necessary force to send to France. Then on the subject of military defence, we want not only the invasion possibility defined but we want to find the force necessary to meet it—not the maximum but the minimum to give absolute safety. If we do not have that, we shall have again the weary discussion we had for four years as to the Expeditionary Force and the Home Defence Force. When we came to analyse that question we found there were not more than two out of the six Divisions available. I may be met by the criticism that it is unwise to define what you intend to send abroad, but is that really so? In these days of great mobilisations it is surely doubling the value of any force to be sent abroad if we are able to say definitely those whom we shall send and those whom we shall not.
Then there is another point which is becoming daily more important, as our Colonies also come in to be considered in regard to this question. Is it not more certain every year that we shall

995
get more and more effective aid from the Colonies? Is it not absolutely essential that we should be able to tell the Colonies under certain circumstances, under all circumstances indeed, we could send them a certain number of men to fight? Surely the Colonies should know what we can send, and it is our business also to play our part as the people who eventually will be responsible for the residue of the defence required in any part of the Empire. It is necessary before we get any small reform of any sort or kind that we should have the exact military situation diagnosed, so that we may have the people with us in any reform we undertake. If you talk on the subject to people in the country you find that they do not believe Ministers on either side. What they want is the expert opinion of those people who ought to know. They feel, and we all feel, that any Minister on either side is handicapped in coming to a decision by a consideration of what the country will stand. It is human nature and bound to be so, and it has been to the interest of both sides that the question should not be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. But surely now is the time, if we are going to make further reforms and before those steps are taken, to get the very best opinion we can have, and not only get it but announce it, as was done by Mr. Balfour in 1905. Mr. Balfour announced in 1905 practically that no invasion was possible. It was then brought out that the circumstances under which he made that declaration had entirely changed after a few years. Surely the time has come when we should ask that all those questions should be gone into and investigated, so that when the reform is made it will fit the condition of things as they are in the year 1913.
I am one of those who believe in compulsory service, and I absolutely disclaim what the noble Lord said against us on this question. I have, I think, worked possibly as hard as most people at the Territorial Army. I have had the opportunity of studying it and have been on many of its committees, and I wish to say one or two things which I do not think have been brought out in this debate to-night. With regard to the training of the Territorial Army, we can never be considered to be efficient on the outbreak of war, because you may have in the force three, four, or five officers efficiently
996
trained but the rest of the officers will possess an inequality of training. Further, an absence of sergeants and an absence of training of the men make it almost impossible to have any military evolution carried out in a way which would give any confidence, and if You have not got confidence in success you can have no hope of winning. We are not allowed, and very rightly so, to manœuvre in large numbers; but yet at the outbreak of war we shall manœuvre in large numbers, and how are we going to do it? A good many of the men have never been in camp at all. Is there going to be something falling down from Heaven, or some Heaven-born transport officer who will provide for all these things? All these are things on which military manœuvres depend, and how are you going to organise all this at a moment's notice?
Then there is a second very serious thing I want to point out, and that is the accusation that the Territorial Army have the full right to bring against the military administration of the last four years that they are not treated seriously. Before the Territorial Army was formed there was an association of commanding officers who had worked at reforms all going towards efficiency. We had some four or five of those put through before 1906. There were fourteen in 1906, and eleven of those reforms have still to be effected. For four years now the Territorial Army have asked for arms so that they may be armed in case of invasion. They have never yet received the necessary arms. We have never had a drill hook except one which is obsolete. We have never had a school for our Yeomanry officers. All these points are purely matters connected with efficiency and they are matters wholly neglected. According to the experience of those in another place all that is cared about is to produce numbers. I could give many instances of reforms being asked for and not given, but I will take one only. It is this, that our Territorial Force is the worst armed force in Europe. It has the worst rifle; the Cavalry have no sword or bayonet, or anything; and the Artillery have a useless gun—a machine gun that is obsolete. The training is inefficient because these questions going to efficiency are wholly neglected. There is bad work, and you could not expect otherwise of the Territorial Force. Therefore I heartily sub-

997
scribe to everything said to-day on the subject of the weakness of the Territorial Force, and I think that those who, like myself, are aware of these facts put them down to the same cause. On the Conservative Benches more noble Lords are to be seen who serve with the Territorial Army, and I think we may say we have not been well treated in our work.
Finally, I think, having seen what happened in the Boer War, that the present state of things is inexplicable. Lord Lansdowne pointed out what happened then, and I should like noble Lords opposite to learn the proportions of officers and men—1,400 men to a single officer were assembled in some of the barracks. These are the people who, after all, must be responsible for the defence of the country. You will have your Territorial Army and no efficient officers, because of the officers going to the Expeditionary Force, and in that way we are left with men without organisation, and probably not clothed. It is all very well to say that they will have six months preliminary training and so on, but surely every thinking person knows the facts. We have had them stated time and again. If there is any striking to be done, surely it is right to strike in time. But does any noble Lord think we could be in a position to guarantee the safety of this country if the Expeditionary Force went abroad? If not, is it not criminal that we should even put forward an idea of sending an Expeditionary Force abroad and in that way simply raise hopes which have not the least chance of being carried into effect?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, may I be allowed to say one word in defence of the Territorial Force, which has been attacked in the debate? The arguments I have heard seem to me to presuppose a kind of military millennium. It is said that the best solution of our military difficulties would be to have universal service, but at the present moment neither political Party his added that to its programme, and, if either Party had done so, it would not be able in the present view of the country to carry it. Therefore we have to come back to the hard, if uncomfortable, fact that we have to get along with the Force at our disposal, and I cannot myself join in the sort of atmosphere of disparagement of the Terri-
998
torial Army which has been prevalent in this House to-night. I have had some experience for a good number of years in that Force, and I have manœuvred with Regular troops and witnessed Continental manœuvres. I have taken a very great interest, since I left the Territorial Force a year ago, in the County Association. My experience, for what it is worth, is that the Territorial Force is much better than people generally suppose. Nobody imagines it is equal to the best Regular battalions, or that its Artillery is equal to the best batteries, and so on; but I do think it is improving every year, and already it has attained a considerable degree of efficiency.
I will instance a case in point. I was serving in the Territorial Army in a mixed force with Regulars at one of the manœuvres, and I can honestly say the particular Force in which I was concerned acquitted itself so well in point of managing, in point of manœuvring, in point of pitching camp, and all the military duties on trek, that many officers in the Regular Force, quite unknown to me, said they had no idea how good the Territorial Force was. There has, unfortunately, grown up of late in the Press and elsewhere a disposition to disparage the Territorial Force, and, of course, it is very difficult to run a Force or get recruits for it with this sort of criticism about. I firmly believe that what is really wanted is a totally different point of view. I blame the Government to a certain extent for not having given the Force more encouragement, but it is no good disparaging the Territorial Army. I do not believe it is any use trying to upset the present system until you have a better system to take its place, and at the present moment I do not see any chance of a better system which can be brought into operation within a reasonable time.
Some of the arguments of the noble Lord who has just spoken seem to me to cut both ways. I remember, as he does, the Boer War. I believe the preparation for the war was in many ways excellent, and that the noble Viscount who opened the debate was very unjustly criticised at the time by many people for deficiencies and for breakdowns which were not his fault, but were inevitable. The Boers were an absolutely untrained Force, far less trained than the Territorials to-day,

999
but they held many thousands of an armed Force at bay, and were extraordinarily efficient in preventing their country being taken for a long time. They did that because they had certain qualities which, I believe, the Territorial Force has in this country to-day. The average Territorial soldier is very much more intelligent than the average soldier of the Line. He can very much better be taught duties, and has much more military training than some noble Lords realise who have not served in the Force, and there has been in the past, and there is now, a keen desire on the part of all ranks in the Territorial Army to improve their training, while a great amount of voluntary training is done which is not recorded in the military catalogues, but which is very valuable all the same.
I merely rose to protest against the general disparagement of the Territorial Force. It seems to me to be prevalent in the House to-night. So far as I am concerned, I am quite certain whenever the Territorial Force does go into action it will come out very much better than is generally supposed. I am quite certain of one thing, that no one who has served in the Force like my noble friend Lord Stanhope will criticise its organisation, but will agree that the spirit of the Force leaves nothing to be desired and that their training is every year improving. Therefore I think the best way that this House and public opinion can help is to encourage the Territorial Army as much as possible, and not to disparage it, as I am sorry to say has been the case this evening.
THE MARQUESS OF AILESBURY: My Lords, I have heard a great deal in disparagement of the Territorial Force tonight, and I admit that a great deal of it is well-founded, but I regret that most of that criticism has come from this side of the House, because I feel that as a Party we are really more guilty than noble Lords on the other side of neglecting preparations for our Auxiliary Army. But if there is one noble Lord who has a right to raise this question it is Lord Midleton. Speaking as one who served in the Yeomanry, I feel that that arm owes a great deal to Lord Midleton; he not only doubled the strength, but he more than doubled the efficiency. I hope I may be pardoned for saying that I regret very much the speech which I
1000
heard from Lord Newton. I think Lord Newton underrates the effect of what he says in this House. I regret to think that what he says will have considerable effect outside this House. The men in the Territorial Army do read the debates which take place here and in another place, and I feel that what he says may act as a serious discouragement to recruiting.
If I may turn to other matters, there was the speech of the noble Lord who continued the debate after the adjournment. Be quoted history and, if I may be permitted for a moment, I should like rather to quarrel with his facts. He quoted Major James, but I think Major James would hardly follow him in some of the deductions he drew. He stated that the defeat of the Turks arose largely through their want of discipline. I would rather suggest that the defeat of the Turks arose from the attempt to assimilate discipline which is foreign to their nature. I think history will bear me out when I say that the Turks have declined as fighting men since they attempted to model their military system on a European basis. Their nature, I believe, is not adapted to it, and they have suffered by trying to do it. I think the remarkable stand which the Turkish Army made against the entire weight of the Russian Empire between the years 1807 and 1812 is some substantiation of what I say. I think, again, that there is a disposition in some places to think too lightly of young troops. The noble Duke who spoke not long ago appeared to disregard all men or boys under nineteen, but in all military subjects we have to go to history for our facts. I would like to point out that a notable soldier, Marshal Ney, on one occasion formed a very different opinion. I think I am right in saying that after one of his engagements in 1813, when commanding the forestalled conscription of 1816, Marshal Ney stated that he doubted whether he could have accomplished so much with the Grenadiers of the Guard, and that, having brought these conscripts back five times to the position from which they were driven by successive reinforcements of the enemy, he at last remained in command of the position, and he said that those conscripts had done more by their docility, and possibly by their ignorance, than they could have accomplished by the most venturesome courage. While I would not attempt to deny the fact that trained troops have an advantage

1001
in certain circumstances, I think it is possible to carry that theory too far.
I may have misunderstood the noble Viscount who opened this debate, but I understood him to say that trained troops experienced much difficulty against half their number of untrained troops in Natal. That is true, and I think one reason was that the troops who were opposed to our Regulars in Natal were on their own ground. I think the Territorial Army will be strengthened from the fact that if it fights at all it will fight on its own ground. I do not, however, wish to stand here and merely defend the Territorial Army, because I believe that the conception of the Territorial Army is quite wrong. I believe it is not yet fully understood what the difficulties are with which that Force has to contend. I have in my pocket at the present moment a letter from a firm which has always done its best to assist the Territorial Army. That firm informs me that five out of the very small unit which I command will be unable to train with the corps this year because the period is unlucky for that firm. We cannot complain of the action of that firm; it has always behaved very well. But it is asking them to compete on disadvantageous terms with other firms who do not employ Territorials when you ask them to give up these men at the very time when the firm most requires them. There is another point. I think it has been said that the great point of this Force will be that it should have training before it is engaged in war. I think the worst trouble to the Force will come at the moment you call it out to six months' consecutive training. The better part of these men are dependent on their professions for their livelihood; they dare not give up six months' continuous time to training. If they did they would most certainly lose their jobs, and no firm would make a practice of taking men back after six months' absence when they have been compelled to engage other men to carry on during the interval. I think that is one of the very weakest points of the Force. I do not agree at all with the National Service League; I think their system would involve a vast expense and produce no really useful return. Yet I am a convinced advocate of conscription.
I think you must have conscription if you mean to deal with the military problem in a
1002
scientific manner. Everybody in this country is really in the position of an indifferent gardener, because we dislike one point or another point of what might be described, perhaps, as a tree, that tree being the Army as a whole. Some of us—I myself—do not like the look of the Territorial branch of that tree. There are others who do not like the Special Reserve branch, and others again who do not like the Expeditionary Force. In fact there are a great number of branches of this tree, and most of us have some particular dislike of some particular branch. I would suggest that we ought to look more at the root of things. I would suggest for your consideration that that root is the Regular Army. Everything springs from the Regular Army when you come to consider Army matters, and that Army is not in a position to carry out its work. We have heard that the system is only just sufficient to do this or only just sufficient to do that, but that it cannot do the other. The very existence of the Territorial Army has been produced by the inability of the Regular Army to do all our fighting. I would suggest that if we ever are to produce an Army which will be a good machine for fighting you must go to conscription. It must be confessed, I believe, that that Army which is now raised on a hired basis must in the future be very largely raised—entirely, I might say, with the exception of a garrison—by conscription if we are to have a competent Army.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, this debate has wandered over a somewhat wide field, as, indeed, has been for some time the habit of these debates on Army matters, and without in any way complaining of the form which the noble Viscount opposite has employed in raising this debate I think it is reasonable to point out that if speakers have not felt themselves pinned down to any very close line of argument it is at any rate in part due to the fact that the issue which is raised in the noble Viscount's Question suffers from the two defects of being, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out, in no sense a new one, and in not being a very clear or simple issue. I do not propose to enter into the little controversy raised by Lord Ampthill as to whether in the form of his Question the noble Viscount is making an unconstitutional suggestion. It might no doubt be

1003
argued, as the noble Lord argued, that the question upon which the military advisers of the Secretary of State were asked to give an opinion cannot be answered without diving somewhat deeply into matters of policy, but I will not pursue that particular branch of the argument.
The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition has complained that this debate has entered freely into the question of compulsory service, which he does not consider entirely relevant to it, but I think the House will agree that when strictures are made—strictures which are implied in the very form of the noble Viscount's Question, and which have been very freely made in the course of the debate—upon the existing institution of our Territorial Force, it is hardly possible for the House to consider the subject without also discussing possible alternatives, one of which was proposed by the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches, and another which was so frankly advocated by the noble Marquess, Lord Ailesbury—whom we are very glad to welcome as a contributor to our debates—that of simple and downright conscription.
My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has pointed out that there are two circumstances which differentiate the position of this country from that of all other countries in matters of defence. In the first place, of course, we have to keep the most powerful Navy in the world, and in the second place it is necessary that we should continually keep a large Army in various parts of the Empire—an Army which has necessarily to be of the very first class, and an Army which, almost I think by common consent, must be available turn and turn about either at home or abroad. Those facts completely differentiate us from the great military Powers of Europe with their vast land frontiers, and they also differentiate us completely from such countries as Switzerland or Norway, or the Transvaal Republic as it was before the war, whose various systems we are sometimes urged to imitate.
A considerable part of the discussion has been taken up almost inevitably—although I am afraid it had somewhat a weary sound to the noble Lord, Lord Lovat—with the question of invasion. As he said, the circumstances of the discussion seem so old
1004
and so familiar. Some of us seem to have been discussing them for many years past; but, of course, it is also true, as the noble Lord and other noble Lords pointed out, that the conditions have changed, and though it was possible for the Defence Committee to lay down certain propositions when it last examined this subject, yet from time to time there has to be fresh stock-taking, and as has been already stated by those speaking on behalf of the Government, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister contemplates that stock-taking of that kind should shortly take place. I think that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack mentioned various matters which have, or, at any rate, may have, to some extent altered the situation. There is the great advance both in the capacity and the range of submarines. There are the remarkable improvements in wireless telegraphy. There is the whole advance in the various systems of air-craft—all new since we last looked into the matter. Therefore it certainly does seem reasonable that the whole question should be subjected to some further examination. Nobody has ever denied how tempting an enterprise the invasion of this country would be to a country which was hostile to us. The prize of success is so great that I do not know that it would be an exaggeration to say it would be worth while for a great military Power of Europe to sacrifice, not the famous 70,000 men of whom we have heard so much, but a quarter of a million men if thereby the complete conquest of this country could be achieved. Nobody has ever denied this proposition from a general point of view. We have heard again that famous figure of 70,000, of which some of us—I among them—have in former times given some explanation as regards its origin and purpose, and which my noble and learned friend most fully explained to-night.
One question with which this subject of possible invasion is closely interlocked has received attention to-night and has been made the subject of various and definite questions—I mean the Expeditionary Force. In what circumstances, it has been asked, and how soon could it be started from these shores without denuding the country of defence to a dangerous extent. It occurred to me in the course of the debate when the noble and gallant Field-Marshal put his question that when all was said and done the

1005
figure of the Expeditionary Force, put at say 165,000 men, was also a somewhat arbitrary figure, and the same notion appeals to have occurred to Lord Lovat, because he stated just now that we ought in fact to begin, if not at the other end, at any rate at both ends at once—that we ought not merely to consider what force was necessary for the possible defence of this country but what force it might be necessary for us to send abroad, because, as I understood him to say, without having knowledge of that additional factor it was impossible to give an intelligent answer to the first question. In stating his case, the noble Lord went somewhat deeply into foreign politics and made some propositions on foreign politics which I confess were new to me. He told us of various matters in relation to our international obligations with which I confess I was not acquainted. But the point surely is this: How are you going to say a particular number is adequate for the purpose for which you design it? The noble Lord seemed to imply that it was our duty to combine with Powers or groups of Powers on the Continent for the purpose of a great European war—I suppose that Armageddon, of which we hear so much; but it might follow from that—I do not know that the noble Lord would mind in the slightest degree if it did—that the answer to the question of how many men we should have to put in the field if we to direct and control the Balance of Power in Europe might be that it would be impossible for us to do it unless we engaged in the Continental system and were prepared to contribute an Army of somewhat parallel strength to that of the great military Powers of Europe, which, after all, our population quite enables us to do. Unless we are prepared to do that we might be told that our four Divisions or our six Divisions, in particular circumstances, would not have the controlling effect.
LORD LOVAT: Might I interrupt the noble Marquess to define my point? It was simply this. I thought it was necessary for us to get a clear definition of what our Army was wanted for abroad—the greatest difficulty it might have to face. I quoted an example. I do not know myself that this is the greatest difficulty we have to face. It may still be India, as defined by Mr. Balfour. All I ask is that before you set about a new scheme you should define what you are aiming at.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I think the noble Lord has made it perfectly clear. He has really stated in another form the familiar aphorism that armaments must depend upon policy; but he will not, I think, contradict me when I say that if that policy takes a particular form it may need half a million men to be placed in the field at once in order to carry it to a successful issue. Therefore I return to the point that this number of an Expeditionary Force, 160,000 men, is very much larger than anything that was in the dreams of anybody a few years ago—for instance, before the South African war. This Force, too, cannot be regarded as anything but an arbitrary number, and that is the reason why, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, the question whether four Divisions or the whole six, or only two, are to leave the country at any given moment is one which is not capable of a reply in the form of simply "Yes" or "No," but must depend upon the actual circumstances of every particular case. I do not desire to discuss the question of the formation of this possibly large conscript army on the foreign model, which even those who are in favour of it will admit would turn our national life to a great extent upside down, and which cannot be regarded, I think, as representing anything like practical politics at the present moment.
Speaking for a moment as Secretary of State for India, looking at it from the Indian point of view, I should regard the prospect with some horror and dismay, because it would apparently involve the creation of a purely Indian and Colonial Army, which, from our point of view, would not serve our purpose nearly as well as does the Regular Army with its comparatively short service in India. However, the objection to any such scheme among the industrial classes in this country is, I believe, deep-rooted in its special application to particular industries and trades, and therefore I do not believe that it can be regarded at this moment as a subject of practical discussion. But the question of universal home service, or some kind of universal training, stands to a certain extent upon a different footing, although, as noble Lords who are in favour of it have frankly admitted, there remains a great deal of national prejudice even against the training of lads, and a great deal more against compulsory home

1007
service. On the other hand, of course, we know that compulsory training has strong attractions for a great number of people, largely on account of the moral advantages which are supposed to attach to it, quite as much as to the directly military effects which it may be supposed to have, and I imagine that all of us have known lads in every rank of life who, as it has seemed to us, would be distinctly the better, both morally and physically, for a course of military training; but we have to admit that there are two sides even to this question, as to most others. I remember reading one of the many volumes of biography and reminiscence of a soldier whose opinion would certainly be regarded with deference by any one of the three noble and gallant Field-Marshals who were here this afternoon—I mean General Lee. This particular volume dealt with the time when that great General and noble man was passing the quiet evening of his days as president of a college in the South. I have not got the reference, but my recollection of the conversation is this. General Lee said that the kind of discipline and training which, unfortunately—and the word "unfortunately" is a strange one coming from him—was necessary for the production of professional soldiers was not, in his opinion, a good training for Civil life. As we all know, General Lee was not a guerilla soldier, but was a professional of professionals among soldiers, and surely, although his opinion is not conclusive, it shows that there are two sides even to this question upon the character of military training as a preparation for Civil life.
One of the objections which I am sure is felt by many to the introduction of military training—that is to say, compulsory training of the National Service League kind—is that if you train all your young men of a given age you get a force which is needlessly large for your purpose and very expensive. If, on the other hand, you make a number of exemptions, the argument is that you will always find that the people who obtain the advantage of those exemptions belong, in the main, to the better-to-do classes in easy circumstances. That is one of the arguments. I confess, whatever reason noble Lords opposite may ascribe it to, I do not see at present any evidence of anything like a national demand for universal military training, founded, as it would be, on a complete breakdown of the Territorial system as
1008
we know it, which has been spoken of with so much eloquence by some speakers to-night and which has been the subject of a definite Press campaign. That complete breakdown is in no way recognised by the public of the country generally as having taken place. It is also felt, I think, that if we are really now in a state of imminent peril, as we are asked to believe we have been at least in as imminent a condition of peril for the last sixty years—that is to say, since the foundation of the second French Empire. There has never been, I suppose, a quinquennial period since then when we were not on such chilly terms with some great Power that we might have conceivably gone to war with it, and those conditions of danger have certainly at some point during that period existed to an infinitely greater extent than any degree of argument or overstatement can make them appear to exist at this moment.
I cannot help saying it is unfortunate that the advocates of compulsory service, in order to make their case good, have felt themselves compelled to speak in terms of almost unalloyed severity of the Territorial Force. It is recognised on the Benches opposite and by the noble and gallant, Field-Marshal Lord Methuen, also by the noble Earl Lord Fortescue; and I think it a little hard that when the noble Lord, Lord Newton, came to reply he poured all his vials on the head of the noble Earl sitting there and none upon the head of the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, whose conduct, I should have thought, would have seemed to him even more shocking than that of the noble Earl opposite. It is unfortunate, and it arises from the fact that, in order to interest the people of this country in their scheme, the advocates for national service have been obliged, although I believe unwillingly, to treat it on the footing of a political question. It. has not, I am glad to think, become a Party question, although there have been signs that it has approached that condition at times; but the question has met with the usual fate of political questions when they become the subject of discussion in the country—that it is found almost necessary in order to excite public attention at all to overstate your case in various directions. We need not, whichever side of the House on which we sit, try to find examples, for it is so easy that it would be waste of time to do it.

1009
We need none of us try to find examples of political questions the possible results of which are quite coolly and systematically overstated on either side.
The general conclusion which, therefore, I have derived from this debate is the same at which I think we on this side of the House have arrived on different occasions—namely, that there is a marked difference of opinion between the different schools of those who desire that some distinct change may be made. This, however, is quite certain, that if the country is brought to believe by the quite legitimate campaign of noble Lords opposite—quite legitimate because if they believe that the country is in danger they are, of course, absolutely right to say so—if the country is moved by the expression of their views it will undoubtedly demand that some further change should be made. But the country will ask, I am certain, that the case must be clearly proved before it agrees to start upon a policy which, at the lowest estimate and done in the most moderate way, cannot cost less than £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 and may cost a great deal more—of course, I am not speaking of the regular conscription scheme which, as we know, must cost more still; but any of these schemes of compulsory service are put down, I believe, by their own advocates at £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, and before the country would agree to add that to the Army Estimates it must consider that the case of need is clearly proved.
I do not think it would be taken as certain, even if the country took the view that the present organisation of the Territorial Force is inadequate to resist a possible invasion, that it would desire to adopt compulsory home service. It might prefer to spend the millions, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, on the Navy, or it might prefer to spend them in adding to the Regular Army, always insisting that a considerable proportion of that Army—two or four Divisions—should invariably remain at home after the Expeditionary Force had gone. It is impossible to say. Again, it might fear that the extra Divisions if they were added would only he stolen for the Expeditionary Force, and that its home condition would be precisely what it would be now. On the other hand, the country may, if it is not satisfied, prefer to proceed by the slower path which I gathered was advocated by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposi-
1010
tion—namely, that of making a prompt start in early training of a military or semi-military character among boys at school. I confess I could not quite follow the intention of the noble Marquess from his speech, because he proposed that there should be military training during school life and for a year or two after leaving school. What precisely was meant by a year or two after leaving school I do not understand, because, as we know, the great mass of the population leave school at fourteen. Whether it was those boys the noble Marquess had in mind, or whether he had in his mind boys of the well-to-do classes who stay on at school till seventeen or eighteen or even nineteen was not quite clear.
I do not think it is necessary to argue the point as between what is called physical and military training. There are, however, a number of people, as noble Lords opposite know, not members of the Society of Friends, who do not look with great favour upon military training in schools, some of them because they believe that purely physical training of a non-military character is a better plan of developing the health and strength of growing boys. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack put the case, I think, quite clearly with regard to this question of physical training, and so far as my personal opinion is concerned I should be very glad to see at schools of all kinds and grades and containing boys of all ages a morn complete system of physical training, and I should not personally in the slightest degree object to seeing it made compulsory; but, that being so, I do not precisely see the connection between any such system and what the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, called the turning out of a large supply of half-manufactured soldiers. The two things do not seem to me to cohere. If you are going to adopt some form of regular military training for boys growing towards manhood which is to leave them at the end of it something like half-manufactured soldiers, that is not the same thing as physical training at school, and I do not think that that term could be applied even to the formation of cadet corps, unless, of course, those corps were carried on to the very verge of manhood, which would require a remodelling of our educational system.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We understood from Lord Herschell that part of this physical drill was to be what he

1011
hinted at—training in the use of arms. To that, of course, the remark of my noble friend was entirely relevant, as the noble Marquess will see.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I am afraid that when my noble friend behind me was speaking I did not catch what he said, but he tells me that he stated that training to the use of arms might conceivably be one of the objects in view, but he did not, as I understand, state that the War Office contemplate the introduction of any such plan into the national system as at present advised. There is, of course, the further question that the country feels that it has been making of late great sacrifices in respect of the Navy. It has had to pay, and is going on having to pay, a very heavy weight of taxation in respect of its naval defence. What the view of the country as a whole may be about the question we have been discussing at this moment—namely, the introduction of regular or semi-military training—I am not in a position to give an opinion upon; but I do not believe that the country will agree to anything which it believes is going to start it on the steep declivity which begins by compulsion for regular home service and ends, as it believes, with conscription.

CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT ABROAD) 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.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the noble Lord will not persist with this Motion. The time has been very short. I think it is highly probable that some of your Lordships would wish to put down Amendments to the Bill, but we have not had time yet to formulate them. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press his Motion at this moment.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STRACHIE): Certainly at this hour I should not wish to go on with the Motion. I only moved it in order that the noble Marquess might make the statement he has just made. It will be in the recollection of the House that on the Second Reading of the Bill I stated that the whole essence of going on with the Bill now would be if we could carry it through all its stages rapidly and practically without any altera-
1012
tion. The noble Marquess having intimated that that is impossible, and that he considers that the Bill requires considerable amendment—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Some amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: From what the noble Marquess has informed me I should say that considerable Amendments were proposed. I cannot agree with the noble Marquess that the Bill requires such drastic amendment, and I am sorry that the Bill must now be put oft for a considerable time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I protest against the assertion that I have said anything about drastic Amendments. I said that the Bill would require some consideration, and possibly some amendment. I must ask the noble Lord not to try and throw upon me the responsibility of putting off this Bill. When the Government produce a Bill exceedingly late in the session—indeed, at the end of, perhaps, the longest session that we ever remember—and then expect to pass it through this House without any time for consideration, it is upon them that the responsibility lies and not on those of your Lordships who venture to remonstrate. It may be that when we come to consider the Bill carefully we may be able to pass it with very little amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: I would point out that when the Bill was given a Second Reading there was no word of protest used—in fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury blessed it entirely, and expressed the hope that it would pass very speedily through this House, and I do not think the noble Marquess intimated then that any considerable amendment would be necessary. I do not wish at this late hour to go into any controversy in the matter, but I can assure the noble Marquess that I shall respond to his request—indeed, he has the power to make me yield to it if he desires—and withdraw the Motion DOW. But I hope the noble Marquess and his friends who object to this Bill will place their Amendments on the Paper so that next session we may have the advantage of those Amendments and see whether they cannot he incorporated in the Bill when it is reintroduced.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m., till half-past Ten o'clock.